1 2 MEETING 3 BEFORE THE 4 CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 5 6 7 8 9 10 BOARD HEARING ROOM 11 1600 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 12 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 13 14 15 16 17 THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 2000 18 9:30 A.M. 19 20 21 22 23 Robin E. Johnson Certified Shorthand Reporter 24 License Number 12032 Our File No. 2-62806 25 1 2 APPEARANCES 3 4 MEMBERS PRESENT: 5 Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D., Chairman Dr. William A. Burke 6 Joseph C. Calhoun Dorene D'Adamo 7 Dr. William Friedman C. Hugh Friedman 8 Matthew R. McKinnon Barbara Patrick 9 Ron Roberts Barbara Riordan 10 11 STAFF: 12 Michael Kenny, Executive Director Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer 13 Mike Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer 14 Kathleen Walsh, General Counsel Kathleen Tschogl, Ombudsman 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 INDEX PAGE 2 3 Proceedings 4 4 Call to Order 4 5 Pledge of Allegiance 4 6 Roll Call 4 7 Swearing In of Dr. Burke 5 8 Opening Remarks by Chairman Lloyd 7 9 AGENDA ITEMS 10 00-4-1 Public Meeting to Consider the Adoption of a Proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure for 11 Emissions of Chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance and Repair 12 Activities 13 Introductory Remarks by Chairman Lloyd 10 14 Staff Presentation 15 Mike Kenny, Executive Officer 11 Tony Andreoni, Process Evaluation Section 14 16 Mark Williams, Staff, Stationary Source Division 18 17 Public Comments 18 Kim Wilhelm 38 Michael H. Walsh 41 19 Steve Risotto 53 Aaron Lowe 66 20 Chuck Kennedy 76 Paula Forbis 81 21 Chris Goff 83 Ann Heil 85 22 Katy Wolf 92 23 Certificate of Reporter 111 24 25 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I will now come to order. 2 Professor Friedman, would you lead us through the pledge 3 of allegiance, please. (Everyone stood for the pledge of 4 allegiance.) Thank you. Would the Clerk of the Board 5 call the role, please. 6 MS. HUTCHENS: Dr. Burke? 7 DR. BURKE: Present. 8 MS. HUTCHENS: Calhoun? 9 MR. CALHOUN: Present. 10 MS. HUTCHENS: D. Adamo? 11 MS. D'ADAMO: Here. 12 MS. HUTCHENS: Professor Friedman? 13 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Here. 14 MS. HUTCHENS: Dr. Friedman? 15 DR. FRIEDMAN: Here. 16 MS. HUTCHENS: McKinnon? 17 MR. McKINNON: Here. 18 MS. HUTCHENS: Patrick? 19 MS. PATRICK: Here. 20 MS. HUTCHENS: Riordan? 21 MS. RIORDAN: Here. 22 MS. HUTCHENS: Roberts? 23 MR. ROBERTS: Here. 24 MS. HUTCHENS: Chairman Lloyd? 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Here. BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 4 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: At this stage I would like to 2 swear in our newest board member, just appointed this 3 week by the Governor, Dr. William Burke. Dr. Burke, 4 please repeat after me. 5 The following was stated by the Chairman 6 and repeated by Dr. Burke: I, Dr. William A. Burke, do 7 solemnly swear that I will support and defend the 8 Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of 9 the State of California against all enemies, foreign and 10 domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to 11 the Constitution of the United States and the 12 Constitution of the State of California; that I take this 13 obligation freely, without any mental reservation or 14 purpose of evasion; and that I will faithfully discharge 15 the duties upon which I am about to enter. 16 Thank you, very much. It is a personal 17 delight for me to have Dr. Burke appointed by the 18 Governor to the board. While I was the Chief Scientist 19 at the South Coast AQMD, I had the pleasure of working 20 for Dr. Burke when he was on the board. The second year 21 Dr. Burke being there he was the Vice Chairman. And 22 again, it was a pleasure I think to see his contributions 23 on the board. Those of you who have followed his career, 24 you can see wherever he has worked, wherever he has 25 participated, he has made major contributions. Since BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 5 1 he's been the chair of the AQMD, he's been a vigorous 2 defender of public health, and some of the areas of 3 technology, and a major pusher for making sure we balance 4 public health with a globalist economy. I think he's got 5 many activities that he's been involved with, and I will 6 let you mention some of those, Dr. Burke, but I think you 7 are going to make a major contribution to us. I think 8 also it's the link we needed here to link the largest 9 district by far, the South Coast Air Quality Management 10 District, to working with us, so we look forward to 11 Dr. Burke playing that role as he is Chairman of the 12 South Coast AQMD, and I think it will be great to have 13 you join us to make sure of the fact that we work even 14 more closely together than we have in the past. 15 Dr. Burke. 16 DR. BURKE: Thank you very much, Dr. Lloyd. When 17 I got the call from the Governor's office, I felt like 18 that television commercial I saw a long time ago when 19 this umpire was umpiring and he was calling names in a 20 dusty backfield country town when he got the phone call 21 and all of the sudden he went to the big show and he was 22 in the majors. 23 I come here with great respect for the 24 work that everyone on this board has done. I just hope 25 that in some small way I can make a contribution. My BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 6 1 perspective is one of support. I will work as hard as 2 humanly possible, and I'm at an interesting point in my 3 life. I'm trying to retire from the business world so I 4 can have more time for public service, and this 5 appointment came at just a very opportune time. At South 6 Coast, we have been waiting patiently to -- well maybe 7 sometimes not so patiently -- to have representation on 8 this board, and I'm sure I speak for all my colleagues 9 there in expressing our appreciation for allowing me to 10 participate at this level. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you, Dr. Burke. Those of 12 you also may, if you've not heard of Dr. Burke, you 13 surely have heard of the Los Angeles Marathon, and 14 Dr. Burke took this from basically starting out to a 15 world class event and world renowned event, so you can 16 see what kind of energy that he has. From our 17 perspective, he is obviously dedicated to providing clean 18 air for everyone. 19 Let me start off this morning also to say 20 how pleased we are to be here in San Diego. As we were 21 walking over -- the great temptation by the way is to 22 have every meeting down here, but I feel that might pass, 23 so I guess we won't. Again, when I took over as Chair 24 here a year ago, I vowed to visit all of the 35 air 25 districts in the state. And again, some of those, I'm BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 7 1 hoping we can all do that together as a board. I've 2 still got a long way to go, but we are making progress 3 here. It was great to be here in San Diego yesterday 4 afternoon as we'll see today I'm sure. And again, we 5 really appreciate Supervisor Roberts for hosting us in 6 the County Administration Chambers. Supervisor Roberts 7 would like to say a few words. 8 MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to 9 officially welcome all of you here to San Diego. Some of 10 you have been here before, and those of you who have, you 11 may notice some differences, and one of the things we are 12 particularly proud of here is we are here again on a 13 major renovation project on this building where we have 14 spent several million dollars on the first major overhaul 15 since this building was constructed as a works project 16 administration building completed in 1938 and dedicated 17 by then president Franklin Delano Roosevelt. 18 I would also be remiss if I didn't start 19 off with a major thank you for everyone. In San Diego, 20 the Board of Supervisors also serves as the air pollution 21 control district. The five members of the board are a 22 air district, so we are your partners for those fixed 23 sources of pollution here in the County, and I wanted to 24 thank everybody for what has been largely good news in 25 San Diego County with the announcement of the fact that BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 8 1 the air is the cleanest it's been since 1955. And I 2 think that that represents real progress if you look at 3 the considerable growth and the considerable expansion of 4 industry in this community as well as the general 5 population and of course the number of vehicles miles 6 travelled and the increase in the automotive traffic and 7 every other kind of traffic, so counter to all of those 8 indexes is good news, and the good news is largely that 9 San Diego has benefited from policies of this board, and 10 I think our local air district personnel have tried to 11 work very closely with the staff, and I'm looking forward 12 to seeing that relationship continue. We are delighted 13 to the be hosts of this meeting, and I have to apologize 14 to my colleagues that we didn't have a long enough table. 15 We are a much smaller group, unfortunately, than this 16 board in normal conditions. Perhaps in the future we'll 17 find a way to rectify that too. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. I think it's 19 appropriate to start off today, I was back earlier this 20 month at a SAE conference back in Washington D.C. The 21 Department of Energy put together a video. To me it was 22 really uplifting to see how the new technology is 23 actually improving our lives, so I thought I would like 24 to share that with the Board and set the tone. And 25 thanks to Professor Friedman and his musical background I BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 9 1 think you'll all enjoy this. So if we can have the 2 video. (A short video was shown.) Thank you, very much. 3 Again the only thing I would do on that -- I guess this 4 was basically provided by the BMGB. I guess if we do 5 that in California we would stress maybe the clean air, 6 maybe some of the factory technologies a little bit more, 7 but I think it's a wonderful example of the type of 8 things that are going on. 9 With that, let's move on to the main 10 agenda. 11 MS. RIORDAN: I have to say to the staff this is 12 very exciting too and, it's part of the technology that 13 we just saw up on the screen, that now we have the Air 14 Resources Board agenda on a disk, and thank very much, 15 whoever did that. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, Barbara. 17 The first agenda item is 00-4-1. I would 18 like to remind anyone in the audience who wishes to 19 testify on today's agenda items to please sign up with 20 the Clerk of the Board. Also, if you have a written 21 statement, please give 25 copies to the Board Clerk. 22 The first item today is a public hearing 23 to consider the proposed control measure for chlorinated 24 toxic air contaminants from automotive maintenance and 25 repair activities. BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 10 1 A little more than three years ago, the 2 Board asked staff to look into this matter. The Board 3 got an initial status report in June of 1997. Then, in 4 May of last year, the decision was made to pursue a 5 control measure. That is the rule we are considering 6 today. 7 As it turns out, the Air Board is not the 8 only CAL/EPA department affected by this regulation. The 9 Department of Toxic Substances Control, which manages 10 hazardous waste clean-up, is keenly interested in the 11 proposed rule because it has the potential to reduce site 12 contamination. Water agencies are also interested in the 13 rule because reduced use of toxic automotive products 14 will reduce the potential for reduced water 15 contamination. It's truly a multi-media effort. As you 16 know, this is one which is being stressed very strongly 17 by the Governor and by the legislature. Again, as we 18 look at all those, we think this is a very important 19 measure that we have before us today. 20 At this time I would like to turn this 21 item over to our executive officer Mr. Kenny. 22 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of 23 the Board. Before I introduce this item, I would like to 24 direct the board members to the table behind them. On 25 that table is a display of the representative products BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 11 1 from the four automotive consumer products categories 2 from which we are proposing standards today. We have 3 examples of products that currently comply with the 4 staff's proposed standards as well as chlorinated 5 products that are addressed under the staff proposal. 6 In November 1996, the Board adopted 7 amendments to the consumer product regulations that 8 would, among other things, exempt perchloroethylene from 9 the laws organic compound definition. This was in 10 response to the United States Environmental Protection 11 Agency's decision to exempt certain VOCs from their 12 definition to chemical reactivity considerations. 13 However, Perc is a toxic air contaminant, 14 and the Board expressed concerns about the possible 15 health impacts associated with the potential increase in 16 Perc usage. Therefore, the Board directed staff to 17 perform an assessment of the need to control Perc usage 18 in consumer products and report back to the Board during 19 a November 1996 Board hearing. Staff reported that 20 brakes account for most of the Perc usage in consumer 21 products. Therefore, the staff's regulatory development 22 efforts concentrated on Perc brake cleaning products used 23 in California. The scope of the assessment was later 24 expanded to include the use of methylene chloride and 25 trichloroethylene, which are also toxic air contaminants. BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 12 1 The scope was also expanded to include not only break 2 cleaning products but also carburetor cleaners, engine 3 degreasers and general purpose degreasers. This 4 expansion reflects our observation that the three toxic 5 compounds and four product categories are used 6 interchangeably in practice. 7 Before staff begins their presentation, I 8 want to briefly mention the extensive outreach that staff 9 has conducted. The staff has held a lot of public 10 workshops in developing this proposal and has had 11 numerous meetings with the industry associations and 12 individual companies. Additionally, staff surveyed 25000 13 automotive maintenance and repair facilities and 14 conducted site visits to more than 150 of these 15 facilities. As such, this proposal represents a 16 consultative effort which we believe is cost effective 17 and technologically and commercially feasible. 18 Further, this staff proposal, in addition 19 to eliminating the use of toxic chlorinated substances in 20 automotive cleaning products, would also provide 21 multi-media benefits and may help promote the expanded 22 use of near zero emission aqueous cleaning technologies. 23 The elimination of chlorinated compounds from these 24 automotive products will have a beneficial impact on 25 water treatment facilities. Our investigations have also BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 13 1 raised our awareness that aqueous cleaning systems with 2 near zero emissions are viable alternatives to both 3 chlorinated and VOC containing products. 4 And with that I would like to now 5 introduce Mr. Tony Andreoni who will make the 6 presentation. 7 MR. ANDREONI: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. Good morning 8 Chairman Lloyd and members of the Board. What I'm going 9 to do so is just spend a few minutes discussing, giving 10 the Board an overview and understanding of what goes on 11 when you actually clean brakes. What I have here and 12 should show up on the screen is a mock up of a drum brake 13 system without the drum itself. And what I'm going to do 14 is just kind name some of components within this drum 15 system itself and discuss those and then go into some of 16 the products and the process of doing brake repair. 17 But first, I wanted to give you just a 18 short overview on my experience. Before coming to the 19 Board, I worked in industry as an automobile technician 20 for a dealership in a large independent, high-volume 21 independent shop. I performed numerous brake jobs and 22 other general repair, and also was certified in 23 California to do brake repair as well as certified by the 24 Automotive Service Excellence which is an ASC mechanic. 25 What we have here with the drum brake BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 14 1 system is the linings themselves which are predominant. 2 We have a wheel cylinder. This is the portion of the 3 brake assembly that provides hydraulic fluid to actuate 4 the system itself. We have return springs here for both 5 the primary and secondary shoes. And we have pull down 6 springs that also keep the shoes in place. We have a 7 backing plate that supports all the hardware. We have 8 important self adjustors at the bottom which is used to 9 keep the brake linings in proper alignment and assist 10 with the pressure of the feeling you have on your brake 11 pedal when you apply them. What is missing here again 12 the drum is missing and the center piece which is 13 normally the axle, the axle itself or the spindle 14 assembly to support the wheel. 15 I've used various products in my 16 experience as a technician years ago, and used 17 water-based units which are very effective. I used 18 aerosol cans, both chlorinated and non chlorinated, and I 19 also used a petroleum based mineral spirits to use in 20 cleaning different types of components and hardware 21 within the brake assembly. And overall, the word 22 cleaning, it tends to be -- I like to look instead of 23 using the word cleaning more of a rinsing activity. 24 What ends up occurring, once you pull the 25 drum off of this assembly, you have a lot of dust that BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 15 1 accumulates from the linings in the material itself. 2 What occurs is you need to actually suppress that dust to 3 keep the technician not only from breathing it but allow 4 you to work on the vehicle itself. 5 So we need to apply something that is wet, 6 get the particles down, and in most cases, when you do 7 see them they are dry. There is no grease contamination 8 from the wheel cylinder or the axle for the vast majority 9 of brake jobs. So it really ends up not being a 10 non-degreasing operation but a dust suppression 11 operation. 12 Once we've done that, in some cases we'll 13 start the process of doing the brake job itself. We're 14 able to tear into the system, release the springs, take 15 the old hardware which is the springs itself, the self 16 adjustor and the linings, and these are replaced. The 17 linings themselves are replaced. The shop I worked for, 18 it was a policy for all brake jobs, and this was for 19 customer satisfaction, is we replaced the hardware 20 itself. The springs, the wheel cylinders were rebuilt or 21 replaced if they were leaking. And a real important 22 issue with the brake job is a self adjustor. This has to 23 be completely dismantled. In some cases, there is rust 24 that is accumulated and the self juster doesn't function, 25 so you are really tearing it down, inspecting it, BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 16 1 lubricating it, and making sure that it's functional once 2 you've assembled everything. 3 And this is really important. Once you've 4 disassembled, normally the cleaning, you can wet down a 5 little bit more of the backing plate and then provide 6 some type of wiping activity. A shop mechanic always has 7 a towel in his pocket, and you tend to just inspect and 8 make sure there is no rust or damage to the backing 9 plate, the points where the shoes actually rest on the 10 backing plate, and just make sure everything looks fine 11 in order to reuse those materials. 12 Once you've assembled the new linings and 13 new hardware, you normally have to be very careful in 14 handling of the linings in making sure you don't 15 contaminate them, so a lot of technicians like to use 16 rubber gloves to prevent any grease from contaminating 17 the linings themselves. Once everything has been 18 adjusted, the mechanic likes to test drive the vehicle 19 and make sure that the brakes do properly operate. 20 One thing I just wanted to leave you with 21 before we continue on with the rest of our presentation 22 is the fact that we are doing a rinsing activity and 23 really suppressing the dust with the brake cleaning 24 activity, and the fact that the components are replaced. 25 In some shops, it's a policy that the springs themselves, BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 17 1 the wheel cylinders, are taken care of and rebuilt, and 2 good performance will really dictate on these shop 3 practices to make sure that these systems operate 4 correctly. 5 With that, what I'll do is turn this over 6 to Mark Williams and he'll continue with the rest of the 7 presentation. 8 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. As Mr. Kenny mentioned 9 earlier, we are before you today to propose an airborne 10 toxic control measure or ATCM for emissions of 11 chlorinated toxic air contaminants from automotive 12 maintenance and repair activities. 13 For my presentation today, I'll briefly 14 discuss the ARB's air toxics program, the background of 15 this assessment, including our outreach activities, and 16 our findings. I'll then discuss the requirements of the 17 proposed regulation and the issues of effectiveness and 18 flammability. I'll close with a summary of this 19 presentation and our recommendation. 20 The ARB's Air Toxics Program was 21 established by Assembly Bill 1807. It grants the ARB 22 authority to identify and control toxic air contaminants, 23 also known as TACs, thereby reducing emissions and risk. 24 Under this program, the Board identified 25 perchloroethylene, methylene chloride, and BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 18 1 trichloroethylene as TACs between 1989 and 1991. 2 After identifying compounds as TACs, the 3 Board looks at ways to reduce the public's exposure. 4 Two existing regulations, the Dry Cleaning 5 Airborne Toxic Control Measure and the Degreasing 6 National Emissions Standard for hazardous Air Pollutants 7 already address Perc use. 8 Before I discuss the Board action that 9 lead to this assessment, I need to briefly summarize 10 California Health and Safety Code requirements associated 11 with ATCM development. 12 State law requires the ARB to evaluate the 13 availability and suitability of alternative products when 14 proposing an ATCM. 15 The state law also requires that ATCMs 16 also be designed to reduce emissions to the lowest level 17 achievable through application of best available control 18 technology, BACT, or a more effective control method, 19 taking into consideration the cost and risk. 20 In November 1996, our Board adopted 21 amendments to the volatile organic compound or VOC 22 Regulations are Consumer Products exempting Perc from the 23 VOC definition. 24 Concurrently, the Board expressed concerns 25 about the potential increase in health risk associated BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 19 1 with Perc use in consumer products, and directed staff to 2 assess usage and the need for controls. 3 Began our assessment by looking at a brake 4 cleaner product category because it had been identified 5 as the product category most likely to contain or be 6 reformulated to contain Perc. 7 We provided updates to the Board on the 8 progress of our assessment in 1997 and 1998. 9 In the 1997 Status Report to the Board, we 10 identified the need to expand the assessment to include 11 two additional compounds and three additional product 12 categories. 13 The compounds methylene chloride and 14 trichloroethylene were added to the assessment because of 15 their use in brake cleaning products and the potential 16 for them to be used as a replacement for Perc if Perc 17 were removed. 18 Carburetor cleaners, engine degreasers, 19 and general purpose degreasers were added to the 20 assessment because these products are used 21 interchangeably with brake cleaning products by 22 automotive facility operators. 23 Before I discuss our assessment findings, 24 I'd like to take a moment to address our outreach 25 efforts. BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 20 1 We made hundreds of public contacts via 2 phone or in person to provide all interested parties and 3 opportunity to participate in this assessment. 4 The assessment participants included 5 product manufacturers, facility operators, their 6 respective associations, and several agencies and private 7 organizations concerned with public health, pollution 8 prevention, and multi-media impacts. 9 Specific agencies included the air and 10 sanitation districts, the Department of Health Services, 11 Cal/OSHA, the U.S. EPA, and the Department of Toxic 12 Substances Control. 13 We also made a concerted effort to learn 14 about the products and processes used in automotive 15 maintenance and repair activities through surveys of 16 product manufacturers and automotive repair facilities, 17 and site visits to more than 150 facilities. 18 The following slides highlight our survey 19 activities and present our findings. 20 The Manufacturer Survey requested sales 21 and formulation data from 37 manufacturers for both Perc 22 and non-Perc brake cleaning products. 23 Survey responses accounted for about 24 90percent of California sales. 25 We followed the Manufacturer Survey with a BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 21 1 Facility Survey of close to 25,000 service stations, 2 fleets, new and used car dealerships, general automotive 3 repair facilities and dedicated brake repair facilities 4 that could be using these products. 5 The survey requested information on the 6 number of brake jobs performed each week and the type and 7 quantity of aerosol or bulk liquid product used. It also 8 asked about other aerosol automotive products that were 9 likely to contain Perc. 10 Finally, it requested information on the 11 use of water-based brake washers. 12 We received over 7,500 responses 13 representing the full spectrum of facility types. 14 Information from these surveys indicated 15 that: Most facilities use aerosol or bulk liquid 16 automotive consumer products -- about two-thirds of these 17 facilities use non-chlorinated products which are 18 predominantly VOC formulations; about 44 percent of the 19 facilities performing brake repair use a water-based 20 brake washer; and about three million pounds of Perc 21 enter California each year in aerosol and liquid brake 22 cleaners. 23 As part of our assessment, we conducted 24 more than 150 facility site visits to increase our 25 understanding of automotive maintenance and repair BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 22 1 activities and the products that are used in these 2 activities. 3 The site visits provided us an opportunity 4 to talk with facility owners and their mechanics about 5 their experiences with chlorinated and non-chlorinated 6 products, and water-based brake washers. 7 During the visits, we also gathered 8 information on worker practices, product usage, operating 9 hours, and facility characteristics. 10 With this data obtained, we were able to 11 assess health impact. The following slides present 12 information on our risk assessment methodology and 13 potential health impacts. 14 The first step in assessing risk was to 15 estimate facility emissions based on product usage and 16 operating schedule. 17 We then estimated potential health impacts 18 for the 54 specific facilities in accordance with the 19 CAPCOA and OEHHA Risk Assessment Guidelines. That 20 included using: The U.S. EPA screening and refined air 21 dispersion models, and the CAPCOA and OEHHA 22 pollutant-specific health values. 23 We also performed modeling for three 24 generic facilities developed from site visit data to 25 represent typical small, medium, and large facilities. BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 23 1 The potential health impacts that we are 2 presenting today are the cancer risk and non-cancer 3 health impacts that receptors at the near-source location 4 would be exposed to. As you can see from the next two 5 slides, these facilities can be very near residences or 6 other businesses. 7 Potential cancer risk for over 90 percent 8 of the 54 specific facilities that we modeled exceeded a 9 one in a million risk at the near-source receptor. 10 Additionally, more than 50 percent of the 11 54 facilities modeled exceed a 10 in a million risk, and 12 some of the facilities were as high as 50 to 60 in a 13 million. 14 Since methylene chloride and TCE are 15 currently used less frequently than Perc, the results 16 indicate that the risk may be much lower than that for 17 Perc. 18 However, it is important for us to address 19 methylene chloride and TCE because of the potential for 20 substitution and interchangeability. 21 And there were no non-cancer impacts of 22 concern detected. 23 Potential health impacts are only part of 24 the picture. Other impacts from the use of Perc, 25 methylene chloride or TCE products at automotive BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 24 1 maintenance and repair facilities include: statewide 2 emissions of 5.2 tons per day, contributing to ambient 3 risk levels; addition impacts can include on-site worker 4 exposure; contamination of waste oil and other facility 5 waste streams; contamination of water-based parts or 6 brake washers; potential multimedia contamination of 7 soil, groundwater, and wastewater entering wastewater 8 treatment facilities; finally, there is additional 9 generation of hazardous waste. 10 During our assessment, it became clear 11 that suitable non-chlorinated alternative products and 12 processes are available. This slide presents our 13 availability findings. I'll discuss suitability shortly. 14 Queries of the facility survey database 15 and observations made during site visits indicates that: 16 Non-chlorinated products are well establish in the 17 marketplace. Of those facilities using aerosol or bulk 18 liquid cleaning products, close to two-thirds use 19 non-chlorinated brake cleaners and about 90 percent use 20 non-chlorinated carburetor cleaners, and general purpose 21 degreasers. 22 The use of water-based brake washers, a 23 near-zero emissions technology, was also prevalent. 24 Forty-four percent of facilities reported using these 25 brake washers to clean brakes. BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 25 1 Based on our assessment, staff concluded 2 that best available control technology, in this case, 3 would be automotive consumer products that did not 4 contain Perc, methylene chloride, or TCE. That brings us 5 to the proposed regulation. 6 The proposed ATCM applies primarily to 7 product manufactures. It would prohibit manufactures 8 from selling or distributing into California aerosol or 9 liquid brake cleaner, carburetor and fuel-injection air 10 intake cleaner, engine degreaser, and general purpose 11 degreaser containing Perc, MeCl, or TCE, produced after 12 December 31st of 2002. 13 This state was selected to coincide with 14 the Midterm Measures II regulation to keep manufacturers 15 from having to reformulate twice, thereby smoothing the 16 transition. 17 This date also provides facility operators 18 additional time to become educated on the availability 19 and use of non-chlorinated alternatives. 20 The proposed ATCM would provide 21 manufacturers an 18-month sell-through period from 22 December 31st of 2002 through June 30th, of 2004. 23 It also would provide facility operators a 24 one-year inventory depletion period from June 30th of 25 2004 through June 30th of 2005. BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 26 1 Facility operators would then be precluded 2 from using these chlorinated products after June 30, 3 2005. 4 Benefits of the proposed ATCM, in addition 5 to reducing decreasing cancer risk, would include reduced 6 emissions, and worker exposure. 7 Additionally, multimedia impacts to soil, 8 groundwater, and sanitary sewers could be reduced or 9 eliminated. 