BOARD MEETING STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1001 I STREET CENTRAL VALLEY AUDITORIUM SECOND FLOOR SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2001 9:00 A.M. JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NUMBER 10063 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii APPEARANCES BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Allan Lloyd, Chairperson Mrs. Barbara Riordan Dr. William Burke Mr. Joseph Calhoun Ms. Dorene D'Adamo Professor Hugh Friedman Dr. William Friedman Mr. Matthew McKinnon Supervisor Ron Roberts STAFF Mr. Mike Kenny, Executive Officer Mr. Tom Cackette, Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Mike Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Jeff Austin, Air Pollution Specialist Mr. Richard Bode, Chief, Health and Exposure Assessment Branch Mr. Bart Croes, Chief, Research Division Mr. Bob Cross, Chief, Mobile Source Control Division Mr. Bob Effa, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch Mr. Bob Fletcher, Chief, Planning and Technical Support Division PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii APPEARANCES CONTINUED STAFF CONTINUED Mr. Steve Gouze, Air Pollution Specialist Ms. Peggy Jenkins, Manger, Indoor Air Exposure Assessment Section Mr. Jack Kitowski, Chief, On-Roads Control Branch Ms. Leslie Krinsk, Senior Staff Counsel Ms. Lucina Negrete, Air Pollution Specialist Mr. Robert Nguyen, Air Resources Engineer Ms. Debora Popejoy, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Section Ms. Cindy Sullivan, Manager, Alternative Strategies Section PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv INDEX PAGE Pledge of Allegiance 1 Roll Call 1 Item 01-3-1 Executive Officer Kenny 5 Air Pollution Specialist Negrete 6 Discussion 23 Mr. Peter Rooney 43 Ms. Teresa Moren 47 Vote 53 Item 01-3-2 Executive Officer Kenny 54 Indoor Air Exposure Assessment Section Manager Jenkins 55 Discussion 78 Item 01-3-3 Executive Officer Kenny 111 Air Pollution Specialist Austin 112 Discussion 125 Mr. Bob Carr 135 Vote 144 Item 01-3-4 Executive Officer Kenny 145 Ms. Mora 145 Discussion 155 Vote 168 Public Comments 169 Adjournment 170 Reporter's Certificate 171 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Good Morning. The April 3 26th, 2001 Board Meeting of the Air Resource Board will 4 now come to order. Mrs. Riordan, will you please lead the 5 Board in the Pledge of Allegiance. 6 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Would you all rise, 7 please. 8 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance 9 was recited.) 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Will the clerk of the Board 11 please take the roll.) 12 SECRETARY KAVAN: Dr. Burke? 13 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Present. 14 SECRETARY KAVAN: Mr. Calhoun? 15 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Here. 16 SECRETARY KAVAN: Ms. D'Adamo? 17 Supervisor DeSaulnier? 18 Professor Friedman? 19 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Here. 20 SECRETARY KAVAN: Dr. Friedman? 21 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Here. 22 SECRETARY KAVAN: Mr. McKinnon? 23 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Here. 24 SECRETARY KAVAN: Supervisor Patrick? 25 Mrs.Riordan? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. 2 SECRETARY KAVAN: Supervisor Roberts? 3 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Here. 4 SECRETARY KAVAN: Chairman Lloyd? 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Here. 6 Before we start this morning, I'd just like to 7 set the tone with some music, which was played by 8 Professor Hugh Friedman. 9 (Thereupon music was played.) 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Congratulations. 11 (Applause.) 12 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Thank you very much. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That was great. I don't know 14 whether you heard Dr. Friedman suggesting he ask Barbara 15 for a dance. 16 (Laughter.) 17 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Do you lead or do I 18 lead? 19 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: I want Barbara. 20 (Laughter.) 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I'd like to start by 22 welcoming my colleagues to this hearing room. Just a 23 reminder, the court reporter reminds us, please speak into 24 the microphones. You've got to push the thing on the 25 right here for those people speaking including staff. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 While some of us have had the opportunity to tour 2 this facility during construction, this is our first real 3 board meeting in this auditorium. So, again, please bear 4 with us if there are, in fact, some teething problems 5 here. And, in fact, we've already had a request, Mr. 6 Kenny, that the Board Members be supplied with opera 7 glasses so we can see you down there. 8 (Laughter.) 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Since our last meeting 10 together, we have had an important development I'd like to 11 bring to your attention. Dr. Burke, the Governor's South 12 Coast appointee to this board, sailed through the 13 confirmation hearing and was just approved for appointment 14 by the fall Senate. We've all been there and know that 15 the confirmation process is not an easy one. So 16 congratulations, Dr. Burke, on a job well done. 17 (Applause.) 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We have a relatively light 19 calendar this morning and should be through by about noon. 20 Of course, I've said that before, anytime we have a light 21 calendar it seems to expand to fit the time. 22 However, this is a special presentation that's 23 not on the public agenda I want you to be aware of. 24 Senator Byron Sher will be joining us a little later this 25 morning as soon as the Senate floor session adjourns to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 receive the first inaugural Haagen Smit award for his 2 contributions to air quality policy and law. 3 It's my understanding that the Senator has some 4 time constraints today, so when he arrives we'll take a 5 short break from whatever we're doing so that, in fact, we 6 can take part in the awards ceremony. 7 With that, I'd like to move to the first agenda 8 item. And to remind people in the audience who wish to 9 testify, please sign up with the clerk of the Board. 10 Also, if you have a written statement, please give 30 11 copies to the Board clerk. 12 The first item today is 01-3-1, Carl Moyer 13 Program Status Report. At the first Board February, my 14 first board meeting in February, 1999 we reviewed and 15 approved the original Carl Moyer guidelines. Since then, 16 the progress under this program has been nothing short of 17 phenomenal, as well as its reception by the stakeholders. 18 Already, this State funded program has reduced 19 emissions by seven tons a day at a cost effectiveness of 20 less than $5,000 per ton. That's more than twice the 21 return anyone expected when this program was first funded 22 in 1998 under an upper limit cost estimate of $13,000 a 23 ton. 24 The diversity of projects we're seeing is also 25 truly amazing. The program benefits virtually everyone PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 from agriculture to trucking, transit companies to 2 fork-lift operators, railways to marine terminals. It's 3 just incredible what State money matched up with local 4 contributions and project proponent's own funds can do. 5 At this point, I'd like to ask Mr. Kenny to 6 introduce the item and begin the staff's presentation. A 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman 8 and Members of the Board. Today staff will provide an 9 overview on the State's progress in implementing the Carl 10 Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program. 11 This program is named after our friend and colleague the 12 late Dr. Carl Moyer in recognition of his outstanding work 13 in the air quality field and his efforts to obtain funding 14 to initiate this program. 15 Carl had a dream that we could attain the State 16 and federal ozone standards if we used financial 17 incentives to speed introductions of the diesel sector 18 improvements. The Carl Moyer program provides incremental 19 cost grants for replacing diesel engines, repowering them 20 or converting them to cleaner alternative fuels. The 21 program achieves real quantifiable reductions of nitrogen 22 oxides and has added the benefit of reducing diesel 23 particulate. 24 Recently, the emission reductions achieved by the 25 Carl Moyer program have become a critical element in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 alleviating California's current energy crisis, and they 2 are helping the State site new peaking power facilities in 3 an expedited fashion. State law requires us to submit an 4 annual report to the Legislature on the implementation of 5 the Carl Moyer program, which is why we are here today 6 with this status report. 7 And now I'd like to turn it over to Lucina 8 Negrete who will make the staff present. 9 Lucina. 10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: Thank you, Mr. 11 Kenny. Good morning Chairman Lloyd and members of the 12 Board. Once again, we come before you on the Carl Moyer 13 Air Quality Standards Attainment Program. 14 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 15 presented as follows.) 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: Or what we 17 call the Carl Moyer Program. This program is moving 18 rapidly and operating smoothly. It has been a huge 19 success not only in assisting us to meet our air quality 20 commitments, but it is also helping California to address 21 the energy crisis. 22 A few months ago, you approved revised guidelines 23 for the program. Today I will present to you with the 24 legislative required status of the statewide program. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: In my 2 presentation today I will provide you with the success 3 story for the Carl Moyer Program. I will start with the 4 history of the Carl Moyer Program followed by a brief 5 overview. Then I will move into the status of the 6 statewide program, followed with a description of the 7 types of projects paid for with State funds and the 8 benefits we anticipate from the program. 9 To conclude my presentation, I will provide you 10 with our expectations for the future program and finally 11 our conclusions and recommendations. 12 --o0o-- 13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: The 1994 State 14 Implementation Plan, or SIP, called for incentives and 15 other market-based measures to reduce in-use emissions. 16 SIP measure M4 in particular called for incentives to 17 reduce emissions from heavy-duty vehicles. In 1998 18 through the budget process, the Governor and the 19 Legislature authorized the first pot of funding to 20 implement the Carl Moyer Program. 21 In 1999, the program was codified into the Health 22 and Safety Code and guidelines were approved by both ARB 23 and CEC to implement the engine infrastructure and 24 advanced technology portions of the statewide program. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: In 2000 the 2 Carl Moyer Program Advisory Board, a 13 member advisory 3 board, created under the Health and Safety Code reported 4 to the Governor and the Legislature that this program is a 5 success and should continue. The Governor and the 6 Legislature responded by authorizing additional funding 7 for this program. 8 Over three years the program received a total of 9 $98 million to fund projects. Of that money, ARB received 10 $89 million for engine projects and CEC received $9 11 million for infrastructure and advanced technology and 12 support of this program. 13 In November 2000 this board approved a revision 14 to the guidelines that will be used to select projects in 15 the third year. The new guidelines have been designed to 16 consider PM reductions from the statewide program also. 17 --o0o-- 18 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: Now, I will 19 move into a brief explanation of how the program works. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: The purpose of 22 the program is to achieve near-term emission reductions 23 from heavy-duty engines and to help us meet part of our 24 SIP Measure M4 commitments. 25 Reductions are achieved by providing end-users PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 with grants for the incremental cost of using engines that 2 are cleaner than required. The program started out as a 3 ozone attainment strategy by getting reductions in NOx and 4 has now involved to producing significant reductions in 5 diesel particulate matter. 6 --o0o-- 7 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: For heavy-duty 8 engine projects and infrastructure, State funds are used 9 for grants and complemented by district funds. ARB and 10 CEC provided districts with a total of $98 million over 11 the first three years to implement a local program. And 12 the districts that chose to participate provided a total 13 of $41 million in matching funds to pay for additional 14 engine infrastructure projects that meet State guidelines. 15 The types of engine projects funded include 16 on-road heavy-duty vehicles, off-road equipment, 17 agricultural irrigation pumps, electric fork-lifts 18 locomotives, marine vessels and infrastructure in support 19 of projects already funded under the program. For 20 advanced technology development, CEC issues a formal 21 solicitation and awards grants to specific projects. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: Now, I'll 24 present to you districts progress toward committing the 25 $98 million. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 --o0o-- 2 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: Currently, 3 there are 22 districts participating in the statewide 4 program. Eight of these districts are also participating 5 in the infrastructure program administered by CEC. 6 --o0o-- 7 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: For the most 8 part each of the districts modeled their programs after 9 they approved guidelines. However, each district has its 10 unique air pollution challenges. 11 The Carl Moyer Program allows districts 12 flexibility to tailor their programs to meet their 13 specific air quality needs. Some districts choose to 14 focus their programs on marine vessels or on agricultural 15 pump engines, while others like the South Coast, with a 16 variety of sources, have focused their program on on-road, 17 off-road and marine vessel projects. 18 In all cases, the local air districts are 19 responsible for solicitation and selection of projects 20 within their districts. 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: This table 23 lists total State funding allocations provided for local 24 programs over three years. Column two of the table lists 25 the amount of funds that were allocated to some of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 larger districts. And column 3 lists the amount of 2 infrastructure funds. 3 State funds were distributed to each district 4 based on population, the extent of each district's ozone 5 problem and a district's SIP Measure M4 commitment. The 6 South Coast Air Quality Management District, being the 7 largest district and having the largest ozone challenge, 8 received over 40 percent of the funds. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: This table is 11 a continuation of the previous table and lists the amount 12 of funds allocated to remaining districts that 13 participated in the program, funds for multi-district 14 projects, funds for advanced technology development 15 projects and funds for State program administration 16 outreach and testing. 17 Ninety-three point five million dollars paid for 18 engines and advanced technology development projects 19 including program administration; $4.5 million pays for 20 infrastructure, bringing the statewide total to $98 21 million. 22 In each year, the demand for project funds has 23 exceeded what is available by about three times, and most 24 districts have not had a challenge receiving projects to 25 fund. Only one district did not use all of its funds PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 allocated in the second year and declined funds for the 2 third year. The amount of unused funds for these two 3 years totals $376,800, and ARB will use the unused funds 4 for multi-district projects. 5 --o0o-- 6 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: Over 80 7 percent of State funds from the first and second year are 8 committed to projects. This equals to about $38 million 9 for engine projects, $1.4 million for infrastructure and 10 $2 million for advanced technology. 11 Currently, third year funds have been allocated 12 to districts, and districts are soliciting applicants to 13 select and pay for projects with third-year funds under 14 the engine and infrastructure programs. ARB and CEC will 15 receive reports from the districts in fall 2001 on the 16 status of obligating third-year funds. 17 Under advanced technology CEC is currently 18 evaluating projects for the third-year program and expects 19 to grant awards next month. 20 Now, I'll focus on projects and benefits realized 21 in the first and second year. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: Now, I'll 24 provide you with information on the types of projects that 25 were paid for using two years of State funds. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 --o0o-- 2 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: In the first 3 two years, 1,865 engines were funded statewide. This is 4 less than one percent of the 1.3 million diesel engines in 5 operation statewide. We estimate that about 52 percent of 6 the engines funded were agricultural pump engines, 35 7 percent were on-road heavy-duty engines, six percent were 8 fork-lifts, five percent were marine vessels and the 9 remaining two percent included off-road engines, such as 10 construction and farm equipment and locomotives. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: We have 13 estimated that about 50 percent of total committed funds 14 paid for on-road alternative fuel projects, 46 percent 15 paid for diesel to diesel repowers and four percent paid 16 for electric projects. 17 --o0o-- 18 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: Now, I'll 19 discuss on-road projects funded through the Carl Moyer 20 Program. 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: About 9.6 23 million in State funds paid for 200 alternative fuel 24 refuse haulers and 38 diesel haulers. Funded refuse 25 haulers reduced NOx emissions by about 300 tons per year, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 at an average cost effectiveness of $5,100 per ton. State 2 funds paid for these two CNG refuse haulers selected by 3 the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: Seven hundred 6 thousand dollars from State funds paid for 29 heavy-duty 7 line haul trucks. Funded trucks reduced NOx emissions by 8 40 tons per year at an average cost effectiveness of 9 approximately 2,600 tons of NOx reduced. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: Six point six 12 million dollars from State funds paid for 329 alternative 13 fuel urban transit buses. This picture is one of the 14 buses that the State paid for in the South Coast. 15 Buses purchased with the State funds reduced NOx 16 emissions by 130 tons per year at an average cost 17 effectiveness of $6,500 per ton. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: Projects like 20 this school bus are important because they reduce 21 children's exposure to emissions. Three hundred thousand 22 dollars from State funds paid for 12 alternative fueled 23 school buses. These buses reduced NOx emissions by three 24 tons per year at an average cost effectiveness of $10,800 25 per ton. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 Because school buses accrue low annual mileage as 2 compared to other on-road projects, they are not as cost 3 effective and it is a challenge to funds these projects 4 under the Carl Moyer Program. 5 However, the State is aware of the need to 6 protect the health of children and that is why there is 7 another incentive program, the Lower Emissions School Bus 8 Program, funded by Governor Davis that focuses on only 9 funding school buses. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: Now, I'll 12 discuss some of the off-road projects funded through the 13 Carl Moyer Program. 14 --o0o-- 15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: Ten million 16 dollars from State funds paid for 947 ag pumps and 14 17 alternative fueled and electric ag pumps located 18 throughout the valley. These projects reduced NOx 19 emissions by about 1,100 tons per year at an extremely 20 positive cost effectiveness of 2,300 per ton. The 21 agricultural pump engine in this picture is located in 22 Glenn County. 23 --o0o-- 24 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: Marine vessel 25 projects are very popular in Santa Barbara, South Coast, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 San Diego, the Bay Area and Ventura. Marine vessel 2 projects are very cost effective and produce very large 3 emission reductions. 4 Six million dollars from State funds paid for 95 5 marine vessel engines. Repowering these engines reduced 6 NOx emissions by 390 tons per year at an average cost 7 effectiveness of $4,300 per ton. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: In the first 10 two years about $1.5 million in State funds paid for 105 11 electric fork-lifts in the South Coast Air Quality 12 Management District. These fork-lifts reduced NOx 13 emissions by 130 tons per year at an average cost 14 effectiveness of $3,000 per ton. 15 --o0o-- 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: Five thousand 17 dollars from State funds paid for 12 alternative fuel and 18 33 diesel fueled off-road pieces of equipment. Funded 19 off-road equipment reduced NOx emissions by 50 tons per 20 year at an average cost effectiveness of $6,700 per ton. 21 Next slide, please. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: This is a Napa 24 valley wine train powered by a duel fuel CNG engine. 25 Eight hundred and twenty thousand dollars from State funds PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 paid for one locomotive project, which included one main 2 engine and one auxiliary engine. This locomotive reduced 3 NOx emissions by 20 tons per year at a cost effectiveness 4 of $2,300 per ton. 5 --o0o-- 6 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: Now, I'll 7 discuss some of the infrastructure and advanced technology 8 projects funded with State funds through CEC. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: State funds 11 paid for 12 natural gas refueling facilities. Some of the 12 funded sites provided either CNG or LNG. Some of the 13 sites funded included Pickens for transit and waste 14 management in the South Coast, County Waste in the Bay 15 Area, City of Sacramento, GIA Ventura and Waste Management 16 in Antelope Valley. The new sites are expected to service 17 about 114 trucks and 50 school buses. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: State funds 20 also paid for five projects under the Advanced Technology 21 Development Program. These projects include Ceryx, a 22 quad-cat converter for NOx reduction shown in the two 23 pictures; Delphi Energy and Chassis Systems, development 24 of heavy-duty thermoplasma after treatment; Englehard 25 Corporation, development of exhaust gas recirculation with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 DPX catalysts; and two projects that will meet a half gram 2 per brake horsepower hour NOx level; Detroit Diesel 3 Corporation's project to develop an advanced CNG engine; 4 and Cummins/West port's engine using a high pressure 5 direct injection natural gas engine. 6 These last two projects listed were also 7 co-funded by the South Coast and DOE. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: Which brings 10 us to the estimated statewide benefits from the first two 11 years of the program. 12 --o0o-- 13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: We have 14 estimated that annually about 2,500 tons per year of NOx 15 and 70 tons per year of PM will be reduced from the first 16 two years of the program. These reductions will continue 17 for a minimum of five years with some projects continuing 18 to provide benefits into the decade. 19 --o0o-- 20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: Overall, the 21 program was very cost effective averaging about $5,000 per 22 ton. This compares favorably to a typical cost for other 23 air pollution control programs. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: Under the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 first two years of the program, over 30 percent of all 2 engines funded include refuse haulers, urban transit 3 buses, school buses and off-road construction equipment. 4 These projects are the ones with the greatest 5 opportunity to benefit urban communities. ARB's goal is 6 to reduce exposure of pollutants throughout California. 7 This is especially important to residents in low-income 8 inner-city communities often disproportionately impacted 9 by air pollution. 10 We are including focused outreach efforts under 11 the Carl Moyer Program and strengthening district 12 coordination to increase the number of these projects that 13 specifically benefit communities disproportionately 14 impacted by air pollution. 15 --o0o-- 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: This map was 17 prepared by the Southern California Association of 18 Governments based on 1997 modeling information for median 19 income and communities located in the South Coast Air 20 Basin. We are using this map to illustrate some of the 21 South Coast inner-city communities where projects were 22 funded. 23 The light pink highlighted areas in the map are 24 areas where the median income is less than $26,000. The 25 dots on the map indicate the locations of the corporation PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 yard that the vehicles and equipment funded would operate 2 out of. The vehicles in the equipment operating out of 3 these locations include refuse haulers, transit and school 4 buses and construction equipment, which have routes 5 through inner-city communities. 6 Over 70 percent of the State funded projects in 7 the South Coast Basin are community oriented projects. 8 Again, through the Carl Moyer Program, we will make an 9 effort to encourage that more and more of the projects 10 funded are in low-income communities. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: Currently, 13 third year funds have not been allocated to specific 14 projects. And although paid for, some of the vehicles and 15 equipment funded in the South Coast during the second year 16 are yet to be placed in operation. There may be some 17 flexibility as to where these projects are placed. ARB 18 will work closely with the local air districts to 19 encourage that projects funded also operate throughout 20 communities disproportionately impacted by air pollution. 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: Over 50 23 percent of all engines funded include agricultural 24 irrigation pumps and farm equipment. Engines like 25 agricultural irrigation pumps often operate 24 hours per PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 day during the growing season, already aggravating the 2 high ozone during that time of year. Replacing these 3 engines assists in reducing exposure to agricultural 4 workers and rural community residents. 5 --o0o-- 6 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: The program is 7 a success and has provided California with huge benefits. 8 But where is the program headed? 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: This year the 11 program success has been more than an environmental 12 benefit. The program is also assisting California to 13 address the energy crisis, because of the energy crisis 14 peaking power plants need to operate more to meet the 15 energy demands. The Governor issued Executive Order 24-01 16 directing ARB to use all sources of emission reductions to 17 fund an emission reduction credit bank that will be used 18 to offset emissions in peaking power plants operating this 19 summer to meet the energy demand. 20 The Carl Moyer Program produced substantial 21 reductions that are available now. And ARB will borrow 22 the first two years of the reductions to fund the ERC Bank 23 so offsets will be available for summer 2001 power 24 generation. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: The Governor 2 has proposed $100 million in additional funds for ARB to 3 administer another incentive program, the NOx and PM 4 Emission Reduction Program. The new program will also be 5 used to meet air pollution needs during the energy crisis 6 providing offsets through 2003. The new program will fund 7 Carl Moyer like projects and its reductions will fund the 8 ERC bank for three years. Beyond those three years, these 9 Carl Moyer like emission reductions will return to air 10 quality benefits and replenish the Carl Moyer Program at 11 that time. 12 --o0o-- 13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: ARB released a 14 solicitation in March for projects that reduce NOx and PM 15 to fund the ERC bank. We have received almost 150 16 proposals totaling over $750 million in requests. 17 Approximately $250 million of these projects are Carl 18 Moyer like and could be funded first. These projects will 19 provide California with significant near-term emission 20 reductions realized as early as summer 2001 once these 21 engines are placed into operation. After 2003 emission 22 reductions from this solicitation would also return to air 23 quality benefits. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: Under the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 future Carl Moyer Program, districts will continue 2 selecting projects to fund with third-year funds. The 3 Board will be updated once again in the first quarter of 4 2002 on the status toward committing those funds to 5 projects. 6 Currently, legislation has been introduced to 7 provide for continued funding of this program. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: Continued 10 funding is critical. Continued funding is needed to 11 continue producing real significant and quantifiable 12 emission reductions that assist the State and districts to 13 meet important air quality guidelines, to provide program 14 continuity and create a market for low-emission engines 15 enabling advanced technology to be available earlier than 16 expected. 17 Finally, continued funding is needed to provide a 18 method for repayment of borrowed emission reductions from 19 the Carl Moyer Program. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: Which leads me 22 to our conclusions and recommendations. Based on 23 districts progress to date, we believe that the program 24 has been a success in producing significant very cost 25 effective air quality benefits that reduce exposure to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 residents and communities disproportionately impacted by 2 air pollution and offset emissions from peaking plants 3 operating this summer to alleviate the energy crisis. 4 Staff recommends that the Board approve 5 transmittal of this report to the Governor and the 6 Legislature showing ARB's, the CEC's and districts' 7 progress for the first two years and the need for 8 continued funding. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: Thank you, 11 Chairman and Members of the Board, this concludes my 12 presentation. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. Do the 14 Board Members have any questions? 15 Dr. Burke. 16 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: I think this was an 17 excellent presentation. I enjoyed it very much, and thank 18 you. It was very informative and very well done. 19 The one thing that I think I'd like to see in the 20 future would be, I notice that when they showed the South 21 Coast and the environmentally challenged areas, they only 22 showed Los Angeles county. So I would assume that we'd 23 want to take a look at the rest of the South Coast if 24 we're going to use them for an example. 25 But I think more important than that, is that we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 see how some of the other districts who are participating 2 in this program are also servicing their environmentally 3 challenged areas. That would be my only suggestion. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you, Dr. Burke. 5 Yes, Dr. Friedman. 6 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: I want to make 7 sure I understand the calculations for reductions. For 8 example, if 238 refuse haulers are now on the streets 9 using appropriate methodology to reduce emissions, does 10 that mean that 240 machines or refuse haulers have been 11 replaced and the others have been scrapped or are they 12 still -- are the ones that are still out on the street -- 13 you know, there are several ways to calculate reductions 14 and I want to know whether all we're doing is adding new 15 machines in one form or another or are we also requiring a 16 reduction in the former number of polluting machines? 17 ON-ROADS CONTROLS BRANCH CHIEF KITOWSKI: The 18 methodology that is used to calculate -- 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Is your Mike on Jack? 20 ON-ROADS CONTROLS BRANCH CHIEF KITOWSKI: I guess 21 I have to get closer. The methodology that is used to 22 calculate is generally what we use in credit programs as 23 well. And to answer your first question, is it replacing 24 or is it adding new? 25 It could be either case. In some cases, what PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 they're doing is repowering an engine, taking an old 2 engine and putting in a new upgraded engine or alternative 3 fuel engine. In other cases, it's a brand new vehicle. 4 But the way it is calculated -- is the assumption that a 5 fleet purchaser is going to a dealership, using the refuse 6 truck example, and they have their choice of buying -- 7 they're going to buy a new refuse truck, they need a new 8 refuse truck. 9 They are most likely in most cases going to 10 purchase a conventional diesel refuse truck. And we are 11 trying to provide the incentive for them to purchase the 12 cleaner choice. So it is usually based on the assumption 13 that they are going to be buying a new truck and the 14 emissions are calculated as the difference between the new 15 diesel and the cleaner choice that they are purchasing. 16 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: So it's what 17 would have been? 18 ON-ROADS CONTROLS BRANCH CHIEF KITOWSKI: Yes. 19 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: So we're really 20 not getting a true maximum bang for the buck. We're 21 increasing the total number of whatever is out, you know, 22 whether it be trucks or buses or whatever, without any 23 connection or specific connection to reducing the older, 24 high-polluting machines? 25 ON-ROADS CONTROLS BRANCH CHIEF KITOWSKI: Well, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 the normal fleet turnover is what is taking care of 2 replacing the older machines. But this is based on the 3 assumption that they were going to buy a new vehicle 4 anyway. We want them to choose the cleaner choice. 5 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: But if their 6 market is expanding, you're not -- I mean, it's a wash. 7 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: In the South Coast, it 8 hasn't quite been working like that. Basically, a program 9 is exactly as he's described, but what we did was we put 10 the requirement in that it be repowers, so that -- 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Can you speak into your 12 microphone, Dr. Burke. 13 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: It was a direct reduction 14 in -- and I've got to tell you the program was so 15 successful that we, as Cindy can tell you, they were lined 16 up in front of our offices at 6:00 a.m. in the morning, 17 because we were taking them on a first-come first-serve 18 basis. And we had people in our parking lot at 6:00 19 o'clock in the morning trying to get these funds to 20 repower these vehicles. 21 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: To me, that's a 22 more attractive alternative than just putting a whole 23 bunch of machines out on the street without taking 24 something off the street. 25 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: This would just expand the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 pollution. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Supervisor Roberts. 3 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Yeah. I have a question, 4 but I wanted to remind Dr. Friedman, that's why I made the 5 strong arguments we ought to be retrofitting school buses 6 as opposed to buying new school buses, but the wisdom of 7 the Board was otherwise. 8 Let me ask a question. When you started this 9 presentation, you talked about allocation and mentioned 10 that it was based on population and a number of other 11 factors. And I'm wondering, in particular, why San Diego 12 county would only have a fraction of a dollar more than 13 such a population such as the Mojave Desert, and only half 14 of what Sacramento gets? What is this formula, I'm 15 curious? 16 It doesn't sound like it has any relation to the 17 population. 18 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NEGRETE: Actually, it's 19 split 50/50, 50 percent on population 50 percent on a SIP 20 Measure M4 commitment. So depending on what area has a 21 greater SIP Measure M4 commitment, that is also weighed so 22 that would make that area have more money. 23 So in Sacramento the -- let me look at the 24 funding amounts. In Sacramento their M4 Measure is more 25 than likely greater than San Diego's, their requirement, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 because that's 50 percent of what is taking -- what we 2 take into consideration both. It's weighed by 50 percent 3 of that factor, and San Diego doesn't have an M4 4 commitment. 5 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: It doesn't have an M4 6 commitment. And what's an M4 commitment? 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: M4 is essentially a 8 reference to the SIP measure that we adopted in 1994 for 9 heavy-duty vehicle emission reductions. And what we were 10 doing is we were looking around the State. And different 11 districts actually do have M4 commitments and some 12 districts do not. San Diego is actually one of the 13 districts that does not have a commitment in their plan to 14 go forward with heavy-duty vehicle emission reductions. 15 And so when the formula took into account both 16 population and the M4 commitment, San Diego was harmed by 17 that because of the lack of that in the plan. 18 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Now half of this is on 19 population? 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: That's correct. 21 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: So they should have done 22 okay there. 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: That's correct. 24 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: And the other half is 25 because of this M4 commitment, which I'll found out more PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 about when I get back to town, I'm sure. 2 But somehow even if you -- 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: The districts that 4 actually did fairly well, as a result of the formula that 5 we were using, were obviously the South Coast, San Joaquin 6 Valley and the Sacramento regions. One of the other 7 things that we had looked, at one point in time, was 8 whether or not we should take into account essentially 9 attainment status. 10 And we ultimately decided not to take attainment 11 status into account, because of the fact that we thought 12 that that would essentially skew it even further in favor 13 of just a couple of districts. We thought this was 14 actually the best way to try to essentially distribute the 15 money because population obviously was a factor that had 16 to be looked at. And then at the same time to the extent 17 that there were localized programs designed to try to 18 reduce emissions from this same targeted source category, 19 we thought it also made sense to essentially supplement 20 those programs with these monies. 21 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Is it too late in 22 third-year funding to have an M4 commitment? 23 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: I think the answer to 24 that is yes. And the reason for that is most of the money 25 that the State has received as a result of the legislative PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 authorizations have already been distributed to the 2 districts. And so what we would be looking at is 3 essentially future allocations, presuming that, in fact, 4 we had future allocations and we're hopeful of that. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes, Mr. Calhoun. 6 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: We talk about the M4 7 commitments. And during the course of the staff 8 presentation reference was made to making available 9 credits for the energy crisis that we're in, but yet we 10 previously made commitments to M4. Now, how is the SIP 11 going to be made whole? 12 It suddenly appears to me though that you're 13 taking credits from something that's previously allocated 14 from the SIP for another project? 15 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: That's very good. And 16 essentially the way we've tried to address that is with 17 timing. As we look at essentially the SIP obligations, 18 the SIP obligations are essentially all timed around 2005, 19 2007 or 2010. And so we were very careful about the fact 20 that as we basically go forward and utilize the emission 21 reductions that have been acquired from the Moyer program 22 to site peaking power plants, that they not basically 23 interfere with those time frames. 24 And that's why we've talked about the time period 25 for which we would borrow these emission reductions being PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 no longer than three years. And that would therefore 2 cover the 2001, 2002, 2003 time frames and we would then 3 have the emission reductions back for air quality 4 attainment purposes for the 2005, 2007 or to 2010 time 5 frames. 6 The reason we chose the Moyer reductions as a way 7 of trying to fund the peaking power plant siting is that 8 we need to find actual emission reduction credits that 9 could be utilized to fund some of these stationary source 10 sitings around the State. And the option was either to 11 create new ones or to essentially look at a place where 12 they had been created but not yet utilized. And the Moyer 13 credits were essentially the ones that fit that bill. 14 They have been created as a result of this 15 program and its success. Yet, they had not been fully 16 utilized yet in the air quality attainment of planning 17 because of the fact that we need them for the SIPs that 18 are basically coming due in the 'O5, '07 and '10 time 19 frames, so we can pay them back. 20 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Also, in the staff report, 21 you mentioned the fact that for the upcoming year 2001, 22 2002, there's no funding allocated for the Carl Moyer 23 Program at all. Will there be a Carl Moyer Program after 24 this year? 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: It does not have Carl 2 Moyer funding, but it does have $100 million in peaker 3 offset funding. And one of the things that we have 4 actually striven to achieve with that is the fact, again, 5 of this three-year limited time frame. 6 And so any funding that would occur of peaking 7 power plants or offsets out of $100 million, which would 8 be ostensibly approved by the Legislature, it would only 9 be for a period of time for three years. And then what 10 would happen is all these subsequent benefits that would 11 come beyond that three-year period would go to air 12 quality. 13 And so to a certain extent, although it's a 14 different program, we will, in the end, receive 15 essentially the same benefit. 16 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Will it be allocated in 17 the same manner? 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: It would probably not 19 be allocated in exactly the same manner. And the reason 20 for that is that we would be looking at where the peaking 21 power plants are around the State. And to the extent that 22 we are trying to essentially site peaking power plants, we 23 would probably allocate it in reference to the locations 24 of those sites. 25 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: So the M4 commitment might PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 not be as critical this round? 2 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: I think actually one 3 thing I think that's positive is that we were in the 4 Assembly yesterday in the Assembly budget hearing on the 5 proposed budget of the Governor for this and there is a 6 fair amount of interest by the Legislature in this success 7 of the Carl Moyer Program. 8 I don't know what the Legislature will ultimately 9 do, but you know, I did want to, at least, inform the 10 Board that there was a lot of interest in this program in 11 its success and I think a lot of support for it. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: In terms of Supervisor 13 Roberts' question, if there are many peaker plants, some 14 in San Diego, he could get his fair share of the money? 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Absolutely. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes. Professor Friedman. 17 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I'd like to pick up 18 on Dr. Friedman's inquiry. A good portion of these funds 19 are being allocated for ag pumps, it appears, at least in 20 terms of number of units. To what extent is that a zero 21 sum? In other words, the ag pump is replaced with 22 something that's lower emitting, and the older emitting 23 pump is it scrapped or do we monitor that or is it just 24 used elsewhere on the farm? 25 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES SECTION MANAGER SULLIVAN: PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 Well, as you know, the individual districts have a lot of 2 freedom in crafting their own programs and their own 3 requirements. Many of the districts, where these ag pumps 4 are, Sacramento and San Joaquin, require that they destroy 5 the engine that is taken out, put holes in it or 6 something, that that engine cannot be used again, 7 remanufactured, overhauled or something like that. So it 8 is being taken away from the inventory. 9 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: But many did not so 10 require? 11 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES SECTION MANAGER SULLIVAN: 12 Well, the majority of the ag pumps have been funded in 13 Sacramento and San Joaquin. To this point, there haven't 14 been any funded in the South Coast, for instance. And 15 there might be a handful in Ventura and Santa Barbara, but 16 the ones that we're talking about are virtually all. 17 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: So in the main, we 18 are getting rid of polluting equipment for cleaner 19 equipment? 20 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES SECTION MANAGER SULLIVAN: 21 Yes. 22 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: But that's not the 23 case necessarily with engines? 24 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES SECTION MANAGER SULLIVAN: 25 Well, it's not a requirement in our guidelines that the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 engines be scrapped. That is left to the districts. Some 2 districts require that the engines be scrapped or 3 destroyed and some do not. 4 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Was that considered? 5 I wasn't around at the time, I just wondered if that was 6 considered and rejected deliberately as a guideline or if 7 that was simply overlooked or not considered, if you know? 8 I mean I know that's revisiting history perhaps. 9 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES SECTION MANAGER SULLIVAN: 10 I don't know. 11 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: We're not getting 12 optimal results, as pointed out. And, again, if something 13 is usable, you hate -- it's got economic utility. But we 14 are sort of only limping on one foot to the extent that we 15 just left a polluting engine out there to be used and 16 simply made sure that when it was replaced it was replaced 17 with something cleaner for its then existing use, but not 18 precluding its continued use. 19 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: If I might, Professor 20 Friedman, I don't remember it being specifically discussed 21 at the time that the Carl Moyer Program was adopted. 22 I think the underlying assumption, at the time of 23 the adoption, was that what we were trying to do is 24 recognize that there was a continued influx of engines 25 coming into the different sectors. And what we wanted to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 do is basically incentivize the purchases of the cleanest 2 possible engines when people would basically buy an 3 engine. 4 And what we were looking at were, for example, 5 primarily the opportunities that people might have to go 6 to an alternative fueled engine as opposed to maybe an 7 older diesel engine when they were going out and buying 8 something new. You could get a two and a half gram, for 9 example, on-road engine versus a four gram on-road diesel 10 engine. 11 And what we were trying to do is basically give 12 people that extra financial incentive so that, in fact, 13 they would buy that two and a half gram alternative fueled 14 engine. So I think basically as it was discussed a few 15 moments ago we were really looking more at the purchases, 16 and how to essentially ensure that the purchases were the 17 cleanest possible ones. 18 So I think, basically, as the program probably 19 has matured a little bit, I think the issue that's been 20 raised today both by Dr. Friedman and yourself is one that 21 we're going to probably have to look at a little further. 22 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Well, yeah, it does 23 occur to me that going down into the future, at some 24 point, it might be inappropriate to consider whether we 25 could have two incentives, one as exists and the other PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 would be a little more subsidy for elimination. 2 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Mike, the issue 3 is whether or not this is a true NOx reduction or a 4 calculated NOx reduction. 5 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: Well, I think it's 6 both, but I would basically say it is a true NOx 7 reduction, because we would have other wise seen dirtier 8 engines essentially out there. 9 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: I understand 10 that, but what I'm hearing is that this is a calculated 11 NOx reduction not a measured NOx reduction. 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Well, I think it's 13 actually difficult to say very specifically either, 14 because it's a blend of both. I mean it is calculated to 15 the extent that we would have other wise had a dirtier 16 engine out there and so consequently by avoiding the 17 purchase of a dirtier engine we have a calculated 18 reduction, but, in fact, the air quality didn't get 19 better. 20 On the other hand, to the extent that one of the 21 things that happens is when you bring a new engine in 22 there's greater usage of that engine and lesser usage of 23 the older engines, there is some actual reduction that 24 occurs as a result of that. And then to the extent that 25 we have, for example, as Cindy just talked about, certain PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 ag engines that are essentially required to be destroyed 2 in different districts around the State, again, you would 3 get an actual reduction in that situation. 4 So I think it is a blend, but I think your point 5 is a valid one. 6 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Well, but the 7 numbers that you're showing us are the calculated 8 numbers -- 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: That is correct. 10 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: -- not the 11 blended numbers? 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: That's correct. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo. 14 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'd agree in concept that 15 this is something worth looking into, but just would like 16 to point out the need to be somewhat flexible, especially 17 when we looked at what the future may bring as far as the 18 diesel risk reduction plans that I know we're going to be 19 seeing and the need to be flexible in terms of possible 20 options for retrofit. 21 There may be some of these engines that are 22 retired that may be fall into a category of being more 23 cost effective in terms of a retrofit, I don't know, 24 as opposed to other existing pumps where they're not being 25 retired or a new one is not being purchased, but the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 farmer may have to consider upcoming regulations as far as 2 the need to retrofit. 3 I don't even know if the staff could answer that 4 question, if it's even possible to retrofit some of these 5 or if maybe it's possible, but not cost effective? 6 ON-ROADS CONTROLS BRANCH CHIEF KITOWSKI: In most 7 cases, with the agricultural pumps what is happening is 8 they are actually being repowered in that the old engine 9 is, as Mr. Sullivan said, is being scrapped and a new 10 engine is being put in its place. That is a very cost 11 effective measure. When you're talking about retrofits, 12 you're talking two ways in terms of, sort of, engine 13 upgrades. And in most cases the agricultural pumps that 14 are being funded are fairly old and they wouldn't do very 15 well with the engine upgrades. There's not a lot 16 available there. The repower just taking the whole engine 17 is sort of the easier choice there. 18 The other is as of big concern to the entire 19 board is particulate retrofits. It cannot just be that 20 one piece of equipment as an after-treatment being placed 21 on there. And, again, in most cases the particulate 22 retrofit will work a little better with the newer engine. 23 So the movement to the newer engines and getting rid of 24 the older engines is the positive step in the process, and 25 a retrofit would also be an added benefit. It could be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 done on top of the repower. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 3 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: First of all, I'd like to 4 compliment staff in your report for including some 5 analysis of environmental justice and how our action today 6 may or may not impact that. I think coming out of the 7 meeting in Richmond and some of the other meetings we've 8 had, it's really important to have that, and thank you for 9 doing that. 10 I think what we do on diesel generally is going 11 to have a lot of impact, because I think about Richmond 12 and the Alameda corridor and some of the places surely 13 that are refineries in chemical plants, but there's a lot 14 of trucking, moving commerce. 15 My other kind of comment here is I'm looking at 16 there's really -- I'm looking at the cost and really the 17 trash haulers was really the only place you can see it, 18 but it looks like we spend about $46,000 per truck, I 19 guess, per engine or it may be new truck, when we're 20 talking alt fuel. And it's about $6,000, $6,200, 21 something like that, when we're dealing with a diesel, 22 with a changeover in diesel. Now, I'm assuming that the 23 diesel is a retrofit, that can't be a new engine. 24 ON-ROADS CONTROLS BRANCH CHIEF KITOWSKI: 25 Actually, in most cases the diesels are the ag pumps we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 were talking about, so it is a new engine replacing an 2 engine that the owner would have likely rebuilt. 3 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I'm narrowed down to just 4 comparing trash haulers that's all I've compared. 5 ON-ROADS CONTROLS BRANCH CHIEF KITOWSKI: Yes, 6 I'm sorry. You're correct. It's sort of a repower with a 7 new engine replacing an old engine putting in a new 8 engine. 9 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Okay. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Any other comments, Mr. 11 McKinnon? 12 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I don't want to continue 13 to remind folks about the school bus discussion, but I 14 think this is a graphic, a pretty graphic comparison. I 15 also want to reup on other comments that have been made by 16 other board members about diesels continuing in service. 17 There is a reoccurring statement that I hear over 18 and over again that old dirty school buses end up being 19 farm labor buses. And I think to the extent we end up 20 paying for that, we should make sure that that does not 21 occur. And I think it's not supposed to, but certainly I 22 keep hearing it over and over from folks in the community. 23 And if that's the case, we should not be paying for the 24 buses and then have them turn out transporting farm 25 laborers. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes, Mr. Kenny. 