10 Finally, there would be a decrease in the 11 generation of hazardous waste emanating from automotive 12 repair facilities. 13 The following slides discuss the cost of 14 the proposed control measure and it's impact on the State 15 Implementation Plan or SIP. 16 We expect that the cost impact of the 17 proposed ATCM on consumer will be negligible, at about 18 two cents more per can. 19 The cost effectiveness is conservatively 20 estimated to range from no cost to 23 cents per pound of 21 Perc, MeCl, and TCE reduced, with an emissions 22 reduction-weighted average cost of 3 cents per pound of 23 toxic air contaminant reduced. 24 The proposed ATCM could have an impact on 25 the State Implementation Plan. Potentially, an BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 27 1 additional ton per day of VOC could be emitted in the 2 South Coast Air Basin if all facility operators convert 3 from Perc, MeCl, and TCE to non-chlorinated VOC products. 4 However, this worst-case estimate assumes 5 that there is no increase in the use of water-based brake 6 cleaning units. We expect that the use of water-based 7 break cleaning units will increase, but have not 8 attempted to quantify it. 9 In any case, any emissions shortfall would 10 be addressed in next revision of the South Coast Air 11 Quality Management District State Implementation Plan. 12 I would now like to address concerns 13 raised by manufacturers during the course of this 14 assessment. 15 The first concern I would like to address 16 is that of product flammability. 17 Product manufacturers have said that they 18 need to continue to provide non-flammable or chlorinated 19 products because of facility concerns about the 20 flammability of non-chlorinated products. 21 We have taken this issue of worker safety 22 very seriously. To thoroughly investigate this issue 23 we've: conducted an extensive outreach to local fire 24 chiefs and fire prevention officers, and; visited 16 25 additional automotive maintenance and repair facilities BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 28 1 to further evaluate workplace practices and flammability 2 concerns. 3 Based on our site visit observations and 4 discussion with facility operators and manufactures of 5 brake cleaning equipment, we conclude that: virtually all 6 facilities, even those using non-flammable brake cleaning 7 products, have flammable cleaning and degreasing products 8 or other flammable materials such as gasoline on-site; 9 facility operators treat all the products as flammable, 10 and will avoid performing brake work in the vicinity of 11 ignition sources when possible; and water-based cleaners 12 are an effective alternative. 13 Additionally, several local fire chiefs 14 and more than 100 fire prevention officers in attendance 15 at two meetings we addressed raised no specific concerns 16 regarding the proposed ATCM. 17 The second concern I would like to address 18 is that of suitability. Product manufactures have 19 expressed concerns about the suitability of alternative 20 brake cleaning products and processes. 21 For this assessment, we have looked at 22 whether there were products designed for the prescribed 23 categories, and whether they were labeled and marketed as 24 being suitable. 25 We have also reviewed US EPA pollution BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 29 1 prevention materials and case studies and have discussed 2 suitability with facility operators and brake pad 3 manufactures. 4 We concluded that non-chlorinated products 5 are suitable. 6 Manufacturers have designed 7 non-chlorinated products for each of the four categories 8 we're addressing, and market them as being suitable. 9 Three manufactures produce about 85 10 percent of the chlorinated brake cleaning products 11 entering California. These same manufactures, on their 12 non-chlorinated product labels and web sites make the 13 following claims: cleans as well as chlorinated brake 14 cleaners; clean fast, dry fast, and degrease instantly; 15 quickly remove brake fluid, grease, oil, and other 16 contaminants from brake linings and pads; and that they 17 leave no residue. 18 We also concluded that water-based brake 19 washers are suitable. This conclusion was based on 20 reviews of recent US EPA-sponsored studies and pollution 21 prevention materials that indicate that near-zero 22 emissions water-based parts washers and brake cleaning 23 units are suitable alternatives for the prescribed 24 cleaning activities. 25 It was also based on discussion with shop BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 30 1 operators and brake pad manufactures who use the units. 2 The brake pad manufactures actually use the units when 3 conducting Automotive Service Excellence certification 4 courses. 5 Not only are suitable alternative product 6 and processes available, but the U.S. EPA and others are 7 offering workshops for business and government on how to 8 successfully use them. 9 These workshops stress the use of 10 water-based washers and minimizing aerosol use. 11 In addition to the U.S. EPA, these 12 workshops are sponsored by the Automotive Service 13 Council, the California Trucking Association, the 14 Department of Toxic Substances Control, and local 15 Business Environmental Resource Centers. 16 Based on the market share enjoyed by 17 alternative products, the claims made by their 18 manufactures, the impression of the facility operators, 19 and the training that is available on the use of these 20 alternatives, we believe that non-chlorinated aerosols 21 and water-based washers are suitable alternatives to 22 chlorinated automotive consumer products. 23 To summarize, automatic maintenance and 24 repair activities emit more than five tons of toxic air 25 contaminants per day. BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 31 1 We've identified potential near-source 2 risks resulting from these emissions. 3 Additionally, these activities impact 4 other environmental media through the contamination of 5 groundwater and the water entering wastewater treatment 6 plants, and soil. 7 We found that suitable alternatives do 8 exist; indeed, they dominate the market. 9 Based on our assessment, staff conclude 10 that our proposal to remove Perc, MeCl, and TCE form 11 automotive consumer products represents best available 12 control technology. 13 Thus, we recommend that the Board adopt 14 the proposed ATCM. 15 That concludes my presentation. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, Mr. 17 Williams. 18 Madam Ombudsman, would you please describe 19 the public participation process that occurred as this 20 item was being developed and share any concerns or 21 comments you might want to make. 22 MS. TSCHOGL: Mr. Chairman and members of the 23 Board, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the 24 outreach efforts in the development of this proposed 25 airborne toxic control measure. BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 32 1 The document before you is the result of 2 an extensive collaborative effort between staff and State 3 workers. Mr. Kenny and staff have already outlined the 4 sheer volume of the outreach they conducted as well as 5 the quality of that outreach, so as much as I would like 6 to go over it with you, I will not. I will just 7 summarize by adding one thing and that is on March 10 of 8 this year ARB staff mailed the notice of the hearing and 9 the availability of the staff report to approximately 10 8000 people. In addition the notice was posted on the 11 ARB's web site on the 9th of March, and I commend staff 12 for their excellent outreach efforts in developing this 13 report as you have heard. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you, very much. Again, I 15 would like to compliment staff on a very excellent and 16 also a very graphic presentation. Dr. Friedman? 17 DR. FRIEDMAN: You have my compliments also for a 18 thorough presentation. I want to get a better handle on 19 the time lines that you are proposing. I gather that you 20 think that four years from now a conversion can be made 21 for non-chlorinated products. Within that four-year 22 timeframe is a year and a half of inventory depletion. 23 My comment -- my question is why then give yet another 24 grace year beyond that to finally say no more chlorinated 25 products. What is the rationale behind a 5th year to BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 33 1 clear the shelves, if you can't plan to do this in 18 2 months? Give them three months. That is plenty of time. 3 Why spend yet one more year with these products being 4 available and toxic air contaminants being emitted? 5 MR. DONOHOUE: Dr. Friedman, I'd like to respond 6 to the rationale for what we've set up there. There is 7 actually three groups that are involved with respect to 8 this product. One is the manufacturer of the product and 9 that is the first time line that we've established there. 10 The second time line, the sell-through 11 period, these products are generally moved through the 12 markets by distributors. These distributors purchase the 13 products. They are in their warehouses. They are then 14 distributed to the individual facilities as they request 15 the orders of these things. That second period, that 16 sell-through period, is to allow for the situation where 17 the distributor has purchased the product before the date 18 that the material cannot be in it until they can move it 19 through that entire warehouse system. Often these 20 products are coming from out of state, so there is that 21 aspect of it. 22 The third period, the one-year period at 23 the end, was really to allow for the individual shop 24 operator that purchases the product from the 25 distributors, a period in time for them to use up that BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 34 1 product on site. The regulation is very much a 2 manufacturer-based regulation. It really doesn't affect 3 the individual shop until sometime later, and we had 4 provided in that a one-year sell-through period. 5 Clearly, all of the periods here with 6 respect to this particular regulation, are probably up to 7 question a little bit more than prior regulations because 8 of the market share of alternative products that exist 9 out there. That was the rationale that we used to try 10 and provide that additional period at the end so that the 11 operator could use that product up if they had legally 12 purchased from the distributor. 13 DR. FRIEDMAN: I appreciate that. I just think it 14 is remarkably generous, and I just have some questions 15 about why we need to be quite that generous when we're 16 dealing with toxic air contaminants. It's not just a 17 question of tons of pollution. It's really a question of 18 cancer risks, risks to our workers, so I don't see any 19 real reason to be excessively generous. 20 Five years? If your kids were exposed to 21 something in your house that was dangerous, you'd get it 22 out of there in a minute. And four years is an ample 23 amount of time, so I just have some reservations about 24 our generosity. 25 MR. VENTURINI: Dr. Friedman, I believe in the BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 35 1 testimony today you are probably going to be hearing from 2 some others regarding the timeframe. If I may suggest, 3 you might want to hear some of that, and I think staff 4 would be ready after that to maybe offer some suggestions 5 with respect to the timing. 6 DR. FRIEDMAN: I will wait with great anticipation 7 not only the testimony but staff's response to it on the 8 time line. And I know that we'll engage in that later, 9 but I want to clarify what the recommendation is so I can 10 understand it clearly as we hear testimony about it. I 11 may have misheard you, but I'm reading that the facility 12 operators would have one year of inventory depletion time 13 to use up the products that they have in their shops, and 14 then there would be an additional year period before 15 there would be a ban on the use of these products, so 16 that is two years, if I'm reading it right. Am I 17 mistaken? 18 MR. VENTURINI: Dr. Friedman, maybe it would help 19 if I just go through very briefly the details of the 20 increments. The first increment is the ceasing of 21 manufacturing of these products. 22 DR. FRIEDMAN: I understand that. 23 MR. VENTURINI: The staff proposal date was 24 12-31-02, so that's roughly about two and a half years 25 from now. The next increment was the sell-through BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 36 1 through the distribution chain, eighteen months. And 2 then the final segment was when actual facility operators 3 would have to remove or complete using anything they have 4 in their shop, which is one year. 5 DR. FRIEDMAN: And then what is the additional? 6 MR. VENTURINI: There is the three. There is the 7 two and a half years to complete manufacturing; the one 8 and a half year for the sell-through through the 9 distribution chain; and then one year for the individual 10 facilities to quit using the product. 11 DR. FRIEDMAN: By June 30th, 2004. 12 MR. VENTURINI: 2005. June 30, 04 is for the 13 distribution system sell-through. 14 DR. FRIEDMAN: Those two bullet items are really 15 one. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Dr. Burke? 17 DR. BURKE: I have to agree with the doctor 18 because I would think that this product from the retail 19 side is not being picked up by the general public 20 consumer. It's being purchased by automotive mechanics 21 who are operating a business which gives them the 22 opportunity to plan. They don't have big inventory of 23 this stuff. They buy a case of cans or two cases of 24 cans, that's a lot for them, so a year for them to go 25 through their inventory would seem to be extraordinarily BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 37 1 generous. 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Any other comments 3 from the Board at this time? With that, I would like to 4 call the witness list here. I would like to preface that 5 by saying that we are going to limit testimony to five 6 minutes, and encourage you to get the key points across 7 during that time. We do have a very experienced 8 implementation officer to my right, and I can assure that 9 Professor Friedman cuts you off after five minutes. With 10 that, I would like to call first Kim Wilhelm and then 11 Michael Walsh and then Steve Risotto. 12 MR. WILHELM: Good morning. Thank you for 13 allowing me to speak today. I'm Kim Wilhelm. I'm 14 representing the Department of Toxic Substances Control. 15 We regulate hazardous waste in California, and we are 16 also responsible for administering the state superfund 17 program. 18 From a hazardous waste perspective the 19 Department of Toxic Substances Control strongly supports 20 the proposed measure. There has been lots of press on 21 reformulated gas and the problems associated, clean up 22 the air but fouled the water. With the proposal before 23 you, you have the opportunity to not only clean the air, 24 but also protect the water and the land and worker health 25 and safety. BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 38 1 There are over 500 sites the Department is 2 currently aware of contaminated with halogenated 3 compounds. This list includes former auto repair shops, 4 fleet maintenance facilities, auto dismantlers, as well 5 as a wide range of other industries. To the extent that 6 the proposal will eliminate halogenated solvents, you 7 will also be helping to prevent future superfund sites. 8 Perc, methylene chloride and TCE, as you 9 know, are carcinogens listed under Prop 65 and under the 10 state toxic hot spot legislation. The way these products 11 are used allows them to readily enter the environment. 12 For example, you heard about Perc sprayed on brake 13 cleaning and engine degreasing. It drips on the floors 14 of the auto shop. From an air-quality standpoint, you 15 have concerns about evaporation. From the hazardous 16 waste perspective we have concerns that the penetrating 17 properties that make these good solvents also allow them 18 to seep through the concrete, go into the soil underneath 19 the facilities. 20 You may hear from other people that these 21 will evaporate, so your air concerns, but when you have a 22 40-degree, foggy morning up in Sacramento, you've all 23 flown in there, you know how that can be, with a hundred 24 percent humidity, when these things hit the floor, they 25 are not going to evaporate and go up. They are going to BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 39 1 go down, and that becomes our concern as a hazardous 2 waste agency. 3 Obviously, if these carcinogens are 4 getting out in the air and the water, we as regulatory 5 agencies, environmental regulatory agencies, have 6 concerns for public health and the worker. 7 A second concern from hazardous waste is 8 the handling and disposal of the aerosol cans themselves. 9 These present unique and costly waste management 10 problems. 11 A third concern, hazardous waste concern, 12 is when the chlorinated solvents become mixed with other 13 waste streams. When they get mixed with the waste oils, 14 we have concerns because most of the used oils in 15 California go into the fuels market. 16 When chlorinated compounds are burned, 17 they have the potential for generating dioxins and purans 18 which are much more potent carcinogens. 19 Sometimes workers will go over and take a 20 part and hold it over a sink and spray it with the 21 aerosol can. The effect of that is the aqueous cleaners 22 are then contaminated with chlorinated compound which 23 again causes additional costs, additional concerns from a 24 hazardous waste perspective. 25 There are proven alternatives to Perc that BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 40 1 are available today. The Department is aware of a number 2 of businesses that have made the transition to safer 3 cleaners, including water-based materials. We've also 4 seen studies that suggest that it is less costly for 5 shops to use these alternative cleaners. So, in summary, 6 we urge you to pass the regulation today. We share some 7 of Dr. Friedman's concerns about the timing, allowing 8 five years for this to happen. Thank you for allowing me 9 to speak and for considering the multimedia benefits of 10 this proposal. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Comments or questions 12 from the Board? Thank you very much. The next witness 13 is Michael Walsh with the Automotive Service Council. 14 MR. WALSH: Thank you. I'm a 25-year veteran, 15 independent garage owner, and an active member of the 16 Automotive Service Council. I'm here this morning to 17 speak in support of the removal of chlorinated compounds 18 from the automotive environment both as an individual and 19 as a spokesman for our association. 20 Actually, I'm in the real world every 21 single day, except for this morning, fixing cars, 22 obviously. The reality is that I've used the chlorinated 23 aerosols, the non-chlorinated aerosols, and virtually if 24 someone were to mask over the label, truly I wouldn't 25 know which one is which, in the real word. Now, maybe if BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 41 1 we were doing destructive testing or some kind of a 2 scientific test, maybe there would be a difference, but 3 in the real world, it doesn't make any difference to me. 4 I buy what is cheapest. 5 Ever since I got my aqueous brake cleaner 6 which is very much like the red one we see on display 7 here, that unit is absolutely, positively vastly superior 8 to the aerosol products for doing brake work. I haven't 9 bought any brake clean for six months to a year because 10 of the new technologies. 11 As far as the phase out period, you know, 12 a heard a little discussion this morning about that. I'm 13 all for shortening it, but we've got to remember -- 14 Dr. Friedman had a concern about this -- there are small 15 business people involved, warehouse distributors. We're 16 not talking about Montana Chemical here. If they get 17 stuck with inventory that they can't sell, this is an 18 economic impact. I'm a small businessman, so consider 19 that. There is a sell-through period that has to be 20 looked at, but let's get it off the market as soon as 21 possible without pulling the rug out from the little 22 businessman. 23 Flammability issue, in my shop and every 24 shop I know, we treat everything as flammable. 25 Everything in an aerosol can is flammable. We all do BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 42 1 that anyway, so that issue to me is a non-issue. We 2 don't like fires. And that's about it. 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon? 4 MR. McKINNON: In my days in the real word, I 5 worked with a lot of mechanics of all way, shape, and 6 form, and I'm real happy about your testimony today. I 7 don't have any questions. Thank you very much. 8 DR. FRIEDMAN: About the sell-through period that 9 is being proposed by the staff here, do you consider that 10 to be an adequate period of time considering the small 11 shops? 12 MR. WALSH: As far as in my particular case, I 13 think the comment that we're only going to buy at the 14 most is a case of brake clean. That's what I do. I buy 15 a case, and I don't inventory brake clean. That is a 16 direct cost to me as a small businessman, so I will 17 inventory as little as possible. 18 Now, since I got my aqueous unit, I don't 19 know if there is any in the shop because we hardly ever 20 use it, and I don't need it anymore because of the new 21 equipment, but I certainly wouldn't buy a pallet of brake 22 clean to horde. It's unlike the situation with 23 refrigerant R12. That has turned into a craziness with 24 R12, but with brake clean there is no inventory at the 25 shop level. But warehouse distributors, there may be BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 43 1 small and medium distributors that can really get hurt 2 badly if there isn't a buy-through, sell-through period. 3 MR. ROBERTS: There was a couple of issues I 4 wanted to ask you about, one was you made reference to 5 this equipment, and it's not clear to me what that 6 consists of and what kind of an investment that that was, 7 or if it's just simply changing from one product to 8 another? 9 MR. WALSH: The aqueous cleaning equipment? 10 MR. ROBERTS: Yeah. 11 MR. WALSH: There is two different products I use 12 in my shop. We have the sink on a drum which we don't 13 really have one here. It's where we wash automotive 14 parts if we have to remove a component from your 15 automobile and we need to wash it. It's like a wash tank 16 that would be an example right there. We would go over 17 to the sink, turn the switch, and put the component in 18 there and wash it, clean it up so we can inspect, repair 19 or reassemble it. 20 MR. ROBERTS: So this is something that you might 21 not find in some shops? 22 MR. WALSH: It is mandatory now. I know in the 23 South Coast District. I'm not -- I think it's all over 24 the state. I'm not going to speak to the law, what the 25 regulations are, but I know in the Los Angeles area it's BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 44 1 mandatory. Every automotive shop has to have aqueous 2 cleaning equipment, and the only exception is a rule, 3 which I can't quote the rule, I'm not a lawyer, but there 4 is a rule that electronic components can use the old 5 fashioned petroleum dissilient solvents for electric 6 monitors and such, but it is required, mandated that we 7 all have the aqueous stuff. 8 Now in reference to the brakes, it's two 9 different situations. That is too large and cumbersome 10 to go underneath. Actually, that is on rollers. Most of 11 ours are fixed, in a fixed location, but that gets tippy 12 if we've got transmission parts and that is actually a 13 little delicate one. There is some bigger ones that are 14 more substantial, but that gets too tippy. Most of time 15 it's an against-the-wall unit, and we go over to the sink 16 and we wash our parts. The portable unit is the one that 17 we actually roll out in the service bay, put it 18 underneath the brake area, and it's got a hose with a 19 wand and a brush on it, and we actually turn the pump on 20 and it cleans all the gook and grime off. It falls into 21 the tank, and it's wonderful. I mean, that is better 22 than aerosols. 23 MR. ROBERTS: For the most part then there is 24 little or no investment? 25 MR. WALSH: Yes, there is. It's very expensive. BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 45 1 Those units, approximately, a capital investment of 2 around a thousand dollars. 3 MR. ROBERTS: I thought that there was a 4 requirement that you have to -- 5 MR. WALSH: Yes, we already have this. 6 MR. ROBERTS: I guess what I'm saying is that if 7 we were to adopt something, that infrastructure would be 8 in most of the shops or already be in place? 9 MR. WALSH: That's correct. 10 MR. ROBERTS: So we are not talking about 11 additional investment? 12 MR. WALSH: No. To my knowledge, there shouldn't 13 be any additional capital investment for this. All it's 14 going to be is that when we go to order our brake clean 15 you will no longer be able to get the chlorinated. 16 MR. ROBERTS: Well, you'll use a different 17 product, and that's the point I was trying to draw out of 18 you because it wasn't clear. The other thing is that you 19 mention there should be a sell-through period. The 20 sell-through period comes after the stoppage of the 21 manufacturing, and if you look at those two combined, it 22 seems like there is a warning in this system, that if 23 everyone knows that after a certain date that these 24 products aren't going to be manufactured and they have a 25 certain point then to sell-through, we've got a combined BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 46 1 four years for those two, if everybody knew that it was 2 coming, could we do this in two years, save a full year, 3 without disrupting. You would still have a year to 4 sell-through, but you would have known two years ahead of 5 that that you had a sell-through, so people who have been 6 trying to work this product in all the way to the last 7 minute maybe would be caught with an inventory, otherwise 8 it would seem like there's plenty of time to deplete the 9 system here. You specifically mentioned you needed a 10 sell-through period. I wonder from your perspective, you 11 mention small men with small companies, if they know that 12 two years they are not going to be able to make that 13 product and in three years they are not going to be 14 allowed to sell it, do you have a feeling as to whether 15 that would create a major hardship? 16 MR. WALSH: No, I don't think it would. If we 17 could come up with a fixed date that after which if you 18 get stuck with it, sorry chump. Let's be real, but I'm 19 not going to get into the mechanics of how many hours. 20 MR. ROBERTS: You make dates and you make sure 21 that you have an outreach program so that everybody knows 22 those dates and the fact that you actually have three 23 years you are not going to be able to sell that, so in 24 terms of the small distributors, they should start 25 working that out of their inventory at even an earlier BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 47 1 date. 2 MR. WALSH: I agree. 3 MS. PATRICK: In terms of the distribution, there 4 is an 18-month period of time in which the distributors 5 would be able to move that product, and knowing that we 6 don't want to have a severe impact on the small and 7 medium size businesses and these distributors, do you not 8 feel that a 12-month period would be appropriate as 9 opposed to an 18-month period, but a time that is long 10 enough for them to move that product but not excessively 11 long so that they are trying to stockpile it? 12 MR. WALSH: Actually, the mechanics of the time 13 lines I'm really not prepared to make judgment on. I 14 just know in my case, tomorrow would be fine. But 15 honestly, I think staff has some information that you've 16 heard. They've studied the time lines and mechanics of 17 that. I haven't. I just know that I think three years 18 should be sufficient, but once again, I'm not an expert 19 on that. Staff is better equipped. 20 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: You are not a distributor, 21 are you? 22 MR. WALSH: No, sir. 23 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: So you are not really in a 24 position to comment authoritatively at this time -- 25 MR. WALSH: No, I'm not. I'm just a small garage BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 48 1 owner. 2 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: But you are a facility 3 operator, and there is in addition an 18-month 4 sell-through period for distributors on top of a two plus 5 year, two and a half year, warning where they must cease 6 manufacturing. There is another one year as I understand 7 it, inventory depletion period. As to that, you say you 8 buy a case at a time as Dr. Burke suggested, and what 9 would you think would be a realistic, reasonable usage 10 period to deplete and close out your inventory assuming 11 you were using the ultimately prohibited product? 12 MR. WALSH: The final user -- 13 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Would six months be 14 reasonable? 15 MR. WALSH: I'm the end user of the product, I 16 guess you would say. 17 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: That's right. 18 MR. WALSH: I would say six months to a year. 19 Again, I can't speak for everybody. 20 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: What happened to tomorrow? 21 MR. WALSH: Tomorrow for me. Once again, you 22 can't make the regulations for me. You got to make it 23 for what -- we're talking about the industry at large 24 here, so there are operators that may buy -- 25 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Aren't you representing the BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 49 1 automotive service? 2 MR. WALSH: Yes, I am. And some of our operators 3 are very large. They may well buy a pallet. I was using 4 that facetiously, but for most of the small independent 5 garage owners, a pallet is -- it is facetious. They buy 6 a case, 12 aerosol cans, and when you get down to three, 7 you order another case, but there may be people out there 8 that bought a pallet because they got a good deal on it, 9 and the Board is not here to hurt people, so we have to 10 kind of balance things out like you are doing. But I 11 would say that a two-year period -- well, I don't know 12 exactly what the question is, but after I can no longer 13 buy any more of it, how long can I keep it in my 14 possession? 15 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: And use it up, what is a 16 reasonable time? 17 MR. WALSH: I would say if you gave -- we're 18 looking at a three- to five- year span. I think if you 19 gave enough notice that in 2003 you cannot be caught with 20 a can in your shop, we with would all start backing off 21 our inventories. I think three years would be fine 22 myself. 23 MR. McKINNON: A question did occur to me and it 24 goes along the lines of Professor Friedman. When you did 25 go through the process of eliminating these products from BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 50 1 your shop, how long did it take? I mean, do people keep 2 some stashed in their tool box? Did you have to kind of 3 go through a period of kind of weening people from using 4 it? And that's kind of something you could speak to and 5 is probably something we ought to think about. 6 MR. WALSH: Well, any time a new regulation or any 7 of these things come out, we are all subject to hording, 8 oh, my God, we're no longer going to be able to wash our 9 clothes because new Tide has been taken off the market. 10 But the reality is, shortly after the non-chlorinated 11 aerosols became available, I realized that there was no 12 difference here. It became a non-issue, so I don't 13 remember the incident, but if I had two or three cans 14 tucked away just in case, I soon said, hey, it's a 15 non-issue. Just grab it and use it and don't worry about 16 it. But that was my real word experience on that, so 17 chlorinated or non-chlorinated is not an issue with me at 18 all. Nobody else in our association has complained about 19 it. They don't even know what they have because it's a 20 non-issue. 