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I'd like to -- 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Let Mr. Kenny, then Dr. 4 Burke. 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: BOARD MEMBER BURKE: 6 I'd just want to let him know that we spent a year and a 7 half on this school bus issue at the South Coast and voted 8 1195 last Friday. And dirty old school buses become dirty 9 old school buses for poorer districts, school districts. 10 And they may, in fact, go to farm workers. But let me 11 tell you there are more children being hauled in dirty old 12 school buses than there are farm workers hauled in dirty 13 old school buses. 14 So with the passage of 1195 in the South Coast 15 district, I've set a goal for South Coast to retrofit 16 every single retrofitable school because in the South 17 Caste district by the year 2004. So we're out scouting 18 for funding. None of those school buses will be turned 19 over to people to transport for agricultural workers 20 unless they will have been retrofitted in the first place. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 22 Mr. McKinnon. 23 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah. The school bus 24 debate I didn't want to continue, but I'm real clear that 25 there's dirty school buses, but the place where they seem PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 to hideout is going to farm labor contractors or that's at 2 least the allegation. And I think us putting a 3 requirement of retrofit similar to what's been done is 4 that it is probably a reasonable way to go. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. Kenny, you had a comment. 6 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: No. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. No other questions 8 coming from the Board? 9 I'll take the first witness. In fact, we have 10 two witnesses signed up. The first is Peter Rooney from 11 Pony Pack and then Teresa Moren. 12 Welcome Peter. Those of you who recognize Peter, 13 he was the Secretary of CalEPA and, in fact, he had a big 14 hand in designing this building. 15 MR. ROONEY: Thank you. I'm glad to see that 16 you're here. I will say that certainly technology has 17 advanced to the point where a few moments ago Supervisor 18 Roberts' picture was portrayed on the screen behind. 19 Overcoming, maybe a problem I see of this building, it 20 lacks the intimacy of your prior board room with those of 21 us sitting in the audience. 22 However, the acoustics certainly here are better 23 and I think the audio visual is far better than it was 24 before. So I'm sure you'll do good work here as you did 25 good work in the old building. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 Naturally, I've had a long interest in this 2 particular program from the days when I was secretary and 3 when we were fortunate to make the initial funding for 4 this program. I am impressed with the fact that we have 5 made strides. I do, though, come back today on a somewhat 6 more somber note. And that is the situation regarding 7 auxiliary power units, of which I spoke to you earlier, 8 and which your board adopted as one of those categories 9 that qualifies. 10 Despite the valiant efforts of your staff to 11 convince local districts that it is in their interests to 12 participate in this portion of the program, results to 13 date are less than satisfactory from my client's point of 14 view, in that we haven't found a district yet that wants 15 to implement that portion of the program. Now, is that 16 their fault, our fault or whose fault, that's not the 17 discussion today. 18 Our aim is to be able to demonstrate that trucks 19 will operate within, as I recall, 100 hours. And the 20 district has enough to justify the savings in emissions. 21 We are working with the manufacturer to establish in 22 off-the-line brand new trucks the auxiliary power unit 23 concept, and about fifty trucks for a fleet that we would 24 hope would be targeting southern California's Port of 25 Call, if you will. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 However, it's strange that our pilot program is 2 going on trucks with cleaner engines to begin with. In 3 reality, the 18 wheelers that transverse the United States 4 and call on California don't have the level of engine that 5 these new pilot trucks will have. So I think it's 6 discouraging that the local people have not seen fit to 7 participate, but I'm not surprised in the sense that we 8 have taken a mobile issue, in this particular case, a 50 9 State mobile issue and transposed it in a situation where 10 the local districts are usually dealing with stationary 11 sources, be it a garbage truck, assuming that a garbage 12 truck is stationary in the sense that at least it's camped 13 and it's based in a given district. 14 But when you have a multi-district, multi-state 15 issue, I think we have to work harder to find the 16 solution. Your board has seen the wisdom of the products 17 and has included it. Now, we somehow have to find the way 18 to untie the knot at the local districts to obtain 19 acceptance of the program there. 20 My fear is that we will miss this whole funding 21 cycle and then that we're hoping for some funding in 22 future years. And while I stand here and would be willing 23 to stand before any legislative committee and say this is 24 a worthwhile program and should be continued in future 25 years, at this point, we would hope that's the case. But PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 with the current drain on the State's resources caused by 2 the energy crisis, who's to say if the legislature, in 3 good conscious, will be able to fund it in the future 4 years. 5 So I would hope that you would instruct staff to 6 rekindle their efforts to try and convince local districts 7 and I certainly would pledge to work with them any way I 8 can, to carry the message forward to local districts to 9 get on board in this portion of the program. 10 So I appreciate the opportunity and would be 11 happy to answer any questions. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Any questions 13 from the Board? 14 Thank you. 15 Any reaction from staff? 16 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES SECTION MANAGER SULLIVAN: 17 Well, it has been difficult on the APU's side and some of 18 the truck projects that travel throughout the State to 19 have any particular district fund that project, and that's 20 one reason why we've set aside at least that small amount 21 of money to do inter-district projects ourselves is to do 22 APUs. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Great. Thank you very much. 24 Good step forward. 25 Teresa Moren. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 Welcome. 2 MS. MOREN: Welcome, Chairman Lloyd, Board 3 Members. My name is Teresa Moren. I'm here today 4 representing Diverse Strategies For Organizing. And to 5 tell you a little bit about a recent project that we've 6 taken on with, if you want to call it an environmental 7 justice zone or area or -- I'll keep it to that, but 8 communities that are heavily impacted by diesel emissions. 9 We were looking at the area, particularly of City 10 of Commerce, unincorporated East Los Angeles, Vernon, 11 Southgate, Maywood and all these areas have traditionally 12 suffered from high emissions, especially due to mobile 13 sources, freeways cutting through the area and several 14 industries, small businesses and large. 15 And over the last month we were asked to go out 16 and talk with these small businesses to inform them about 17 the Carl Moyer Program and the opportunity to get these 18 small businesses involved in the application project, not 19 only for Carl Moyer but perhaps other reduction programs 20 and incentive programs. And what we found was something 21 very encouraging. 22 In just a few short weeks, we were able to 23 identify over 70 companies and cities that were interested 24 in hearing more about what they could do in their area, in 25 terms of replacing vehicles. They will soon be purchasing PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 new vehicles. Some of the businesses, unfortunately, had 2 just purchased heavy-duty trucks, but they were 3 interested. They wanted to hear more. 4 But we actually identified ten companies, most of 5 them small trucking firms. We're talking about vehicles 6 that had less than 25 vehicles in their fleets, but they 7 were interested in diesel reduction, and wanted to know 8 more about how their company could benefit from some of 9 the programs being offered by the State and by SCAQMD. 10 The purpose of this project, I think, is just to 11 start initially with interesting people about the program 12 getting the word out about what's available to small 13 businesses and then building upon that, getting the local 14 officials involved in it, elected officials. Of course, 15 they're excited to hear about these things too, and then 16 bringing on other community organized people to say this 17 is a program we need to get involved in. We need to 18 encourage our business partners and involve them in the 19 process of reducing emissions. 20 So we hope this effort will continue, because it 21 so far has been successful in its short time of 22 implementation and we look forward to continuing to work 23 with you and showing some real results in the next months. 24 Thank you. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, thank you very much PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 indeed. And this is exactly the approach I think the 2 Board was looking for as to how do we, in fact, reach 3 these communities, how do we provide the tools, how do we 4 provide them with a knowledge that there are funds out 5 that help out, so it's great to hear the work that you're 6 doing and hope that you will keep it up. It's great. I 7 think anything we can do to work with you and staff, we'd 8 be delighted to do it. 9 MS. MOREN: I would welcome the opportunity. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Any comments? 11 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, this is 12 focused more in South LA, but would you go as far as into 13 the communities say of Riverside, I'm thinking of some of 14 the areas that sometimes contact me near to Rubidoux would 15 you come out that far? 16 MS. MORENO: I would be happy to. I think what 17 we're trying to do in this first round or this first phase 18 is identify what works within a community, what gets 19 people excited. We're finding language barriers. We have 20 to make sure we speak to the owners in Korean, Chinese, 21 Spanish make sure they pass that hindrance of government 22 regulation. They're very concerned about that and explain 23 it to them. 24 But once we develop it as a model, we hope that 25 then we can apply this to other communities, where we're PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 informing not only the businesses but the residents about 2 what's happening in their community, and they can apply it 3 to other places like Rubidoux. 4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Also, as you may or may not 6 know, this Board will be down in Huntington Park, late in 7 May, I've forgotten the exact dates, so we'd look forward 8 to seeing you. And if you'd let your colleagues know, 9 that would be great. 10 MS. MOREN: Tony Torez at my office was at last 11 year's hearing in Huntington Park and we were happy you 12 came. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We enjoyed that very much. 14 And the full board will be there this time, so we 15 appreciate it. 16 Thank you. 17 Dr. Burke. 18 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: The cities you indicated in 19 your presentation are all in the second supervisorial 20 district, so I would suggest you contact that supervisor 21 and see if you can't get some help there. 22 MS. MOREN: Absolutely. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That supervisor's name? 24 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: I don't know, I'll check the 25 district. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 (Laughter.) 2 MS. MOREN: Thank you very much. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Again, any comments from the 4 Board or questions? 5 If not, this is not a regulatory item, so it's 6 not necessary to officially close the record. However, we 7 do have a resolution before the Board. So if we'd like to 8 take a minute to look at the resolution and then move from 9 there. 10 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I'm sorry, I had to 11 absent myself for a couple of minutes, are we still on the 12 Carl Moyer Program? 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes, we're just closing. 14 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I'm just wondering, 15 Mr. Kenny, if it would be possible, not unduly burdensome 16 to the staff, in connection with the spring 2002 report to 17 do a further analysis of the extent to which we are not 18 completely replacing cleaner engines with the old ones, 19 but simply adding a newer, cleaner one into the mix for 20 the existing use? In other words -- and to what extent 21 there might be some additional incentives or conditions or 22 both imposed on going forward at the appropriate time? 23 I'm just wondering, in other words, looking 24 forward part of the resolution, the last resolution, the 25 next to last "be it further resolved" refers to the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 executive officer returning to the Board in the spring of 2 2002 with a third status report. And I'm wondering if, at 3 that time, if not sooner, if we could ask the staff to 4 look into that. 5 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: I think it's actually 6 a very good idea. You know, when we originally began the 7 program the idea was to essentially begin a migration 8 towards cleaner technology and try to incentivize them. 9 But I do think essentially the point that's been raised 10 today is a very legitimate one. And I think also when you 11 take into account the amount of requests for funding that 12 we have, we are way oversubscribed, at this point in time, 13 in terms of any money that we do have. 14 And so we could actually probably achieve a 15 greater benefit by putting a replacement requirement of 16 some kind in there in order to keep on going, so we'll be 17 happy to look at that. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Given the fact, Mr. Kenny, 19 that coming back in a year's time means that we won't be 20 able to react to that, is there any chance of bringing 21 that forward say after six or eight months? 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Actually, we'll try to 23 move as quickly as we can on it. I mean, obviously we're 24 going to have to workshop this, talk about this with the 25 public in general, but I think we will look at this very PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 seriously and try to come back to the Board as quickly as 2 we can. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Professor Friedman, would you 4 like to include that in the resolution then? 5 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I don't know that we 6 need it in the resolution that's being forwarded as long 7 as it's understood and I'll move adoption. 8 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Second. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: All in favor say aye? 10 (Ayes.) 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. Again, 12 I'd like to thank the staff again for an excellent job on 13 that. It's a really exciting program. 14 With that, we'll move on to the next item while 15 we're moving the staff. And this agenda Item 01-3-2 16 indoor air quality update and recommendations. 17 Approximately one year ago, we heard from staff 18 about the high indoor exposures and risk experienced by 19 many people in their homes, offices and schools. At that 20 time, we requested that staff come back with specific 21 suggestions about how we can begin tackling the indoor air 22 pollution problem. After that board meeting, ARB 23 sponsored a symposium on indoor air quality here in 24 Sacramento. Board Member Matt McKinnon attended that 25 symposium and learned even more about the issues. We also PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 heard requests from all sides for this board to step 2 forward and exercise some leadership in this area. 3 Much has happened in the past year, and new 4 opportunities for addressing indoor air quality have come 5 along. So I look forward to hearing the item. 6 At this point, I'd like to turn it over to Mr. 7 Kenny to introduce the item and the staff for 8 presentation. 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Again, thank you, Mr. 10 Chairman and members of the Board. I'm glad you mentioned 11 the Indoor Air Quality Symposium, which covered the 12 subject in detail and was quite well attended. The 13 speakers at that event identified some important steps 14 that are being take to reduce indoor air pollution, but 15 also stressed the need for further action, which staff 16 agrees, needs to be done. 17 Over the past year, staff have been doing 18 everything we can within the limits of our existing 19 authority and resources to reduce the risk from indoor 20 pollution. Staff completed a new indoor air quality 21 guideline on chlorinated chemicals in your home to advise 22 families on ways to reduce exposure to that group of toxic 23 air contaminants. Staff has also been actively 24 participating in two multi-agency efforts, the 25 collaborative for High Performance Schools and the State PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 Green Building Task Force, both of which have indoor air 2 quality elements. 3 Today you will hear about several new research 4 activities related to children's health and environmental 5 justice. 6 And with that, I'd like to turn it over to Ms. 7 Peggy Jenkins, who will make the staff presentation. 8 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 9 JENKINS: Good morning, Chairman Lloyd and members of the 10 Board. 11 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 12 presented as follows.) 13 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 14 JENKINS: I'm very pleased to be here today to update you 15 on the activities of our indoor air quality program since 16 we last spoke with you on this topic about a year ago. In 17 addition to updating you on our many activities, I will 18 summarize several planned future actions for your 19 consideration. 20 First, I would like to tell you about the major 21 findings and recommendations from the Indoor Air Quality 22 Symposium that we sponsored last may here in Sacramento. 23 The symposium was entitled Indoor Air in the Twentieth 24 Century. And the Department of Health Services 25 co-sponsored this symposium with us. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 The purpose of the symposium was to highlight new 2 findings in the field of indoor air quality and to promote 3 further actions to reduce indoor pollution. And you 4 should have received a copy of the proceedings from the 5 Board secretary in your packet. 6 --o0o-- 7 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 8 JENKINS: A few of the key findings from this symposium 9 are shown on this slide. Several speakers relayed the 10 results of studies on indoor air quality and personal 11 exposure which have shown, for example, that indoor 12 sources of Volatile Organic Chemicals or VOCs are quite 13 prevalent. This and the fact that we spend most of our 14 time indoors means that indoor sources consequently 15 account for a majority, 75 to 98 percent, of our actual 16 exposures to many VOCs. 17 In another presentation, Dr. Bill Nazeroth, a 18 member of our Research Screening Committee, quoted an 19 estimate developed by Kirk Smith, one of his fellow 20 professors at UC Berkeley, that reflects the significance 21 of indoor sources in determining exposure. Dr. Smith has 22 estimated that a typical pollutant release indoors is 23 1,000 times as effective in causing human exposure as the 24 same release to urban outdoor air. 25 We heard from other speakers that the most PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 effective solution to indoor pollution problems is to 2 reduce indoor sources by using alternate products or 3 reduce their emissions. This is especially important in 4 people's homes where children and other sensitive 5 individuals spend so much of their time. Assuring 6 adequate ventilation is also an important part of the 7 solution. Many speakers and commenters also noted the 8 many problems found in our schools including little or no 9 ventilation, mould growth and high formaldehyde levels. 10 --o0o-- 11 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 12 JENKINS: A highlight of the symposium was a presentation 13 by Secretary Hickox to former Assemblywoman Sally Tanner 14 for her many contributions to environmental health 15 protection during her long tenure in the State 16 Legislature. 17 Mrs. Tanner not only sponsored the legislation 18 that initiated our toxic air contaminants program, but she 19 also sponsored legislation that formalized our indoor air 20 quality program and legislation that established the 21 indoor air quality program at the Department of Health 22 Services. And we were very pleased that Mrs. Tanner was 23 able to join us. 24 --o0o-- 25 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 JENKINS: On the second day of the symposium, two panels 2 of State leaders discussed their views on what is needed 3 to address indoor pollution. The audience participated in 4 these discussions as well. One of the most frequently 5 heard statements was that the problems are not being 6 addressed on a local level and that State level leadership 7 and solutions are sorely needed. The need for State level 8 standards and regulations was a commonly expressed by 9 participants from government, education and industry. 10 For example, they identified a need to define 11 what is safe versus unacceptable air quality in schools. 12 Some schools are hesitant to pursue pollutant monitoring 13 when they suspect a problem, because without air 14 concentration standards or guidelines, there's no way for 15 them to properly interpret their results. 16 Some participants also identified a need for 17 State regulations for emission limits from consumer 18 products and building materials, specifications for 19 building and ventilation system design maintenance and 20 operation and standards for procedures on mould 21 remediation. Manufacturers identified the need for a 22 level playing field. 23 Many speakers and commenters stressed the need to 24 give high priority to solutions to address school problems 25 and children's exposures. In particular, because schools PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 are exempt from the normal building standards and codes 2 that exist for other buildings, such as Title 24, which 3 regulates ventilation in buildings, standards and 4 regulations specific to schools are needed. 5 Participants also suggested the development of 6 technical assistance manuals and training courses for 7 professionals and for local agency personnel. Guidelines 8 for members of the public also reviewed it as part of the 9 solution. 10 And finally, a central information clearing house 11 or kind of a one-stop shop was suggested by many as a 12 quick fix to help those dealing with indoor air quality 13 problems, such as local health agency personnel and school 14 officials. And there are more specific recommendations 15 provided in the proceedings. 16 --o0o-- 17 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 18 JENKINS: Next, I'd like to discuss several projects that 19 we have completed or that are currently under way that are 20 targeted toward reducing indoor exposure and risk, and 21 that are part of our efforts to follow up on some of the 22 recommendations from this symposium. These projects 23 include the initiation of a development of an air toxics 24 control measure for formaldehyde emissions from composite 25 wood products, publication of our newest indoor air PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 quality guidelines on chlorinated chemicals, involvement 2 in ARB's community health projects, and participation in 3 two relatively new groups, the Collaborative for High 4 Performance Schools and the State Green Building Task 5 Force. 6 --o0o-- 7 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 8 JENKINS: Currently, staff are in the process of 9 evaluating the options the Board can use to reduce the 10 health risk from formaldehyde exposure. Exposures to 11 formaldehyde may cause short- and long-term adverse health 12 effects, including cancer. 13 ARB staff and others have determined that 14 formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products 15 contribute a majority of a person's total formaldehyde 16 exposure. Staff are planning to develop an air toxics 17 control measure to reduce emissions from formaldehyde 18 containing composite wood products. 19 Our first step is to establish a work group to 20 help us in evaluating the degree of exposure and options 21 for reducing exposure. We plan to hold a public workshop 22 to discuss the findings of our evaluation in winter 2002, 23 and we plan to have a proposal for an air toxics control 24 measure before the Board in the summer of 2002. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 2 JENKINS: Next, our new indoor air quality guideline for 3 chlorinated chemicals has just been completed. And it's 4 hot off the press, literally delivered this morning. It's 5 entitled Chlorinated Chemicals In Your Home, and is the 6 third in our series of guidelines. The chlorinated 7 chemicals coverage in our guideline include 8 perchloroethylene, methylene chloride, chloroform, 9 trichloroethylene, paradichloro-benzene, and 10 111-tricholorethane. These chemicals have been identified 11 as toxic air contaminants. 12 Indoor levels are typically several times higher 13 than outdoor levels because of the many sources of these 14 chemicals. The major indoor sources include consumer 15 products, dry-clean clothes, and chlorinated domestic 16 water, or municipal water. Examples of the types of 17 consumer products that sometimes contain chlorinated 18 chemicals include cleaning agents, paint strippers 19 adhesives, moth balls and automotive products. 20 The guideline tells the public how they can 21 reduce their exposure to these chemicals. Because no 22 completely safe levels have been identified for these 23 chemicals, we recommend that people strive to achieve as 24 low a level as possible in their homes. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 2 JENKINS: We are involved in a number of community health 3 projects as well. We are currently developing plans to 4 conduct the indoor monitoring required under Senate Bill 5 25, Escutia, as part of our effort to assess the adequacy 6 of the current monitoring network from determining 7 children's exposure to ambient pollutants. 8 We plan to monitor in several schools. As part 9 of that effort, we also plan to conduct a health status 10 survey for ARB's neighborhood assessment program and to 11 translate and distribute some of our public information 12 materials to encourage actions to reduce indoor exposures, 13 especially to known asthma triggers. 14 We have already provided our indoor air quality 15 guidelines and other information materials for a variety 16 of workshops. And finally, as we have for the last few 17 years, we recently participated in a local family asthma 18 fair here in Sacramento at a booth that is focused on 19 indoor and outdoor air quality. 20 --o0o-- 21 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 22 JENKINS: Over the past year, we have participated in the 23 collaborative for high performance schools or CHPS, which 24 is an exciting new program to improve school environments 25 in California. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 Last November the collaborative was honored with 2 one of the Governor's environmental and economic 3 leadership awards. The goal of CHPS is to provide 4 guidance for designing and constructing healthy, 5 comfortable and sustainable schools in California. 6 Sustainable schools are those that efficiently 7 use energy, water and other resources and also assure 8 healthful indoor and outdoor air quality. We have 9 provided CHPS with recommending measures to reduce both 10 indoor and outdoor pollution associated with building, 11 renovating and operating schools. Funding for chips comes 12 from the Energy Commission, the major utilities, the 13 Integrated Waste Management Board, and the US Department 14 of Energy. 15 CHPS recently published a best practices manual 16 for designing and constructing schools. Later this year 17 they plan to develop model bid specifications to offer 18 training programs. And they also plan to build two 19 demonstration schools. The Los Angeles Unified School 20 District recently adopted a resolution to use CHPS 21 guidance in designing their new schools. And they have 22 quite a number of new schools coming on board soon. 23 We plan to continue to work with CHPS, hopefully 24 to a greater degree, as they develop emission 25 specifications for materials and products used in school PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 construction and furnishings. And there is a colorful 2 brochure in your packet today that describes the CHPS 3 program, the many groups that are involved, and the 4 stakeholders are listed on the back of that brochure. 5 --o0o-- 6 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 7 JENKINS: Last summer Governor Davis issued Executive 8 Order D-16-00, which established a State goal of 9 developing sustainable or green state buildings, which 10 means energy efficient buildings that have a reduced 11 impact on resources and provide healthful, comfortable and 12 productive indoor environments. 13 To implement the executive order, a sustainable 14 building task force, frequently referred to as the Green 15 Building Task Force, was formed by agencies already 16 involved in developing green building specifications for 17 the east end office building complex here in Sacramento. 18 ARB staff are participating on the task force. 19 And very soon the task force will submit to the Governor a 20 report or blueprint that recommends strategies and an 21 action plan to implement the executive order. 22 ARB staff are working with other agencies to 23 develop measures for State building construction and 24 operation that protect both the indoor and outdoor air 25 quality. Because of the size of the California State PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 building network and California's historical leadership 2 role in environmental issues, the specifications and 3 guidelines developed under this new plan are likely to be 4 widely used for both government and private sector 5 buildings in California and in other states. 6 We've seen quite an interest in the 7 specifications from a wide array of manufacturers. 8 --o0o-- 9 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 10 JENKINS: In addition to the many activities we have 11 pursued to reduce California's exposures to indoor 12 pollutants, we have continued our active research program. 13 The primary focus of our current research is on children's 14 environmental exposures and particle exposures. 15 --o0o-- 16 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 17 JENKINS: Currently, we are conducting a $1 million 18 statewide study of the environmental health conditions in 19 portable classrooms. This is a joint study with the 20 Department of Health Services. This photo shows one type 21 of portable or relocatable classroom building that is 22 common in California's schools. There are about 75,000 23 portable classrooms in California. This is about 24 one-third of the 235,000 classrooms for grades K through 25 12 in the State. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 School administrators generally like portable 2 classrooms for several reasons. They are economical 3 relative to the traditionally constructed buildings and 4 they can be obtained much more quickly than a traditional 5 building can be built. And because they are movable, they 6 give school administrators the flexibility they need as 7 class sizes are reduced and as schools grow. 8 However, there are some indications that 9 portables may have more environmental problems than do 10 traditional classrooms. 11 --o0o-- 12 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 13 JENKINS: The Portable Classrooms Study was requested by 14 the Governor and required by the Legislature in a trailer 15 bill to last year's budget, Assembly Bill 2872, Shelley. 16 The objectives of the study are to examine 17 environmental conditions in portable classrooms, identify 18 any conditions that pose a potential threat to children's 19 health, determine the scope of any problems identified, 20 and finally with stakeholder input, develop 21 recommendations to resolve and prevent any problems found. 22 Data collection began last fall with a 23 preliminary survey mailed to all school districts in the 24 State. In December, we finalized a contract with Research 25 Triangle Institute to conduct the major field work of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 study. We've held four public workshops and we received a 2 lot of valuable input during those workshops. 3 Currently, we are in phase one of the study, 4 which is a mailed survey to 1,000 randomly selected 5 schools throughout the State. In addition to 6 questionnaires for teachers and facility managers, about 7 800 of the school's are receiving passive formaldehyde 8 samplers to deploy in selected classrooms. 9 I brought with me one of our passive samplers. 10 We're fortunate in that these exist and we're able to 11 actually measure formaldehyde so easily. The Department 12 of Health Services has used these in earlier studies that 13 they've conducted. I'll pass this around so you can look 14 at it. The way this works, they uncap it -- sure they do. 15 (Laughter.) 16 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 17 JENKINS: They're stronger than I am. And it hangs from 18 the ceiling or from a high point away from drafts and away 19 from the wall. And the air goes in passively through this 20 opening, and there's a little disk at the end that you'll 21 see the white disk that's coated. It's a coating of DNPH 22 or dinitrophenylhydrozene. The Formaldehyde reacts with 23 that and creates a complex product, which can then be 24 analyzed at the lab. 25 And we have a number of these. If any of you are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 interested, we'd be happy to give you one and have you 2 sample your home. You can find out what your formaldehyde 3 levels are, but these are what we're using in phase one of 4 the study, so I'll pass this around. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: What's the detection limit, 6 lower detection limit, Peggy? 7 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 8 JENKINS: The detection limit typically on those, it's 9 usually recommended that they hang out for about seven 10 days. That detection limit is about 10 to 15 PPB's. We 11 did some tests actually here in our building and found 12 that there is a cut point at about 10 to 14 days where the 13 PPB -- excuse me, the LOD can go down to about 57 PPB, 14 which is very good for a passive sampler. So, in fact, in 15 our study, we're leaving them out for 10 to 14 days. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Do you expect the 17 concentration to be pretty homogeneously distributed 18 throughout a particular room? 19 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 20 JENKINS: Over that long period of time, yes, because the 21 major sources are the walls and the floors, so they're big 22 emitters, so they generally are uniform, although you can 23 have pockets of higher and lower levels. 24 In phase 2 of the study, Research Triangle 25 Institute will monitor the environmental conditions in 240 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 classrooms at 60 schools throughout the State. This 2 includes air measurements of a variety of gaseous 3 pollutants and particles, and environmental measurements 4 such as temperature, humidity and noise levels. 5 They will also collect floor dust samples for 6 measurements of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, 7 polychlorinated byphenyls or PCB's, toxic metals including 8 lead, pesticides and biological contaminants such as 9 moulds and allergens. 10 Because carpets act as a reservoir of historical 11 information on the presence of persistent chemicals, floor 12 dust samples provide valuable information on possible 13 previous or current exposures to such chemicals. We know, 14 for example, that typically the primary source of 15 children's exposure to lead is through the ingested and 16 inhalation of indoor lead dust, but we don't know much 17 about their exposure to other persistent toxics. 18 A proposal for the laboratory analysis of the 19 dust samples and sampling for airborne mould spores is 20 included in your package of research proposals later today 21 for your consideration. 22 Phase 2 is scheduled to begin with a pilot study 23 in June, and with the Mainfield study starting in August 24 of this year. 25 The final report on the study, including PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 recommendations to address any problems identified, is due 2 to the Legislature in June 2002. This has given us just 3 an incredibly tight time schedule for a study of this 4 magnitude, but so far we are on schedule, and in large 5 part due to the efforts of my staff and those of Dr. Jed 6 Waldman at the Department of Health Services and his 7 staff. 8 The expected outcome of this project is a range 9 of recommendations. Because of the interest of the 10 Legislature and the Governor's office, we do expect these 11 recommendations to be used to develop State level 12 solutions. The copies of the study brochure in your 13 packet provide a little bit of additional information on 14 the study. 15 --o0o-- 16 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 17 JENKINS: Next, the children's school bus exposures study 18 will address two of ARB's highest priorities, children's 19 health and exposure to diesel exhaust emissions. You will 20 also be considering this study for approval later today. 21 In the plan study, the investigators would measure levels 22 of pollutants inside school buses, outside the bus, at bus 23 stops, especially the loading zones at schools, and 24 concurrently at the nearest ambient monitoring station. 25 Diesel buses with particulate trap retrofits, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 gasoline powered buses and natural gas powered buses will 2 be used. Many of vehicle exhaust pollutants will be 3 measured, including particles and VOC's. RealTime 4 measurements will allow measured levels to be linked to 5 specific activities or causes such as idling or opening 6 and closing windows. 7 The results will be used to improve our estimates 8 of children's on-road exposures and hopefully provide some 9 additional guidance on more effective measures to reduce 10 their exposures from the risk from vehicle emissions. If 11 approved, the study would begin this summer in Los Angeles 12 and be completed in spring 2003. 13 --o0o-- 14 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 15 JENKINS: Moving on to our particulate matter exposure 16 studies. We know that exposure to PM from outdoor sources 17 is linked to increased morbidity and mortality. However, 18 we know little regarding exposures to PM from indoor 19 sources and little regarding the relative contributions of 20 indoor and outdoor sources to personal exposures. 21 We have funded two studies to measure personal 22 exposure to PM and to quantify the relative contributions 23 of different indoor and outdoor sources to personal PM 2.5 24 exposures. 25 The first study is part of a larger US EPA study PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 that we have cofunded. It involves patients with chronic 2 obstructive pulmonary disease or COPD living in Los 3 Angeles. We expect the final report for this study to be 4 completed later this year. 5 And the second study, a study of healthy persons 6 in Los Angeles, will obtain data that will complement the 7 current study of COPD patients. This study is just 8 getting under way, and it has objectives similar to the 9 current study. 10 However, in the second study the investigators 11 have added RealTime or continuous measurements of PM 2.5 12 chemical components and home air exchange rates. This 13 type of information will greatly improve our ability to 14 quantify the contributions of specific indoor and outdoor 15 PM sources to personal exposure and to gain a much better 16 understanding of the relationship between indoor and 17 outdoor particles. The results of both of those studies 18 will enable us to focus our PM exposure reduction efforts 19 and guidelines for more effectively. 20 --o0o-- 21 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 22 JENKINS: This slide just shows two of the participants in 23 our current PM study wearing, what we call, the 24 multi-pollutant PM samplers. These samplers were 25 developed by researchers at Harvard. The inlets are up PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 sort of the round white areas up near their faces, in 2 order to sample the air that they actually inhale. And 3 the fanny packs hold the sampling pumps needed to pump the 4 air through the samplers. 5 These personal multi-pollutant samplers are 6 unique. They enable us to measure personal PM 10, PM 2.5 7 and various co-pollutants simultaneously. This provides 8 us with several times the amount of data and information 9 for the dollars spent, and it enables us to gain a much 10 better understanding of the inter-relationships of these 11 pollutants and people's exposures to them. 12 --o0o-- 13 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 14 JENKINS: We are glad that those people were still 15 smiling. 16 Finally, investigators are just completing a 17 study that measured PM exposures during a variety of 18 different cooking activities in a test home. The 19 investigators looked at both typical and worst case 20 conditions and tested both gas and electric stoves. The 21 results showed that cooking in the home can produce very 22 high levels of some pollutants, much higher than 23 previously realized. 24 For example, cooking such foods as tortillas, 25 ground beef, and walk stir fry on a gas stove top produced PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 kitchen PM levels ranging from 60 to 1,400 micrograms per 2 cubic meter. Baking and broiling some foods produced even 3 higher levels and use of the self-cleaning cycle of the 4 glass oven produced the highest PM 10 levels over 3,600 5 micrograms per cubic meter for several hours. 6 These levels are very high. Even if an 7 individual were only exposed to these levels for one hour 8 a day and were exposed to zero micrograms per cubic meter 9 of PM 10 for the other 23 hours of a day, his or her 10 exposure would still generally exceed the State 24 hour 11 ambient PM 10 standard of 50 micrograms per cubic meter 12 and would often exceed the federal 24 hour PM 10 standard 13 of 150 micrograms per cubic meter as well. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Are you suggesting that we 15 should see the previous Chair of the California Restaurant 16 Association for a mitigation measure? 17 (Laughter.) 18 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 19 JENKINS: We could. Although, I think he deals with the 20 bigger restaurant style and the outdoor emissions. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I was suggesting don't cook 22 at home, you eat out. 23 (Laughter.) 24 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 25 JENKINS: That's a thought. Then you have that outdoor PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 air pollution problem though. 2 Electric stoves usually produce somewhat lower 3 levels of PM, although not always. The investigators also 4 tested practical methods to reduce exposures from cooking. 5 And the results of this study will be used both to provide 6 guidance to the public on ways to reduce their exposures 7 to PM and other pollutants during cooking activities and 8 to improve our exposure and risk estimates for PM and a 9 variety of other pollutants. Other levels of pollutants 10 nitrogen dioxide, formaldehyde, others were also 11 relatively high. 12 And next future actions. 13 --o0o-- 14 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 15 JENKINS: Our current concerns include the many identified 16 needs identified at our symposium last year, especially 17 the need for focused state leadership and standards and 18 emission limits. As I mentioned, staff is developing an 19 air toxics control measure to reduce emissions of 20 formaldehyde from composite wood products, which are a 21 major source of indoor formaldehyde. Such a measure would 22 be expected to significantly reduce the population's 23 exposure to formaldehyde. 24 We plan to expand our public education efforts by 25 developing additional public information materials. We PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 also expect to increase our involvement with CHPS and the 2 Green Building Task Force and their efforts to develop 3 guidelines and specifications for schools and State 4 buildings. 5 In light of the current focus on energy problems, 6 we do need to continue to inform both the public and 7 professionals so that the indoor air quality problems of 8 the seventies are not repeated. We also plan to address 9 indoor exposures as part of our community health 10 activities. We will pursue additional community health 11 activities as opportunities arise, because there's, first, 12 great interest in health and indoor air quality at the 13 local level, and because communication can be very 14 effective at the community level. 15 And finally, we believe that the final report on 16 the portable classroom study can lead to statewide 17 improvements on environmental conditions in classrooms. 18 We will use the results from both the portable classroom 19 study and the school bus exposure study to develop sound 20 recommendations for actions to protect children's health. 21 --o0o-- 22 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 23 JENKINS: And to summarize today's key points or at least 24 a few of them -- 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 2 JENKINS: -- our symposium documented that many state 3 agencies and private organizations are engaged in 4 activities to promote healthy indoor environments. 5 However, there is a need for leadership at the State level 6 including State standards and guidelines. 7 The current focus of our efforts and other 8 efforts is on indoor air quality in schools and State 9 buildings and the potential implications of energy 10 conservation measures on indoor air quality. 11 We look forward to your consideration of the 12 formaldehyde air toxics control measure that we are 13 developing to control emissions at their source and your 14 support of the other actions I have discussed. 15 --o0o-- 16 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 17 JENKINS: Thank you for your attention. I'd be happy to 18 answer any questions you have. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 20 Excellent presentation. 21 Any comments? 22 Yes, Dr. Friedman and then Ms. D'Adamo. 23 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Well, you know, 24 your report, symposium findings, common sense all make the 25 same point that there needs to be some uni-focalization of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 authority. It's not just a question of leadership. It's 2 a question of coupling responsibility and authority. So 3 what is going on? 4 Do we have, are there people in the Legislature 5 or somewhere in this town who are really thinking very 6 hard about models to truly assign authority for indoor 7 air? 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Probably the best 9 opportunity we had was about two years ago when there was 10 a bill that was going through the Legislature and that was 11 SB 25, which was the Children's Health Bill. And there 12 was an indoor air component to that bill at that time. 13 Ultimately, what ended up happening, though, was that the 14 amount of support for providing direct authority to this 15 board to look at indoor air issues and to have the 16 regulatory ability to pursue them was removed from the 17 bill. And so, at this point in time, there really is not 18 that level of authority available. 19 And it was interesting at that time, because it 20 wasn't removed essentially by one single constituency. It 21 was a whole host of constituencies which made a 22 determination that they thought it would be better for 23 there to not be indoor air authority to the Air Resources 24 Board, and that it would be better to essentially proceed 25 a little bit more incrementally. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 We continue to strive to essentially achieve 2 that. And one of the things that we are planning to bring 3 to you is the formaldehyde ATCM. We will probably hear 4 and you will probably hear some challenges to the fact 5 that we are bringing that ATCM before you, because of the 6 fact that the allegations will be that the authority is 7 not clear cut. We think, though, the authority is there 8 and that's why we will proceed with that particular 9 measure. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo then Professor 11 Friedman. 12 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: This is really 13 interesting. And I think that I can see this being a big 14 issue in the years to come. I'm just wondering as these 15 reports are provided, is staff planning on providing 16 recommendations in areas where perhaps we might have the 17 authority, and then where it looks like we may not have 18 the authority. I would like to suggest that we also 19 receive recommendations, including seeking legislative 20 fixes in order to provide us with the authority to act. 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Yes, we will do that. 22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: A couple of questions that 23 I had on the school bus study. The inside-the-bus issues 24 that you're looking at, it triggered in my mind, are we 25 doing something similar with regard to vehicles, passenger PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 cars, is there a separate study underway for that? 2 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 3 JENKINS: We did that actually, what, several years ago. 4 It's been awhile now. But that actually -- it was a 5 limited scope study, but we did obtain some very 6 interesting, not necessarily unexpected, but still 7 startling results that showed that the 8 inside-the-passenger-car levels are quite high, higher 9 than we necessarily anticipated. We found VOC's were 10 eight to ten times higher inside the cars than at the 11 local ambient station. 12 The particles were about three to five times 13 higher. And actually that's partly what triggered our 14 concern about what the children are exposed to during 15 their school bus commute. We don't know how different the 16 passenger car and bus levels might be. 17 There's certainly a lot of similarities, but also 18 a lot of differences. It could be higher. If nothing 19 else at least, probably the same. 20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Will we have that issue 21 come before us or it's just information that provided -- 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think we can get that 23 information before you. I think that that information is 24 there. 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Regarding the study? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes. 2 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Oh, but then what about 3 next steps? 4 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 5 JENKINS: For the in-vehicle? 6 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Um-hmm. 7 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 8 JENKINS: Probably, right now, the Children's Bus Study is 9 the main next step. I do have a staff member who's doing 10 a more detailed analysis of the in-vehicle data that we 11 obtained in the previous study. And there he's found some 12 very interesting results relative to diesel vehicles in 13 particular. 14 For example, the position of the exhaust in the 15 vehicle in front of you has a major impact on your 16 exposure in your car. So he's writing that up. Our view 17 was, while we do the children's study, we needed to 18 analyze the data we obtained previously more thoroughly 19 before we really know exactly what next step to take in 20 terms of research. I think there is certainly more we 21 need to do and learn from that. 22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'm suggesting beyond 23 research, if there's information that we have perhaps by 24 way of requiring modifications to ventilation systems, et 25 cetera, that could somehow mitigate those impacts? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 2 JENKINS: In reality, our major finding was that it's the 3 emissions of the vehicle immediately in front of you and 4 around you that have the greatest impact on the levels 5 inside the car. So, in one sense, we're already 6 addressing that. You know the more we can bring down the 7 vehicle emissions the better. 8 Filtration is not very useful. There are some 9 filters out on the market. They certainly help under some 10 circumstances, but typically when a car moves, the air 11 exchange rate in the car, even in a nicely sealed car, is 12 sufficiently high that you're still getting a pretty 13 constant influx of pollutants. 14 You know, we thought winding up windows would 15 help. What does help is if you don't -- if close your 16 vent and if you don't pull right up behind the car in 17 front. It depends on the angle, the direction of the 18 car's tailpipe exhaust. There are some little things one 19 can do, but there probably weren't enough real clear 20 results across the Board in that study for us to be able 21 to say always winding up your windows will help or always 22 closing your vent will help. 23 Is that the kind of guidance you were thinking 24 of? 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I think Mr. Kenny might PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 have something to add. 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Actually, we are 3 concerned about this. And one of the things that actually 4 that we have done is essentially the Board adopted a zero 5 emissions -- zero evap requirements. The zero evap 6 requirements will have benefits, because what they will do 7 is they will essentially require the auto manufacturers to 8 look at a whole host of materials that are being used to 9 construct cars. 10 And when the vehicle is tested for zero 11 evaporative emissions, those materials are all basically 12 taken into account. And so what will happen is as time 13 goes on and the zero evaporative emissions regulations 14 basically progress into future model years, we will get 15 the benefit throughout the entire fleet. 16 And I think that will begin to address the issue 17 that Peggy just raised about the fact that a lot of it is 18 air that essentially is ventilated into the car from 19 essentially the roadways. So we actually have moved in 20 that direction already. 21 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Just one other question. 22 I can see that staff has taken significant steps to 23 undertake a public education program, but can more be done 24 in particular as some of the preliminary findings come 25 out, something that just struck me on the discussion that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 you provided on gas versus electric stoves and perhaps 2 cooking methods that could be utilized, is there something 3 we can do to get information out to the public as you 4 obtain that information rather than waiting for the actual 5 final report? 6 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I think the answer to 7 that is yes. I think we do need to do more here. I mean, 8 this is a place where essentially the consequences are 9 actually fairly substantial. And the ability of us to act 10 quickly and, I guess, more affirmatively has been somewhat 11 limited by the statutory authority that is provided to us, 12 but we can basically do everything possible with regard to 13 education. 14 And, you know, one of the obvious tools that we 15 can try to take greater advantage of is the web and 16 provide information to people so that, in fact, they know 17 what's happening with regard to this, and we can look at 18 that. 19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Or even issuing press 20 releases. It seems to me -- 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: We actually do do 22 press releases. And, in fact, just as an example, we try 23 to put press releases out on these issues on a routine 24 basis and always at the beginning of the winter seasons 25 when people are basically beginning to use more heating PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 and we will put carbon monoxide warnings on a basis as a 2 press release, to make sure people know that, in fact, 3 they need to think about that. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 5 Professor Friedman. 