21 DR. BURKE: If somebody buys a pallet of this 22 stuff, it's inconceivable to me unless they are a huge 23 operator, which uses huge volume, and if they are a huge 24 volume and uses huge volumes, that pallet is going to go 25 as fast as a case goes, but I think the real issue is the BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 51 1 middle guy, that small distributor that they were 2 concerned about, and quite frankly I think they are in 3 the same position as the small end user. I don't think 4 that they really inventory a lot of this stuff, 5 especially if they know there is a deadline coming up, so 6 I can't imagine any significant economic impact from 7 shortening this deadline, and I do think there are 8 significant health benefits to doing that. 9 MS. D'ADAMO: How much would a case typically 10 cost? 11 MR. WALSH: The price is varied quite a bit. The 12 cheapest on the market incidentally are the chlorinated 13 ones. I think it's two to three dollars a can, 14 basically. And I don't remember because when I need some 15 I just call my supplier and say I need three or four cans 16 and put the phone down. I don't really question the 17 price. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 19 MR. VENTURINI: I just wanted to mention the 20 Council represents, my understanding is, from 2000 to 21 3000 independent repair shops in the state. 22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Next speaker is Steve 23 Risotto. 24 MR. RISOTTO: Good morning. I appreciate the 25 opportunity to address the Board. HSIA is a trade BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 52 1 association of users and producers of methylene chloride, 2 perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene. Although they 3 are not the most common products containing Perc and 4 methylene chloride, are used by about one-third of the 5 shops in the state despite the fact that they are more 6 expensive and may contribute to increased disposal costs 7 for waste engine oil. 8 HSIA is opposed to the stamp proposal in 9 its current form based on the following three issues: 10 ARB staff had failed to establish that proposed 11 regulation would provide a significant health benefit to 12 residents of California. Alternative flammable and 13 water-based formulations do not provide for safe and 14 effective services of automotive brakes in many 15 circumstances, and prohibition of chlorinated brake 16 cleaning products will lead to a significant increase in 17 VOC emissions from this product category that will likely 18 prompt calls for additional regulation. 19 As the result of the decision to exempt 20 Perc from regulations, VOC, in November of 1996, the 21 Board asked the staff to investigate the potential for 22 increased use of the solvent in consumer and commercial 23 products. The staff's analysis led them to a concern 24 about the potential health effects of the existing use of 25 Perc-based brake cleaners on residents and workers BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 53 1 surrounding repair facilities. This concern resulted in 2 extensive effort of surveys, etcetera. During this 3 process, this review process, HSIA has identified a 4 number of shortcomings and inconsistencies that if not 5 corrected, would result in fundamental flaws in the 6 staff's analysis that would undermine the public health 7 basis for the regulation. While several of these items 8 have been corrected, some key issues have still not been 9 addressed. Throughout their review, ARB staff has 10 insisted on presenting their risk characterization 11 results based primarily on the near-source or maximum 12 concentrations predicted by the air dispersion models. 13 HSIA has consulted RTP Environmental of San Diego, 14 commented on the inappropriateness of using such 15 fictitious receptors in its comments on the staff's 16 June 1997 status report. Since our original 1997 17 comment, neither HSIA nor RTP has been able to find a 18 precedent for using the near-source concentration as a 19 basis for making risk management decisions. ARB's 20 August 1993 technical support document for the ATCM for 21 dry cleaning operations, for example, focusses on a 22 receptor distance of a hundred meters for estimating 23 risks from both the tested and the modeled example 24 facilities. The use of maximum near-source 25 concentrations inflates the estimated risk from auto BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 54 1 repair facilities and does not provide an accurate 2 representation of the potential risks to individual 3 residents or off-site workers. 4 In its final technical support document, 5 ARB staff has appeared to acknowledged the problems with 6 using the near-source concentrations and have instead 7 focussed on the concentrations of the measured distances 8 to the closest residences. Curiously however, those 9 residential distances reported in the document have been 10 reduced for 11 of the 13 facilities for which comparative 11 data are available. As the result of these changes, five 12 of the 13 facilities now have residential distances that 13 are exactly the same as the near-source distances that we 14 pointed out were problematic in the first place. In 15 addition, nine of the 13 facilities now have off-site 16 worker distances that are exactly the same as the 17 near-source distances. We find that inconceivable that 18 13 shops could be selected with those characteristics. 19 The distance to the nearest receptor is the critical 20 factor in determining the Perc concentration predicted by 21 the dispersion model and in the resulting hypothetical 22 cancer risk. Using the information collected by HSIA's 23 consultant we find that only one of the 13 facilities 24 would be predicted to cause solvent concentrations in 25 excess of a ten in a million risk. According to data BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 55 1 from ARB's own survey of repair shops, this facility is 2 in the 99th percentile in terms of its brake cleaner use. 3 It is clearly not representative of the repair shops in 4 the state. 5 ARB also has failed to use representative 6 shop information for its generic facility modeling 7 analysis. The figures used in the ARB analysis for the 8 number of brake jobs performed at typical small, medium 9 and large facilities are based on anomalus data reported 10 in the ARB survey. The combination of this factored with 11 some other problems with their generic modeling leads to 12 a gross overstatement of the predicted risks in this 13 analysis and effectively makes the generic modeling 14 results meaningless for decision making purposes. 15 Despite the fact that birdbath systems 16 have been available for several years, the ARB survey 17 suggested they are not commonly used. Although many 18 shops may own a birdbath, the systems often sit idle in 19 the corner of the shop. The reason given by mechanics 20 include the fact that the brakes take longer to dry, the 21 brake jobs overall take longer, and birdbaths cannot 22 clean all the parts of the brake without disassembly. 23 Several mechanics also have reported however that 24 birdbath systems leave a residue on the brakes, and some 25 have reported that cars have returned to the shop because BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 56 1 of brake malfunctioning. 2 HSIA also understands that birdbath 3 systems may not fit under the wheels of larger trucks in 4 shops with limited shop height or lift capacities. 5 Although HSIA acknowledges that waste 6 disposal issues have caused shops to move away from the 7 chlorinated brake cleaners, we believe that many of the 8 shops still using these products do so based on 9 flammability concerns. In fact, 2 of the 13 shops that 10 ARB used for the detailed modeling work have declared 11 that they purchased the chlorinated product based on 12 flammability concerns. We further believe that concerns 13 about flammability are greater in smaller shops with 14 limited space. According to ARB staff the few shops that 15 they contacted indicated that they have taken steps to 16 separate their cutting and welding activities from the 17 rest of their repair work. While this may be possible in 18 larger shops with multiple bays, smaller shops with only 19 two or three bays do not have this option. 20 Industry has worked hard to find an 21 alternative to ARB proposal that better serves the 22 mechanic, the customer, and the neighboring residents and 23 workers. We have presented several workable alternatives 24 to the staff only to be rebuffed on each occasion. We 25 have identified significant flaws in the staff analysis BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 57 1 that remain unchanged in the final support document, and 2 we have provided information on efficacy and fire safety 3 that has been largely ignored. In the industry's 4 collective experience with the ARB, we believe that the 5 proposed regulation is without precedent in its failure 6 to address the legitimate concerns identified by the 7 affected industry. Thank you. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I just want to make one comment. 9 The comment that you made about impact on neighborhoods, 10 I want to say that we have enumerable requests to come in 11 to monitor neighborhoods. There is a great concern that 12 the public has to be exposed to pollutants, and toxic air 13 contaminants obviously are at the highest list of that, 14 so I think we have an obligation to make sure in fact we 15 respond to those requests. If we can identify sources 16 there, we have to control those, and I think we can argue 17 about model, and I'll argue about models with you, but I 18 think the public's concern when we talk about these toxic 19 air contaminants is paramount of what we have to do. 20 When we see that there are alternatives there, this is a 21 very important issue. 22 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: I'm just wondering if now or 23 later we could hear staff's response to the criticisms of 24 the risk assessment methodology that was employed. 25 MR. VENTURINI: We'd be happy to respond. Mr. BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 58 1 Donohoue will give you an overview of our response. 2 MR. DONOHOUE: There were a number of criticisms 3 there, and I'm just going to try an be very brief with 4 the comments. One of the comments was that we looked at 5 near-source risk, and essentially what we are looking at 6 here is a maximum off-site concentration, and yes we did 7 that, and that is consistent with the work that we have 8 done in every ATCM that is developed. It is consistent 9 with EPA guidelines. 10 In addition to looking at the maximum 11 off-site risk, essentially a fence-line risk, we also in 12 all of the analyses here also did look at what was the 13 point of the residential receptor and a business 14 receptor, so what was the maximum value associated with 15 this. This is the first time with an ATCM we have really 16 gone into details of doing this. This has been the most 17 extensive modeling analysis that we've ever done for an 18 ATCM development. There is 54 sources that we did, and 19 we looked at where the actual receptors with residences 20 and businesses. In addition, we did three generic 21 analyses, and clearly the numbers that we come up with 22 you can always argue about what those numbers are, but 23 they clearly show that the majority of these facilities 24 would have risk above one in a million, and in many cases 25 above 10 in a million, and that is a significant concern. BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 59 1 The other issue Mr. Risotto has brought up 2 has to do with the distances, the change. Back in May of 3 1999 we gave HSIA a set of draft modeling information. 4 This had not been ready for the report or anything. It 5 was a draft, and we gave it to them to make sure that 6 they were fully aware and fully able to follow how we 7 were doing modeling analysis. When we started to go back 8 through that March 1999 draft data, it became clear to us 9 that there was a need for a greater resolution on how 10 those model concentrations were represented. What we did 11 was, for the revised data in March of 2000, is we went 12 ahead and we based the modeling on a new set that had 13 five times greater resolution than the modeling that was 14 used in the draft analysis. 15 With that five times greater resolution, 16 we were able to more accurately identify where the 17 maximum receptor location was and that concentration. We 18 were kind of using, initially in the modeling process we 19 used the San Diego County map to figure out how to get 20 around downtown, and then we went to a five times greater 21 resolution and used a map of the downtown area to figure 22 out where those points of maximum impact were. That was 23 the main difference between those two. That's why those 24 numbers ended up changing, both the distance to the 25 maximum concentration and the maximum concentration BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 60 1 changed because of that increase in resolution. 2 We provided that information to 3 Mr. Risotto. They had that information as far as our 4 modeling approach and everything for over seven months, 5 and we've not been able to resolve that. They said there 6 is other information but we have not seen any reports. 7 We have a total of six pieces of paper that we have 8 received from them on it. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any other questions? 10 MR. McKINNON: Yeah, I wanted to ask you about a 11 couple of areas you mentioned. You talked about brake 12 jobs and that there would be a necessity for full 13 disassembly with some of the other equipment. And I'm -- 14 I've done brake jobs. I'm trying to picture this. Now, 15 certainly there are instances where you may go look at 16 the brakes, and you may need to wipe some things off and 17 that kind of thing, but if you are doing a brake job, can 18 you tell me where it is that you would not fully 19 disassemble to do the brake jobs? 20 MR. RISOTTO: What Tony Andreoni was describing 21 was a replacement, but that is not all of the brake work 22 that is done. You have to look at all of maintenance 23 activities. In some cases, the brake assembly is not 24 disassembled. In those cases, it's very difficult for a 25 water-based system to get behind. BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 61 1 MR. McKINNON: What are those instances where you 2 wouldn't fully disassemble? 3 MR. RISOTTO: If you were doing an inspection, an 4 adjustment, a cleaning, where it is determined that there 5 is no need for replacement, that you would do -- you 6 would want to clean the system before you put it back on 7 the road. 8 MR. McKINNON: And so that cleaning would be 9 something other than wiping and something other than full 10 disassembly? 11 MR. RISOTTO: Yes. 12 MR. McKINNON: And that is where you are resting 13 your argument for this cleaner, those instances? 14 MR. RISOTTO: I think there are -- no, our 15 arguments are based on a number of issues. Relative to 16 the aqueous systems, they leave a residue. There have 17 been reports of brakes locking up after the aqueous 18 systems have been used. We have heard from a number of 19 mechanics that after they use one of these systems, they 20 still use an aerosol to make sure that it's clean. We 21 believe there is a safety issue. 22 MR. McKINNON: Now, is that an instance where they 23 didn't fully disassemble? 24 MR. RISOTTO: I do not know the details. 25 MR. McKINNON: Brake jobs where somebody didn't BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 62 1 fully disassemble, I'm really uncomfortable about that, 2 so let me just move on to another area, and that is the 3 flammability area. I'm thinking of conditions in auto 4 shops and aero space shops where there are all sorts of 5 chemical around. 6 MR. RISOTTO: Yes. 7 MR. McKINNON: What is it that's unique or 8 different, what is it that changes kind of the general 9 way that one needs to operate in a shop where there are 10 lots of flammable chemicals by changing this particular 11 cleaner. I mean, I think there is gasoline in the shop. 12 There is all sorts of -- you know, so I'm interested in 13 how that works. 14 MR. RISOTTO: Again, it's a little more fleshed 15 out in the written comments, but in our interactions with 16 ARB staff, they surveyed shops, 16 in the Sacramento 17 area, about the flammability issue, and what they 18 reported to us is that, one, they did find a fire in one 19 of those shops. But secondly, that many of shops said 20 they addressed the flammability issue by separating their 21 torch and welding activities, either temporally or 22 spacially. They dedicated a bay to it, they gave it a 23 certain part of the day, which means that flammability is 24 an issue, but these shops had other ways to deal with it. 25 Now, that is certainly a possibility for a multiple-bay BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 63 1 shop, a shop with 7, 8 bays, but if we're talking about a 2 smaller shop with two bays, it's really not a luxury for 3 them to dedicate a bay to torch and weld, or even to do 4 that a certain time of the day. So four of those shops, 5 implementation of this regulation is a cost impact 6 because they would have to do something differently, add 7 a bay, change the nature of the work that they do, so I 8 don't think you can say that flammability isn't an issue. 9 It may be addressed in other ways in larger shops with 10 the ability to dedicate bays, but it's not in all cases. 11 MR. McKINNON: Well, certainly there are one-bay 12 shops, let's say just a one-bay shop. Heck, we'll make 13 it a small shop. There are one bay shops that have 14 gasoline in them? 15 MR. RISOTTO: Yes. 16 MR. McKINNON: Where my question was driving at, 17 is that there are precautions, and we'll stick to that 18 one-bay shop because I think that is a fair example, in a 19 one-bay shop, that shop needs to take precautions for all 20 sorts of things that are involved in car repair, 21 including probably one of the major issues is that you 22 have a bunch of gasoline in that bay. So those 23 precautions when you are doing welding exist with or 24 without this change, and I guess that's what I wanted you 25 to enlighten me, how this would radically change those BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 64 1 precautions. Certainly, this alone is not going to cause 2 somebody to buy -- build a whole new bay or buy a new 3 building to do their work. If they have gasoline -- 4 MR. RISOTTO: If I may, just a couple of things, 5 and I can be brief. First of all, gasoline is not 6 generally aerosolized in the air, and I think that's a 7 major difference between the gas sitting in a closed gas 8 tank and an aerosol being sprayed. In addition, the 9 carbureter cleaners that the staff have referred to that 10 are in use and contain flammable products are used on the 11 top of the engine. They are used to clean carbureters. 12 This product is used on the bottom of the engine because 13 that is where the brakes are. We have an instance we 14 included in our written testimony. We've shared it with 15 staff. We have an instance of a mechanic who sprayed a 16 flammable brake cleaner on a catalytic converter, not 17 even an ignition source, but on a catalytic converter 18 which can get to 700 degrees, and it flashed back and 19 burned all the facial hair off his face, so I think there 20 really is a difference in how these products are used 21 relative to other flammable products in the shop. 22 MR. McKINNON: I don't think that any shop manual 23 tells people to spray anything into a hot engine. And 24 I'd love to see that shop manual. I'm going to stop my 25 questioning. If there is somebody else that's a mechanic BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 65 1 here, I'm sure there is at least one, I'd be interested 2 to hear that, but I'll tell you, I've never been in a 3 shop where people made a distinction between aerosol 4 spray and gasoline when they were figuring out how they 5 were going to weld. Welding is something you do 6 carefully when you have flammables around, and there is a 7 bunch of them around. I'm going to keep listening and 8 thinking about this, but those are my two areas of 9 concern. 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any other questions from the 11 Board? Thank you very much, sir. The next witness is 12 Aaron Lowe from the Automotive Aftermarket Industry 13 Association. 14 MR. LOWE: My name is Aaron Lowe and I'm with the 15 Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association. We are a 16 national trade association representing manufacturers, 17 distributors, and retailers of automotive parts and other 18 products, including distribution of those products, and 19 we do have some similar concerns that were raised by Mr. 20 Risotto. The main reason that I wanted to speak is that 21 we would like to speak in support of the current 22 sell-through period that is in the regulations. We 23 represent a lot of wholesalers of different sizes, and we 24 are very concerned about being caught in the middle on 25 this, between the manufacturer and the service end of it. BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 66 1 These are a lot of small businesses. They are mom and 2 pop, family-owned businesses. They are not large 3 corporate. There are those too, but there are smaller 4 ones too. And I think if you are going to significantly 5 shorten some of these sell-through periods, you will have 6 an impact to them, one by the way that wasn't put out for 7 public comment. Since it's not in the proposal that was 8 sent out it is something that we have not been able to 9 obtain a lot of comment from these businesses, so we 10 would have some major concerns if the Board is 11 considering making big changes to that area. 12 MR. ROBERTS: Let me ask because this is a 13 concern. If you look at the sell-through period in 14 isolation of everything else, it seems reasonable that we 15 have a longer period, but the sell-through period really 16 starts at the initiation of any regulation and ends at 17 that date, and rather than looking at the one year 18 period, or one and a half year period, 18 months, it 19 seems to me if that if you start notifying people today 20 that the sell-through period is not only the end of the 21 production, of that period of time, at the end of that. 22 What we're looking at here right now is a combined four 23 years which seems excessive, so if you could help us to 24 understand. If we were to put a regulation out that said 25 look in three years from now there is going to be -- you BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 67 1 are not going to be allowed to sell this, and in fact, 2 after two years, you won't be able to buy this anywhere, 3 with that kind of notification, what kind of unusual 4 problem does that present to anyone? 5 MR. LOWE: Well, I think the key point here is 6 that for the larger companies they probably have major 7 regulatory compliance and they follow these things much 8 closer, but you are getting down to a lot of much smaller 9 distributions, jobbers, people that they own a storefront 10 and may not even belong to a trade association. Then you 11 get down to the service facilities. We have one service 12 facility spokesman, but they represent the more aware 13 service people. You are now getting down to shops all 14 over that don't belong to any trade association, and 15 there are a lot of shops that don't belong to any trade 16 associations, and we don't even know where their 17 compliance is with a lot of rules that have been on the 18 books for years. Getting it out sounds very easy to do 19 when you are sitting here and speaking from a corporate 20 standpoint, but when you get down to a lot small 21 businesses, I think it's a lot more difficult process 22 getting that news to them, and for them to understand. 23 They may be several steps down the manufacturer before 24 they even know. Sometimes you have the manufacturers, 25 then you have a WD, then you get down to a jobber, then BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 68 1 you finally get to the service facility. So it isn't a 2 two-step process all the time. Sometimes it's three, and 3 sometimes it could be four, but usually it's three for 4 the smaller shop, so it's seems a lot simpler than it is. 5 It isn't that easy. 6 MR. ROBERTS: I'm trying to understand it. The 7 question is how much inventory would, lets say the most 8 disconnected, the company that is out there that has not 9 a clue that things are going on in the state in the 10 regulatory circle, are they liable to have so much 11 inventory that they would not be able to turn it around? 12 MR. LOWE: I would say it's a possibility. I'd 13 have to -- it would be hard for me to say in the brake 14 cleaning area what they would do. If they service major 15 brake shops they may have a lot. If they don't service a 16 lot of brake shops they may inventory less than that. I 17 would have to go back and find out from my members on 18 that, and even go to people that aren't members of ours, 19 which is probably more significant. I think a lot of 20 people would have been more concerned with this from the 21 warehouse perspective had they known this was going to be 22 considered. We'd be happy to go back and look into that. 23 I'm just not prepared to answer that question. 24 MS. RIORDAN: In your response to the last 25 question, am I correct, it sounded to me as if BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 69 1 communication was more of a key issue with the 2 distributors as opposed to actual knowledge of yours as 3 to how long it would take to work down their inventory, 4 but it sounded to me as if there were a way in a perfect 5 world to communicate with the distributers and the 6 jobbers, that it then might not become a problem when you 7 know the lead time of the regulation. Am I right in your 8 response? 9 MR. LOWE: I would think that for a great many 10 shops I think there would be communications. My concern 11 is the smaller ones who might have a lot, but they just 12 hold and inventory and don't sell it through that 13 quickly. Whether that is the answer to the question, but 14 yeah, I guess for the larger shops. 15 MS. RIORDAN: But if they are small they don't 16 have that much inventory? Usually they don't have that 17 much capital to have things just sitting. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think Mr. Walsh addressed that 19 question earlier. He said that small businesses didn't 20 keep large inventories. He was citing the small 21 business. 22 MR. LOWE: He said that he wasn't using that 23 product anymore, so it wasn't a big issue for him, but 24 that is just him. As a small shop, they probably don't 25 have a huge inventory. I'm thinking more of the small BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 70 1 jobbers. When I say jobbers, that is the second step 2 down from the WD. 3 MS. RIORDAN: Reality speaking though, those 4 people don't have the capital. We're talking about the 5 small ones. They really don't have capital either to 6 have a huge inventory. Am I correct? 7 MR. LOWE: Well, whether it's huge or small, they 8 still have an inventory that may be large for them. 9 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Do you think they keep more 10 than a year's inventory, ordinarily? Does anybody? 11 MR. LOWE: Keep more than a year's inventory? 12 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Yes, more than they think 13 based on customary and ordinary business that they are 14 going to keep more than a 12-month inventory in stock, 15 paid for? 16 MR. LOWE: For the smaller shops, I would have to 17 really -- I would have to check. 18 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Are you familiar? I'm not -- 19 I don't want to ask you questions that you really don't 20 feel you are expert or experienced. 21 MR. LOWE: I think that's one of my points. We 22 represent the larger and distribution down the line. 23 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Not small? 24 MR. LOWE: Not real small people, so my concern 25 was that they didn't have notice to know that this is BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 71 1 going to happen. 2 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: You are expressing concern 3 for them? 4 MR. LOWE: There are groups in the state that 5 represent those people that didn't realize this issue was 6 going to come up at this hearing, and you will impact as 7 small businesses what happens here, and I think there 8 should be some outreach to them to get that answer. 9 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: I agree with you 10 wholeheartedly. 11 DR. BURKE: I was listening to questions from the 12 Supervisor, and quite frequently you really confused me 13 because, if I understand your testimony correctly, your 14 concern, seemingly, was for the people who don't get the 15 word who have large inventories who may be impacted. It 16 would seem to me that people who have large inventories 17 would be those people who would be in the communication 18 channel. That is just seemingly logical to me, so I 19 don't -- and I can't imagine somebody keeping a huge 20 inventory in today's financial world. It's just not 21 economically feasible, so I just don't understand. You 22 would have to explain to me how the logic of what you 23 said works, because I just don't understand it. 24 MR. LOWE: When I say large inventory, from a 25 smaller perspective, to them, it's a larger, it's much BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 72 1 larger. It may have a much higher percentage of their 2 capital costs than if it was a larger firm. But, you 3 know, I agree that this is an issue that we would have to 4 discover what inventories they are keeping. This 5 proposal is the second one on sell-through periods that 6 we've seen. The one that's in the proposal now was 7 reduced from one that was proposed earlier, so we're now 8 down looking at a third proposal that wasn't even 9 circulated to anybody before. So it's something that 10 maybe the issue won't be as big if we survey some of 11 these people, but, you know, I just think it's imperative 12 that we check with small businesses so they don't get 13 caught in the middle on this. 14 DR. BURKE: The other thing that you said that was 15 very confusing to me was that there is some people in 16 that community that will not know of the regulations. 17 When I was in the military, there was always ten percent 18 who don't get the word. You can't write a regulation 19 based on the fact that nobody's going -- that there is 20 going to be a percentage of the population who is not 21 going to know. 22 MR. LOWE: I realize that. I wasn't saying don't 23 write the regulation because of that. I was just saying 24 you're changing the period for use of that product, and 25 you were assuming that they would get the word as fast as BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 73 1 some of the larger firms that you expected to get the 2 word, and I was just saying that it may not be as simple 3 as to that. 4 DR. BURKE: It would seem to me that if the Board 5 had authority to write this regulation, you would also 6 have the right to mandate that the manufacture put on 7 cans the final date that this product could be used and 8 that everybody would get the word. 9 MS. D'ADAMO: I agree with Dr. Burke's statement 10 that I think that there are ways that we can get the word 11 out, and I think we're also maybe erroneously assuming 12 that just because some of these jobbers may be in 13 isolated areas that they are not in communication with 14 other jobbers, other distributors, or access receiving 15 information, you know, through the internet and other 16 sources. The question that I have is that this universe 17 keeps getting smaller and smaller, and it seems to me 18 that there are ways to get the word out through 19 associations, etcetera, for the distributors, the larger 20 distributors, and really what we're talking about is the 21 subsets of that larger universe of the smaller jobbers. 22 Hypothetically speaking, how much would, at the most, how 23 much would one of these jobbers have on hand. A pallet? 24 MR. LOWE: Right now or after two and a half 25 years. BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 74 1 MS. D'ADAMO: Uh-huh. 2 MR. LOWE: I'm not prepared to answer that 3 question. 4 DR. BURKE: I am. They would have nothing. 5 MS. D'ADAMO: Assuming worse case scenario, if 6 they've got some on hand, Mr. Walsh earlier indicated 7 that about two to three dollars a can for someone at his 8 level to purchase it from a distributor or a jobber, so 9 if someone has a pallet or half a pallet or a couple of 10 cases on hand, what do you expect that purchase price was 11 for the jobber per can? 12 MR. LOWE: The purchase price from the wholesaler? 13 MS. D'ADAMO: Yes, Mr. Walsh was saying he pays 14 two to three dollars a can. What does that jobber pay? 15 MR. LOWE: Obviously he is paying a percentage, 16 but it depends whether he bought it from the WD who would 17 have sold it to him at a higher percentage, where he 18 bought it from. It would be less than the two to three 19 dollars if he bought it from the jobber. 20 MS. D'ADAMO: If the individual got it on sale 21 because he got a whole pallet, probably a sales price, so 22 quite a bit less, I would assume? 23 MR. LOWE: I wouldn't say it's quite a bit less. 24 MS. D'ADAMO: We're talking about someone who has 25 quite a bit on hand because they got a good deal for it. BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 75 1 MR. LOWE: You are making the assumption that they 2 got a good deal on it. 3 MS. PATRICK: I think that staff can tell us when 4 all the speakers are done the kind of outreach that they 5 are going to do to make sure that people don't get caught 6 in the catch 22. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think that Ms. Walsh has a 8 comment. 9 MS. WALSH: I just wanted to explain that given 10 the procedures for conducting rule making, should the 11 Board decide to change any of those periods, the 12 sell-through period or the use period, we would make that 13 available for the 15-day comment period. The notice 14 would go out to people who received notice of the 15 original ruling making, and they would have an 16 opportunity to submit written comments for the record. 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. Charles 18 Kennedy representing Kleen Tech. 19 MR. KENNEDY: Good morning. I guess my primary 20 interest is I represent the Kleen Tech product which is 21 the unit that is sitting in front of you. I've been 22 involved in this type of product now since 1992. The 23 first time we got involved in this is because they were 24 trying to -- OSHA was going to come down with a 25 regulation that would cut down on the airborne BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 76 1 particulate that came off the brake shoes and the pads in 2 the car. Of course, now the issue is the VOCs that are 3 coming off the other cleaners. Going back to in all the 4 years I've been in this, this unit really -- not only 5 this unit, there is other units like this on the market, 6 don't get me wrong, really is a very convenient unit to 7 use. It's very cost effective. You are talking about 8 the different costs of these cans that are on the market 9 today, and I my business is selling to the distributors 10 who in turn sell to the jobbers, and in turn sell to the 11 car repair shops. I think the cost of those cans is 12 probably down around two dollars now. It's really come 13 down, depending on where you are buying them from. 14 If they do this correctly -- actually this 15 law, the OSHA regulation, was supposed to go into effect 16 in April of '95, and the people that manufacture the 17 aerosols and what have you managed to get that overturned 18 because they proved to OSHA that you can use those cans 19 in a way that you can keep the airborne particulate down 20 using certain methods, and really if you use the method 21 that is approved, it's going to take probably at least 22 two cans per axle on a vehicle, so if you are looking at 23 two dollars at the very least, it's going to cost them 24 four dollars per car. If it's going to cost them three 25 dollars per can, it's going to cost them six dollars per BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 77 1 car. This aqueous system, mine or any of the other ones 2 on the market, breaks down to be about one dime per axle 3 for doing -- repairing vehicles or doing the cleaning. 4 Going into how well it cleans and 5 disassembling, I'm going to use this demonstration piece 6 we had over here. Pretty much everything that is going 7 to be on this piece is going to be brake dust from the 8 particulate that comes off the brake shoes themselves. 9 This unit has a hose here that's going to wash it down. 10 This is going to wet it and it's going to meet the 11 requirement for the OSHA regulation to keep the airborne 12 particulate out of the vehicle. If there is anything 13 heavier, it comes with a brush, a flow through brush that 14 can be used to clean off the heavier greases and oils and 15 what have you. 16 Anytime you have other than brake dust 17 inside here, it's -- the system has to come down. The 18 only way that -- this wheel cylinder leaks because the 19 seals have leaked in there. The system has to come down. 20 If there is a seal in here in the axle, if that seal 21 leaks, the system has to come down, so basically this 22 unit here you are going to keep all that particulate 23 contained. It's all going to go in a contained barrel. 24 It's going to stay off the floor of the shop. In regard 25 to the large vehicles like busses, trucks, or motor BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 78 1 homes, where they can't get it on a hoist and get it up 2 to working level, you'll take that lid like that and put 3 it on the floor, underneath the axle area, wash 4 everything into the lid, and then pick up the lid and 5 dump it back in the machine, so everything is contained 6 and stays nice and clean and is contained inside the 7 barrel. 8 There is various types of units we have 9 here today. They all serve a good function. One of the 10 things that these barrel units do is that by keeping the 11 water in a more cylindrical, tall-type configuration is 12 that the oils and everything will stay floating on the 13 top because all oils and things are going to stay 14 floating on the top. The pickup from -- the tube on the 15 bottom picks up the cleaner fluid off the bottom, so that 16 if you are washing brakes just for a brake inspection, 17 the brakes are not going to get oil and contaminate on 18 them and just cause a lock up problem or something like 19 this other gentleman had mentioned. 20 The aerosol thing, I could see why they 21 are fighting this. It's huge business. I wasn't really 22 prepared to talk about how much inventory you go through. 23 My customers are distributors who in turn sell to jobbers 24 and what have you, and I don't sell an aerosol product -- 25 I guess I'm out of time? BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 79 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes, thank you very much. Any 2 questions from the Board? 3 MS. RIORDAN: I do have a question. Mr. Walsh 4 testified from the Automotive Service Counsel that he 5 thought perhaps something like that was required, at 6 least in the South Coast Basin. Number one, is that 7 true, and if you have knowledge is this also required in 8 other parts of the state of California? 9 MR. KENNEDY: What has been required in the South 10 Coast Basin is they are no longer allowed to have a parts 11 washer that emits over 50 VOCs of particulate per 12 million, so that pretty much eliminates anything that is 13 a solvent parts washer, and the only thing that really 14 meets the requirements is a water-based type solution. 15 MS. RIORDAN: Okay. And then my second question 16 was, is it just the South Coast Air Quality Basin or are 17 there other parts of California? 18 MR. KENNEDY: Other areas have adopted certain 19 rules. They are not quite as strict as the South Coast 20 Basin. Some areas, for example, like the Bay Area, AQMD, 21 they, I think, they are still allowing a shop -- they 22 have one solvent parts washer, everything else has to be 23 less than 50 VOCs. 24 MS. RIORDAN: Thank you. 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any other questions or comments? BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 80 1 Thank you very much. The next speaker is Paula Forbis 2 for the Environmental Health Coalition. 3 MS. FORBIS: Good morning and welcome to San 4 Diego. I'm Paula Forbis and I'm the co-director for the 5 Toxic Free Neighborhood Campaign for the Environmental 6 Health Coalition. For those of you that aren't familiar 7 with us, Environmental Health Coalition has been working 8 in communities in San Diego and Tijuana for the last 20 9 years trying to protect folks from exposure to toxics in 10 the environment. We've been one of the enumerable folks 11 that Dr. Lloyd referred to that has asked for additional 12 monitoring in some of the communities because of the 13 concerns of use of toxics in close proximity to 14 residential receptors. 15 And we've been very happy to work with ARB 16 staff on that issue over the last year. 17 We're also joining today in support of 18 this regulation with the San Diego Bay Keepers, Surfers 19 Tired of Pollution, the Natural Resources Defense Council 20 and Sierra Club of California. We all feel very strongly 21 that this measure goes a long way to protecting public 22 health, and that when you have a proposed regulation that 23 can reduce a risk from a facility that could be as high 24 as 50 or 60 cancers per million, I even saw references in 25 the staff report to a possibility of 110 cancers per BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 81 1 million, and if you can do that, reduce that risk at 2 minimal cost, then it seems like a win/win situation, not 3 to mention the additional benefits to water quality, 4 worker health, and minimization of hazardous waste 5 disposal that goes along with the regulation. 6 In going through the staff report, I felt 7 it very strongly documented the need to do this to 8 protect public health, but I also share the concerns of 9 many of the Board members that the time lines are not as 10 well justified. And I'm puzzled why, if the staff report 11 says that 62 to 90 percent of these products already are 12 non-chlorinated and if 60 percent of the shops are 13 already using aqueous type solutions and if they are 14 projecting minimal to no economic impact as a result of 15 adoption of this rule, why are we waiting two and a half 16 years to stop production and over five years to protect 17 the residents that are living close to these facilities. 18 I want to address the proximity issue very 19 briefly. We work primarily in the communities of Bario 20 Logan and Logan Heights. These are communities that are 21 about 95 percent Latino and about 50 percent below the 22 poverty line, and a lot these types of facilities are 23 very, very close to residential receptors, so a 20 meter 24 receptor distance is not at all unusual. And I would 25 expect that in some of these cases that it would be more BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 82 1 like two meters in fact, and that if you looked at the 2 hundred meter distance that was suggested by one of the 3 previous speakers, you might not only find a brake shop 4 but a chrome plater as well, so instead we would suggest 5 in the interest of public health that the time lines need 6 to be shortened. We are recommending that there be a 7 cease of manufacturing of these products as soon as 8 possible with a six-month sell-through period and then a 9 six-month period within which the operators can reduce 10 their inventories. 11 And of course we support as much effort as 12 possible to get the word out immediately that these 13 regulations are coming down the pipe so that folks aren't 14 left with products on their shelves. Thank you very 15 much. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Questions or comments 17 from the Board? We have Chris Goff. 18 MR. GOFF: Chris Goff with Evergreen 19 Environmental. Evergreen is a waste hauler. We are a 20 disposal company mostly waste oil, drum waste, and oily 21 water. This is my machine that we have in the house, the 22 carriage house with Mr. Walsh. We do water-based parts 23 wash in LA County, and we brought these on board to meet 24 the needs of people if they wanted them or not. We don't 25 make a lot of money off of them. They're a luxury more BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 83 1 than they are a necessity. 2 Why we're here today is the waste oil. 3 Chlorinated solvents is what we test for. If waste oil 4 tests more than a thousand parts per million it cannot go 5 to our refinery. It cannot be picked up as waste oil. 6 It cannot be picked up for 20 cents a gallon. It goes to 7 350 a gallon, minimum 250 dollar charge. Does this 8 affect the small shop owner? Very much so because I'm 9 the one who goes to the shop and says you tested over a 10 thousand parts per million. You need to pay me two 11 hundred and fifty dollars to get your waste oil out of 12 here. He is not very happy with he. I'm not very 13 popular at that moment. What I do is I look for evidence 14 in the shop. We might look around and see is there 15 chlorinated solvents, brake cleaner, ask him if anything 16 new has been brought in, and most of the time we will 17 find chlorinated solvents in there because that is the 18 number one cause for that, so that is one of our main 19 concerns. As far as the machines work themselves, I 20 worked for Safety Clean for two years as a rep. Why is 21 it that Sears switched all their equipment to water-based 22 brake cleaners? Why did Midas, Brake Masters, and other 23 specialty brake shops do it? Because the cost for brake 24 spray, if they buy a case and go through a case a week, 25 is a lot more expensive than going to a unit. Why do BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 84 1 they have success? Because they are allowed and told by 2 their upper management, you will use this, so they do. 3 You go to a small shop or dealership, there is not that 4 same tight squeeze, so the people still use brake spray 5 because it's convenient, but if you tell them, this is 6 what you are going to use, use it. You'll be surprised 7 the success you will have. Same thing with the 8 water-based parts washers in LA. They were told you 9 cannot use solvent anymore. Everybody is using 10 water-base. Why is it that businesses are not going out 11 of business? Why is it that cars are not breaking down? 12 It works because the choice is made for them. It was 13 proven that it could work first off, and it has. That's 14 the simple truth, that it works. I'm done. Thank you. 15 I'm done. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any questions or comments? Thank 17 you very much. Ann Heil with Tri-Tac. 18 MS. HEIL: My name is Ann Heil. I'm here today 19 representing Tri-Tac which is an association that 20 represents over 90 percent of the sewage agencies in the 21 state of California. I'm here today in support of the 22 rule. I am here to talk about some of the multimedia 23 implications of the rule. 24 I'm going to go through these overheads 25 pretty quickly because I want to focus some comments at BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 85 1 the end about the time schedule for the rule. 2 Let me start by saying that POTWs are 3 concerned about perchloroethylene and also methylene 4 chloride for two reasons. One is that we have to meet a 5 very stringent discharge limit of five part per billion 6 in the water, and also because we're concerned because 7 chlorinated products can volatilize our wastewater 8 treatment facilities and impose a cancer risk on 9 surrounding facilities. We're subject to both statewide 10 and South Coast AQMD regulations for our treatment plants 11 in the south land for cancer risk from those facilities. 12 Our concern with this issue started in the 13 mid 1990s when ARB accepted Perc as a VOC while at the 14 same time reducing allowable VOC content for automotive 15 cleaning products. As a result of our concerns ARB at 16 that time agreed to take a few measures to both monitor 17 concentrations of Perc in automotive cleaning products 18 and also keep an eye on what was going on with the POTWs 19 and Perc. We were alarmed when we first got this data 20 from the ARB showing that sales of engine degreasers had 21 risen alarmingly over seven fold since 1996 when those 22 rules first took effect. 23 We not only saw sales of Perc and engine 24 degreasers going up, but we have seen Perc going up at 25 several wastewater treatment facilities in California. BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 86 1 The East Bay Municipal Utility Districts in Northern 2 California saw a doubling of Perc concentrations between 3 1996 and 1999, and this is what is coming into their 4 plant. And the joint water pollution plant, a large 5 wastewater treatment facility in Southern California, saw 6 a six fold increase in Perc concentration during the same 7 period. 8 We don't have a definitive link, a smoking 9 gun, establishing the increase in the chlorinated 10 products being used increased Perc concentrations in the 11 sewer, but we do know there are several well defined 12 routes between the Perc and the sewer systems. 13 For brake cleaners, for our facilities, 14 water-based cleaning baths have become quite popular for 15 parts cleaning especially in Southern California. Some 16 parts cleaners don't work as well as others, and in those 17 cases, shops may boost the cleaning power by using Perc 18 containing cleaning products. When they are rinsed in 19 the bath, it can contaminate the bath. 20 A recent study by the Southwest Air 21 Quality Management District found that 9 percent of spent 22 water-based cleaning baths at automotive repair 23 facilities in LA County are sewered, so some of those 24 baths do get into the sewer although there is a 25 prohibition on that. BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 87 1 Even more alarming is engine degreasers, 2 there is a direct pathway between the engine degreaser 3 and the sewer. Engine degreasers are sprayed on engines 4 and then rinsed off to the sewer. A single can of engine 5 degreaser contains enough Perc to contaminate eight 6 million gallons of water to the five part per billion 7 limit. 8 Since sampling at treatment plants for 9 these types of contaminants are done on a snapshot basis, 10 this Perc coming through can cause an effluent violation 11 at a plant as large as a hundred million gallons a day. 12 To give you some idea of perspective, this 13 hundred-million-gallon-a-day plant serves one million 14 people. 15 The big concern with the POTWs with this 16 rule is the compliance schedule for the rule. We feel 17 the five year total phase out period is much too long. 18 In our written comments on the rule that we submitted to 19 you we proposed a six month period to allow manufacturing 20 to continue, a 1.5 year sell-through period, and then 21 keeping the remaining one year period to use the product 22 as it is. We would certainly welcome any shortening to 23 even that proposed time schedule. 24 POTWs are faced with mandatory penalties 25 for every discharge violation we face. We would rather BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 88 1 not face 5 more years of violations coming from these 2 products. 3 The LA County Sanitation Districts, who I 4 work directly for, submitted comments on the rule that 5 proposed a one year phase out period in their written 6 comments. So again, we applaud this opportunity to work 7 with you on a regulation that will improve both air 8 quality and water quality simultaneously. We enjoy 9 working with you and we hope to work together with you on 10 such future beneficial rules. Thank you. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Comments or questions from the 12 Board? 13 DR. BURKE: Did they say you are an LA County 14 employee? 15 MS. HEIL: Yeah, I work for LA County Sanitation 16 District. 17 DR. BURKE: What is the current Perc level in LA 18 County? 19 MS. HEIL: At the wastewater treatment plants? 20 DR. BURKE: In the wastewater treatment plants. 21 MS. HEIL: One of slides that I showed you, the 22 joint water pollution control plant is our large plant 23 down in the Carson area, and according to my graph last 24 year's sampling showed eight parts per billion coming in 25 that plant. BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 89 1 DR. BURKE: Is it up now? 2 MS. HEIL: That one is up. That is our largest 3 plant. We like to do sampling there because we get a 4 good average. That plant gets wastewater from over 5 3 million people. We also have ten other waste water 6 treatment plants. Perc concentrations vary from non 7 detect up to, lets say, 50 parts per billion. 8 DR. BURKE: Basically it's up? 9 MS. HEIL: It's up, yeah. 10 DR. BURKE: That's what confused me. Correct me 11 if I'm wrong, the South Coast Air Quality Management 12 District regulations do not already prohibit the use of 13 this Perc in this method of operation? 14 MS. HEIL: It doesn't prohibit the use of Perc in 15 automotive cleaning products. 16 DR. BURKE: Well, then why do we have the aqueous 17 regulation? 18 MS. HEIL: The rule 1171, your rule, had to do 19 with the minerals spirits parts that we used for general 20 parts cleaning. This rule today deals with the aerosol 21 spray cans, the brake cleaners, and the engine 22 degreasers. The AQMD limits the content, what can be in 23 these parts cleaning baths, but they don't have 24 restrictions on the aerosol cleaning products. 25 DR. BURKE: All right. BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 90 1 MS. HEIL: As I understand it. It's not my 2 agency. 3 DR. BURKE: I go there occasionally. I really, 4 from what your testimony is, I would really like for you 5 to discuss with some of our people what the increase in 6 that discharge is because we think, you know, it should 7 be significantly decreasing, and you are telling us it is 8 increasing so, you know. It may be us. I'm not saying 9 it's your office. 10 MS. HEIL: Yeah, we would like to see it go down. 11 Some of the dry cleaning rules that you passed were 12 beneficial because they required newer, more updated 13 equipment. 14 DR. BURKE: We're passing all those rules, and 15 it's still going up, and something is askew here. I 16 don't want to take the Board's time, but if I could get 17 your card before you leave. 18 MR. DONOHOUE: With respect to 1171, it addresses 19 aerosol containers once the shop exceeds using 160 ounces 20 per day. So if the shop uses less than 160 ounces per 21 day, which is what, 10, 12, cans then the limit to have 22 the 50 grams per liter of EOC comes in. Based upon our 23 surveys, that would only be about 1.5 percent of the 24 shops that are likely to exceed that 160 ounces per day, 25 so therefore the majority of shops have no restrictions BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 91 1 of using the aerosol products. 2 DR. BURKE: But the 1.6 figure could be misleading 3 because if those are the largest users, if those are the 4 guys who are doing the huge amount of brake jobs, then 5 the number should still be coming down. 6 You know, I don't want to take everybody 7 here's time. We can discuss this later, but it's just 8 confusing to me. 9 MS. HEIL: I have talked to your staff and I think 10 the -- we work with them. We have a regular ongoing 11 relationship, and one of the things that came out is that 12 a lot of shops aren't aware of that limit on the aerosol 13 can usage. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Dr. Katy Wolf with the Institute 15 for Research and Technical Assistance. 16 MS. WOLF: Good morning, Chairman Lloyd and other 17 Board members. I'm the director of the Institute for 18 Research and Technical Assistance, a non-profit 19 organization that helps companies adopt low and non 20 solvent technologies. I'm here today to support this 21 regulation of four reasons. 22 First, it will reduce worker exposures to 23 chlorinated solvents which are carcinogens. 24 Second, it will reduce the surrounding 25 community exposure to these carcinogens as well. BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 92 1 Third, it will reduce or eliminate the 2 possibility of site contamination, which can be a 3 terrible problem for small businesses like auto repair 4 facilities. 5 Fourth, it will prevent the contamination 6 of the used oil products, which we've heard a lot of 7 testimony about. 8 In 1995, we received an EPA grant under 9 the EPA Environmental Justice Pollution Prevention 10 Program to test water-based parts cleaners that would be 11 used as alternatives to mineral spirits parts cleaners 12 that were used by virtually every auto repair facility at 13 the time. 14 We worked with CAL EPA, Department of 15 Toxic Substances Control, Ann Heil, and several other 16 agencies on that project, and also the South Coast Air 17 Quality Management District. 18 Subsequent to our work, the South Coast 19 Air Quality Management District passed a rule requiring 20 the conversion of all mineral spirits parts cleaners to 21 cleaning solvents with less than 50 grams a liter of VOC, 22 and that's the part cleaner regulation that Mr. Burke was 23 discussing before. 24 Now, in that study, we analyzed all of the 25 of spent water cleaning baths and found that Perc was BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 93 1 present in some of them. That raised a huge concern by 2 the sewage agencies that there would be a new pathway 3 opened to the sewer for Perc with this conversion to 4 water-based parts cleaning. We then wrote a proposal in 5 conjunction with our partners on the previous project, 6 another proposal to test and demonstrate water-based 7 brake cleaners in auto repair facilities. We selected 8 ten facilities to work with. We tested seven different 9 water-based brake cleaners, and we also tested five 10 different generic types of brake cleaning units, and I 11 just wanted to describe those a little bit to you so that 12 you can have a better understanding of how the aqueous 13 brake cleaners work. 14 This one right here is what we call a 15 stand-mounted brake cleaning unit, and you put an aqueous 16 cleaning formulation in it, and you use the brush, and 17 they have an applicator in this particular one and a 18 brush. And up here the unit is made of plastic, and it 19 also is a stand-mounted brake cleaning unit. Now, it's 20 notable also that if you have a trucking facility or the 21 larger vehicles, you can actually remove that unit from 22 the stand and put it under the brakes where you need to 23 clean them. That's the first type of brake cleaning unit 24 we tested. 25 The second type is what we refer to as a BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 94 1 birdbath unit and that is over here. I don't know if you 2 could see that. Could someone pull it out. You can 3 raise and lower the neck of it so if cars are up on the 4 support, you can raise it up so that you can put it right 5 below the brakes where you are doing the brake job. You 6 put a water-base cleaning formulation in the base of 7 that. You use a brush to brush down the brakes when you 8 are doing the brake job. That is the second type of unit 9 we tested. 10 The third type is this unit shown here, 11 and it's very similar to the Kleen Tech unit that was 12 described by Mr. Kennedy earlier. It's simply a part 13 washer. Again, you can remove the sink and put it on the 14 floor if you need to make it lower. 15 The next type of brake cleaning unit that 16 we tested -- there is another picture of a similar type 17 of unit. And then because many of the facilities in the 18 South Coast basin were using water-based parts cleaners 19 for cleaning their parts, we wanted to test a water-based 20 parts cleaner that had wheels on it to see if it could do 21 double duty for parts cleaning and brake cleaning unit, 22 and we tested this type of unit as well, which is a small 23 unit, and a service station used that unit for both brake 24 cleaning and parts cleaning. 25 Our findings in the project indicated that BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 95 1 water-based brake cleaning units were as effective as 2 solvent based aerosol brake cleaners, and seven of the 3 ten facilities we worked with ended up converting to the 4 water-based brake cleaning systems. Two of them did not 5 use aerosol cans virtually at all in brake cleaning, and 6 the final plant that we worked with had been using a 7 water-base cleaner when we started working with them for 8 cleaning brakes. 9 The cost for these facilities -- the costs 10 were reduced for them in adopting the water-based cleaner 11 over the aerosol solvent cleaner by between 25 and 93 12 percent, so it is lower cost to use these water-base 13 brake cleaners. 14 Flammability has come up as a big issue 15 today, and we believe that virtually all the facilities 16 can convert to the water-based brake cleaner. If some 17 facilities need to use the flammable brake cleaners, if 18 they feel that they need to, they already have products 19 in the facility that has been mentioned. Just to comment 20 on Mr. Risotto's testimony where he talked about how one 21 facility operator sprayed a flammable brake cleaner onto 22 a catalytic converter. If he had sprayed a chlorinated 23 brake cleaner on that catalytic converter, it would have 24 generated hydrochloric acid and phosgene which may have 25 killed the operator immediately. I think it's better to BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 96 1 burn your eyebrows than to be killed immediately. 2 Just one summary remark. I would like to 3 request -- we very much support the regulation. We 4 request that you lower the effective date timeframe, and 5 we would like to see an immediate ban upon adoption for 6 production than give six months for the sell-through 7 period and an additional six months for the users to use 8 up their inventory. Thank you. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Your total timeframe would be? 10 MS. WOLF: One year from the date of adoption, and 11 we're aware that small facilities are involved, so the 12 users should have at least six months to deplete their 13 inventory, but I think a six-month sell-through is 14 enough, and the producers are all aware of this 15 regulation, so they can stop production immediately. 16 Thank you. 17 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: I do have a question of staff 18 if I may. Could you repeat the reasons you gave for 19 recommending the initial conversion time of two and a 20 half years, that is the banning of production. 21 Apparently it tied in with some other time line that 22 we've adopted, I wanted to know what that was. 23 STAFF: The original time period that we 24 recommended for the manufacturers of 12-31-O2. 25 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: I understand. BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 97 1 STAFF: Which tied in with the midterm measures 2 for consumer products that the reducing of the VOC 3 content of the brake cleaners was that same time line, so 4 at that point in time we were looking at what may allow 5 them to be able to make that switch all at one time, so 6 that was the rationale originally. 7 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: What would be the negative 8 impact on them if the time line were shortened as has 9 been requested here? What the if two time lines were not 10 in sync? 11 MR. VENTURINI: We have been listening very 12 carefully, also the last couple of days talking earnestly 13 about these time lines, and one of the things that we 14 think, based on our experience, these regulations and so 15 forth, that we think particularly because we're dealing 16 with a fairly high usage rate already of these 17 alternative products that we think it would be reasonable 18 to shorten that manufacturing date that we now have 19 ceasing of manufacturing by one year. 20 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Before we get into that, 21 could you answer my question. You must think if you 22 think it would be reasonable, then the original reason 23 for suggesting this coincidental date must not have had 24 any rational basis other than just it's convenient or 25 something. I want to know what the impact would be, if BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 98 1 you've assessed it, on the producers, the manufacturers, 2 if there are two different time lines, one for the 3 consumer product itself, reducing VOCs, and the other for 4 banning completely the production and sale in California 5 at least of these products. 