6 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I'd just like to be 7 clear on our sources of authority. Apparently, we have no 8 direct and specific authority to regulate, other than I 9 guess we can regulate air toxics or at least adopt air 10 toxics control measures. And formaldehyde, having been 11 identified as an air toxic, is something we can regulate 12 and, in due course, we'll be addressing that, as I 13 understand it, with the wood composite manufacturing. 14 But our studies and our expenditures for 15 education and other purposes, some are specifically 16 authorized. I guess SB 25 authorized us to do indoor 17 monitoring, but not control. And what is it -- and AB 18 2872 authorized the portable classroom study. 19 But what is it that is the source of our 20 authority for the time and expenditures on the school bus 21 study? All of these, by the way, I think are wonderful, 22 but I want to be clear, in my own mind, as to what the 23 basis of our authority is. 24 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: Although, the Board does 25 not have direct regulatory authority for indoor air PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 quality, we have plenary authority to do research on air 2 quality issues, and so that would cover a lot of what we 3 are doing. 4 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: That umbrella 5 generally. And that includes education? 6 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: Absolutely. In the 7 toxics arena, under 1807, where we do the identification 8 of toxic air contaminants and the controls for toxic 9 substances, we have pretty specific authority to look at 10 the impacts of indoor exposures. And where we do not have 11 authority to move forward to adopt controls, we have 12 direct responsibility to provide that information to other 13 agencies that may have authorities that could be exercised 14 using that information that we develop, CalOSHA, 15 Department of Health Services and the like. 16 So we clearly have a specific legislated role 17 here in terms of developing information, the types of 18 research and the like that we do are right in line with 19 that. We have some of the specific authorities that you 20 mentioned with respect to studies and the like. So where 21 there is, at least at this point in time, some 22 squeamishness, if you will, as to who's going to be having 23 responsibility for going out and doing some of the things 24 that we're all kind of chomping at the bit to get at, is 25 that the Legislature has not yet said, yes, ARB go forward PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 and do that. The idea that we would be out looking at 2 these things and studying them does have legislative 3 sanction. 4 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Thank you. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Supervisor Roberts. 6 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 7 I have a question. We can talk about school buses and 8 other things, you touched briefly on something that I 9 thought I misheard you and that I read your little 10 brochure here, and I did not mishear, but you talk about 11 municipal water supplies. And I read in here that taking 12 showers, washing dishes, cooking, all of these things may 13 be bad for you. My kids at one time probably would have 14 agreed with all this. 15 (Laughter.) 16 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: You know, I'm running out 17 of things to be afraid of. And this one has got me, I 18 guess. Is there an option to chlorinating water that we 19 should be talking to the municipal -- various agencies 20 about? I mean, sometimes I read this stuff, I get -- just 21 want to smile. And I'm thinking, you know, we've taken 22 this to the endth degree of stupidity sometimes. You 23 know, you just said that -- in here you're basically 24 saying that all this causes cancer, and then it's like a 25 nonsolution, okay. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 People are going to cook. People are going to 2 take showers. All of these things are going to continue 3 to happen. 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: If I might, basically, 5 what we're trying to do is provide information to people 6 about the fact that essentially there are toxic compounds 7 that are essentially formed essentially in these different 8 processes. 9 Probably the key thing here is ventilation. And 10 to the extent that people ventilate to a greater degree, 11 what will happen is basically they reduce their risk and 12 that's probably the message we're trying to get across. 13 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: But if the problem is so 14 significant, I'll go back to what I just said, is there an 15 option for municipal water systems? 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I don't know the 17 answer to that. I would have to look. I don't know. 18 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I think there 19 are options for treating the water at the plant, but you 20 want to have something in the water, so if it gets 21 contaminated from the plant somewhere in the distribution 22 system, it's got a reservoir that takes care of the 23 pathogen. 24 And the water standards for chlorinated 25 substances are much higher than the water people would PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 like, in terms of that. It's a public health tradeoff, as 2 said benefits of chlorinating the water outweigh the 3 problems or the risks associated with the exposures to the 4 chlorinated compounds. 5 I think that's a situation we're comfortable with 6 someone's made that decision and looked at it and lived 7 with it and we're trying to give advice to people saying 8 there are some ways you can cut down your risk from this. 9 It's not a risk that's totally avoidable. 10 And the same with cooking, I think this type of 11 information will tell people, you know, take care when you 12 took. If we can give them some practical examples, turn 13 on the vent, so that you exhaust as much of the PM as 14 possible. 15 So I think we're trying to be realistic, but on 16 the other hand there are some risks here and to the extent 17 they can be mitigated, we're trying to get that advice 18 out. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes, Dr. Friedman. 20 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: I'm reading the 21 same paragraph that Ron is from our report, and I mean, 22 you know, it makes more attractive unchlorinating the 23 water and developing a lot of typhoid than it does 24 chlorinating the water. I mean, it really says that, and 25 it creates a small cottage industry of bothering the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 municipal water districts and, you know, developing 2 numbers and stuff that the lay public don't know what they 3 mean. 4 But on page seven that's a -- I think it may be 5 an oversell. 6 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 7 JENKINS: If I could maybe comment on that, we did have 8 our Department of Health Services and OWEHA review this. 9 And what's been disturbing in the recent literature are a 10 number of studies that have looked at, for example, 11 chloroform levels and levels of some of the other 12 chlorinated compounds, as a result of even just using your 13 dish washer. 14 The levels of homes go up quite high and they've 15 even done studies in the showers. It's not just 16 inhalation exposure, but on your skin. And they have done 17 some exhale breath measurements showing very high levels 18 that are reached in the blood. 19 So it is a serious concern. 20 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Excuse me, high 21 levels of what, of chloroform or of chlorinated TCEs and 22 this and that and the other thing? 23 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 24 JENKINS: Several compounds, TCE, chloroform, those are 25 the two main primary compounds that have been looked at. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 And it's -- it is a trade off. And perhaps we should have 2 had a sentence in there that that documented. We 3 certainly believe it's necessary to treat your water, the 4 bacterial treatments are important and necessary, and 5 they're there for a reason. We were trying to make people 6 aware that there is this other impact that can result in 7 terms of exposure to carcinogens. 8 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: I agree that a 9 lead sentence which gave the justification for 10 chlorination would have really helped. The way this reads 11 is, hey, maybe we should get chlorine out of all water 12 and, you know, and so forth and so on. I think it's 13 really rather slanted, so a little balance in something 14 like this would have been a little more helpful. 15 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, that was the 16 point I was leading to. I have to share with you, I sat 17 through hearings yesterday, where we had about 1,000 18 people come in to talk about the health danger of radio 19 frequencies and other things. And when I see something 20 like this going out with our name on it, it just -- you 21 know, I know, at some point, I'm going to sit down and 22 we're going to have a hearing and we're going to have a 23 group of people come in and tell us we've got to get all 24 the chlorine out of the water because the State Air Board 25 is telling us, you know, it's really bad for our health. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 And there's a perspective here that's missing. 2 And while we maybe have an obligation on education, I 3 think that education without perspective in it isn't very 4 beneficial. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think I hear the sentiments 6 of the Board. Yeah, I also looked at the dry-cleaning one 7 and I wondered -- well, I understand where it's coming 8 from, but again people can take it the wrong way, too. 9 But, Mr. Kenny, maybe it's a way of proceeding 10 here. 11 Professor Friedman. 12 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Well, I'm going to 13 be the devil's advocate. I think it's a wakeup call. And 14 I think that, while it, obviously, if my respected 15 colleagues feel that way, maybe in a future draft it could 16 be worded somewhat differently. 17 The message to me is that chlorination of water, 18 a common method of water sanitization, can produce 19 chloroform as a byproduct. I don't think that's unduly -- 20 I don't think that's the sky is falling in. And I think 21 then there are specific suggestions. 22 Similarly, I didn't know that I'd been polluting 23 myself carrying my plastic encased dry-cleaning in the 24 closed car because the air-conditioning is on. And I 25 didn't know to ventilate. And I think the message is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 ventilate, ventilate, ventilate. And maybe there's a 2 nicer way to say it that will be -- you know, would be 3 more palatable to everybody. But I'm not ashamed of this 4 for one. I think it's useful and it's well intentioned. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, I guess if our 6 Professor lawyer doesn't have a problem, then maybe -- 7 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Well, but they're 8 talking about maybe, you know -- if they feel it's been 9 overstated, I think we are all editors and maybe there's a 10 way, at some time in the future, to -- 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: If I might suggest. 12 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: -- accommodate more 13 broader tastes. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Dr. Burke, Mrs. Riordan. 15 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: I'll let Mrs. Riordan go 16 first. 17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you very much. I 18 think the difference is, Professor Friedman, we know how 19 unfortunately things are misused in public hearings and 20 come before us as elected officials or those who are 21 responsible for some of, like a water treatment plant and 22 program, and so we just want to guard against that. 23 This is very accurate information, but very 24 accurate information can be and is often misused, unless 25 there is some qualifiers in there that help then the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 hearing body that people are bringing this information 2 before to somewhat modulate the conversation and the 3 decision making. 4 And I think we're simply noting this for our 5 staff, so that they can think about future hearings where 6 this may not ever be before the Air Resources Board, but 7 before other boards in small communities. And some of us 8 have represented areas that are very, very small, 9 single-purpose water boards, and this could become a 10 misused document in that case. 11 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: That's very valid. 12 And, as I said, I didn't have that perspective. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Dr. Burke. 14 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: I always defer to Dr. 15 Friedman's medical expertise because obviously he is our 16 raining authority on medical issues. And, Supervisor 17 Roberts, I couldn't agree more. You know, I can imagine 18 calling my 93-year old mother and telling her she should 19 stop taking showers, because she's going to get chloroform 20 poisoning. 21 But I had some other issues with this that I was 22 trying to take it down, but I didn't quite get it fast 23 enough. When you used your example of stove-top cooking, 24 you used tortillas, ground beef and what was the third 25 item? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 2 JENKINS: Walk stir fry, which is a high temperature type 3 stir fry. 4 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Well, the first two items, 5 obviously, are profiled fairly common in every 6 Mexican-American family who cooks in California. And I 7 agree that it probably is a issue of which they need to be 8 informed, but the way we inform them is not send it out in 9 a press release. 10 We just passed, recently, at South Coast, and I 11 hate to keep referring back to them, but an outreach 12 program to both Hispanic, Oriental and black communities 13 specifically. And the only way we got it passed was 14 everybody stood up on the podium and said no more 15 pamphlets, don't send me another pamphlet, send me some 16 people, send me some, you know -- somebody who can talk to 17 me the way I want to, you know, that I can understand. 18 And I just think that we need to be very, very 19 careful about the way that we communicate these very 20 important issues, whether you agree that chloroform is 21 created in your shower and you shouldn't do that or not, 22 it's irrelevant. The way that you need to reach out and 23 communicate to people in a manner in which they understand 24 it by a broader base, they'll probably have the money to 25 afford, which, you know, we need to really look into that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 The other comment I have is I think this bus 2 study is a very important study. I am disappointed that 3 we didn't do it first. I am disappointed the NRDC comes 4 out with a bus study which says that the accumulated 5 pollution in buses is four times what it is at the 6 tailpipe. And then we come out three months later and now 7 we're going to do a study, that just doesn't seem -- and I 8 know there's defense for that, but I just don't. I 9 know -- 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Dr. Burke, the staff here, an 11 in-car study was done well over a year ago, nearly two 12 years ago with lots of publicity on that. There was, in 13 fact, a preliminary in-bus study which was done at that 14 time, and we asked staff to come back to us to design a 15 more comprehensive in-bus study. 16 The in-bus numbers that we came up with at the 17 Air Resources Board, at that time, were consistent with 18 the much higher numbers. In fairness to staff, the 19 question of NRDC beating us to the punch, in fact, our 20 study triggered NRDC. 21 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: The fact that their numbers 22 are so different than ours. What happens if our 23 numbers come up -- that's why we're doing the study. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: In fact, when you try to 25 design this study, you have to design it very carefully. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 Clearly, we want to have the best science available. NRDC 2 is using the best they had, but they have constraints in 3 their program and we don't want to go into that. I'm sure 4 staff can provide that to us. 5 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: One of the things that I 6 would like our staff to make sure of is that I know that 7 the NRDC study was based on the model used by independent 8 contractor's buses, because they could not get on regular 9 school district buses. 10 One of the things I think that we ought to be 11 finding out also, which I think is just an unbelievably 12 unanswered question in this state is how does the person 13 in charge of distributing those buses every day for all 14 the school children in California, there's a 15 transportation director in every school, how does he 16 decide where to put the most polluting buses? How does 17 he -- he makes that decision every day. How does he make 18 that decision? Is the ability to make that decision 19 something which we can impact to improve the quality of 20 life of children? 21 It's just -- I've been asking the question now 22 for a year, and I wrote the Los Angeles School Board three 23 times, I got one response which was very nebulous, we're 24 thinking about it and we'll get back to you. But somebody 25 every day decides where they're going to put the bus that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 is most polluting. 2 One other question that I'd like for our study to 3 include, the Los Angeles School District warms up their 4 buses for 15 minutes prior to starting them out each day. 5 I have not been able to garner from any manufacturer a 6 reason for waming them up. 7 Now, that not only impacts the neighborhood in 8 which these school bus holding yards are located, but also 9 impacts the drivers. I know the school buses are low 10 mileage vehicles, and maybe the people, in addition to the 11 children who are being affected, are those school bus 12 drivers, and they should be, you know, considered in the 13 study in some significant manner. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Anymore questions? 15 Mr. McKinnon. 16 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah, I had the 17 opportunity to attend the symposium and it was excellent. 18 I certainly learned a lot and kind of the scale of the 19 problem wasn't obvious until I attended the symposium. 20 One of the things that occurs to me, and I think 21 you touched on it, and that is the availability of 22 information. And certainly we should be careful about how 23 it's written and whether it's going to cause problems. 24 But it seems to me that a school nurse or a concerned 25 parent or a public health official for a county faced with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 a particular problem should have a place where they can go 2 and figure out if mould X is a problem or mould Y is a 3 problem or maybe more general kinds of information. 4 If a parent has a child with an asthma problem 5 and they're trying to figure out what it is in the house 6 that's causing it, some kind of certainly web-based 7 approach or someplace that you can go to get that kind of 8 information would be nice. Maybe we already have that. 9 The other thing about kind of the sharing of 10 information to me seems to be the sharing of information 11 between agencies. And I think about the example of 12 cooking, and certainly that's cooking for an hour, but 13 there are people who cook for eight hours every day or 12 14 hours or whatever they're work schedule is, they cook for 15 a living. But in those cases they have ventilation and 16 they have big hoods that pull the air through. And when I 17 think back at how the hoods came about for cooks, they 18 came about as a fire prevention tool, not as a health -- 19 it wasn't a question of the health of the cook, it was a 20 question of there was so much going on in the air there 21 that the heat could catch things on fire that were in the 22 air. That means you're breathing a lot of stuff if 23 there's a fire hazard for it. 24 So it strikes me that certainly we're imperfect 25 at sharing information between agencies and figuring PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 things out. Certainly, when the study is done CalOSHA 2 should get a copy of it. I think that's appropriate. 3 Finally, and I'd like to hear, after I stop here 4 and shut up, I'd like to hear what kind of ideas you have 5 for the sharing of information. 6 Finally, what I would like to ask the Board and 7 the Chair is, if it's appropriate, for us to have some 8 motion of kind of the sense of the Board as to whether we 9 believe that we should be involved in this area or -- not 10 necessarily something formal, but there's sort of -- I 11 think that if we're going to talk to the Legislature about 12 authority or whatever, there ought to be at least a 13 discussion of the Board whether or not we want to go 14 there. 15 Thanks. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. Kenny. 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: There are several 18 questions I guess I was going to try to respond to. And I 19 guess I'll start with Mr. McKinnon's. With regard to the 20 dissemination of information probably the best for us to 21 go is to use a web-based approach. I mean, we don't have, 22 for example, an information base page that would give 23 people the latest information about indoor air pollutants 24 and potential harms associated with them. 25 And I think that's something that we could very PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 easily develop and probably have up in a reasonable period 2 of time. And I think, you know, we should, essentially, 3 pursue that. 4 Secondly, you know, there was essentially the 5 questions that were raised by Dr. Burke. You know, I 6 don't know the answers to the question of dispatch or to 7 warming up, but I can assure you we'll follow up on them 8 and we'll get answers to them, and at least try to find 9 out, you know, what is happening in that arena around the 10 State. And then before that there was the issue about 11 essentially the information sheet that we have put out, 12 and chlorination and what it basically does. And we can 13 go back and can look at it and maybe be a little bit more 14 sensitive to how we convey information. 15 What we're not trying to do is be unduly 16 alarmist. But what we are trying to do is at least make 17 sure people know that there are things out there that they 18 need to think about and that there's an easy solution that 19 they can basically utilize to address them, at least in 20 part, and that solution is ventilation. And that really 21 was what we were trying to convey as our message. 22 To the extent that we didn't do it perfectly or 23 as well as we probably should have, we can modify it and 24 make sure that, in fact, you know, we're conveying the 25 message and trying to convey the solution. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 But again we're not trying to be alarmist. I 2 mean, that essentially is something that I would agree 3 with the Board. You know, there are alarms being rung out 4 there and a lot of times they're being wrung 5 unnecessarily, and we don't want to basically join that. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think a comment to that. 7 Again, having reread some of that, and also going to the 8 back of the document and seeing that OWEHA and Department 9 of Health Services reviewed it, and then also getting a 10 feel from the Board that this is a real issue of indoor 11 air quality, I guess we can't have it both ways. So I 12 would lean in favor of, I guess, Professor Friedman's 13 comment here is that, at this time, you know, we need to 14 go ahead and maybe in the future be a bit more sensitive, 15 but on the other hand I see no reason -- 16 The other thing I would mention on that, clearly, 17 I hope that we'd have plans to translate this into 18 different languages, particularly Spanish. And I also 19 think, Mr. Kenny, that putting it on the web page clearly 20 is maybe necessary but not sufficient to address those 21 communities that you'd like to get that information to. 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: We can do both of those 23 things. What I was thinking about with the web page is I 24 was actually creating an in-door air web page that would 25 actually address the issue much more specifically than we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 have in the past. We do have some specific web pages that 2 we use. 3 For example, we have one for the diesel risk 4 reduction program that is very specific to that. We have 5 one for essentially electric vehicles, and, you know, we 6 are using them for specific topics, and this is one topic 7 that probably warrants its own effort. 8 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 9 Mr. Kenny, I might add, we do actually have an in-door web 10 page up. Both of these documents actually are on the web 11 page. As soon as we get them done we put them there. And 12 a Spanish translation is in the works. We hoped to have 13 it by this meeting. 14 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Mr. Chairman. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Dr. Burke. 16 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: You know, I'm all for web 17 pages. I'm a computer geek. I spend a least three hours 18 a night on my computer, but I'm not sure that the people 19 that Mr. McKinnon was just speaking about who spend eight, 20 ten, 12 hours a day cooking in a restaurant are the people 21 who are at home cooking tortillas and ground beef are 22 running to a web site, you know. 23 If we don't have an ability either fiscally or 24 physically to get this information out, there's no use of 25 us compiling it for ourselves. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: As I indicated, I think it 2 maybe necessary, but it's certainly not sufficient to 3 address those communities. I couldn't agree with you 4 more. 5 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Mr. Chairman. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 7 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I agree with, but I think 8 there's a function for the web page and that is a parent 9 is trying to figure out an asthma problem in the home, 10 maybe goes to the school nurse to talk about it. And the 11 school nurse has got a good place with current 12 information. I mean, I don't think we want to pit the two 13 things against each other. I think they're both 14 important. 15 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: I'm not pitting them against 16 each other, but when you look at the broad picture of the 17 problem -- 18 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: You bet. 19 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 20 Could I add one more thing. Dr. Burke, I agree with you 21 100 percent there. In fact, we are actually trying to 22 participate in the community health meetings, the town 23 hall meetings. We'll be at the May meeting that's going 24 to be in southern California. We were at the Richmond 25 meeting in February, I believe. And we actually did have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 quite a few indoor air publications which we had 2 translated into Spanish as well. 3 So I agree with you, we need to get out there. 4 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Can I ask you a question, 5 how much does it cost to run our web sites? 6 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 7 I don't have a good answer on that one. 8 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Because you know, I keep 9 reading in all these financial publications that all these 10 companies are spending these enormous amounts of money on 11 their web site. I know the government doesn't spend the 12 kind of money that they're spending. And quite frankly, I 13 just thought of the question. And I'm going to go back 14 home to find out what it costs to run South Coast's web 15 site, because I agree with Matt that, you know, it's a 16 resource tool. And it's becoming a growing resource tool 17 not a diminishing resource tool, so we need to keep it 18 going. 19 But I'm going to be really interested to find out 20 how much we're spending on that. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I'm sure we can get that. 22 Mr. Kenny, do have any comments? 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Yes, I did want to add 24 something. My suggestion was not that we basically solely 25 rely upon the web as a way of disseminating information. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 I mean one of the things that I would point to is that we 2 have had an indoor air group at the Air Resources Board 3 for a long number of years. We were probably one of the 4 only agencies in the country that has such a group. 5 The primary effort of that group over a long 6 period of time has been essentially meeting with people, 7 conveying information, and letting people know that there 8 are issues associated with indoor air pollution that they 9 need to be aware of, so that, in fact, they can respond to 10 them. 11 But what I was trying to do is essentially build 12 off of essentially something this board has done for 13 probably more than a decade and is not done in hardly any 14 other places in the country, and essentially expand that 15 to, you know, greater masses so that, in fact, we can get 16 the greatest number of people with the greatest amount of 17 information. 18 Ms. Jenkins and her group meet with people on a 19 routine and regular basis trying to essentially ensure 20 that, in fact, they are hearing very personally what these 21 issues are and what they can do to address them. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, I'm certainly -- oh, 23 Ms. D'Adamo. 24 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Perhaps this has already 25 been done, but at the workshops or perhaps in separate PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 stakeholder meetings have you been meeting with, say, the 2 restaurant association, home builder association, maybe 3 city building permit managers, labor organizations? I can 4 see tremendous potential there. And I understand what Dr. 5 Burke is saying that we don't need just another pamphlet, 6 but if they obtain those materials, that's probably a 7 greater -- in some instances could provide a greater 8 degree of credibility in the dissemination of the 9 materials. 10 INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 11 JENKINS: Right. We have met with most of the groups that 12 you've mentioned, not necessarily the restaurant 13 association per se. They have -- CalOSHA here has a very 14 specific role in terms of workplace exposures. They have, 15 sort of what we call, exclusive authority over those. We 16 do pass our information routinely to CalOSHA. We 17 participate on a State inter-agency working group for 18 indoor air quality, and we meet quarterly. CalOSHA is 19 represented there. We always take our final reports and 20 brochures and everything and do discuss it with them 21 there. 22 In terms of other groups, the building 23 manufacturers, we do talk with them fairly often. We've 24 worked with the BOMA, the Building Owners and Managers 25 Association, in the past. Currently, because of our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 involvement with the Green Building Task Force and CHPS 2 and some of the current activities going on, we have 3 spoken with many of the utilities, the building groups, 4 not all of them. There are actually many of these groups 5 out there, just a huge number, but certainly the key, I 6 think, groups that are the focal points. 7 It is an area where we could, perhaps, you know, 8 increase our effort and I think still reap some additional 9 benefits. 10 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Mr. Chairman. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes, Dr. Burke. 12 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: I'd like to offer, you know, 13 as I said, we allocated some money for the three-part 14 program in the South Coast. And we'd obviously do 15 anything that we can to help ARB distribute their message 16 as well as our message, so that, you know, anything that 17 we're doing, we should be carrying your water as well as 18 our own water, because we're all in the same stream here. 19 And one other question pops to mind, is there any 20 air districts in California that don't have environmental 21 justice policies in place? 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I'm sure there are probably 23 some given the nature of the 35 districts, but I don't 24 know for a fact. We can certainly get that information 25 back to you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 Okay. Any other questions from the Board? 2 I'd like to bring this item to a close and give 3 the court reporter a chance there. I'm certainly looking 4 forward to the results from the portable classroom study, 5 from the SB 25 indoor exposure children's indoor exposure 6 and the bus program. And I think we had a discussion here 7 about the bus research study, and I think that's going to 8 clearly come back up as we talk about that program. And 9 we have an opportunity maybe to address maybe in that 10 pilot program some of the issues that Dr. Burke brought 11 up, can we actually go out and take some measurements when 12 the buses warm up? 13 So just alert staff there that when we come back 14 to that item, maybe it might be nice to, if you get a 15 chance, to think about some issues. And also I don't know 16 about the constraints that you have in the proposals 17 there, Mr. Kenny and Mr. Croes, but that's something worth 18 looking at and Mr. Scheible also. 19 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: I'm sorry, but just one 20 other thing that bothers me in the school bus is -- 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We're going to come back to 22 that, Dr. Burke, so I can wrap this one up, because 23 this -- we have to vote on that, so that's a separate 24 research item there. So if we can -- I know the court 25 reporter has been waiting for a rest for the last fifteen PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 minutes. 2 One other thing I'd like to do, if my colleagues 3 following on on Mr. Kenny's -- Mr. McKinnon and Ms. 4 D'Adamo here, again, I reiterate the excellent success of 5 that indoor symposium, but I know -- I think we did this 6 last year, but how do we get more attraction on the whole 7 issue there? And I don't have any suggestions, Mr. Kenny. 8 I guess you heard the sentiments of the Board here? 9 Maybe it's an issue that we can possibly address 10 in the near too distant future in next week or so. I 11 think if you understand where I'm coming from. 12 So with that, since this is not -- we don't have 13 a regulatory item there, it's not necessary to officially 14 close the record, but, again, thank the staff for an 15 excellent presentation. It stimulated a lot of discussion 16 and I'm sure we'll have some more. With that, I'd like to 17 take -- probably aim for -- well, probably a ten-minute 18 break to give the court reporter. In fact, the sole clock 19 we have is the one over there, so if we can work -- well, 20 let's make it at 20 of, getting back at 20 of by that 21 clock. 22 Thank you. 23 (Thereupon a brief recess was taken.) 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: If you'll take your seats and 25 begin the staff presentation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 The next item on the agenda today is 01-3-3 ozone 2 transport assessments. As we discussed at least week's 3 Haagen Smit symposium, transport air pollutants are a 4 global issue. However, today we are focusing on the 5 transport assessment requirements of the California Clean 6 Air Act specific to ozone and ozone precursor movements 7 within California. 8 And I do see some of the members in the audience 9 from the air districts which are being impacted by and 10 apparently being accused of transporting pollutants, so I 11 think we'll have an interesting discussion here. 12 Mr. Kenny, will you please introduce the item and 13 begin staff presentation. 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Yes, thank you, Mr. 15 Chairman and Members of the Board. This is a two-part 16 item. The first is a brief review of ARB's previous 17 transport analyses. We thought it timely to prepare an 18 informational document, which highlights in one place the 19 findings of several transport assessments done in the past 20 ten years. 21 The second part is a regulatory item and is 22 presented for the Board's approval. The staff is 23 proposing to identify two new transport couples which 24 consist in an upwind and downwind area, both involving the 25 San Francisco bay area as a transport contributor to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 another area down wind. The bay area has previously been 2 found to contribute transport to the San Joaquin Valley, 3 Sacramento Area, North Coast Air Basin and mountain 4 counties. These new findings would apply to northern 5 Sonoma County and San Luis Obispo county. 6 Only one other finding is proposed. This 7 involves the contribution of transport from the Sacramento 8 region to Shasta county. Staff's presentation will 9 discuss each of these regulatory proposals, the supporting 10 analyses and any air quality planning implications. 11 Mr. Jeff Austin will make the presentation. 12 Jeff. 13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AUSTIN: Thank you, Mr. 14 Kenny. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 15 Board. 16 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 17 presented as follows.) 18 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AUSTIN: As Mr. Kenny 19 said, today's presentation has two parts. The first is a 20 review and summary of the transport analyses completed to 21 date. It is for information purposes only. 22 The second part is a regulatory item. I will 23 present the staff's latest transport analyses and 24 recommendations for amendments to the Board's transport 25 regulation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 --o0o-- 2 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AUSTIN: Let's begin 3 with some background on ozone transport. What is 4 transport? What work has been done so far to assess the 5 impact of transport? How is transport assessed? And how 6 are transport assessments used in policy making? 7 --o0o-- 8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AUSTIN: Ozone transport 9 is the movement of ozone and its precursors from one area 10 to another by wind. In general, pollutants are 11 transported when the wind blows from one area to another. 12 However, the California Clean Air Act requires us to look 13 only at days where transport causes or contributes to 14 downwind ozone violations. 15 Therefore, the ARB's analysis focused exclusively 16 on days when the State ozone standard is exceeded in a 17 downwind area. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AUSTIN: The ARB staff 20 completed the first transport assessment in 1990. To 21 date, four assessments have been completed. Several key 22 findings have emerged. 23 First, transport impacts are most severe downwind 24 of California's major urban areas, particularly the South 25 Coast. For example, concentrations in the Mojave Desert PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 can be almost as high as those in the South Coast. Air 2 quality in rural areas can be overwhelmed by emissions 3 from neighboring urban areas. For instance central valley 4 emissions overwhelmed the foothill communities of the 5 Sierra Nevada mountains. 6 Urban areas can also impact each other. For 7 example, emissions from the South Coast can impact air 8 quality in San Diego. However, all of California's major 9 urban areas have local days when local emissions alone 10 cause violations of the State ozone standard. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AUSTIN: As we assess 13 the impact of transported emissions within California, we 14 define transport couples. These couples consist of an 15 upwind source area and a downwind recipient area. State 16 law directs the Board to use three labels to qualitatively 17 characterize the degree of transport. These labels are 18 overwhelming, significant and inconsequential. 19 Overwhelming transport means that the upwind 20 areas emissions cause the downwind violation. Significant 21 transport means that combined emissions from the upwind 22 and downwind areas cause the violation. Inconsequential 23 transport means that there is little or no transport and 24 the local emissions cause the violation. 25 Findings are day specific. This means that an PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 area can have more than one label because the impact can 2 vary from one day to another depending on weather 3 conditions. Since transport can impact ozone 4 concentrations in downwind areas, clean air plans just 5 account for transport to downwind areas. Control plans 6 must address both local transport contributions -- local 7 and transport contributions as we will discuss in more 8 detail later. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AUSTIN: Although ozone 11 transport can be a simple matter of wind blowing from one 12 area to another in a straight line, it is usually more 13 complicated than that. Air flow is three dimensional. 14 Winds in pollutant concentrations at the surface can be 15 different than winds at higher elevations. This is 16 referred to as transport aloft. 17 For example, an air mass can rise high into the 18 atmosphere, across a mountain range, then descend and mix 19 down to the ground many miles from where it started. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Can you speak a bit closer to 21 the mike, please. 22 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AUSTIN: California is 23 divided into 15 air basins along natural boundaries, such 24 as mountain ranges. However, these geographical barriers 25 are not always obstacles to transport aloft. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 Ozone transport is a complex phenomenon 2 influenced by topography, meteorology, atmospheric 3 chemistry and the distribution of emissions. As an air 4 mass moves, its composition changes. Pollutants can 5 disperse and react chemically and additional pollutants 6 can be picked up along the way. 7 --o0o-- 8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AUSTIN: To assess 9 transport, we examined a number of factors. First, we 10 look at the timing and location of ozone violations. We 11 also study meteorological data, such as wind, speed and 12 direction, both at the surface and aloft. It's important 13 to understand that just because the wind blows from point 14 A to point B doesn't necessarily mean that the emissions 15 at point A have an important impact on the air quality at 16 point B. 17 The wind speeds may be fast enough to disperse 18 and dilute the emissions. Temperatures along the wind's 19 path may not be conducive to ozone formation. If the 20 inversion layer is high, the ozone can mix into a large 21 volume of air and be diluted. Additionally, as the wind 22 caries pollutants from one area to another, pollutants 23 along this path can be picked up and added to the air 24 mass. 25 When airshed models are available, we use them in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 our analyses. For instance, we can turn off upwind or 2 downwind emissions to assess the transport impacts. 3 --o0o-- 4 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AUSTIN: As an 5 illustration of the nature of ozone transport we're going 6 to show you some animations of computer simulated wind 7 trajectories. They're based on data collected during the 8 1990 San Joaquin Valley Field Study. They start on August 9 3rd and end on August 8th. These trajectories represent 10 winds at 100 feet above the surface. 11 The trajectories arrive at the monitoring site at 12 the time of an ozone violation. These monitoring sites 13 are located in the cities of Stockton in San Joaquin 14 County, Turlock in Stanislaus County and Edison in Kern 15 County. 16 --o0o-- 17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AUSTIN: This is a map 18 of California, with the central valley in green. The 19 trajectories start in the upper left-hand corner off the 20 northern coast and travel south towards San Francisco 21 where they are drawn into the central valley. The white 22 line flows through Edison. The purple line flows through 23 Stockton and the yellow line flows through Turlock. 24 These wind trajectories showed that on this 25 episode there is the potential for transported bay area PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 emissions to the San Joaquin Valley. Additional analysis 2 showed the transport of emissions did, in fact, 3 significantly impact the northern part of the valley and 4 San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties. 5 However, in Kern County the Edison trajectory 6 doubles back and recirculates before reaching Edison. 7 This has the result of diluting transported pollutants and 8 picking up local emissions. Analysis showed that the 9 violation in Edison was due to local emissions. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AUSTIN: Under the 12 California Clean Air Act, districts are required to submit 13 plans showing how they will attain the State ozone 14 standard. How are transport assessments used in those 15 plants? 16 Clean air plans include emission reductions in 17 both upwind and downwind areas in order to attain the 18 health based air quality standards under all weather 19 conditions. Transport relationships are used to determine 20 the mix of controls needed. Overwhelmed rural areas will 21 rely on emission reductions in the upwind areas to improve 22 their air quality. 23 The 1994 State Implementation Plan for attainment 24 of the federal ozone standard also relies on upwind 25 reductions to demonstrate attainment in the downwind PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 areas. 2 --o0o-- 3 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AUSTIN: In the last 4 several years, we have undertaken two major field studies 5 that will enable us to develop better regional modeling 6 tools. Using these regional air quality models both 7 upwind and downwind reductions will be included in 8 attainment demonstrations. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AUSTIN: Excuse me, just 11 switching mikes here. 12 The California Clean Air Act directs the ARB to 13 establish mitigation requirements for upwind areas. In 14 1989, the Board adopted a regulation requiring early 15 application of best available retrofit control technology 16 for upwind districts. Districts which overwhelmed 17 downwind areas must also include sufficient measures 18 within their California Clean Air Act plans to attain the 19 State ozone standard in the downwind area. 20 Because California's upwind urban areas need to 21 do everything feasible to attain the State ozone Standard 22 locally, the all-feasible measures requirement of the act 23 is an important mechanism for achieving transport 24 mitigation. 25 The ARB reviews district plans to ensure that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 they include all feasible measures. 2 --o0o-- 3 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AUSTIN: We now move on 4 to the second part of today's presentation. I will 5 present the staff's recommended amendments to the 6 transport regulation. 7 --o0o-- 8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AUSTIN: The Board's 9 ozone transport regulation has been amended several times 10 since it was adopted. The regulation encompasses 11 transport identification and transport mitigation. To 12 date the ARB staff has identified 22 transport couples. 13 When the staff identifies transport couple, it 14 characterizes the transport impacts qualitatively as we've 15 discussed. The staff is not proposing to change the 16 mitigation requirements at this time. 17 This year the staff has identified two new 18 transport couples. The bay area is the upwind area in 19 both of the new transport couples. The first new 20 transport couple is from the San Francisco Bay Area to 21 northern Sonoma county with a classification of 22 overwhelming. The second is from the San Francisco Bay 23 Area to San Luis Obispo County. This transport couple 24 would be classified as significant. 25 The staff has also determined that a new PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 characterization of inconsequential should be added to the 2 existing transport couple from the broader Sacramento area 3 to Shasta County. This transport couple is currently 4 characterized as overwhelming and significant. 5 --o0o-- 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: You don't have any animation 7 showing the transport. 8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AUSTIN: No, sorry. 9 The first new transport couple links emissions 10 from the San Francisco Bay Area basin with ozone 11 violations in the North Coast air basin. The area of 12 impact is limited to the northern portion of Sonoma 13 county. 14 Sonoma county is split between the San Francisco 15 Bay Area and the North Coast Air basins. The northern 16 portion of the county which lies in the North Coast Air 17 Basin was designated nonattainment for the State ozone 18 standard in 1999. Between 1996 and 1998, the State ozone 19 standard was violated on five days in Northern Sonoma 20 county. 21 The staff has determined that all five violations 22 were caused by pollutants transported from the San 23 Francisco Bay Area. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AUSTIN: This second new PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 transport couple links emissions from the San Francisco 2 Bay Area with ozone violations in the South Central Coast 3 air basin. The area of impact is limited to San Luis 4 Obispo county. The transport couple would be labeled 5 significant, recognizing that emissions from the San 6 Joaquin valley and local emissions from San Luis Obispo 7 County also contribute to the violations. 8 The staff has determined that pollutants 9 transported from the bay area can combine with pollutants 10 blown west from the San Joaquin valley to cause ozone 11 violations in San Luis Obispo county. Because these 12 combined violations are the sole cause of some ozone 13 violations in San Luis Obispo county, the staff recommends 14 assigning shared responsibility between the bay area and 15 the San Joaquin valley for these violations. 16 The San Joaquin valley has already been 17 identified as the source of significant transport to San 18 Luis Obispo county in the 1993 transport assessment. 19 The staff has also determined, based on their 20 analysis, that on some days local emissions can cause 21 ozone violations in San Luis Obispo County. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AUSTIN: The staff has 24 reassessed the existing transport couple from the broader 25 Sacramento area to Shasta county and the upper Sacramento PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 valley in light of recent data. Previously, transport 2 from the broader Sacramento area to Shasta county was 3 classified as overwhelming and significant recognizing 4 broader Sacramento's substantial contribution to State 5 ozone violations in Shasta county. The staff has analyzed 6 recent ozone violations in Shasta county and determined 7 that several of them were caused by the local emissions. 8 The staff therefore proposes to add a classification of 9 inconsequential to the transport couple. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST AUSTIN: In summary, the 12 staff recommends the Board amend the regulation to add the 13 two new transport couples and make conforming changes to 14 reflect the finding of overwhelming impacts from the San 15 Francisco Bay area to northern Sonoma county. 16 The staff further recommends that the Board find 17 that on rare occasions transport from the broader 18 Sacramento area to Shasta county can be inconsequential. 19 This concludes the staff's presentation. Thank 20 you for your attention. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. Madam 22 Ombudsman, since this is a regulatory item, would you 23 please describe the public participation process that 24 occurred while this item was being developed and share any 25 concerns or comments you have for this board. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 OMBUDSMAN TSCHOGL: I'd be glad to. Mr. Chairman 2 and Members the Board, to develop this item staff worked 3 extensively with air districts over the past several 4 years. Staff formed a working group to discuss the issues 5 surrounding the change in ozone transports relationships, 6 and identified the new actions that would be required in 7 addition to identifying the previously successful ones. 8 These working group meetings were held throughout 9 the State in the districts for which a new relationship is 10 recommending. Staff held one workshop for this regulation 11 in Sacramento. In order to reach out to the community, 12 the workshop was noticed to the public information office 13 mailing list, which includes environmentalists, industry, 14 government and the media. 15 However, as I mentioned, most of the work was 16 done in the smaller meetings with the individual affected 17 air districts. 18 Thank you. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 20 I'd like to point out before we turn it over to 21 the Board for questions, the one thing, again, this 22 reiterates for me the complexity of air quality issues in 23 California. And I think, again, it's just a wakeup call 24 and reminder to all of us, as we talk about offsets and 25 how we trade these off and whatnot to inter-pollutant PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 trade and interspacial trading and whatnot, it's a very 2 complex issue. And in order to fully understand that, 3 it's good to be reminded that many issues come in and not 4 just the emissions or even the locations and many things 5 go into it. 6 I thought it was, again from a technical 7 viewpoint, I thought it was very informative and a good 8 reminder. 9 Professor Friedman and Ms. D'Adamo. 10 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I have a question. 11 Would one of you be willing to respond to the letter from 12 attorney Marc Chytilo. He approves the coupling, but he 13 is concerned about the methodology and particularly about 14 the facts that there's no further mitigation measures 15 proposed in decades. 16 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER POPEJOY: 17 I'm Debora Popejoy, I'm Manager of the Air Quality 18 Analysis Section. 19 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I'm having trouble 20 hearing you. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yeah, can you speak louder. 22 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER POPEJOY: 23 I'm Debora Popejoy, Manager of the Air Quality Analysis 24 Section in the Planning and Technical Support Division. 25 I just saw this letter just now myself and I've PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 read it over and one of his concerns is the exclusion of 2 extreme concentrations in doing our evaluation of 3 transport. Under the California Clean Air Act, it has 4 directed the Board to exclude highly irregular and 5 infrequent events as part of the classification and 6 designation process of districts in the air basins, and so 7 those values are not considered violations but only 8 exceedances. 9 In November, we came to the Board with our 10 designations for the 1996 to 1999 time period. And at 11 that time, we explained the difference between exceedances 12 and violations. And any value over the standard is an 13 exceedance, but only those that are not considered highly 14 irregular and infrequent events are considered violations. 15 As such, only violations carry any kind of 16 control or planning requirements. Therefore, we do not 17 look at the exceedances that are considered highly 18 irregular infrequent when doing our transport assessments 19 because they do not carry any control implications. Now, 20 under the California Clean Air Act, it also has directed 21 the Board to establish classifications without regard to 22 transport or rather to take transport in consideration. 23 And so areas that have large transport impacts, their 24 classification and therefore their planning requirements 25 could be less because of the transport. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 But in doing designations, we do not exclude 2 transported exceedances, so an area can be considered 3 nonattainment even though all of his exceedances are 4 considered transport -- violations are due to transport. 5 So we do take transport in consideration in doing 6 classifications and we do look at all the violations, but 7 not all exceedances when we do our transport assessments. 8 So I believe the Clean Air Act, the Health and Safety Code 9 has, unlike this lawyer has said, has allowed the Board to 10 exclude the highly irregular infrequent events of which 11 the extreme concentrations are one of those, exceptional 12 events are another, and then we also have unusual 13 concentrations. 14 So we do exclude those from classifications. We 15 do exclude those from designations and therefore we 16 exclude them from transport assessments. 17 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: What about the 18 second point he makes? 19 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER POPEJOY: 20 The mitigation measures? 21 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: There are no 22 additional mitigation measures proposed. 23 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER POPEJOY: 24 Right. We are not proposing today to change the actual 25 requirements of the mitigation. And he is right, we have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 not updated the requirements. We actually haven't 2 revisited the regulations since 1994, I believe -- or was 3 it '93. 4 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Is he correct, we 5 are mandated to -- 6 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER POPEJOY: 7 The Health and Safety Code does mandate ARB to establish 8 transport mitigation requirements commensurate with the 9 contribution of the upwind area to the downwind. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Am I also correct that we're 11 going over in a couple of months to San Francisco where we 12 will get the chance to address that issue? 13 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER POPEJOY: In 14 the 1997 Clean Air Act triennial plan in reviewing their 15 plan, the staff had recommended four areas in where they 16 could strengthen their plan. And the bay area staff had 17 made some commitment to look at those. And staff will 18 continue to be looking -- we'll evaluate their progress on 19 those with their next triennial plan update. 20 PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT CHIEF FLETCHER: 21 Chairman Lloyd, this is Bob Fletcher and a couple other 22 things I'd like to add. You're correct, we will be going 23 to -- in July we will be hearing the federal plan for the 24 bay area and there will be measures in that, I think, that 25 will help. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 The other consideration -- 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I see Dave Jesson back there, 3 too. 4 PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT CHIEF FLETCHER: 5 One of the reasons that we have not modified the 6 mitigation requirements is other provisions of State law 7 require the districts to implement all feasible measures. 8 And because of this all feasible measures requirement that 9 is already in that law and already applies to the upwind 10 here, we felt that there was sufficient legal 11 responsibilities for the upwind districts to already 12 implement measures that would have been covered by the 13 mitigation requirements' regulation. So the key is 14 ensuring that these upwind districts are, in fact, 15 implementing all feasible measures. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo. 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, it's my 18 understanding though that all feasible measures is a 19 requirement that applies to any air district that's not in 20 attainment, correct? 21 PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT CHIEF FLETCHER: 22 Correct. 23 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Now, what about a 24 situation where a downwind air district is in a more 25 severe, if you will, category of nonattainment than the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 upwind air district, and it's my understanding that the 2 only example that really exists of that would be the bay 3 area. 4 Let's take the bay area, for example, then. 5 We've got the bay area as an overwhelming contributor now 6 being proposed for a portion of Sonoma county. Previous 7 designations show that the bay area is an overwhelming 8 contributor for Sacramento, San Joaquin and, I believe, 9 Central Coast, correct? 10 And in some or all of those instances, the bay 11 area is in a lower nonattainment status than say, for 12 example, Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley. So in those 13 instances, there are some downwind -- some of the downwind 14 air districts would be required to actually do more than 15 the upwind air district, correct? 16 PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT CHIEF FLETCHER: 17 Well, that has been the case in practice, correct? 18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: An example of that would 19 be, what, all feasible measures are pretty much the same 20 with regard to all the air districts or is there a 21 difference between this case downwind and upwind? 22 PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT CHIEF FLETCHER: 23 There are some areas where the bay area district has not 24 adopted measures that some of the other districts have 25 adopted. For example, they have not chosen to opt into PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 smog check and there are some other stationary source 2 measures that are less stringent. 3 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: It's my understanding, 4 that there's also another provision regarding no net 5 increases, that based upon a district's level of 6 nonattainment the thresholds may vary. South Coast, for 7 example, has a no net increase. What does the bay area -- 8 what are the requirements for the no net increase or the 9 thresholds for the bay area compared to some of the other 10 downwind air districts? 11 PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT CHIEF FLETCHER: I 12 believe the difference is roughly five tons. I think the 13 San Joaquin has a ten ton limit and the bay area has a 15 14 ton trigger for those. 15 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I think it's rather clear 16 here that we can do a lot more with regard to mitigation. 17 And I think that this is an issue that deserves further 18 discussion and I think should come back to the Board. I'm 19 a little concerned that it's been quite some time since 20 this issue was addressed. I guess 1993 was the last time 21 we looked at this. 22 And, in fact, I don't know if the attorney is 23 correct here, the letter that was provided to us, that 24 there was a mitigation measure regulation adopted in 1990 25 and then with regard to no net increase and that that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 requirement was deleted in '93. Could staff speak to 2 that? 3 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL KRINSK: That's correct. 4 Yes, that's correct. 5 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. I would suggest 6 that this item perhaps come back to us before we review 7 the bay area's plan in July or maybe even at the same 8 meeting in July, so that we could take a look at some of 9 these issues. 10 And I'd like to suggest that staff specifically 11 look at the all feasible control measure issue, the 12 threshold issue, I think we ought to look at Smog II. 13 It's my understanding that it's not required in the bay 14 area as it is in certain other areas of the State, but 15 that the bay area perhaps would have it as an option to 16 impose it upon themselves. 17 Another thing that I think we should look at is 18 the concept of perhaps a mitigation bank, whereby the 19 upwind air district would contribute into a fund that 20 could be utilized by the affected downwind areas. And I 21 think this is important for all areas of the state, not 22 just the bay area and the downwind air districts, but in 23 particular I think there ought to be some evaluation or 24 some factoring system, whereby if the upwind air district 25 does less by virtue of their nonattainment or their lower PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 134 1 nonattainment status than some of the down wind areas, 2 then there ought to be some consideration given that they 3 be required to do more in their attainment plans. 4 I also think that -- my reading of the statute is 5 that this comes before the Board every three years 6 correct, but that in the report that comes before the 7 Board, the only thing that we've interpreted to be 8 required to do is to consider the transport couples. 9 And I would suggest that every three years, as 10 part of the transport couples, that we look at the issue 11 of mitigation measures and constantly be looking at unique 12 ways that we can address this issue, because there's 13 probably -- I've just given a list. There's probably a 14 few other ideas that are out there that I may not have 15 thought of. 16 So I know that's a lot to ask of the staff, but 17 I'd like to see a report come back to us in July when we 18 attain the bay area's plan. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I would agree with that. I 20 would agree with that, because I also find it very 21 disturbing to see that, in fact, the bay area is now -- 22 its footprint is getting ever bigger, and it is -- there 23 is the question of equity there. 24 The other part of it where I'd be comfortable is 25 that, you know, we don't have Supervisor DeSaulnier here PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 135 1 on the Board, and I'd feel more comfortable that he would 2 get a chance to participate in these discussions as well. 3 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Great. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mrs. Riordan. 5 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, just a quick 6 question to staff. There's a document called Ozone 7 Transport 2001 Review. It's now a preliminary draft. 8 When is this something that can be used and quoted and 9 cited? 10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Following this board 11 meeting. Basically, what we do is we do them as drafts 12 until such time as basically the Board approves them. 13 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Okay. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: This is a very nice document. 15 I agree, we should get it out as soon as possible. 16 Ms. D'Adamo. 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'm sorry. I did have one 18 other question. We also obtained a letter from the 19 Sacramento Air Quality Management District, and they also 20 raised the suggestion that we consider new or additional 21 mitigation measures. Does staff have this document? 22 Is there anything included in here that would be 23 a different way of looking at it than what I just went 24 over? I can't really tell if there is anything in 25 particular that would be an additional or different PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 136 1 approach? 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I don't think there's 3 anything additional. I think basically what Mr. Covell is 4 doing is raising the exact same issues that you're raising 5 with regard to the impacts that the Sacramento region is 6 suffering as a result of transport. So I think the 7 concepts and the ideas and the suggestions that you've 8 raised are things that would be applicable equally as well 9 to the Sacramento area. 10 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I would like maybe, at this 12 time, to call our one witness who would maybe shed some 13 more light on this and maybe would trigger some more 14 discussion, and that's Bob Carr from the Air Pollution 15 Control Office, San Luis Obispo. 16 Welcome, Bob. 17 MR. CARR: Thank you, Chairman Lloyd and members 18 of the Board. My name is Bob Carr, the Air Pollution 19 Control Officer from San Luis Obispo county. We 20 participated in this assessment more than we have in any 21 of the previous assessments, and I felt it would be 22 appropriate to come and just make a few comments to your 23 Board today. And I appreciate the opportunity to be here. 24 Am I doing okay with this microphone? 25 I first became aware of ozone transport when I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 137 1 worked for Riverside County back in the early seventies, 2 and we felt that we could close down the whole county and 3 still not be able to achieve the standards. And during 4 that time we had, I think, a high one-hour ozone level of 5 .71 or .73 parts per million at one of our stations. And 6 we discovered elevated ozone levels in Palm Springs at 7 midnight. 8 And I learned first hand of the effects of 9 transport at that time. I later, after I'd moved to San 10 Luis Obispo county, became involved in a little different 11 type of transport, when the San Diego Argo Oil field was 12 operating essentially without controls and people in our 13 little community of San Miguel were complaining that the 14 paint was coming off of their houses sometimes because of 15 the transport of pollutants from the oil fields, and that 16 CDF firefighters who lived in the vicinity of the oil 17 field who previously had been okay were unable to pass 18 their physical fitness exams because of being impaired by 19 the pollutants coming from the oil field. That was an eye 20 opener for me. 21 In spite of those experiences, I didn't really 22 believe that we were being affected significantly by 23 transport from the ozone from the San Joaquin valley or 24 from the bay area for years. There was a lot of 25 information around our counties, especially in our north PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 138 1 county, even by some of our decision makers who felt that 2 we were being affected. And for the most part I thought 3 what we were doing was creating our own problem and that 4 we should deal with it ourselves. 5 However, when we were successful in becoming 6 attainment, I think, in all of our areas of our county 7 except in the north county around Pasa Robles and 8 Atascadero, I thought that maybe there was something to 9 this. And then, you know, the north county in 1998, we 10 had our worst ozone year in history. We felt that it 11 wasn't likely that we were creating all of that ourselves. 12 So we did participate heavily with the ARB staff 13 and with the staff of the upwind districts. We 14 participated heavily also in the CCOST study. We did 15 establish some newer air monitoring stations, as a result 16 that we continued to operate to help us assess the 17 transport question as well as to determine the exposure of 18 our citizens out in that area of the county to ozone. 19 We agreed with the staff recommendation. We feel 20 that based on the information that we received during all 21 of this that there is a link from the bay area to our 22 county and from the San Joaquin valley. 23 In San Luis Obispo county we are committed to 24 continuing our efforts to achieve and maintain the ozone 25 standards as well as all of the other standards. We also PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 139 1 look forward to continuing to work with the ARB and to our 2 upwind contributors to resolve these issues. We feel that 3 transport could have a significant impact on us not only 4 by not being able to attain the State one-hour ozone 5 standard, but by causing us to become federally 6 nonattainment for the new eight-hour ozone standard. 7 We have worked real hard to avoid federal 8 nonattainment throughout the years and we've been 9 successful at that. But it looks to me that if we don't 10 address the upwind issues regarding ozone, that we are 11 going to be designated federal nonattainment. So we want, 12 of course, to avoid that, and we would encourage the ARB 13 to be proactive in making sure that adequate measures are 14 implemented, so that we can avoid becoming federal 15 nonattainment, if it is still possible to do that. 16 I would just like to comment on the additional 17 mitigation that -- I don't know how to pronounce your 18 name. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo. 20 MS. CARR: Ms. D'Adamo mentioned we would be 21 supportive of looking at additional mitigation. Regarding 22 the mitigation bank, I'm not sure that would work in all 23 areas. We have such a limited number of sources that if 24 we just put more money to the problem, we may not be able 25 to achieve what is needed to be able to get the emission PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 140 1 reductions that would bring us within attainment. 2 I want to thank the ARB staff, particularly 3 Debbie Popejoy and Steve Gouze for all of their efforts 4 and all of the other staff members and the staffs of the 5 other districts who we worked with me to get to this 6 point. 7 Thank you very much for the opportunity. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, Bob. 9 Questions from the Board? 10 Yes, Professor Friedman. 11 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Just a question. Is 12 this going to come back to us then, we're deferring it, is 13 that the suggestion? 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think the suggestion is we 15 move ahead but the mitigation comes back. I think Ms. 16 D'Adamo is going to introduce a motion. 17 Not yet, no. 18 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Well, I'm still 19 troubled by the fact that if the law is that we are to 20 consider imposing mitigation factors that are 21 proportionate to the upwind district's contribution to the 22 downwind problem, the downwind district's problem, and we 23 haven't done anything in that respect, and if, in fact, 24 upwind polluters are subject to less mitigation 25 requirements than the downwind because they, in part, are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 141 1 responsible for having caused that, there's a basic 2 imbalance or unfairness. 3 And I don't think it's enough to wait for the 4 federal authorities or others to act. Maybe there's a 5 good reason for that, I just don't know. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: No, I think you're exactly 7 right in keeping with where Ms. D'Adamo is coming. And 8 I'm very comfortable with that mitigation measure. 9 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I don't think we 10 need anything prepared today on it, but I'd like to hear 11 what Supervisor DeSaulnier has to say as well. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, I guess I've got to 13 close the record on this. Since all testimony, written 14 submissions and staff comments for this item have been 15 entered into the record, and the Board has not granted an 16 extension of the comment period, I'm officially closing 17 the record on this portion of the agenda item 01-3-3. 18 Written or oral comments received after the 19 comment period has been closed will not be accepted as 20 part of the official record on this agenda item. Again, 21 since this is a regulatory item, we do have the ex parte 22 communication issue. Do any of the Board Members have 23 anything to disclose on that? 24 Ms. D'Adamo. 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I just had one PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 142 1 conversation with Chris Riordan executive Director of the 2 Central Valley Manufacturers Council regarding this item. 3 And his suggestion had to do with a desire on the 4 association's part that the bay area have a Smog II 5 program. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Anyone else? 7 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Excuse me, that was on the 8 17th of April. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Anybody else? 10 So with that, I throw it for discussion and maybe 11 Ms. D'Adamo if you want to amend the resolution that we 12 have before us to accommodate the specific aspects of 13 mitigation also with what Professor Friedman had. 14 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Yes, I think that -- well, 15 the motion would be to require that staff come back before 16 the Board at the July hearing or perhaps we should give 17 some flexibility there, July or prior with a review of the 18 mitigation requirements that would be in keeping with the 19 statutory requirements, included but not limited to the 20 threshold levels, the all-feasible control measures, smog 21 II, a mitigation bank, and, in addition, a regulation that 22 requires a triennial review, not just of the transport 23 couples but a review of the mitigation measures. 24 In addition, I think that just in reading through 25 the resolution that staff should make appropriate changes PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 143 1 to the findings section. There are two findings, one 2 saying that no changes to the mitigation requirements are 3 necessary at this time, and another one somewhat related 4 to that. I think that hose should be modified consistent 5 with the suggested changes. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Any discussion? 7 Dr. Burke. 8 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: One thing that has always 9 confused me is that in these transmission areas, the 10 testimony we just had, for example, in Riverside and Palm 11 Springs, the cause of that transmission obviously is LA 12 county. And it dumps on Riverside and San Bernardino, but 13 it's in the same air district. How do you know -- I'm all 14 for what Ms. D'Adamo says, but I don't know how to 15 relegate responsibility of different geographical 16 locations in the same air district. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think in that case, Dr. 18 Burke, what Bob Carr was referring to was in 1970 when 19 they actually were different air districts, LA county 20 wasn't acknowledging at that time that they were impacting 21 Riverside and San Bernardino, which is a similar situation 22 we're looking at now, one area impacting another. 23 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: But in keeping with that, if 24 there was a way that I could set up some kind of either 25 bank or penalty system within the district, because of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 144 1 size of the district, and the very locations, because I 2 understand the temporary nature of some of these, like the 3 Alameda corridor is now creating all this havoc, that Los 4 Angeles county continues to be for the last quarter of a 5 century, Riverside San Bernardino -- I know it probably 6 can't be included in here, but if some of the brains out 7 there can help me figure it out some day, give me a call. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think this will be part of 9 what we're asking staff to look at mitigation measures in 10 this case. 11 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Dr. Burke, some of that is 12 the jobs housing balance. Do you want to give me a few of 13 your jobs, I'll take a few. 14 (Laughter.) 15 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Yeah. We'll send some up 16 there. How about a gravel pit. Got some gravel pits. 17 (Laughter.) 18 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: You've got some good 19 gravel pits for me, thank you. 20 One of the things I thought about, and I support 21 what we are talking about in terms of coming back with 22 mitigation, is to be sure that the San Luis Obispo, the 23 San Joaquin valley and Sacramento people are involved, 24 because I heard just one thing, which was the 25 mitigation -- the idea of the mitigation bank or whatever PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 145 1 we might want to call it might not work for San Luis 2 Obispo. So we need to be sensitive to what works and what 3 doesn't work for these, because I want to be fair to some 4 of the other areas. So that little nuance there, I think, 5 we want to involve them. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I did see Peter Hess here 7 earlier, but clearly he must have caught the drift of 8 what's happening, so he's gone home to look at mitigation 9 measures. I don't see him here now. 10 I thought we had a motion and a second. All in 11 favor say aye? 12 (Ayes.) 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, staff. 14 We'll look forward to coming back. I think, Mr. Kenny, it 15 was no later than July, but if you can do it in June. 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Actually, our plan 17 right now was essentially to bring to you the Bay Area Air 18 Quality Plan in July. And so probably the best way of 19 doing this would be to bring them together. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you, staff. 21 The last item we have would be the research items 22 presentation, so we'll give a minute while we get staff in 23 place for that. 24 We have nine research proposals before us today. 25 Yes, I'm delighted to see the number of proposals coming PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 146 1 before us to do more exciting research. And with that, 2 I'd like to ask Mr. Kenny to begin the staff's 3 presentation. 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I think I'm going to 5 give it the short way by just simply asking Bart to go 6 ahead. 7 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Ann Marie Moore 8 with be doing the presentation. 9 MS. MOORE: Thank you. Good morning, Chairman 10 Lloyd and members of the Board. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Can you pull the mike just a 12 little bit closer. 13 MS. MOORE: Today we are presenting nine research 14 proposals for a total of approximately $2.2 million for 15 your approval. 16 The proposals were approved by the Research 17 Screening Committee at their February and March meetings. 18 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 19 presented as follows.) 20 MS. MOORE: For the presentation I have 21 categorized the nine proposals into four research areas. 22 They are Children's Health and Exposure, Atmospheric 23 Research, Emission Inventory Improvement and Measurements 24 and Economic Studies. I will discuss each project 25 briefly. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 147 1 --o0o-- 2 MS. MOORE: The first of three projects in 3 Children's Health and Exposure is a project entitled 4 Characterizing the Range of Children's Pollutant Exposures 5 During School Bus Commutes. It will be conducted by the 6 University of California, Riverside and Los Angeles. This 7 project was initiated a year ago, but we did not receive 8 satisfactory responses to the initial RFP. 9 As you heard earlier, its objectives are to 10 provide pollutant concentration measurements needed to 11 characterize children's commute exposures while riding on 12 school buses, waiting at bus stops and waiting near idling 13 buses during loading. 14 Measurements will be obtained inside and near 15 buses under a variety of scenarios for commutes involving 16 diesel, gasoline and CNG buses. 17 The results will be used by staff to better 18 estimate children's exposure to diesel exhaust particles 19 and other bus-related pollutants, and to determine what 20 fraction of children's total exposure is attributable to 21 school bus related activity. 22 The South Coast Air Quality Management District 23 has proposed cofunding exposure tests, using diesel 24 retrofit buses and other additions for a total of $59,000. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 148 1 MS. MOORE: This is a photo of the sampling 2 platform we used in our earlier in-vehicle study. This 3 view shows the RealTime PM samplers. A sampling platform 4 similar to this will be used in the bus study, although 5 some of the samplers will be different. 6 --o0o-- 7 MS. MOORE: The second proposal is an 8 augmentation entitled Environmental Health Conditions in 9 Portable Classrooms, and will be conducted by Research 10 Triangle Institute. 11 The objective is to analyze vacuumed floor dust 12 samples that will be collected in classrooms as part of 13 the California study of environmental conditions in 14 portable classrooms and to analyze airborne mould spore 15 samples. 16 The results of the dust analysis will provide an 17 estimate of the exposure for the children using the 18 classrooms. The Board and the Department of Health 19 Services are jointly responsible for the study with RTI 20 conducting the major field portion of the work under 21 contract to the Board. 22 As requested in the solicitation for the main 23 study, RTI included optional cost estimates for this 24 additional work. This project is an adjunct to the main 25 study, but was not funded initially due to budgetary PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 149 1 limitations. 2 --o0o-- 3 MS. MOORE: The final proposal in this category 4 Determination of Elemental Carbon and Organic Carbon 5 Concentrations During the Children's Health Study will be 6 conducted by the California Institute of Technology. 7 The project will analyze archived quartz fiber 8 filers from the children's health study -- 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Can I just ask a question 10 there, so Cal Tech will do it not necessarily Glenn or is 11 it both? 12 MS. MOORE: Glenn I think has a dual appointment 13 right now. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: All right. 15 MS. MOORE: The project will analyze archived 16 quartz fiber filters from the Children's Health Study for 17 the years 1999 through 2001 for organic and elemental 18 carbon using a thermal evolution and combustion procedure. 