6 MR. VENTURINI: I think our thinking at this point 7 is that it probably should be minimal because logically 8 we could think that if a manufacturer that's already 9 producing the alternative product could just switch to 10 that product, but then we wouldn't be faced any way with 11 having to deal with the VOC reduction a year later, so my 12 perspective would be that at this point I would think it 13 would be minimal. 14 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: I haven't heard any testimony 15 from manufacturers on this, so I guess my own instinct 16 would be to dramatically shorten the time line for the 17 conversion or production date, and then to similarly cut 18 the other time lines that you've been discussing. When 19 it's appropriate I would like to make a suggestion in 20 that respect, but I wanted to know if there were any 21 other subsequent reasons. 22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I don't think we had a crisp 23 response from staff in terms of why we chose the original 24 number; now we can change the number. 25 MR. SCHEIBLE: We chose the original number to BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 99 1 coincide with another aspect of our regulations that 2 affected the manufacturers of the replacement product. 3 There are two cases here. 4 There is manufacturers that currently 5 produce a Perc product and a non-Perc product. Those are 6 very well positioned to meet a very short time frame 7 obviously. 8 The second case is the manufacturer who 9 makes brake cleaners but does not have a product that 10 will comply once the Perc ban is in place. 11 Traditionally, in terms of looking at this, even though 12 it seems like a simple process, we've judged that it 13 takes at least a year and a half for someone to go from 14 not having a product to reformulating and knowing they've 15 got a product that they can sell and stand behind, so 16 that is kind of the theory, to allow those that are in 17 the market now based solely on Perc to come in the market 18 with a different product. And then the extra time was a 19 feeling that it was easier in the industry if all of our 20 regs coincided, so we think it can be done faster. Many 21 manufacturers can do it much faster, but those that if -- 22 if the Board chose to go with an almost immediate six 23 months or that type of timeframe, it may mean that some 24 people who now have products that they sell in California 25 will have to leave that market for some period of time BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 100 1 because they won't be able to produce the product that 2 doesn't use Perc. I don't know whether we have 3 statistics on that because there are a whole lot of small 4 producers in this area, so mainly it was to give time to 5 that segment of the industry to adapt to that regulation. 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: But you do think that a year to a 7 year and a half would be a reasonable time line in your 8 experience for even those who don't currently have such a 9 product? 10 MR. SCHEIBLE: I think they would have a chance to 11 decide if this market is big enough for them to stay in 12 and how do I participate in it. 13 Another thing to add, I think the critical 14 date on the regulation is the date upon which we say you 15 can no longer manufacture the products and provide them 16 into the wholesale system. The sell-through periods are 17 pretty long and the use periods are pretty long, and we 18 think that that's the exception that anyone will use 19 anything close to that. A few months after you can no 20 longer manufacture and introduce at the wholesale level 21 these products, use will drop tremendously because most 22 of these things move through and are used quickly. So 23 from an environmental benefit standpoint, the Board's 24 decision on what is the date on what manufacture and 25 introduction in the wholesale system can no longer take BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 101 1 place is going to be the principle determinate. And we 2 do think that the additional time can be cut down and the 3 vast majority of people will have no trouble with a 4 one-year sell-through and a six-month use period, and 5 that guarantees the final end of the use. 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Does staff have any 7 written comments? 8 MR. AMES: The first one we have from the Chemical 9 Specialists Manufacturers Association. Mr. Fratz makes 10 three main points. He is opposed to the adoption of the 11 regulation citing similar reasons to Mr. Risotto. 12 Secondly, CSMA proposes that the Board 13 modify the rule to include a provision for individual 14 facilities to request exemption an from the executive 15 officer. 16 In response, we don't really see a 17 compelling need to do this for reasons that have been 18 discussed here. 19 Thirdly, there is the issue that is raised 20 and we would like our legal office to respond. 21 MS. TRACY: Mr. Fratz objected to the way that we 22 treated the use of method 310 to test for the toxic air 23 contaminants in order to test for compliance. Our 24 response is that in the proposed section we would 25 incorporate by reference method 310 which applies to VOC BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 102 1 compounds, and every place that method 310 references 2 VOCs we would substitute the three toxic air contaminants 3 that are subject to this proposal. And toxic care 4 contaminants is a defined term in the text that we 5 proposed. 6 MR. AMES: We have eight support letters. We have 7 support letters from San Diego Air Pollution Control 8 District, the South Coast Air Quality Management 9 District, and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 10 Control District, all urging for adoption. 11 We have a support letter from US EPA 12 region nine asking the Board consider shortening the 13 timeframe. We have a support letter from the Office of 14 Environmental Health Hazard Assessment urging adoption. 15 The Integrated Waste Management Board urges adoption 16 citing the reasons of the use of motor oil contamination 17 which has already been discussed and the potential 18 reduction in aerosol cans going to the landfills, the 19 volume of the cans. 20 Clayton and Associates sent in a support 21 letter urging Board adoption. And in their letter urging 22 adoption, they mention there is about a dozen national 23 auto service agencies that routinely use aqueous units. 24 Finally, there is a support letter from 25 the general manager of 13 Midas shops in the San Diego BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 103 1 area. These shops perform approximately 300 brake jobs 2 per week. The general manager mentions that he has not 3 used aerosol products for the past five years, and has 4 used aqueous units for the past seven years and this has 5 resulted in a cost savings in $15,900 per year compared 6 to his previous use of aerosols. That is all the letters 7 we have. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. At this 9 time we will have some discussion on the item. It seems 10 to be clear from my perspective that staff has made an 11 excellent case that we have an opportunity here to 12 protect worker, public health impacts and there are 13 alternatives here. 14 MR. ROBERTS: It seems like we're in a position to 15 really recognize something that has already largely 16 occurred, and that is that the use of the water-based 17 products is clearly -- and it's a question of how do you 18 move those people who haven't gotten to that point yet. 19 I was surprised in looking at the products. That first 20 of all there are a number of companies that are making 21 both, and I think somebody was saying that 60 percent of 22 this is water-based today. 23 But it was also curious as I looked at 24 these that there were flammable and non-flammable in 25 both regimes, so that isn't necessarily a solution for BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 104 1 the problem with the change. 2 We began today by having somebody 3 acknowledging that maybe we aren't in the real world here 4 in these corridors. I would share with you, I spend a 5 lot of time here and I there are days where I feel like 6 this isn't the real world, but I think what we are trying 7 to do today is come up with something that would work, 8 and it would seem like at the very least that perhaps we 9 could cut this timeframe in half with shortening the 10 manufacturing period down to a year. I'm -- there is 11 some question there because we haven't had any testimony. 12 The lack of testimony would indicate with these major 13 companies that are involved here that this isn't a major 14 issue for them. It's hard for me to believe that if it 15 were they wouldn't be here. But if that period were 16 shortened down a year with a sell-through period of 17 perhaps a year and then a six-month inventory depletion, 18 it seems to me we would be cutting by 50 percent and 19 still have a reasonable program. 20 I think that no matter what we do here, 21 it's clear to me that we have to have an outreach program 22 to let some of those middle men, those jobbers that we 23 referred to, let them know that the world is changing, 24 that these products aren't going to be able to go on and 25 be used in the manner they are today. BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 105 1 I would guess that in California, at least 2 as it should be, a not impossible task to reach most, if 3 not all, of those involved in the industry and involved 4 in the use of these products, but I would think that 5 anything that we do today has got to have a strong 6 outreach program to make sure that there is a public 7 education process here specifically targeting all three 8 of these levels, and you know there may be a way to go 9 beyond that, but I would certainly like to put that there 10 for consideration. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: There are a couple of pieces of 12 business I need to take care of before we get into 13 further discussion to close the record, and it seems very 14 clear we are going to be changing the timeframe here, so 15 I will close the record on the agenda item. However the 16 record will be reopened when the 15-day notice of public 17 availability is issued. Written or oral comments 18 received after this hearing date but before the 15-day 19 notice is issued will not be accepted as part of the 20 official record on this agenda. When the record is 21 reopened for a 15-day comment period, the public may 22 submit written comments on the proposed changes which 23 would be considered and responded to. Do we have any ex 24 parte communications before we proceed with further 25 discussion? No. None. Then we can continue. BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 106 1 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: I agree with Supervisor 2 Roberts and Dr. Friedman's comments and others who have 3 commented on the question at least to the time line, and 4 it seems to me it would be appropriate, particularly 5 since we've not heard from any of the manufacturers to 6 specifically object about the time line. I've heard from 7 larger distributors but not from the manufacturers, and I 8 do think that the putting a prohibition ban on 9 manufacturers is the start of the process, and the most 10 effective step to take, and so I'm inclined to think that 11 a year and say a couple months, say June 30, 2001, would 12 be an appropriate time in my view to ban the further 13 production and distribution or selling in California of 14 these products, and then allow a 12-month sell-through 15 period to June 30 of O2, and then a six-month inventory 16 depletion for the facility operators which would take it 17 to 12-31-02, which is I think almost three years earlier 18 than recommended, two and a half years. I know this 19 sounds somewhat arbitrary, but I don't hear any 20 compelling reason to have the production date ban 21 coincide with the other consumer product effective dates, 22 and at least I haven't heard any, I think from what I've 23 heard that a 12-month sell-through period ought to be 24 adequate with all the distributers and jobbers, and then 25 a six-month ought to be ample for the users to use up BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 107 1 what they bought. So at least on those beliefs, I think 2 it's reasonable, and it protects the legitimate business 3 people, and it protects the public health. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Do I hear a specific motion? 5 MR. ROBERTS: I'm willing to make the motion. 6 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: I'll second the motion. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Further discussion? 8 MR. McKINNON: Yeah, to the extent that kind of 9 end users have a few years here from the date of the rule 10 making, I think it's really important that we figure out 11 ways, and I know this has been said before, that they get 12 the message as soon as possible because the problem for 13 end users is, much of what we've talked about today can 14 be done alternatively, but there may be unique kind of 15 circumstances where they are going to have to do a lot of 16 thinking about doing something in a different way, and 17 those unique circumstances may not come down the line 18 very often. I can't think, may be looking for vacuum 19 leaks and they've used the flammability of the old 20 product to find them. There is other ways they can do 21 it, but they will be rare circumstances, but they are 22 going to have to take time to think about how to solve 23 them, so I think that if we're clear that the message is 24 getting out and there is like a couple of years for those 25 unique circumstances to surface in theirs shops and them BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 108 1 to think of new ways to deal with them, that's plenty of 2 time, as long as we get the message to them. 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I concur with your comment, and 4 there is clearly issues of getting message to the overall 5 users, so I think that's very important. Any other 6 comments on the motion? 7 MS. WALSH: If I could just take a minute to 8 clarify the motion. The motion I'm understanding would 9 be a motion to approve the regulations proposed by staff 10 with the specific suggested changes, and this was 11 specifically as Professor Friedman spelled out, there was 12 a drop dead date, if you will, of 6-30-01 which differs a 13 bit from Supervisor Robert's proposal which is a one 14 year. 15 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: No, this was exactly my 16 intent. Mid year, end of June. 17 MR. ROBERTS: Yeah, I was looking at the date, and 18 I was thinking about adjusting them, but we are exactly 19 in line. 20 MS. WALSH: I understood Supervisor Robert's 21 motion to also include the public outreach. 22 MR. ROBERTS: I was going to ask that that be 23 clarified, that I want the strongest possible program of 24 reaching the people at all levels in the industry. 25 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: And urging them to accelerate BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 109 1 if they can, these times. I would assume that much of 2 this will occur short of these time lines, but there is 3 no reason as expressed, that probably production will 4 stop a lot sooner. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. With that I will call 6 for a vote. All those in the favor say aye. 7 THE BOARD: Aye. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any nays? Thank you. With that 9 I think we will take a 10 minute break here for the court 10 reporter. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 110 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 3 4 I, Robin E. Johnson, CSR No. 12032, a Certified 5 Shorthand Reporter in and for the state of California, do 6 hereby certify: 7 That this transcript contains a full, true and 8 correct record of the proceedings which took place at the 9 time and place set forth in the caption hereto. 10 11 I further certify that I have no interest in the 12 event of this action. 13 14 EXECUTED this ______ day of _____________, _______. 15 16 ___________________________ 17 Robin E. Johnson 18 19 1 MEETING 2 BEFORE THE 3 CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 4 5 6 7 8 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER 9 ROOM 310 10 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY 11 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 12 13 14 15 16 Afternoon Session 17 Thursday, April 27, 2000 18 1:15 p.m. 19 20 21 22 23 24 REPORTED BY: Juliet Y. Eichenlaub, 25 CSR No. 12084 112 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 APPEARANCES: 2 MEMBERS PRESENT: 3 Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D., Chairman Dr. William A. Burke 4 Joseph Calhoun Dorene D'Adamo 5 Dr. William Friedman C. Hugh Friedman 6 Matthew R. McKinnon Barbara Patrick 7 Barbara Riordan Ron Roberts 8 9 STAFF: 10 Michael Kenny, Executive Director Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer 11 Mike Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer 12 Kathleen Tschogl, Ombudsman 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 113 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 I N D E X 2 3 AGENDA ITEM: PAGE 4 00-4-2 Public Meeting to Update the Board on the Status of the Portable Fuel Container 5 Spillage Control Regulations 6 Introductory Remarks by Chairman Lloyd 116 7 Staff Presentation Dean Bloudoff 116 8 9 Public Comments John Ferguson 130 10 Chuck Craig 131 Allan E. Schmitz 139 11 Paul Banks 155 Tom Schmoyer 158 12 Kjeld Hestehave 160 13 00-4-3 Public Meeting to Consider an Informational Update on California-Mexico Border Activities 14 Introductory Remarks by Chairman Lloyd 162 15 Staff Presentation 16 Mike Kenny 163 Gabe Ruiz 163 17 Public Comments 18 Mr. Cossio 177 Mr. Rick 180 19 00-4-4 Public Meeting to Consider an Informational 20 Update on Current Activities and Issues in Indoor Air Quality 21 Introductory Remarks by Chairman Lloyd 182 22 Staff Presentation 23 Mike Kenny 182 Thomas Phillips 183 24 00-4-5 Public Meeting to Consider Research Proposals 25 Introductory Remarks by Chairman Lloyd 214 114 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 2 I N D E X (continued) 3 Staff Presentation 4 Mr. Croes 215 5 Adjournment 216 6 Certificate of Reporter 217 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 115 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: The next item on the agenda today 2 is 00-4-2-public meeting to update the Board on the 3 status of the portable fuel container spillage control 4 regulations. 5 In September 1999, the Board approved regulations 6 for controlling emissions associated with the use of 7 portable fuel containers, also known as "gas cans." 8 At that hearing, a number of manufacturers expressed 9 concerns about their ability to meet the permeation 10 standard for plastic gas cans. In approving the 11 regulations, the board requested that staff return in six 12 months to provide us with an update on the manufacturer's 13 progress toward complying with the performance standards. 14 Toward that end, today the staff will present a status 15 report on the manufacturers' progress toward developing 16 products necessary to meet the standards in the 17 regulations. 18 MR. BLOUDOFF: Good afternoon Chairman Lloyd and 19 members of the Board. Today I would like to present an 20 update on the status of the proposed portable fuel 21 container spillage control regulations. 22 In September 1999, the Board approved the first 23 portable fuel container spillage control regulations. 24 Based on a set of performance standards, the new 25 regulations replace conventional portable fuel containers 116 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 and spouts with spill-proof systems and spill-proof 2 spouts. The new spill-proof systems reduce ROG emissions 3 attributable to the use of gas cans by 73 percent, 4 resulting in a reduction of these emissions of 70 tons 5 per day in 2010. 6 As you may recall, there are five sources of 7 emissions associated with the use of gas cans. As shown, 8 evaporative emissions make up the majority and as a 9 source account for 74 percent of the total emissions. 10 Transport and storage, refueling spillage and displaced 11 vapor emissions combined make up 18 percent of the total. 12 Permeation emissions, while only 8 percent of the total 13 emissions from gas cans, are responsible for nearly 8 14 tons per day of ROG escaping into California's air. 15 As I previously mentioned, the approved regulations 16 consist of a set of performance standards that reduce the 17 emissions attributable to the use of gas cans. The four 18 that deal specifically with emissions are shown here. 19 The first two standards, automatic shut-off and automatic 20 closure, can be met by using a specially designed spout. 21 The third, a one opening requirement, can easily be 22 accomplished by eliminating one step of the current 23 manufacturing process. The fourth, a permeation 24 standard, will require manufacturers of plastic gas cans 25 to adopt one of several currently available control 117 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 technologies. 2 To assess the status towards implementing the 3 approved regulations, staff has continued to work closely 4 with the various manufactures. Several have indicated 5 they have now have prototype spout designs, and in 6 several cases are ready or currently in production. 7 Based on input from the manufactures to staff, it appears 8 that most will have products compliant with the automatic 9 shut-off, automatic closure, one opening, fill level, 10 flow rate and warranty performance standards in time for 11 the January 1st, 2001 effective date. The remaining 12 issue for manufactures seems to be choosing the 13 most cost-effective control strategy to meet the approved 14 permeation standard of point of four grams per gallon per 15 day. This is the main focus of our discussion today. 16 To reiterate, the emissions from permeation of fuel 17 through the walls of plastic gas cans make up 8 percent 18 of all gas can emissions. However, adherence to the 19 approved permeation standard will reduce average 20 permeation rates by 75 percent, resulting in a reduction 21 of six tons per day of ROG by 20010. 22 Staff have received comments from several 23 manufacturers requesting a delay in the implementation of 24 the permeation standard. Based on our investigation, 25 which we will now discuss, we do not believe a delay is 118 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 appropriate. 2 As you may recall, we presented information during 3 the September hearing on two types of barrier surface 4 treatments that could be used to meet the approved 5 permeation standard, fluorination and sulfonation. While 6 the regulations do not mandate a specific control 7 technology for the reduction of permeation from gas cans, 8 we've done extensive testing to determine both the 9 technical feasibility of each of these processes as well 10 as their cost effectiveness. Our original cost estimates 11 for either of these options was determined to be between 12 50 cents and a dollar and 58 cents per container. These 13 estimates assumed that manufacturers of gas cans would 14 opt for on site treatment of their products. However, an 15 option exists that would allow manufactures to ship gas 16 cans to a stand alone facility to have them treated. 17 Staff assumed the on site option would be favored by most 18 manufactures since it eliminates additional shipping 19 costs and therefore a most cost-effective strategy. 20 However, manufactures initially may choose to treat gas 21 cans off site as it would allow them sufficient time to 22 comply with January 1, 2001 implementation date. 23 Therefore, we have re-evaluated the cost estimates of 24 barrier surface treatments using additional information 25 related to off site treatment. 119 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 The total per unite costs shown here are based on 2 current prices to perform the off site barrier surface 3 treatments, transportation costs to and from the 4 treatment facility, and ongoing certification and 5 durability testing. These prices reflect the estimated 6 cost to the manufacturer for treating an average size gas 7 can. Since cans are made in sizes ranging from one to 8 five gallons and the majority of these costs are 9 dependent upon the size of the can, staff elected to use 10 an average can size of 2.5 gallons to develop these 11 estimates. Both methods of treatment are cost effective 12 and, as shown in the slide, are less than $1.30 to treat 13 an average size gas can. Using this information, the 14 range of costs for cans with nominal capacities between 15 one and five gallons is 85 cents to $1.85. Again I want 16 to emphasize that this is for off site treatment in 17 existing stand alone facilities which would require no 18 significant capital investment on the part of the gas can 19 manufactures. 20 During the hearing last September, manufacturers 21 presented information suggesting that the cost to control 22 permeation could be as much as $6 to $8 for an average 23 size container. Staff has learned that these estimates 24 were reported as suggested retail prices which included a 25 profit margin of between 33 to 35 percent on the cost of 120 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 the barrier treatment of the manufactures, plus a one 2 hundred percent increase above these same costs to arrive 3 at the suggested retail price. However, even using this 4 methodology, staff estimates that the retail price 5 increase for an average size container would be 6 approximately $3 per gas can, not $6 to $8. Since the 7 approved permeation standard will reduce ROG emissions by 8 6 TPD, even using the higher the estimated cost of $3 for 9 an average size gas cam, the cost-effectiveness to 10 control permeation would be $5.27 per pound of ROG 11 reduced. 12 Since presenting our original proposal to the Board 13 last year, we have explored other means of meeting the 14 permeation standard. During our investigation we have 15 identified two alternative methods that could be used by 16 the gas can manufacturers to adhere to the approved 17 standard. The first is simply to increase the thickness 18 of the gas can, and the second is the inclusion of a 19 barrier resin called Selar RB. I would now like to 20 present information on each of these methods. 21 With the assistance of one of the can manufacturers 22 and a major supplier of HDPE, staff has conducted tests 23 to determine the effect of increasing nominal wall 24 thickness on average permeation rates. As shown, 25 increasing the thickness of the can from a nominal 0.08 121 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 inches, shown on the right, to 0.225 inches shown on the 2 left, has a significant effect on average permeation 3 rates. This chart shows the permeation rates after 4 allowing the gas cans to remain filled for three months, 5 indicated by the red bars, and those same cans after 6 remaining filled for six months, indicated by the blue 7 bars. As you can see, at a nominal wall thickness of 8 0.225 inches the cans come very close to adhering to the 9 approved permeation standard. 10 We have forwarded this information to the gas can 11 manufacturers and most agree that slightly increasing the 12 wall thickness to 0.250 inches, or a quarter of an inch 13 which is slightly thicker than shown in the previous 14 slide, will likely meet the permeation standard. Several 15 manufacturers already producing heavier cans should use 16 this as a means to temporarily meet the standard without 17 any significant changes in existing equipment or molds. 18 We believe, however, that most will eventually opt for a 19 less expensive alternative as this type of control will 20 effectively double the amount of raw materials per can 21 and decrease production times as the heavier cans will 22 require an additional cooling period. Several of the 23 manufacturers could use this method to meet the standard 24 initially at an average cost of $1.50 per can, thereby 25 allowing them additional time to investigate and develop 122 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 a more cost-effective control strategy. 2 An additional method we've identified that could be 3 used to meet the permeation standard is the inclusion of 4 Selar RB mixed with the raw material during the blow 5 molding process. Selar TB is a specially modified resin 6 blend available from DuPont Automotive. Dry blended with 7 the polyethylene currently used to manufacture gas cans 8 and then blow molded using conventional equipment, Selar 9 RB has been effectively used in automotive fuel tanks to 10 achieve a 98 percent reduction in permeation as compared 11 to high density polyethylene alone. We have forwarded 12 this information to the gas can manufacturers and several 13 have expressed significant interest. In fact, recent 14 comments received by staff indicate that one of the 15 largest manufacturers of gas cans is in the process of 16 obtaining samples for testing. With an average cost of 17 approximately 60 cents per gas can, this is by far the 18 most cost-effective means of controlling permeation. 19 And finally, during the comment period for this 20 status report, stakeholders presented staff with new 21 information regarding the use of multi-layer co-extrusion 22 technology to meet the permeation standard. Though we 23 haven't had a chance to perform an in-depth analysis of 24 how this technology could be used on gas cans, staff is 25 aware that most plastic automotive fuel tanks 123 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 manufactured in the United States are made using co-ex 2 technology. Multi-layer co-extrusion uses several layers 3 of HDPE sandwiched around a barrier layer, usually EVOH, 4 or ethylene vinyl alcohol. Probably the most significant 5 feature of co-extrusion using EVOH is that this is a 6 proven technology. Manufactures opting for this method of 7 controlling permeation would be required to purchase and 8 install new blow molding machines and molds requiring a 9 significant investment. According to detailed cost 10 estimates received from one manufacturer, the average 11 price to produce a co-ex gas can is approximately $3.20 12 per container. 13 To summarize, we now have cost estimates and 14 information on technical feasibility for five methods of 15 controlling permeation from plastic gas cans. Two types 16 of barrier surface treatments, simply making the gas cans 17 thicker, the use of the barrier resin Selar RB, and 18 multi-layer co-extruded gas cans. 19 I would also like to point out that staff is aware 20 of at least three manufacturers that produce metal 21 conventional gas cans. This is significant in that, as 22 we pointed out during the hearing in September, metal gas 23 cans do not succumb to the effects of permeation as do 24 plastic gas cans. 25 Also, to assist the manufacturers in selecting the 124 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 best option for meeting the approved permeation standard 2 we have offered our assistance in performing feasibility 3 tests. We have just completed tests for one of the 4 manufacturers on several treated cans and have extended 5 this offer to all manufacturers. this should 6 significantly reduce the time required to determine how 7 their products will respond to the various treatment 8 options. 