19 Analysis of quartz fiber filters for organic and elemental 20 carbon for the years 1994 through 1998 are complete. 21 Continuation of these analyses for the years 1999 22 through 2001 is important to maintain continuity of these 23 data as part of the PM 2.5 database for the Children's 24 Health Study. This is especially important since health 25 investigators' recent findings have focused on combustion PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 150 1 derived particles as important to human health. 2 The next two proposals pertain to atmospheric 3 research. The first entitled Determination of the 4 Contributions of Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Vehicle 5 Emissions to ambient particles in California will be 6 conducted by the University of California, Riverside. 7 The objective is to establish unique aerosol time 8 of flight mass spectrometry signatures to apportion light 9 and heavy-duty vehicle particles in the atmosphere. This 10 project will obtain signatures under controlled conditions 11 using a dynamometer as well as real world conditions, such 12 as a tunnel and a freeway. 13 We are planning to coordinate the motor vehicle 14 sampling portion of this project with the $2 million 15 Coordinated Research Council study and a $1.5 million 16 Department of Energy project. 17 --o0o-- 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Will this be the first time 19 we can actually measure diesel particulate directly in the 20 atmosphere unambiguously? 21 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Yes, that's 22 correct. 23 MS. MOORE: This study builds on the aerosol time 24 of flight instrumentation and expertise developed at UC 25 Riverside with Board support. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 151 1 These photos depict the transportable stage of 2 the instrument in use at the Caldicot Tunnel and at Long 3 Beach. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That certainly looks like 5 area heavily impacted by diesel particulate on the 6 right-hand side. 7 (Laughter.) 8 MS. MOORE: The second atmospheric research 9 project is entitled the Evaluation of Atmospheric Impacts 10 of Selected Coatings VOC Emissions and will be conducted 11 by the University of California, Riverside. 12 This three-year project is an extension of 13 several ongoing reactivity projects and will attempt to 14 reduce uncertainties in ozone reactivity estimates for 15 selected VOCs in architectural coatings. 16 Reactivity estimates for selected VOCs in 17 architectural coatings will be produced and procedures to 18 reduce the uncertainties of reactivity estimates will be 19 developed. 20 --o0o-- 21 MS. MOORE: The results will provide useful 22 information in support of ARB's consideration of a 23 reactivity based control strategy for architectural 24 coatings. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think it's worth, again, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 152 1 drawing attention to that really. It will be a unique 2 state-of-the-art facility, the best of this kind in the 3 world as a result of, I think, of the public and private 4 sector going and raising money in Washington as well as 5 locally. I think that's -- I haven't seen it yet, but 6 hopefully we're expecting great things. 7 MS. MOORE: Follow-up work may be pursued with 8 possible cofunding by the coating industry. This slide 9 shows the building in which the next generation smog 10 chamber that will be used in this study will be housed. 11 --o0o-- 12 MS. MOORE: There are three proposals in the next 13 research area, Emission Inventory Improvement and 14 Measurements. The following two proposals are 15 inter-related and are from Sonoma Technology Incorporated. 16 The objective of these projects is to collect 17 activity data that will improve current day of week 18 activity estimates and emission inventories for weekends. 19 The main distinction between the studies are that 20 the first project, Collection and Analysis of Weekend 21 Weekday Activity Day in the South Coast air basin was 22 competitively bid and will collect on- and off-road mobile 23 stationary and area source activity data during the summer 24 ozone season in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San 25 Bernardino counties. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 153 1 Information will be collected using global 2 positioning system units in cars, phone surveys and 3 traffic counters. Data from this project will be used to 4 improve weekdays and weekend emission inventories for 5 photo chemical modeling. 6 --o0o-- 7 MS. MOORE: The second project, Collection of 8 Micro-Scale Emissions Activity Data in the South Coast Air 9 Basin is separate because it built upon a previous study 10 by STI, that was sponsored by the Department of Energy. 11 The objective of this study will be to collect 12 data related to emissions from on-road, off-road and 13 stationary emissions sources around five monitoring sites 14 in the South Coast air basin. 15 The results of this project will help us to 16 better relate local, regional activity measurements. It 17 will also assess the relative influence of local emission 18 sources on the air quality measurements from our ambient 19 monitoring network. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Are we cost sharing those 21 with our colleagues in the South Coast? 22 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I hope so. 23 MS. MOORE: I don't think so. 24 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: That's very significant 25 for them. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 154 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Did I hear any? 2 MS. MOORE: No, we're not planning to. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Did we ask them? 4 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Yes. 5 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: And you can't say yes? 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: He's speechless. 7 (Laughter.) 8 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: I promise that I will be 9 quiet on this issue. 10 (Laughter.) 11 --o0o-- 12 MS. MOORE: Together these activity projects will 13 result in an improved characterization of day-of-week 14 variations in the emission inventory. A day-of-week 15 emission inventory is necessary to identify the causes of 16 the ozone weekend effect and to more accurately model the 17 ozone episodes that occur on weekends. 18 --o0o-- 19 MS. MOORE: The third proposal in this area 20 on-vehicle emissions testing systems will be conducted by 21 analytical engineering incorporated. By building on the 22 US EPA's $1.2 million investment, this project will 23 deliver a first generation simple portable on-vehicle 24 testing system that will offer a rugged low-power and 25 versatile analyzer for in-use testing with engine PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 155 1 diagnostic capabilities. 2 The project will provide a proven system for 3 on-board NOx emission measurements. The modular design 4 allows for additions in measuring capabilities. Under 5 this project, research for hydrocarbon and particulate 6 modules will begin. 7 --o0o-- 8 MS. MOORE: This slide shows the integral 9 component of the system. The device is critical for 10 exhaust to mass flow measurements. The box holds the 11 controllers for the multiple sensors and systems that 12 record RealTime emissions directly from the vehicles 13 exhaust stack. 14 --o0o-- 15 MS. MOORE: The last proposal is an economic 16 project entitled, The Economic Benefits of the Air 17 Pollution Control Industry in California, and will be 18 conducted by Environmental Business International. 19 This study will develop historical profiles of 20 the California Air Pollution Control Industry and quantify 21 the contribution of the industry to California's economy 22 from 1970 to the present. 23 The results will be a comprehensive definition 24 and segmentation of the air pollution control industry, 25 and an evaluation of its benefits to the California PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 156 1 economy. This information will enable the Board to 2 conduct a more balanced evaluation of the economic impacts 3 of proposed regulations. 4 --o0o-- 5 MS. MOORE: These projects are needed to meet 6 specific information needs and requirements of our 7 programs. Therefore, we request that these projects be 8 approved for funding. 9 I'd also like to mention that we received a 10 letter of support from the Enviro-Reality Associates for 11 the architectural coatings project. 12 This concludes my presentation. I will be happy 13 to answer any questions. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Questions or 15 comments from the Board? 16 Professor Friedman. 17 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: This is the first 18 time it's occurred to me or been raised that I'm aware of, 19 so I'm going to ask the question, what is our policy, if 20 there is one, on doing research in a specific or a single 21 air quality district without some cost sharing? 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: We actually haven't 23 looked at the issue before and we really don't have a 24 policy on it. 25 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Could you just PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 157 1 describe the benefits statewide of such -- obviously, it 2 well benefit that district. And it doesn't -- just 3 because this is South Coast, it could be any district. 4 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: No, it couldn't be any 5 district, because the South Coast district represents 41 6 percent of the population in the state. So what you're 7 saying is one air district, but what you're really saying 8 is almost half of the people -- we're studying almost half 9 the people in the state when we study this. 10 So obviously you can't -- unless you want to 11 study the whole state, studying one district, which 12 represents almost half of it. 13 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I was just curious 14 what the staff's rationale was. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I can maybe help out a little 16 bit. I know when I was on the Research Screening 17 Committee, the Committee typically asked staff to approach 18 people to try to cost share that. And it varied depending 19 on the nature of the program and the interest and whatnot. 20 Although, in this particular case, I am a little bit 21 surprised, given all the money that South Coast has 22 that -- and I don't mean this -- I mean this sincerely 23 because I was there. I also know your demands on the 24 money. 25 I would have thought that at least some cost PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 158 1 sharing would have been there, because I think there's 2 tremendous value in the programs there, but I also realize 3 that they have their priorities as well, but maybe we can 4 ask staff to be a little bit more -- at least if we're 5 not -- if we're getting negative answers in some of these 6 cases, we should maybe take these to the respective board 7 members, whether it's Dr. Burke or Supervisor Roberts or 8 Supervisor DeSaulnier looking at those areas. 9 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: I want to make it perfectly 10 clear, we don't want any special treatment, but if, in 11 fact, we're going to go into cost sharing on some studies, 12 I've noticed some other studies in here where cost sharing 13 should be appropriate, too. So I'm not opposed to cost 14 sharing on ours as long as it's a uniform policy. 15 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: But wait. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We could at each one on a 17 case by case situation. 18 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Could I finish my 19 line of questions. I mean, I'm still trying to get -- 20 we've given staff an ample opportunity to recall what it 21 is that the statewide benefits of this data collection 22 will be. And I'm sure there must be a statement. I just 23 want to hear it. I'm not -- I think it's fairly self 24 evident that it would be useful data, but I'm wondering -- 25 and I think I could guess at why we picked this area. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 159 1 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Let me try to 2 address those two questions. The South Coast has a very 3 strong weekday, weekend effect, and it is a critical 4 element in trying to say what strategy will be effective 5 in getting the remaining pollution reduction we have to do 6 to get the standards and achieving standards on weekends. 7 We need a specific plan for that. 8 Other areas have a weaker effect or aren't as far 9 away from the standards and we also have a better 10 understanding of vehicles in general in the South Coast 11 with some of our emission testing, so that's the place to 12 start. 13 We will learn far more from doing this study in 14 any area in California and then be able to take those 15 results and apply them elsewhere and see well, are there 16 differences there, but right now the first place we study 17 will be applicable statewide in terms of trying to figure 18 out how our vehicles are used. I don't think southern 19 Californians are that different in their vehicle use than 20 most other urban areas in the State, and we just don't 21 have the funding to do it everywhere at once. 22 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: That's a very clear 23 and cogent statement, and I appreciate that. I kind of 24 thought that was it, but it wasn't very well formulated in 25 my own mind. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 160 1 I do have a question on economic studies. 2 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Could we stay with that 3 for a moment. I just wanted to caution the Board 4 representing the smaller air quality districts, as I do, 5 most of them wouldn't have matching monies in their 6 budget. I mean they barely can scrape by, so we have to 7 be a little bit careful to say whether or not we should 8 have matching funds, when we maybe go into an area that 9 they're just not -- there is not the money in the smaller 10 district's budgets to do any research, so we need to be a 11 little bit careful on that subject. 12 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I just wanted to 13 make sure I understood what the rationale or the thinking 14 was as to the need and the importance and need of the 15 economic studies. 16 You know, it seems a little bit self-serving. 17 We're going to spend money to develop a study to show how 18 much important our work is. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: In all honesty, Professor 20 Friedman, you're probably right, but we, for the last 21 couple of years, we've been -- the Legislature questioned 22 why did we keep an economics units, which they have seen 23 in the past as being used basically against air quality 24 regulations, and so we're specifically working with staff 25 to try to even the playing field and say, well, there are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 161 1 many benefits which people do not take into account. So 2 we're specifically addressing the needs from the 3 Legislature together with our own interests in trying to 4 make sure that we look at the pros and cons of these. 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: If I could add maybe 6 just one additional thing. We routinely do cost 7 effectiveness analyses, and we provide those to the Board 8 with every single regulation. We do not routinely do, 9 sort of, kind of, a generalized benefits analysis. And 10 this was a way of, at least, trying to provide some of 11 that information so that we'd be out there and so the 12 public as well as the Board would be able to see that. 13 In fact, there are benefits that go far beyond, 14 for example, the simple, you know, tonnage reductions that 15 we routinely talk about. Overall health benefits are 16 actually very significant from the reductions that the 17 Board does achieve and that information is probably not as 18 well distributed as it should be. 19 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: It's interesting. 20 That was the one project that I most resonated too, 21 because we're constantly getting whip-sawed. And we 22 really have never developed some authentic information to 23 provide some counter balance. That's all I had to say on 24 that remark. I think that -- 25 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: If I could just PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 162 1 finish off, I hope you understand that when I ask 2 questions, that doesn't mean necessarily that I either had 3 reservations or concerns. I sometimes think that I'm not 4 clear myself on -- I know it's a good thing, but I don't 5 know why and I like to hear. And I think it's important 6 to make a record, and I haven't heard it, so sometimes I 7 have concerns, sometimes I don't. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Dr. Friedman. 9 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Well, I have sort 10 of two comments, one on the other issue of this geographic 11 equitability issue. I think that Barbara is right, I 12 mean, I can think of unique environments that lends 13 themselves to, you know, directing a question and then 14 providing an answer that may have variable impacts on the 15 rest of the State. But nonetheless, the question is very 16 legitimate and it should be pursued, but I think it is a 17 fair question. 18 I was wondering maybe we ought to talk about it 19 for a little bit at the retreat if we think that there 20 really is important inequitability in that regard. What 21 we don't need are rules. We need to just refine our 22 philosophy and, you know, I think that would be helpful. 23 With respect to all these other proposals, I've 24 examined them very closely and had a good conversation 25 with the research division and I think every one of them PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 163 1 is going to advance some progress in our understanding. 2 I think the appropriate collaborations and 3 relationships have been established in the various 4 proposals. And the budgets, by and large, are -- that's 5 what it costs to do research. And I thought they were 6 appropriate, so I think I was in favor of approving them. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. Calhoun. 8 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I had one question and I'm 9 not a medical doctor, like Dr. Friedman is, as you know 10 that, I'm a golf doctor. 11 (Laughter.) 12 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Are we going to 13 talk about Joe Calhoun. 14 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I have a question I want 15 to ask that's related to the Children's Health Study. How 16 do you go about measuring the lung growth of school aged 17 kids, and in this particular project what's going to be 18 the base line? 19 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: This is not 20 rocket science. It's actually fairly easy. They're not 21 measuring growth, they're measuring the functional growth 22 of the lungs. And there are indeed standards for lung 23 capacity, vital capacity, forced expiration, this, that 24 and all these different indices that are related to size, 25 body surface area, as well as age. And so there is normal PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 164 1 data, and these populations are being used as their own 2 controls in many instances, and especially when they move 3 from one area to another, you have the built in 4 statistical test of significance. 5 So the data that's been forthcoming so far on 6 this very subject of lung growth is probably the most 7 exciting data that has come forward from any longitudinal 8 prospective study dealing with pollution effects on 9 children, since, you know, certainly I've been on the 10 Board. And there's nothing in the old literature like it. 11 And it really has captured the attention now of scientists 12 across the country. It has immense impact and 13 considerations with respect to exercise and capacity and 14 ultimately what you're going to look like as an adult, 15 because what you look like as an adult is predetermined 16 whether you know it, long, long before. 17 It reminds me of your knee, if you weren't such a 18 jock when you were a kid, you could play golf better now. 19 So I think that the data can be looked at longitudinally. 20 Growth is the parameter, but it's not growth in, you know, 21 millimeters or in inches, it's growth in functional 22 capacity is what we're really looking at. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 24 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I can't let this set of 25 proposals pass without talking about this. I have no PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 165 1 objection to any of the proposals, but in the last couple 2 of months I spent some time in Mexico, about three miles 3 from the California border from the US border. One of the 4 sites I visited had six to eight foot high piles of lead 5 and cadmium powder that had been taken out of automotive 6 batteries. 7 And we're sitting within wind blowing range for 8 those piles of San Diego. That's where we were. And I 9 could go on and on about what I saw, but that one 10 particular site it's very, very clear to me that there's 11 another economic kind of trade discussion about what's 12 happening here. And as we improve the environmental 13 conditions for folks that live here, there are companies 14 that are moving the dirtier parts of their operations 15 across the border to evade our rules. 16 The next step, as you all know, is we end up with 17 NAFTA lawsuits and attacks on our rules. And it seems to 18 me that it's an important piece of information for 19 Californians, and whatever bias I may have about current 20 and past trade agreements, doesn't need to be in them. 21 But I think Californians have a right to know what's 22 blowing towards them, what's in the water coming at them 23 from these trade agreements and impact on our rules of the 24 trade agreements. 25 And I think that at least so far as it affects PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 166 1 the air, I think it's a place where this board has some 2 responsibility to Californians. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think that's an excellent 4 point. In fact, a couple of weeks ago I was meeting with 5 someone who was actually working with the US, Mexico and 6 Canada on this environmental commission. And maybe this 7 is an area where we should be talking about how we can do 8 some of these things together, because I think that's a 9 very valid point. 10 Dr. Burke. 11 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: I have a very quick comment 12 as it relates to some of these studies that we're doing in 13 South Coast and the economic condition of South Coast. 14 Mr. Chairman, as you remember when you left South 15 Coast, we were in terrible fiscal condition. We were 16 laying off people, not being able to fill slots. And one 17 of my first charge after becoming Chairman was I wanted to 18 make sure that the district was put on a firm financial 19 basis so that we could conduct our business and not 20 continue to draw on our reserves or temporary advances 21 from the Legislature. 22 It has done that. It has done that. I can 23 unequivocally say that the South Coast District is 24 physically and financially stable, and we want to do our 25 share of studies or whatever cooperating with them. And I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 167 1 did understand that there are districts who don't have the 2 money, and believe me, you know, I'm sensitive to that. 3 But I just have to keep in mind, we have -- if 4 you took the -- if you took the share of the problem in 5 the state, we have the lion's share of the problem in the 6 state. And it's only one district. 7 So even though we have a few bucks today, one 8 catastrophic event and, you know, we're in big trouble 9 again. So we want to do our share, believe me, we want to 10 do our share. And we want to work with ARB in any way 11 that is practical for both sides and helps smaller 12 districts and do everything that we possibly can, but we 13 have limited resources also. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And, Dr. Burke, when I was 15 there, in fact, we did put money in the Children's Health 16 Study, ARB, the district was working. I think there are 17 cases, however, whereby we can work more closely together, 18 and I think that -- and I'm satisfied, by the way, that 19 staff does do an excellent job. They do try to reach out 20 so that maybe that didn't come through here and I know 21 they tried to seek that. 22 All I was trying to maybe illustrate here 23 sometimes is that some of these issues we may be should 24 bring it to your attention, and then, you know, if there 25 is an interest and there's not a match, then we understand PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 168 1 that, because clearly the South Coast is driving a lot of 2 this. And even the weekend, weekday impact, I mean, 3 there's another agenda on that where DOE is doing a study. 4 And one of their hidden agendas, not so hidden, is, in 5 fact, to say okay, if you get all the trucks off the road 6 during the weekday, weekend, in fact, ozone goes up in the 7 weekend. 8 Therefore, the thing is keep the trucks running 9 and you suppress ozone. Well, we understand why that's 10 suppression, but there's a lot going on here, which we 11 need to work closer together on that. 12 Mr. Calhoun. 13 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I just wanted to add one 14 thing. I've attended a lot of the Research Committee 15 Screening Committee meetings in the past, and as I recall, 16 the South Coast district has jointly supported some of 17 those research products; isn't that correct? 18 MS. MOORE: That's correct. 19 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Even when you were 20 Chairman of the Research Screening Committee? 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Oh, yes. And that's why I 22 detect a trend more recently, and that's why I wanted to 23 bring it to Dr. Burke's attention. Although, I'm aware 24 that dollars are at a premium, although there are a lot, 25 certainly South Coast has lots more disposable dollars PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 169 1 than we do. 2 I think we've milked that well enough now. I 3 think we've made the point. And I think what I'd maybe 4 look forward to is that a small group of us talk a little 5 bit about that issue, how we can do better. 6 MS. MOORE: We will have our annual research plan 7 coming before the Board in July. So there will be a plan 8 of all the research projects for next year. So if there's 9 anything of interest, come to the districts at that point. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Great. 11 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Would you 12 entertain a motion to approve the research proposals? 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We sure will. 14 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Second. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: All in favor say aye? 16 (Ayes.) 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. Well, I'm impressed 18 with the Board. This one guy got $100,004, I guess you 19 guys really keep it focused. 20 (Laughter.) 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: With that -- I guess there 22 are no other items, no other public comments. With that, 23 I'll officially close the April 26th, 2001 board meeting. 24 And I look forward to seeing my colleagues next week at 25 our meeting down in Monterey. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 170 1 Thank you very much. 2 (Thereupon the Air Resources Board meeting 3 adjourned at 1:00 p.m.) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 171 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 I, JAMES F. PETERS, a Certified Shorthand 3 Reporter of the State of California, and Registered 4 Professional Reporter, do hereby certify: 5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 6 foregoing Air Resources Board meeting was reported in 7 shorthand by me, James F. Peters, a Certified Shorthand 8 Reporter of the State of California, and thereafter 9 transcribed into typewriting. 10 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 11 attorney for any of the parties to said meeting nor in any 12 way interested in the outcome of said meeting. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 14 this 7th day of May, 2001. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR 23 Certified Shorthand Reporter 24 License No. 10063 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345