9 Several manufactures have expressed concerns about 10 their ability to have products available that can meet 11 the permeation standard by the regulations January 1, 12 2001 implementation date. We would like to point out 13 that staff has identified several cost effective 14 strategies that could be implemented in the near term to 15 meet the needs of the California gas can market. One 16 method would be to increase production during the third 17 and fourth quarter of this year. The regulations contain 18 a sell through provision that allows manufactures to 19 continue to sell existing products for one year provided 20 they were manufactured prior to the implementation date. 21 As I previously mentioned, they could opt for off-site 22 treatment using existing facilities which requires no 23 significant capital investment, leaving them free to 24 investigate alternatives that could be performed on site. 25 Several could simply increase the nominal wall thickness 125 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 of their existing containers. And finally, for any 2 manufacturer who cannot reasonably comply with the 3 performance standards, the regulations so contain a 4 provision that would allow them to apply for a variance. 5 In conclusion, I'd like to inform the Board that the 6 performance standards are achievable, and the 7 manufactures are making sufficient progress. The control 8 permeation from plastic gas cans will reduce reactive 9 organic gas emissions statewide by six TPD in 2010. The 10 control strategies discussed today are both cost 11 effective and technically feasible. We believe the 12 regulations contain sufficient flexibility to allow 13 manufacturers to meet the approved permeation standard. 14 This concludes my presentation. Thank you very much 15 Board members. Any questions? 16 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: You mentioned the fact that 17 the manufactures have requested that we change the 18 permeation standard. What is the basis for the request? 19 MR. BLOUDOFF: Well, I believe one of the 20 manufactures is here to testify and can probably answer 21 that better than I, but my understanding is there are 22 several methods of controlling permeation. Several of 23 these methods require a rather significant capital 24 investment on their part. They want a little more time 25 to choose the appropriate one to meet the standards. I 126 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 don't think they want -- they want to make one solution, 2 make the investment and move on. 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any more questions? 4 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Is there a manufacturer 5 currently manufacturing containers of this type which 6 meets the specifications that we are talking about? 7 MR. BLOUDOFF: Currently, at this time, no. There 8 are several manufacturers that have made cans that 9 adhere to the majority of the standards but not the 10 permeation standards at this time. 11 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Is there any manufacturer that 12 says that they can meet these qualifications? 13 MR. BLOUDOFF: Yes, there is. 14 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: One? Two? Five? 15 MR. BLOUDOFF: There's one manufacturer today that 16 can offer testimony that he can meet the standards. 17 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Is there what would be a sell 18 product that was manufactured prior to the January 1st, 19 2001, and are these manufacturers, are they located not 20 only in California but all over? 21 MR. BLOUDOFF: Generally, located outside of 22 California, but major manufacturers are all over the 23 United States. 24 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: How are you able to monitor 25 whether the product is available for sale after that 127 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 period? 2 MR. BLOUDOFF: I want to make sure I understand 3 this. 4 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I'm just asking how do we 5 know that we'll deal with a product that produced -- 6 MR. BLOUDOFF: The regulations require the product 7 to be date stamped or date coded and an explanation of 8 that code file with the executive officer. 9 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: This would be part of the 10 manufacturing process. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any other questions from the Board? 12 BOARD MEMBER C. H. FRIEDMAN: Actually, we adopted 13 the regulations, as I understand it, in September of last 14 year, and the staff is giving us an update but not really 15 recommending any change or modification of the 16 regulations previously adopted. This is not updated 17 status. Apparently there is another additional record, 18 effective record to your testimony. I just want to make 19 sure I understood it. 20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any more comments? 21 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I'd being a little concerned 22 with the effective date. Effective date is January 1st 23 this year and none of these tanks are on the market, or 24 January 1st of 2001. 25 MR. BLOUDOFF: That's correct. 128 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: And none of these tanks occur 2 to be sold? 3 MR. BLOUDOFF: That's correct. We have a one year 4 sell provision that will allow them one year to move 5 existing products. And I believe that they all -- most 6 of the manufacturers are gearing up to meet the 2001 7 implementation date. One specifically is here today to 8 do that. 9 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Is someone from C.O.R. here 10 to address these too? 11 MR. BLOUDOFF: I don't believe so. 12 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: You know, I'm asking out of 13 complete -- when a new model like this is created, how is 14 the durability tested, and how is it subjected to 15 conditions to make sure in fact it maintains in the long 16 haul? 17 MR. BLOUDOFF: It's currently being used in Europe 18 on automotive fuel tanks that have to adhere to a 19 ten-year durability standard, but I know that gas can 20 manufacturers are currently having it in U.S. listed and 21 they have to. A S.T.N. tested mart of that had testing 22 of that specification are done by laboratories, includes 23 tests on durability, burst tests, a hot flame test, so I 24 believe the manufacturers opt for the C.R. method. They 25 would have to have some cans made to submit them to other 129 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 laboratories to get the certification. 2 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Certification is at the 3 outset. Is there a duration related, an aging testing of 4 any kind? 5 MR. BLOUDOFF: Within our test methods we have 6 included a durability test that will simulate five years 7 durability which is the assumed life span of a container. 8 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Thank you. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. I think there's no more 10 questions. I'd like to start with the first witness. 11 Just a reminder, we're limiting testimony to five minutes 12 for each person, and we have six people signed up to 13 testify. First is John Ferguson, then Chuck Craig, Allan 14 Schmitz, Paul Banks, Tom Schmoyer and Kjeld Hestehave. 15 MR. FERGUSON: Good afternoon. My name is John 16 Ferguson. I represent Scepter. We're in support of the 17 portable fuel container spillage control regulations, and 18 we will be ready to provide a compliant product by 19 January the 1st, 2001. We feel that any change in 20 implementation could present a marketing nightmare to 21 start with, as the spout is a very visible item that the 22 consumer can see, and therefore, justify the additional 23 expense of a fuel container. 24 If we were to implement the permeation container at 25 a later time, the consumer cannot see this. It's a major 130 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 portion of the costs of the container, and it would be 2 very difficult to justify or to be able to put through 3 this additional cost. The consumer would most likely 4 accept reluctantly to the additional cost of both the 5 spout and the permeation, but the regulation will demand 6 it. We feel it would be much easier to implement it all 7 at the same time. I really don't have anything else to 8 add at this point. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Any questions from the 10 Board members? Thank you very much. Next is Chuck 11 Craig, Allan Schmitz and Paul Banks. Chuck Craig is with 12 Blitz U.S.A. 13 MR. CRAIG: Thank you members of the Board. As you 14 said, I do represent Blitz U.S.A. Blitz U.S.A. is a 15 small company. We represent the largest, if not the 16 largest manufactures of gas cans of America so anything 17 this Board does obviously affects our business 18 significantly since it represents 60 percent of our 19 business. 20 I won't be taking much of our time. We did send a 21 letter. I hope you all read that comment. I think it 22 addresses all our concerns and addresses some of the 23 things that concerns the staff. We want you to 24 understand the industry side of this. Were moving into 25 this process without sufficient data to substantiate the 131 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 make or capital involved of the more promising abilities 2 there. We want to make sure that when we make this step 3 it's the correct step. 4 We're not a large corporation. If we have to spend 5 five or six million dollars on a process then we find out 6 three months from now one of the other processes is 7 actually better, that's three or four million dollars of 8 a capital expense we wasted. It's necessary for Blitz's 9 condition we have to look down the road to predict what 10 other similar requirements -- if we're just talking about 11 southern California requirements here, the California 12 market, then that capital expenditure is one item. If 13 other states come on, this could very much represent 50 14 percent or more of our market which is all that needs to 15 receive for more capital expenditures. 16 Regardless of which way we go addressing the Selar 17 issue that came on late -- to be honest we have looked at 18 Selar earlier in the process, but it was a earlier Selar 19 that did not work because of the weight that alcohol 20 gasolines affect it. The new Selar we understand 21 eliminates that possibility, but again, that process as 22 we understand has not been tested. Now submitting cans 23 to be tested, if those pass, obviously that is something 24 that Blitz would have to look at. 25 We have a contact with DuPont. We're looking at 132 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 getting some of our cans tested on that, but our concern 2 is if we go down the road, we get these things tested, 3 three or four months now we get them tested, and it 4 doesn't work, we're back to page one on trying out which 5 way is the best way. 6 I like to remind the Board about the D.V. 7 certifications regardless of which way we go or any of 8 the other manufactures we have to get these cans 9 recertified. That's a time consuming process and extreme 10 amounts of time with all of the testing if we send a 11 great influx of cans, remembering that every 12 manufacturer of every size can have to have these things 13 recertified at U.L. That's going to require an extreme 14 amount of time at U.L. They're telling me now that 15 they'd be looking at three to four months with that 16 influx of cans the may be -- but I don't know. But 17 that's the word we got from them. We can't sell cans 18 until they're certified. That directly affects adversely 19 our abilities to meet that time line. 20 Another concern that Blitz has expressed to the 21 Board was the amount of labeling that the current 22 regulation requires on the nozzle itself. These are 23 small nozzles and the amounts of regulations as we were 24 interpreting was an extreme amount of labeling that would 25 not fit to that nozzle. We had meetings this week with 133 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 the staff. They indicated that that problem can be 2 fixed, and they'll put something that we can't get by -- 3 basically that's what Blitz is here. It's to express our 4 concern. We agree with you that we do want a can that 5 meets your requirements. We understand the need for it, 6 not only in California but elsewhere. We're ready now 7 for the spill proof spout. We have that. It's tested at 8 U.L. right now. We'll be ready for that test. We want 9 to see that when Blitz, a company of our size, has to 10 put the capital expenditure that we're going to put in 11 that we take the right step at that time. Any questions? 12 BOARD MEMBER C. H. FRIEDMAN: Quick question. You 13 heard a moment ago Mr. Ferguson expressed a concern that 14 if there were a delay in the permeation standard 15 implementation -- I don't understand the way when the 16 nozzle or the other facts that that would create a 17 marketing problem; do you disagree with that? 18 MR. CRAIG: I'll back off on that. It would create 19 a marketing problem obviously. Now, you have three 20 different ones coming in, and you have to control those. 21 If you go one route, you have the first one coming in 22 that doesn't meet the requirements, then later I have the 23 others coming in. What we'd end up doing -- obviously 24 that labeling situation, they'd be consistently labeled 25 so the consumer would know exactly what they're getting. 134 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 Blitz and most of the people in the industry would love 2 to be ready January 1st, 2001. It's just that we don't 3 feel in our minds that we can get there from a business 4 standpoint and do it the right way. 5 BOARD MEMBER C. H. FRIEDMAN: I understand you want 6 to be reasonably certain, but it seems to me that if we 7 delay the permeation requirements then we're going to 8 have to do another phase out because we're going to be 9 modifying gas containers with the spill proof, leakage 10 proof, nozzles, but they won't have -- the container 11 itself won't have the permeation barriers that we're 12 looking for. 13 So even though it's only six or eight percent, I 14 think now they're estimating eight percent, but even so 15 that will eventually require some kind of redo and that's 16 not really a good way to run a regulation it seems to me. 17 Is there anything more we can do to satisfy -- maybe 18 we'll wait until your finished. I'd like to hear the 19 staff's comments about the sense of security we have in 20 the science and the economic business feasibility of 21 these alternatives. I'll wait until the staff is 22 finished. 23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Dr. Burke? 24 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Your company is based in 25 Oklahoma? 135 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 MR. CRAIG: Yes. 2 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: And you say California is what 3 percentage of the market? 4 MR. CRAIG: Again we have an extremely difficult 5 time getting that information because we sell to the 6 retailer and the retailer -- most retailers are very 7 private about what their sellers are. What I'd do is -- 8 what we base on is California is about ten percent of the 9 population, so we estimate that it's ten percent of our 10 business. 11 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Let me ask another question. 12 If there's a manufacturer here who says he can meet all 13 the requirements of the new regulation, are you prepared 14 to see ten percent of your gross business to another 15 company? 16 MR. CRAIG: Dr. Burke, what Blitz's policy on that 17 would be if, and as you know as I testified, if Selar's 18 process works, then I think probably most of us could be 19 ready. But if the Selar process doesn't work, then that 20 company is no closer than we are. Now, would we be ready 21 to concede ten percent of our gross business? Of course 22 we wouldn't want to concede that, but we're a business 23 and to protect the other 9 percent we will. 24 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Though if a company says that 25 they have the capacity to meet the requirements of the 136 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 regulation in a timely manner, and it is satisfactorily 2 proven to stand that, they can do that. Then you have 3 the business decision. 4 We have a business decision to make too. Our 5 business is not selling gas cans. Our business is to 6 protect public interest. So then we do our business the 7 way you have to do yours. And you have to sit down in 8 Oklahoma and decide whether you're going to meet the 9 regulations of California or see ten percent of your 10 gross business to another company. It's that easy. 11 MR. CRAIG: Your point is? 12 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: My point is that if somebody 13 else is going to do that, and you're not willing to do 14 that, you have to pay back and you pay the price. 15 MR. CRAIG: "Not willing to do" is a little strong. 16 Making sure we do it right is most -- 17 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: I'm a small businessman. Every 18 day I'm faced with decisions of whether I'm going to be 19 off the cutting edge of my business, in the middle of my 20 stream in my business, or I'm going to lay back and see 21 what everybody else does and then I'm going to do it. 22 Obviously, the safest thing for me to do always is to lay 23 back and wait to see what everybody else is going to do, 24 and if it proves to be effective then I go do it. 25 But let me tell you what, every time I do it, this 137 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 has been over my entire lifetime, I loose the percentage 2 of my market share when I take that route and that's -- 3 what you're asking us to do is to allow you to do that by 4 stopping everybody and I'm -- this is a Board decision. 5 But if there's a company that can do it and do it in a 6 timely manner then I agree with my business here to go 7 ahead and do it. 8 MR. CRAIG: I think two things come in there, 9 Dr. Burke. Number one, we're not alone in our concern 10 that we can do it. There'e five or six major proprietors 11 in the gas industry. We have one that feels they can do 12 it. You also have a situation where I think the Board 13 hears those cans have been tested, and one of the 14 manufacturers have had extensive testing in Selar, and 15 their indications are that they will not meet your Board. 16 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: That's an important point. If 17 our staff tells us that the can works, I don't see how we 18 have any other alternative but to accept the professional 19 recommendations of the staff. 20 MR. CRAIG: Blitz would have to agree with that. 21 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: So I don't want to debate this 22 with you. But I just want you to know from a business 23 perspective, you can lay back and find out what everybody 24 else is going to do, but it will cost you market share. 25 And that should not be the obligation of this Board, to 138 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 protect you. 2 MR. CRAIG: One of the things you should know is 3 Blitz is not laying back. And we have been one of the 4 foremost in there, and I think the staff will agree with 5 that. We have been submitting cans for testing. We've 6 been trying everything we can, and we are not, by any 7 means, laying back. We haves spent enormous amounts of 8 money and time trying to make sure we are at the cutting 9 edge of this. And we're right up there with them. 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. Staff, do you 11 want do respond at this time? 12 STAFF: A couple of things. We have confidence, but 13 we're going to hear testimony from couple of the area 14 service people. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Would you prefer to wait? 16 STAFF: I think so. 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Fine. Next one is Allan Schmitz 18 and Paul Banks and Tom Schmoyer and Kjeld Hestehave. 19 MR. SCHMITZ: Good morning Chairman Lloyd and 20 members of the Board. My name is Allan Schmitz and my 21 title is manager of engine emissions compliance with 22 Briggs and Stratton Corporation. It is my pleasure to 23 have the opportunity to speak with you today on behalf of 24 Briggs and Stratton. Although our comments today do not 25 relate to permeation, we feel that the issue we bring 139 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 before you is equally important. 2 As producer of the Smart-Fill spill-resistant fuel 3 container, Briggs and Stratton has worked cooperatively 4 with the Monitoring and Laboratory Division over the past 5 two years on the development of the spillage control 6 regulation which is before you today. Throughout the 7 1990's, it has also been our pleasure to work 8 side-by-side with CARB's Mobile Source Operations 9 Division on both the small and large off-road 10 spark-ignited engine rulemakings. 11 As you may know, Briggs and Stratton is the world's 12 largest producer of air-cooled gasoline powered engines. 13 These engines range in size from three to 25 horsepower 14 and are used in a wide variety of common applications 15 including walk-behind lawn mowers, generators, pumps, 16 pressure washers, tillers, riding mowers and tractors, 17 commercial turf care equipment, and many others. While 18 we support ARB's efforts to address the issue of fuel 19 spillage control in the State of California, we have 20 concerns about one particular element of the regulation 21 as it relates to our engine products. 22 The particular item of concern is the minimum fuel 23 fill level specification for fuel containers with a 24 nominal capacity between 1.5 and 2.5 gallons. The 1.5 to 25 2.5 gallon container is the size most likely to be used 140 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 to fill fuel tanks on equipment incorporating our 2 engines. As an engine manufacturer, it is our practice 3 to specify a maximum rather than a minimum fill level. 4 This is done in order to leave sufficient airspace to 5 accommodate inclined engine operation, fuel expansion due 6 to heat effects, and fuel agitation within the tank. By 7 doing this, the possibility of fuel leakage from the 8 vented fuel cap threads during normal engine operation is 9 reduced, thereby maximizing both proper safety and 10 environmental protection. 11 By contrast, the regulation, as currently written, 12 specifies only a minimum fill level and therefore could 13 easily result in a situation where a tank is filled too 14 full. In fact, under the current proposal, a fuel tank 15 could be filled as full as the brim of the opening, a 16 situation I think we would all agree is less than 17 optimal. This is where we believe CARB's regulation 18 falls short and is why we are recommending that the Board 19 take action today to consider not only a fill level 20 minimum, but also a fill level maximum. Specifically, 21 Briggs and Stratton recommends that the maximum fill 22 level be set to one and a quarter inches below the tank 23 opening, the same distance as CARB's proposed minimum 24 specification. 25 It is widely known that engines are frequently 141 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 operated on inclined surfaces which can cause the fuel 2 level to be closer to the cap than when originally filled 3 on a level surface. It is also known that fuel expands 4 when the temperature of the fuel in the tank increases. 5 This can be caused by heat from the operating engine, sun 6 exposure, or when moving the fuel from a cool garage or 7 shed into a warmer environment. Finally, engine 8 vibration may cause fuel foaming which may result in a 9 higher effective fuel level. Considering these effects, 10 it is easy to envision a situation where fuel leakage 11 from the fuel cap vents is possible, particularly when 12 tanks are filled beyond recommended maximum levels. 13 One disturbing consequence of the proposed 14 regulation is that it could potentially mandate a fill 15 condition that brings an increased chance of fuel leakage 16 and therefore the possibility of additional evaporative 17 emissions not previously considered by staff. Without a 18 maximum fill level specification, filling beyond the 19 level recommended by engine manufacturers will not only 20 be possible, it will be unavoidable, because 21 spill-resistant products are required to fill in the zero 22 to one and a quarter inch range, but no lower. 23 The reason that I am before you today is that the 24 information presented here was also presented to staff in 25 writing during the 15-day notice period which closed on 142 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 December 10, 1999. Staff has subsequently indicated that 2 there are no changes planned to the fill level 3 specification. In the light of these issues, we 4 respectfully request that the Board direct staff today to 5 re-examine the absence of a fill-level maximum before 6 finalizing the regulation. We also request that the 7 Board direct staff to work with engine and equipment 8 manufacturers to develop a reasonable fill level range. 9 For example, we believe that specifying a fill range 10 between one and a quarter and one and three quarter 11 inches from the top offers both the maximum level that 12 consumers will desire and the maximum level which is most 13 protective of the environment and of equipment operators. 14 With a rulemaking as broad as this, which 15 potentially affects all California consumers, Briggs and 16 Stratton is quite sensitive of the need for CARB to 17 strive for consumer acceptance, and we fully support CARB 18 on this issue. We do, however, believe in the power of 19 an efficient market to deliver compliant product that 20 also meets consumer needs. To that extent, we do not 21 believe that the addition of a fill level maximum will in 22 any way compromise the consumer acceptance of these 23 regulated products. 24 Thank you very much for your attention. If you have 25 any questions, I would be pleased to answer them at this 143 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 time. 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Mr. Calhoun? 3 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Is this an issue that other 4 manufactures have brought to our attention? 5 STAFF: Yes, it is. This was an item which was 6 discussed at the September Board meeting. We did 7 something like that 15-day notice on it where we received 8 numerous comments from other manufacturers. The 9 original fill level was one inch. We did contemplate it 10 to one and a quarter inches according to the comments, 11 the whole comments we received from all the engine 12 manufacturers, and we do believe this is a consumer 13 acceptance issue that is significant. 14 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Is it a problem or the 15 manufacturers? 16 STAFF: Not that we're aware of. The comments we 17 received are advocating even lower fill levels. We 18 settled on an inch and a quarter because of the gas tanks 19 and the equipment we looked at and the comments we 20 received. We believe that if, for example, we adopted 21 the suggestion that Briggs and Stratton is making, to an 22 inch and three quarters to an inch and a quarter, that 23 some of those small gas tanks won't even be half filled 24 for some of the smaller pieces of equipment, and that's a 25 comment we received from a couple of the manufacturers. 144 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 For specific type of equipment we went to an inch and a 2 quarter because we felt like even the smallest gas tanks 3 would be filled to an acceptable level. 4 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: It seems to me that perhaps 5 Briggs and Stratton need to spend more time with the 6 staff. 7 MR. SCHMITZ: We'd like to have the opportunity to 8 do that. 9 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I think you have that 10 opportunity. I believe the staff is always available to 11 talk with manufacturer's concern that they have, and I 12 also assume that if this is indeed a problem, and it is a 13 problem in general then the staff would come back with 14 recommendation for a change. But on that condition, at 15 this point in time, they believe that this is not a 16 problem, but I would suggest that you should talk with 17 the staff before this thing is finalized. 18 Let me ask one more question with regard to 19 permeation. Is that a concern with Briggs and Stratton? 20 MR. SCHMITZ: Permeation, yes it is. However, our 21 fuel can is manufactured by an outside party, and we're 22 allowing them to handel the issue of production. 23 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Could I ask a question? 24 Perhaps it was where Mr. Calhoun was headed, but there 25 seems to be two aspects here. One, I think, is being 145 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 addressed and that is what this measurement is, but what 2 about the concepts of a minimum and a maximum? I didn't 3 hear you address that. And I think that's a great part 4 of what a hearing is. 5 STAFF: We did not specify a maximum because for a 6 couple of different reasons. The primary one was 7 strictly an engineering design perspective. We have two 8 of the cans up here that are the spill proof spouts. The 9 way they're designed and the basic principal of how the 10 automatic fill level is determined, basically limits the 11 amount of fuel that can be put to approximately a half 12 inch to the top of the gas tank. So we felt very 13 strongly that that in itself is a sufficient limit to 14 anything, alleviated of the necessity of specifying a 15 maximum fill level. Our regulations do not preclude 16 somebody like Briggs and Stratton of specifying a maximum 17 fill level, of course, on their engines or something of 18 that nature. 19 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I think what I'm hearing is 20 that they are concerned about overfilling these, you're 21 going to in effect, produce, air pollution. 22 STAFF: Well, if I could respond. What I was just 23 trying to say, maybe not very effectively, we don't 24 believe that you can overfill it because of the design of 25 the spill proof spout. There is, by design, inherently 146 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 a half inch maximum. 2 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I heard that. I'm asking, 3 maybe that's too far and maybe that's what I'm asking 4 MR. SCHMITZ: Maybe I can clarify our position on 5 this. Taking, for example, a walk-behind lawn mower, 6 which we sell a great many in California, most is 7 designed with an internal neck. That's a neck that 8 extends down into the body of the main fuel tank. 9 In that particular case, during the normal fast 10 spill, with the non-spilling can, the operator will see 11 the fuel is coming up into the neck and will then stop 12 the fill. Our studies have shown that -- I should 13 explain one more thing. The fuel level will settle back 14 down a bit and you'll have an air space of 1.8 inches. 15 That's what we've seen from our testing. What this 16 regulation effectively does is it overrides the design 17 that we build in our tanks to accommodate that air space. 18 And now we have people who are filling about 1.8 inches 19 below. 20 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: But it would bring it to 21 within a half of an inch of the top of the can. And if 22 it brings it from half of an inch of the top, does that 23 present a problem? When you talk about inches -- 24 MR. SCHMITZ: Yes. We believe that 1.25 is a 25 problem, also one half as well. 147 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: What I'm asking the staff is 2 if it's shutting off at such a level that we are on a 3 sort of -- 4 STAFF: Maybe we should clarify it. If the shut off 5 itself, right now, of the cans is about an inch and a 6 quarter of most of these spouts, we specified that that 7 should be a minimum level. We don't want them to go to a 8 shut off level that's lower than that because we're 9 concerned about the small cans. 10 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I know that you have a 11 minimum, but they're saying you should also have a 12 maximum because if you don't, your going to have 13 potential additional pollution because of the nature of 14 operating equipment inclines. You're going to have some 15 problems and you keep -- I understand there's a minimum. 16 They said for this there ought to also be a maximum. 17 Should there also be a maximum? You're saying there's 18 already a maximum at half inch, and they're saying at 19 that maximum they're having problems. I'm hearing 20 something, and we have something telling you that we're 21 not really -- we're not solving the problem as clearly as 22 we ought to be, and I'm wondering if perhaps we have a 23 way we can do that. 24 MR. CACKETTE: Two different inches. The one making 25 the fill level lower are 1.75 inches. We think that 148 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 can't be accepted because it will ruin handheld equipment 2 that these persons do not make. 3 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I thought we said if there 4 was a maximum and minimum. What if 1.25 was both the 5 maximum and minimum? Is that what you're saying? 6 MR. SCHMITZ: We're interested in the minimum that 7 would provide what we think would provide consumer 8 acceptance. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: One of my concerns is I thought 10 we're doing permeation issues. We're trying to reopen 11 our decision which we made last year. 12 MR. SCHMITZ: The only reason we came before you 13 today to raise this issue again is we did provide 14 comments on this issue within the 15-day notice. Staff 15 indicated to me subsequent that there was no changes 16 recommended to the fill level recommendation. So we 17 wanted to bring this issue one more time and bring it 18 before the Board. 19 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: If I can quote from the 20 testimony, it says specifically that recommends that the 21 maximum fill level be set at 1.25 inches, the same 22 distance. As far as proposed minimum specification -- 23 MR. CACKETTE: What that means is he's suggesting a 24 range, and the minimum will be 1.75 or another half inch 25 lower and the 1.25 would become the max. And in that 149 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 case, if the can was to meet just the minimum, you're 2 going to end up with lots of weed whips with half a tank 3 of gas. 4 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I'm asking Mike about the 5 maximum. It seems to me if we have a different maximum 6 then that maximum is going to result to be sufficient. 7 Isn't it possible to have a different maximum that will 8 work? 9 MR. CACKETTE: I think it's possible. I just wanted 10 to be clear of why we didn't want to see the minimum 11 lower. 12 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I'm not asking about that. 13 MR. CACKETTE: Our response on the maximum is that 14 these devices provide you an inherent maximum of, let's 15 see, half an inch. Let me show you these devices here. 16 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: You made that point clear, 17 but what if the maximum were less than what we have built 18 that right now. 19 MR. CACKETTE: If somebody wants to make one at half 20 an inch, I suppose they could. But if you look at these 21 already on the market, the maximum fill level is going to 22 be between this surface and the bottom of this thing 23 right here. You can see that's a lot more than a half 24 inch. This is what people are trying to produce now, and 25 they don't want their systems too overfilled. We could 150 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 do a maximum, yes, but our response is that the 2 manufacturers is going to make sure they don't have a 3 product that spills gasoline over the lawn mower. 4 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: You're saying the maximum? 5 MR. CACKETTE: Right. This is bringing problems and 6 something is going to be right here and stuffed off when 7 it offers up the hole there. Other manufacturer's 8 product you can see the same thing here. It shuts off 9 somewhere between here, and this is the piece that's at 10 the top of the gas tank that your shoving down. So 11 there's a distance on this piece which is more than an 12 inch or so. 13 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: What if you said you are 14 going to send a maximum? 15 MR. CACKETTE: We could do that. We could go back 16 through all the manufacturers and figure out what is 17 that actual level. It would affect some of the designs 18 of people's cans. 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Are you finished? 20 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I'll finish right now. I 21 guess my concern is that I've heard a major -- that if we 22 fill them too much, it's going to result in problems, and 23 what I see here from staff is that we could set that 24 maximum, whether that number is an inch or 1.25 or three 25 quarters of an inch, and that could alleviate this 151 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 problem. And I'm not sure why we're not setting that 2 minimum of 1.25 and a maximum of one inch or some other. 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. Friedman? 4 BOARD MEMBER C. H. FRIEDMAN: Maybe I'm wrong, but 5 what I'm saying is Briggs and Stratton is making some 6 containers that have this neck, and they're the only ones 7 that have this problem, or at least that's been brought 8 to the attention of the staff. And to set a maximum for 9 everyone simply to avoid spillaging in a special use 10 container they use for lawn mowers or something may not 11 be the appropriate approach. It may be at some point 12 just as easy for them to redo the necks they're making. 13 Am I wrong on this? It's clear to me that this is not a 14 wide spread problem or we would have probably heard about 15 it. 16 MR. SCHMITZ: Speaking for all manufacturers, I do 17 know they all warn against overfilling. However, I don't 18 know what each specifies. 19 BOARD MEMBER C. H. FRIEDMAN: Your one inch neck for 20 lawn mowers, is it -- 21 MR. SCHMITZ: Actually, many of our products -- 22 BOARD MEMBER C. H. FRIEDMAN: That preexisted these 23 regulations? 24 MR. SCHMITZ: That's correct. 25 BOARD MEMBER C. H. FRIEDMAN: Your experience is 152 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 that when you stick this nozzle into a one inch neck it 2 fills to the point where it can spill or overflow? 3 MR. SCHMITZ: Actually, what I was suggesting that 4 the regulation mandates that all cans fill to a level 5 beyond where our typical fuel tank normally fills to. 6 BOARD C. H. FRIEDMAN: That may be something that we 7 may ask them to continue to look at. What is before us 8 right now is on permeation. We have noticed, and I don't 9 think that we're in a position to deal with it at this 10 moment. 11 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I've been following 12 Supervisor Roberts comments carefully. I can't decide if 13 your arguments is really based on marketing issues or 14 safety issues, and I must tell you that I'm not convinced 15 that you're not just asking a marketing ploy rather than 16 making a specific comment about safety. I'm not all 17 convinced. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon? 19 BOARD MEMBER MCKINNON: And this is kind of directed 20 towards staff, is there a way -- apparently Briggs and 21 Stratton produce their own can. Is there a way where we 22 could set this up where if they produced a can that 23 worked exactly right for their products and also did what 24 we were after and that can came with their products? 25 As I understand this, even if we went -- Supervisor 153 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 Roberts was kind of on track about the minimum and 2 maximum, but as I understand your concerns, if we went to 3 the minimum or maximum that Supervisor Roberts was 4 talking about, the maximum would be one inch, which would 5 not operate properly for your equipment. It won't be 6 enough. 7 MR. SCHMITZ: The maximum we're recommending is 1.25 8 inches and our current fuel container fills to, I 9 believe, one and three eighths. 10 BOARD MEMBER MCKINNON: It seems to me that the 11 slippy slope is that we start requiring every small 12 engine manufacturer where there's this huge difference 13 in the types of cans where you're talking about very, 14 very, small motors with little tiny tanks and a lot of 15 variety in how the filler tubes work and that kind of 16 thing. 17 And it sounds to me like what Briggs and Stratton 18 want to do is probably good for the air in California, 19 but I don't know how we do what you want to do without 20 making everybody else go down your road. And I don't 21 think that's the right thing to do. I don't think we 22 should make every manufacturer go to your standard. 23 So what I'm wondering is if there's some way we 24 could reach an option where the manufacturer provides 25 the can that does the job that we're asking for and does 154 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 what they want it to do for their engineering 2 specifications. Is there a way we can reach that of 3 staff? 4 STAFF: I'd like to point out we did test Briggs and 5 Stratton. The one that Mr. Cackette is showing to the 6 Board is a Briggs and Stratton can, and we tested and 7 they comply with the level we're proposing. So they're 8 in full compliance as we have proposed. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think we're prolonging this 10 issue, since we're talking about permeation. So this 11 particular one let's just refer this back to staff and 12 just discuss it within the next couple of months so we 13 understand, and so we're sure on that and then reflect on 14 the discussions today, if that's satisfactory, Mr. Kenny. 15 MR. KENNY: That'd be fine. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: We appreciate your point, but I 17 think today we should try to get back to you on that. 18 Staff has heard some of the concerns here, so we'll try 19 to clarify this. Thank you very much. Next speaker is 20 Paul Banks with Fluoro Seal then Tom Schmoyer then Kjeld 21 Hestehave. 22 MR. BANKS: Mr. Chairman and Board members, thank 23 you for letting me come here and speak. My name is Tom 24 Banks. I'm from Fluoro Seal. We've been in business 17 25 years in July, fluorinating plastics for barrier. We 155 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 have 12 plants in the U.S., 7 overseas. One of the 2 plants is in Ontario, California. We've been in 3 California since 1986. It is our second plant. We treat 4 over a hundred million plastic containers a year. So 5 I've heard people talk about approving technology. We've 6 been in business for 17 years. It is a proven 7 technology. 8 We currently fluorinate the gas tank for the BMW Z3 9 automobile. That tank standard is .1 grams per day, 10 maximum weight loss, and that's not per gallon. In the 11 proposal here or what you guys approved is .4 grams per 12 gallon per day and the BMW standard is .1 gram per day, 13 full capacity. So it is capable of containing fuels in a 14 fluorinated gas can. 15 We are a service organization, and what we do is we 16 set up the facilities of the 12 plants in the U.S., nine 17 of them are stand-alone operations, and three of them are 18 in-house where we are in-house with blow molders in order 19 to reintroduce freight cost for them so we've got -- I 20 guess what I'm saying is it's our capital. There's no 21 capital outlay for anybody to use our service. We'll 22 take care of that about the consumer not being able to 23 see fluorination. Nobody can really see on the container 24 that the bottle has been treated by -- you can tell when 25 you walk down the pesticide aisle and smell it and you 156 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 know permeation is going on. We fluorinate for Pledge, 2 weed, roach and ant products, you know, a number of 3 products you probably have in your house already, and it 4 is a known technology, and we've been in business because 5 a federal rule 49 C.F.R., 12.74 outlines you can't lose 6 more than two percent by weight in something you sell to 7 the consumer. That's really where we got our start so 8 you can apply that to gasoline or whatever standard you 9 apply that to. We've been in business 17 years. I'm 10 here to answer any questions you might have about the 11 technology. I can tell you the technology works. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Do you have any questions? 13 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Maybe when we're 14 through we can have a conversation with Mr. Craig of 15 Blitz. 16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I've met with 17 representatives, and it appears there may be other 18 technologies far beyond the gas containers, and I know 19 they've been in touch with staff, and I'm hoping there 20 will be additional report orders. Hopefully, a 21 regulatory measure that can be seen on that far beyond 22 the technology discussed with staff. Thank you. 23 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Do you have any idea why 24 Blitz U.S.A. has such concern about the technology 25 effectiveness if you've been doing it for 17 years? 157 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 MR. BANKS: I've met with Mr. Craig and other people 2 at Blitz. I assume it's a new thing for them. It's a 3 new requirement, and I would assume that because it's 4 new. It's outside of what they do for a business that, 5 therefore, there's hesitation. 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon? 7 BOARD MEMBER MCKINNON: I'd just ask this question 8 for emphasis. You say you manufacture in California? 9 MR. BANKS: We have a facility in California. 10 BOARD MEMBER MCKINNON: Thank you. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Next Tom Schmoyer from Enviro Sulfo 12 Technologies. 13 MR. SCHMOYER: Good afternoon to the Board. I'm Tom 14 Schmoyer with Sulfo Technologies. This technology was 15 originally developed by Dial Chemical Company and over 16 126 patents associated to the technology. I think that's 17 something we could draw a co-relation to. What we're 18 going through with the plastic can is the obvious fuel 19 tank filler pipes and fuel lines. 20 In 1993, the auto industry chose coextrusion to be 21 the defendant technology for trying to meet the car 22 electric indications that are applying for two now. As 23 we're getting close to that time period with a major 24 investment by the auto companies and coextrusion, they 25 are now looking for some other technologies that are 158 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 coming on board. There are no guarantees that a new 2 technology won't come forward tomorrow for all 3 manufacturers that will improve upon what we have here 4 today. 5 So no matter what you choose, in six months from now 6 there's a risk in that investment, and it's safe to say 7 there will be new technologies for the industry. What 8 that will be, we don't know yet, but we've all taken risk 9 in technology. There are technologies currently in place 10 that will meet car brakes and what technology the 11 manufacturer will choose is going to be a risk. 12 We can't guarantee that by 2006, 2007 they pick the 13 right technology. And nobody here is going to guarantee 14 that we're selling the right technology for 2007. I can 15 say sulfonation can meet your 2001 ranks. In the future, 16 who knows what technology is going to meet the needs. So 17 there are no guarantees, and I'm not trying to go tell 18 any gas can manufacturers that I have the best 19 technology in six months. I believe I have the best 20 technology right now, but there's no guarantees. 21 I think -- something just to express a little 22 concern about on what the auto companies have phased -- 23 they put in four and a half coextrusion equipment for 24 barrier concerns, and now we're back with the auto 25 companies for your 2004 regulations. So I think this 159 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 technology part of this business is ongoing, and I don't 2 think we can give Blitz any guarantees of what the 3 technology is going to be, the best technology for them. 4 And so I just like to say it's going to change. Any 5 questions? 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Comments from the Board? Thank 7 you very much. Now, we have Kjeld Hestehave. 8 MR. HESTEHAVE: Thank you very much. My company 9 name is Bomatic. We own a company called Totum Plastics. 10 Totum Plastics was not founded in 1962 in California for 11 making gas cans. We've purchased that company in '72, I 12 believe, and had manufactured gas cans since then. 13 We've been a major supplier of gas cans until the 14 '80, and as competition came up and cans became lighter 15 and lighter, we made a judgment that we would only sell 16 to specialty locations because of the decrease in cost or 17 sell price by our competitors. It was mentioned that the 18 containers, if they were thicker, would not permeate. 19 Our manufacturer containers have always weighed over two 20 times the weight of our competitors. That's a business 21 decision we made. It has cost us sales and that, but we 22 always felt that a quality container is better to have 23 rather than something that is dangerous later on and 24 flimsy. That's pretty much what we have ready to go 25 back. 160 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 Well, we are in production. We're ready to go in, 2 on top of the weight of our containers, to put a barrier 3 spout and a spill proof cap on our container, and we will 4 be in production before January 1st. And we are based 5 here in California. 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Good news. Any comments from the 7 Board? 8 BOARD MEMBER C. H. FRIEDMAN: Your weights raise the 9 question in my mind, you're not a quarter inch thick? 10 MR. HESTEHAVE: Yes, we are. That's our nominal 11 thickness of our container. 12 BOARD MEMBER C. H. FRIEDMAN: Thank you. 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 14 MR. HESTEHAVE: Thank you. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Staff, any more comments? 16 STAFF: No. 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Well, I guess that should be 18 entered into the record. 19 STAFF: No, the comments we received from the 20 manufacturers were clearly made by Blitz U.S.A. 21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any comments, Mr. Kenny? 22 MR. KENNY: Nothing further. 23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I guess this is not how we 24 officially close the record. We'll take a few minutes 25 break. We'll give the reporter a chance to rest. Maybe 161 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 five minutes, then we'll start the next item. 2 (Brief recess.) 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: The next item on the agenda today 4 is 00-4-3-public meeting to consider an informational 5 update on California-Mexico Border activities. 6 The next item on the agenda is an informational 7 update on our activities in the border region. The 8 California-mexico border region is experiencing 9 tremendous increase in population, vehicular traffic, and 10 industrial activity. These changes are primarily driven 11 by economic growth in the region that has resulted from 12 implementation of the north american free trade 13 agreement. A negative consequence of this growth, 14 however, is an increase in air pollution. 15 Air pollution is a regional problem and one that 16 does not recognize political boundaries. AIrborne 17 pollutants, regardless of their origin, are easily 18 transported back and forth across the border. While 19 California's existing and upcoming programs for ozone and 20 PM10 will assist in meeting the air quality standards, 21 they do not address transport of pollutants across the 22 Border. Future progress in the border region requires a 23 cooperative binational effort to address transboundary 24 air pollution. 25 Mr. Kenny, would you please introduce the staff 162 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 presentation? 2 MR. KENNY: Yes. Thank you Chairman Lloyd and 3 members of the Board. 4 Over the last several years, the ARB has been 5 involved in a number of efforts to address air quality 6 issues unique to the border region. These efforts are 7 critical to ARB's mission to promote and protect public 8 health, welfare and ecological resources through the 9 effective and efficient reduction of air pollutants. 10 Today's item summarizes the collaborative efforts of 11 several ARB divisions to assess the sources and severity 12 of air pollution in the border region and identifies our 13 future goals and steps that we will take to improve air 14 quality in the border region. 15 At this time, I would like to turn the presentation 16 over to Gabe Ruiz, our California-Mexico border 17 coordinator, who will present an update of ARB;s 18 activities in the border region. 19 MR. RUIZ: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. Good afternoon 20 Chairman Lloyd and members of the Board. Today I will 21 present an overview of the activities we have conducted 22 over the last several years to address air quality 23 concerns unique to the California-mexico border region. 24 I'll begin with a perspective on the air quality 25 issues in the region, followed by an overview of recent 163 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 activities and our future plans, and I will end with a 2 summary of my presentation. 3 The border region is defined as the area 100 4 kilometers or 65 miles to the north and south of the 5 political border. In California, it includes most of San 6 Diego County, Imperial County, and the southern portion 7 of Riverside County. In Mexico it includes the 8 municipalities of Tijuana, Rosarito, Tecate, and 9 Mexicali. Most of the population and industrial 10 facilities in the region are concentrated in sister 11 cities located across the border from each other. 12 The implementation of the North America Free Trade 13 Agreement of NAFTA has brought extensive economic 14 benefits to the region. The industrial base has expanded 15 sharply, particularly on the Mexican side of the border. 16 Hundreds of thousands of people have been attracted 17 to the region in search of better jobs an higher standard 18 of living. Tijuana's annual growth rate currently 19 exceeds five percent. The current population for the 20 border region is estimated at over five million people. 21 By the year 2010, this is expected to increase to seven 22 million. This growth in population and economic activity 23 has resulted in increased trans-border traffic, making 24 the Tijuana-San Diego border crossing the busiest in the 25 U.S. 164 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 While the economic outlook for the region is very 2 bright, an adverse consequence of this growth has been 3 the deterioration of air quality. As Chairman Lloyd 4 said, air pollution does not respect political 5 boundaries. Recently, some of the highest carbon 6 monoxide, particular matter, and toxics readings in the 7 state have been measured in Imperial County. 8 In 1993, the ARB formally recognized that pollutant 9 transport from Mexico significantly affects the air 10 quality of San Diego and Imperial Counties. As I will 11 discuss later in my presentation, we are currently 12 completing an extensive analysis of air quality data to 13 determine the extent to which transport occurs in the 14 opposite direction, that is, from the U.S. to Mexico. 15 To mitigate the potential threat to air quality in 16 the region, the ARB is currently involved in several 17 activities to address this problem. These include: the 18 establishment of long-term cooperative relationships with 19 other agencies and organizations; the collection of air 20 quality and emissions data; the development of tolls to 21 better understand the causes and severity the pollution 22 problem; and the development of strategies to improve air 23 quality in the region. 24 One of the most important tasks, and perhaps the 25 most challenging, has been the establishment of long-term 165 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 cooperative relationships. ARB's cooperative efforts 2 with Mexico date back to 1988, and have increased 3 significantly over the years. Since 1995, the ARB has 4 had a full-time border coordinator working in partnership 5 with federal, state and local officials on both sides of 6 the border. Working relationships have been established 7 through our involvement in several workgroups, such as 8 the Border XXI Air Workgroup, which I will describe in 9 more detail later, the California Border Cooperation 10 Committee, chaired by the California Environmental 11 Protection Agency's Secretary, Winston Hickox, the 12 California Border Coordinators Group, which coordinates 13 the activities of the various Boards, Departments, and 14 Offices under CalEPA, and the Binational Air Quality 15 Alliance, a coalition of academic, industry, governmental 16 and nongovernmental representatives formed to address air 17 quality issues in the San Diego-Tijuana region. 18 Much of the work on border air quality issues has 19 been accomplished under the umbrella of the Border XXI 20 Air Workgroup. The workgroup is part of the Border XXI 21 program, a binational cooperative effort designed to work 22 towards the protection of human health and the 23 environment in the U.S.-Mexico border region. This 24 program, initiated in 1995, established the mechanism 25 that allows the cooperation of federal, state and local 166 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 agencies on both sides of the border. In the first phase 2 of the program, work plans were developed through the end 3 of this year, and plans are underway to begin working on 4 the next phase. 5 Our partners in this effort include several agencies 6 at the federal, state and local level from the United 7 States and Mexico. In the United States, they include 8 the U.S. EPA, Cal-EPA, and the local air districts. In 9 Mexico they include INE and SEMARNAP at the federal 10 level, Baja California's Department of Ecology and the 11 municipal governments. Tribal communities have been 12 recognized as full partners and have been invited to 13 participate in the decision making process. Likewise, 14 non-governmental organizations and academic institutions 15 on both sides of the border have been invited to voice 16 their concerns. 17 Now that we've discussed the air quality concerns in 18 the border region, I'd like to focus on ARB's efforts to 19 evaluate the severity of the problem. In 1988, ARB staff 20 began cooperative efforts to establish air monitoring 21 sites in Mexico. The first station was established in 22 1992 in Tijuana, in cooperation with the San Diego air 23 district and the Technological Institute of Tijuana. 24 In 1994, funding became available from the U.S. EPA 25 through the Binational Border Environmental Plan. Since 167 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 then, monitoring efforts have been expanded to include 2 five stations in Tijuana, one in Rosarito, one in Tecate 3 and six in Mexicali. The stations are operated by a 4 contractor based in San Diego County. The ARB oversees 5 the operation to ensure compliance with ARB and U.S.EPA 6 quality assurance requirements. 7 The parameters monitored include ozone, nitrogen 8 oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate 9 matter under ten microns, toxics, meteorology, and total 10 suspended particulates. 11 As I mentioned earlier, the first air monitoring 12 station was established in tijuana in 1992. In 1996, 13 with U.S.EPA funding through the Border XXI program, five 14 more stations were established, including one in 15 Rosarito. The Tijuana air monitoring network was 16 designed in cooperation with San Diego air district and 17 SEMARNAP officials. The stations are located at 18 strategic points in the city to measure pollution upwind 19 and downwind from the urban areas as well as in the 20 center of the city. Preliminary data analyses indicate 21 that Tijuana's air pollution problems are high ozone and 22 particulate matter. 23 As you can see, this slide shows an air monitoring 24 station which is located on a high school campus in the 25 neighborhood known as Playas de Tijuana. I mention this 168 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 to illustrate the variety of accommodations and level of 2 cooperation we have received not only from Mexican 3 environmental agencies, but also from other public 4 institutions. 5 An air monitoring network similar to Tijuana's was 6 established in Mexicali in 1997. Again, network design 7 was a cooperative effort with local officials, and the 8 stations measure pollution upwind and downwind from the 9 urban areas as well as in the center of the city. 10 Preliminary analyses of Mexicali's air quality data 11 indicate high levels of ozone, particulate matter, carbon 12 monoxide, and toxics. 13 The station shown here is located in the Engineering 14 building on the main campus of Baja California's State 15 University, or UABC. Again, this illustrates the variety 16 of accommodations and degree of cooperation we have 17 received from public institutions. 18 The latest addition to the monitoring network was 19 established to complement the Tijuana network and will 20 assist us in the assessment of pollution transport from 21 the San Diego-Tijuana air basin into the mountain areas. 22 The Tecate station is located in the parking lot of the 23 city's police department. 24 As I mentioned earlier, we are currently reviewing 25 the air quality data collected in the border region. We 169 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 will summarize and develop a data base of all available 2 air quality data collected from 1997 through the spring 3 1999. Using data analysis software, we will assess the 4 nature and extent of pollutant transport across the 5 California-Mexico border. The results of this analysis 6 will help in the development of trans-boundary air 7 quality. 8 Another critical element in understanding air 9 pollution problems are emissions inventories. Emissions 10 inventories provide information about the sources of 11 pollutants in a region. While we have had extensive 12 inventories available for emissions in California for 13 many years, only recently has data been available about 14 emissions sources in Mexicali and will be available soon 15 for Tijuana. 16 The ARB, with funding provided by the U.S. EPA, is 17 now leading efforts to validate the emissions inventories 18 and last year conducted two special studies. One was a 19 test of exhaust emissions from motor vehicles, and the 20 other was a source apportionment study in Mexicali. The 21 mobile source emissions testing was conducted to 22 determine the emission and activity rates of vehicles 23 registered in Mexico. The purpose of the study was to 24 refine the motor vehicle emissions inventory for the 25 border region. The testing took place at the three main 170 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 ports of entry -- San Ysidro and Otay Mesa in the San 2 Diego area and Calexico in Imperial County. 3 There were over 600 participants in the study. ARB 4 staff visually inspected the emission control system of 5 the vehicles and performed a roadside low idle emissions 6 test. Two hundred and forty of those vehicles were given 7 a loaded mode test on a portable dynamometer. Sixty-two 8 vehicles were equipped with a global positioning system 9 datalogger to obtain information on vehicle activity 10 while in California. The results of the study are 11 currently being validated. We will share the results 12 with Mexican officials and a report will be available 13 this summer. 14 In another study to validate the Mexicali emissions 15 inventory, ambient and source samples were collected and 16 analyzed for volatile organic compounds, carbonyl 17 compounds, and hydrocarbons. We will use these results 18 to develop source profiles and determine the relative 19 contribution to the overall inventory by source. The 20 results of the study will be useful in the evaluation of 21 the accuracy of the emissions inventory. 22 In our effort to develop regional models, the 23 California-Mexico border region was incorporated into the 24 Southern California Ozone Study of 1997, a large-scale 25 field study to better understand the mechanisms leading 171 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 to high ozone concentrations. Air quality and 2 meteorological data collected during the study will allow 3 the development of models to characterize and simulate 4 ozone formation and transport in the region. Ultimately, 5 this information will help us to develop effective air 6 quality strategies for the border region. 7 Since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994, the 8 number of heavy-duty trucks crossing the border into 9 California has increased by more than 50 percent. 10 According to data provided by the U.S. Customs Service, 11 over twenty-six hundred trucks crossed into California 12 per day in 1999. Heavy-duty vehicle inspections were 13 mandated by State legislation in 1998 and could be 14 described as one of the first strategies implemented to 15 address cross-border pollution. 16 The ARB has a full-time inspection team at Otay Mesa 17 and currently conducts checks one week per month at 18 Calexico. A request for funds that will allow full-time 19 inspections at Calexico has just cleared the budget 20 subcommittees in the legislature. Random checks are 21 conducted at Tecate and altogether about 150 inspections 22 are conducted per month at the border crossings. 23 As of March 17, 2000, ARB staff had inspected 3300 24 vehicles. The failure rate, including citations and 25 notices of violation is slightly under 13 percent. By 172 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 comparison, the statewide failure rate is eight percent. 2 Now that some of the tools needed to understand the 3 problem have been developed, we can start working on 4 future plans and strategies to reduce air pollution. One 5 of our top priorities will be the transfer of 6 responsibility for the operation of the air monitoring 7 stations to Mexico. We are working with Mexican 8 officials with a goal to transfer this responsibility by 9 the end of this year. 10 We will continue working with environmental agencies 11 and organizations on both sides of the border to develop 12 regional air quality strategies, including the 13 implementation of air quality plans for Mexicali and 14 Tijuana. The ARB has been supportive of a plan to 15 implement a smog check program in Tijuana and will 16 continue cooperating in it's development, since this 17 program would bring clean air benefits to both sides of 18 the border. We will work in the next phase of the Border 19 XXI program and will work closely with Cal-EPA in the 20 development of a Border Strategic Plan to streamline the 21 activities of Cal-EPA's boards, departments, and offices 22 in the border region. 23 In summary, air pollution is a regional problem that 24 affects the health of residents on both sides of the 25 border. The ARB has made significant progress in 173 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 identifying the causes and severity of air pollution in 2 the region. The next phase will be the development of 3 strategies to improve the air quality, but we must 4 continue working closely with environmental officials and 5 stakeholders on both sides of the border. The only way 6 to effectively address air pollution problems in the 7 border region is through binational efforts. 8 Thank you for your attention. This concludes my 9 presentation. 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. Any questions 11 from the Board? 12 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: If the staff would go back to 13 the heavy duty vehicle inspections, I heard you say that 14 there was a comparison to what we would inspect here in 15 California. Could you give me that figure again? I 16 didn't hear it. 17 MR. RUIZ: Yes. At the border crossings, it's 13 18 percent failure rate. 19 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: 13 percent at the border 20 crossings? 21 MR. RUIZ: And 8 percent statewide. 22 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: At the border crossings, is there 24 any exposing or monitoring done with the border officials 25 exposed to -- 174 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 MR. RUIZ: If you mean personal exposure monitoring, 2 no, we have not conducted that. 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any plans to do that? 4 MR. RUIZ: Not yet. It's taken quite a while just 5 to get the air monitoring sites up. 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Second question. What about the -- 7 is there any significant differences between the gasoline 8 composition on either side of the border? 9 MR. RUIZ: We have done some analysis, actually, 10 within our own laboratories, of sample gasoline we've 11 taken from Mexico back into California. It varies often. 12 It looks very much like California gas and at other times 13 it will be quite different, primarily in its aromatic 14 contents. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any in changes in sulfur? 16 MR. RUIZ: I'm trying to recall off the top of my 17 head. It looked more like older California gasoline 18 rather than the newer, but there is -- that's all I can 19 say. 20 I want to add that one of our elements in our 21 Mexicali emissions portion study we took some gasoline 22 samples which have been analyzed. We haven't received 23 the results yet so that's all. 24 BOARD MEMBER C. H. FRIEDMAN: I have two questions. 25 One, heavy duty trucks fail or trucks that are cited or 175 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 fined, is there any trend or the words getting out that 2 is reducing that, improving, or is that too soon to tell? 3 MR. RUIZ: Sure. Actually, I was hoping to have the 4 data available to show you today. What I was showing was 5 the accurate data since this program was implemented in 6 June of 1998. And what I understand is these summaries 7 or the averages is showed by a very high number of 8 failures in the first months. Again, I don't have the 9 actual numbers but will show -- 10 BOARD MEMBER C. H. FRIEDMAN: But one would expect 11 or hope that a year from now that would be much improved. 12 MR. RUIZ: Yes, I believe in the first months, 13 again, in the computation, failure rates were up in the 14 20 or 30 percent range. So if you consider all that 15 means that we have had some very good reductions. 16 BOARD MEMBER C. H. FRIEDMAN: My other question is 17 unrelated really. I have certain a notion but I 18 appreciate hearing from you what is the prevailing, if 19 there is, transport direction? 20 MR. RUIZ: Yeah, it varies from the San Diego, 21 Tijuana area in the main direction is to the south. For 22 the Mexicali, it's actually 50-50, switches back and 23 forth. 24 BOARD MEMBER C. H. FRIEDMAN: More circular. We get 25 a lot of transport from Alpine, don't we Supervisor 176 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 Roberts? Part of our problem is transport from other 2 areas there from the northeast, I guess. 3 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Our problems are largely 4 transport from the north of us, specifically Los Angeles. 5 And our dumping if you will, is primarily Alpine. 6 BOARD MEMBER C. H.FRIEDMAN: What I'm hearing is 7 Tijuana is complaining about us. 8 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: We can sometimes know that 9 sewer goes north and air goes south. 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Well, it sounds like both L.A. and 11 San Diego have improved so that's good news. More 12 comments, Board? Thank you very much. Mr. Kenny? 13 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Next I'd like 14 to introduce from SEMARNAP, Mr. Cossio. He's chief of 15 events team and outreach team, and he will give us a 16 brief overview of the activities of what the government 17 agencies are conducting in support of the transfer of the 18 air monitor to Mexico. Mr. Cossio will make his 19 recommendation in Spanish and Mr. Ruiz has kindly agreed 20 to translate. 21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Pleasure to have you. 22 MR. COSSIO: Good afternoon. I don't have good 23 English but you will follow me. 24 In the Mexican government through the event for the 25 environment natural resources or SEMARNAP, has a goal to 177 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 transfer the Mexicali-Tijuana air monitor back to the 2 state government and the prospective municipal 3 governments. This is the result of an agreement between 4 a national for ecology and the border 21 binational 5 border group. We have set a goal to accomplish this task 6 by the end of this year. To reach this goal, SEMARNAP 7 has been involving and implementing the following actions 8 in Baja, California. 9 Number one, signing of an agreement with the state 10 and municipal governments to transfer the airline. And 11 agreement, number two, formation of a technical support 12 by federal, state and emission specialist with ARB 13 technical support. Number 3, the creation of a new 14 binational completion for events and control of the -- 15 for the seas of Mexicali and Tijuana, which would include 16 representatives for the official environmental and health 17 sectors as well as representatives from state, congress, 18 educational institutions, and non-governmental offices. 19 This commission will be responsible for the 20 municipal, economic, social and environmental policies. 21 Number 4, the creation of a fundraising subcommittee to 22 ensure financial support for the operation of the 23 networks and the cities of Mexicali and Tijuana. And 24 number five, work with the U.S.EPA and ARB members of the 25 California Air WorkGroup to establish the mechanisms for 178 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 binational cooperation and information exchange. 2 On behalf of Mexico, the secretary for environment 3 natural resources recognizes the work performed by the 4 ARB into operation with my country's authority and 5 particularly with the cities of Mexicali and Tijuana. We 6 have shown a lot of advances in the last five years. We 7 know very well my governments economic limitations in 8 facing the challenges presented by the industrial and 9 population growths. 10 Cooperation from the U.S. governments through the AP 11 and ARB has allowed the border cities of Mexicali and 12 Tijuana to take consideration of the air pollution 13 problems and has allowed the response basically to open 14 that to allow the elements necessary to improve air 15 quality. This area, the city of Mexicali, published an 16 air quality improvement program, and we now hope that 17 Tijuana will have them by June. Air quality and data are 18 the elements that allowed the development of these 19 programs we are here today to recognize ARB's efforts and 20 to thank you for your support. 21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed, 22 Mr. Cossio. It's good to think that the working 23 relationships are excellent. They're making progress. 24 Comments? Questions from the Board? Thank you very much 25 for taking the time to come. 179 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 MR. KENNY: I'd also like to add my thanks to 2 Mr. Mares Cossio for his representation. I'd like to 3 introduce Mr. Rick for border affairs. He will speak to 4 us about the cross media efforts to coastal edges along 5 the California-Mexican border. Good morning. 6 MR. RICK: Good afternoon. I guess to build up on 7 what's already been said here today, this year is the 8 first year that Cal-EPA has put together what we call 9 cross media, budget change proposal. And one of these 10 budget change proposal is the cross media California- 11 Mexico Border program which is going to bring together 12 all the border departments and offices under Cal-EPA and 13 coordinate all the border activity. 14 I am fortunate that I am able to work with the 15 secretary in bringing this program forward, and I want to 16 let you know that we have already passed two hurdles. It 17 looks like already, July 1st, we'll bring the budget that 18 will include 19 positions within the Board's department 19 and office strictly for border issues. 20 In addition to that, I would like to commend the 21 role that the ARB has taken in having people like Mr. 22 Ruiz in providing Cal-EPA the support necessary to open 23 those correct and very important channels of 24 communication. As you've sought today, relationship 25 building is very important in making and ensuring that we 180 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 have a positive working relationship, not only with our 2 neighbors to the south, but I think with people in Mexico 3 City. So basically that's it in a nut shell. Thank you 4 very much. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Can you translate the 6 PCP into dollars? 7 MR. RICK: Dollars, we're looking about 2. 7 million 8 dollars. That's a very small amount for the benefit that 9 it's going to give us. 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Again, what does ARB roughly spend 11 on the program today, roughly? 12 MR. RICK: I will defer to Mr. -- I missed the 13 question, but certainly we have a full-time position and 14 we have contract monies on the order of half a million 15 dollars. 16 MR. RUIZ: Actually, terming the contract and then 17 half a million is provided by U.S.EPA for contracts and 18 for ARB support. We have a lot of activities that take 19 place in our laboratories that require equipment and 20 expenditures. 21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed. Mr. 22 McKinnon? 23 BOARD MEMBER MCKINNON: I just wanted to thank 24 staff. I had an opportunity to tour the San Ysidro 25 crossing several months ago and see the work they're 181 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 doing there, and thanks for putting up with me down there 2 for an afternoon and great work. Thanks. 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: That will conclude the public 4 testimony. Any written comments to be entered into the 5 record. Any further comments, Mr. Kenny? 6 MR. Kenny: No. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: That being the case, this is to 8 close the record so we can move to the next item. Do 9 you need a recess or not? No? Great. So we'll go on to 10 the staff. Thank you, Mr. Ruiz. 11 Changing over here, the next item will be to 12 consider an informational update on current activities 13 and issues in indoor air quality. It has been several 14 years since we've heard an item on our indoor air 15 quality program and issues in that area, so I'm pleased 16 that we'll be hearing from our research division staff on 17 that topic today. It's become an increased important 18 issue. For that, I turn to Mr. Kenny. 19 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of 20 the Board. Our indoor air quality program originated in 21 1986 and has sponsored cutting edge research on all 22 aspects of indoor air quality. To date, our program has 23 been informational in nature. We have developed 24 guidelines for the public and have worked actively with 25 other agencies and organizations to do what we can to 182 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 reduce indoor air pollution and its impact on health. 2 As you may be aware, concerns have increased 3 regarding indoor air quality in California, particularly 4 with regard to office buildings and children's exposure 5 to poor indoor air quality. Additionally, problems with 6 carbon monoxide poisoning and elevated levels of toxic 7 VOCs have continued. We are closely involved in the 8 issues, but are somewhat frustrated that we can't do 9 more. 10 Today you will hear about a few of the key research 11 results and guidelines from our program, as well as 12 information on some of the more critical issues. With 13 that, I would like to introduce Mr. Tom Phillips of the 14 research division. 15 MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you. Good afternoon. By the 16 way, I like the staff has put six lines on a page. I'm 17 pleased to be here to update you on the current projects 18 and research findings of our Indoor Air Quality and 19 Personal Exposure Assessment Program. I would also like 20 to take this opportunity to highlight some of the 21 critical public health issues facing us in this area and 22 to discuss some actions that can be taken to effectively 23 reduce indoor pollution. 24 Indoor air pollution is a very serious environmental 25 health problem, so I will initially explain why it is so 183 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 important. next, I will discuss the activities and 2 successes of our program. Then i will review some of the 3 primary indoor air quality problems that we see in 4 California and discuss potential solutions to these 5 problems. And finally, I will summarize some of the key 6 indoor air quality activities currently occurring in the 7 State, as well as the opportunities for further reducing 8 Californians' risk from indoor pollution. 9 Indoor air pollution poses a high risk to health, 10 relative to other environmental problems, for two main 11 reasons. First, there are many indoor sources that emit 12 a variety of pollutants into enclosed indoor spaces. And 13 second, people spend the vast majority of their time 14 indoors.Total indoor emissions can be much less than 15 outdoor emissions, but indoor concentrations can build up 16 quickly. Consequently, indoor exposure and dose can be 17 very high. It has been estimated that a pollutant 18 emitted indoors is about a thousand times more likely to 19 be inhaled than one emitted outdoors. 20 In both national and California projects that have 21 compared various environmental health risks, scientists 22 concluded that indoor, as well as outdoor, air pollution 23 sources pose the highest health risks relative to other 24 environmental problems. Indoor pollution was one of the 25 four highest ranked problems in the California project. 184 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 As you can see from this list, there are many indoor 2 sources of pollutants. Common activities and products we 3 use every day contribute to the pollution load. Building 4 materials, furnishings, and consumer products tend to 5 emit significant quantities of volatile organic 6 compounds, or VOCs. Combustion appliances, including gas 7 stoves and furnaces, emit carbon monoxide, nitrogen 8 dioxide, particles, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. 9 Human activities, such as smoking, cooking, craft work, 10 and cleaning all produce gaseous or particulate emissions 11 that can be harmful to health. There are several other 12 sources listed here that can also pose significant health 13 risks. 14 As this pie chart from our activity pattern studies 15 shows, Californians spend, on average, an about 87 16 percent of their time indoors each day. As a result, 17 when indoor pollutant levels, personal exposure is high. 18 Subgroups of our population that are especially 19 vulnerable to the effects of pollutants spend even more 20 time indoors. For example, the elderly and children 21 under the age of two spend nearly all of their indoor 22 time at home. Clearly, the home environment has a very 23 critical influence on the health of young children and 24 other susceptible groups. 25 Now I would like to discuss ARB's Indoor AIr Quality 185 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 and Personal Exposure Assessment Program. It was 2 established to address concerns regarding indoor air 3 pollution and its impact on public health. In fact, the 4 goal of our program is to identify and reduce 5 Calilfornians' exposures to indoor air pollutants. 6 The program began in 1986 when legislation funded a 7 research program on all aspects of indoor air quality. 8 That same year, legislation directed the ARB to assess 9 Californians' indoor exposures to chemicals identified by 10 the Board as toxic air contaminants and to estimate the 11 contribution these indoor exposures make to the total 12 risk. 13 In response to these mandates, our major activities 14 have focused on three areas -- sponsoring research, 15 assessing indoor exposures to both toxic air contaminants 16 and criteria pollutants and preventing indoor pollution 17 through non-regulatory approaches. Our program does not 18 have regulatory authority. Over the years, we have 19 sponsored cutting edge research on all aspects of indoor 20 air quality and exposure assessment, ranging from 21 activity pattern studies to major residential field 22 studies of VOCs, particles, and PAHs. We have also 23 sponsored studies of VOC and formaldehyde emissions from 24 building materials, consumer products, and other indoor 25 sources. In addition, we have funded the most 186 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 comprehensive study to date of pollutant levels inside 2 cars as they were driven on California roadways. 3 We have funded the development of the tools and 4 methods necessary to measure and assess indoor exposures, 5 such as a unique indoor exposure model and real-time 6 indoor monitors to both ozone and nitrogen dioxide. In 7 our second major area of effort, we have completed indoor 8 exposure assessments of 11 toxic air contaminants and 9 contributed to the risk assessment for environmental 10 tobacco smoke. 11 Our third area of activity, indoor pollution 12 prevention through non-regulatory approaches, mainly 13 focuses on the development of indoor air quality 14 guidelines for the public. Our first guidelines were on 15 formaldehyde and indoor combustion pollutants. They 16 provided information on the potential sources of 17 pollution that people may have in their homes and on ways 18 to reduce both the indoor pollution levels and their 19 exposure to these pollutants. These documents have been 20 widely distributed and are very popular at fairs, 21 conferences, and other events. We also just published a 22 new fact sheet on indoor air cleaners. Guidelines on 23 other indoor pollutants, such as perchloroethylene, 24 ozone, and particles are currently being developed. 25 Program staff also work cooperatively with other 187 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 agencies and organizations to foster actions that reduce 2 indoor exposure and risk. For example, we currently 3 participate on a national committee convened by 4 underwriter laboratories to develop voluntary consensus 5 standards for indoor products and materials. 6 Unfortunately, that effort has not progressed toward 7 reaching a consensus, so we do not believe voluntary 8 product standards will be forthcoming. 9 Finally, we respond to about 500 requests from the 10 public each year for information and assistance in 11 resolving their indoor air quality problems. Although we 12 cannot go out into the field and visit homes and problem 13 buildings, we are able to provide substantial assistance 14 by mail, telephone, and internet. 15 Moving on, I would like to discuss several key 16 indoor pollutants. For each, I will identify their major 17 indoor sources, what we know about indoor and personal 18 exposure levels and associated health effects and what 19 can be done to reduce indoor levels and exposure to these 20 pollutants. 21 The pollutants I'll be discussing include VOCs, 22 formaldehyde, particles, carbon monoxide, ozone, and 23 biological contaminants. Before I discuss VOCs, however, 24 I would like to show you how we measure personal 25 exposures to air pollutants. This photo shows the type 188 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 of personal sampler that has been used in many of out 2 studies to measure personal exposure levels for VOCs. The 3 development of such samplers nearly two decades ago has 4 tremendously advanced our knowledge of people's actual 5 levels of exposure. As you can see, the intake is at the 6 top of the tube, near the person's face. This enables us 7 to obtain a sample of what the air the person is 8 actually breathing and thus gives us a very good measure 9 of the concentrations of pollutants that are inhaled. 10 The little box worn on the belt is the pump that draws 11 the air through the tube. 12 Many VOCs are carcinogenic and at very high exposure 13 levels may have other harmful effects, including 14 neurological damage. This slide shows the relationship 15 we typically find in studies that measure personal, 16 indoor, and outdoor levels of VOCs simultaneously. For 17 many, if not most, of the VOCs that have been studied, 18 personal exposure levels are higher than indoor levels, 19 which in turn are higher than outdoor levels. These 20 results indicate that when we base our risk estimates 21 only on outdoor levels of a pollutant, we significantly 22 underestimate the total risk for some pollutants. 23 The elevated personal exposure levels identified in 24 these studies, according to current theory, are due to 25 the so-called "proximity effect." Essentially, this 189 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 means that our activities such as cooking, cleaning, and 2 filling our gas tanks place us close to the sources of 3 pollution throughout our day, thereby increasing our 4 personal exposure levels. We are often closer to the 5 sources than the stationary monitors used to determine 6 the indoor and outdoor air concentrations. 7 Next, I want to talk about a toxic VOC of particular 8 concern, that is, formaldehyde. It is found in both 9 indoor an outdoor air wherever one goes. Because of the 10 numerous formaldehyde sources present indoors, indoor 11 levels tend to be several to many times higher than the 12 outdoor levels. Pressed wood products made with 13 formaldehyde resins are among the highest emitting 14 materials. These products include much of the plywood, 15 particleboard, and fiberboard sold today. Because large 16 quantities of these products are used in some types of 17 buildings, indoor formaldehyde levels may be up to ten or 18 more times higher than ambient levels. Furthermore, it 19 takes about three to five years for formaldehyde to fully 20 off-gas from a new home. 21 Other high-emitting indoor sources of formaldehyde 22 include certain type of floor and furniture coatings, 23 permanent press fabric, some cosmetic products, and 24 combustion sources, such as gas stoves. Consequently, 25 the cumulative indoor and personal exposures from the 190 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 human sources of formaldehyde can be substantial. 2 Formaldehyde has been identified as a toxic air 3 contaminant, based on its ability to cause cancer. 4 Exposure can also result in heart and respiratory tract 5 irritation and the exacerbation of asthma. Indoor levels 6 of formaldehyde are typically several times the average 7 ambient levels and many times the Proposition 65 "no 8 significant risk" level of about two parts per billion. 9 Children are considered to be more susceptible to the 10 effects of air pollutants and their exposure to 11 formaldehyde is of special concern. 12 Often, substitutes are readily available that emit 13 little or no formaldehyde. Building materials made of 14 other substances, such as plastic, gypsum, linoleum, or 15 solid wood, can often be used in place of a pressed wood 16 product. When a pressed wood product is needed, plywood 17 and particleboard products made with a low-formaldehyde 18 resin can be selected for only a slight increase in cost. 19 Coated, sealed, or laminated products that release very 20 little formaldehyde are also available. builders and 21 consumers can also specify low-emitting coatings and 22 products and they can ask for test data on other products 23 from the manufacturer. 24 Now I would like to discuss exposure to particulate 25 matter, commonly referred to as PM. It is associated 191 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 with both short and long-term effects on the heart and 2 respiratory system, including premature death. PM is a 3 major public health issue. 4 This slide shows the range of indoor, outdoor, and 5 personal daytime PM exposure levels measured in a study 6 of 178 home in Riverside, a region that experiences some 7 of the highest PM levels in California. Jointly funded 8 by the ARB and U.S. EPA, this was the first major study 9 of PM exposure. The horizontal green bars show the 10 average outdoor, indoor, and personal PM levels measured. 11 The vertical bars show the range of PM10. The green 12 arrows on the left show both the National and California 13 Ambient Air Quality Standards. 14 You can see that both the indoor and outdoor 15 averages are near 100ug/m3 which greatly exceeds the 16 California standard of 50. The average of the personal 17 exposure levels measured was 150, equal to the federal 18 standard. As you can see, personal exposures were 19 notably higher than the indoor and outdoor levels 20 measured. This is believed to be due to the proximity 21 effect mentioned earlier. 22 Important contributors to indoor PM in this study 23 were identified as smoking, cooking, and other indoor 24 activities such as vacuuming and housecleaning. However, 25 outdoor PM was the largest single source of indoor PM, 192 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 accounting for, on average, two-thirds of the total 2 indoor PM. 3 Outdoor PM can enter a home through the buildings 4 shell or be carried in on shoes, clothing, or pets. PM 5 from both indoor and outdoor sources is then deposited 6 and builds up on carpets, upholstery, and other fleecy 7 surfaces. Toxic materials, such as heavy metals, 8 pesticides, and PAHs, can be absorbed onto particles. 9 This toxic house dust can then become an important source 10 of exposure, especially for children. They can receive 11 substantial exposure by inhaling resuspended dust; 12 touching contaminated surfaces, such as carpets, or 13 ingesting dust particles by placing their hands or toys 14 in their mouth. 15 Several methods can be used to reduce the levels of 16 indoor PM. The first is to remove or reduce major indoor 17 sources. FOr example, smoking indoors should be avoided, 18 and invented combustion devices, such as space heaters, 19 should never be used inside. Activities such as burning 20 incense or candles can pose a substantial risk. In 21 addition, adequate local ventilation, such as 22 appropriately size range hoods for cooktops should always 23 be provided. 24 The amount of PM that is tracked in and deposited in 25 the home can be limited by taking shoes off upon 193 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 entering, keeping pets outside, and reducing the carpeted 2 areas in the home. Good houskeeping that includes 3 regular damp mopping, dusting and vacuuming with an 4 effective filter is an integral part of effective PM 5 control. 6 Airborne PM can also be controlled, to some extent, 7 with the use of filters and adequate ventilation. 8 However, portable filters are only effective in small 9 areas. It is also important to upgrade filters used in 10 forced air systems and furnaces to clean the recirculated 11 and incoming outside air. 12 Combustion pollutants such as carbon monoxide, 13 nitrogen dioxide, and PM are common indoor pollutants. 14 Carbon monoxide is infamous for its ability to build up 15 in enclosed spaces and cause death by poisoning. About 16 40 Californians die of accidental CO poisoning a year. 17 Even low levels of CO can cause significant 18 non-lethal effects, including headache, nausea, and 19 fatigue, which are often misdiagnosed as influenza. 20 Exposure to CO also causes angina in heart disease 21 patients and neurological damage, such as memory loss and 22 behavioral changes. Children and people with lung or 23 heart disease are most at risk from CO toxicity. 24 This slide summarizes the results of the California 25 CO mortality study by the type of CO source. The major 194 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 source type is combustion appliances, which includes wall 2 heaters, space heaters, and gas cook stoves. Combustion 3 pollutants from space heaters and gas stoves are 4 typically not vented to the outdoors. 5 Motor vehicles run a close second to combustion 6 appliances as a source of indoor CO. The CO from motor 7 vehicles exhaust can build up quickly in a garage and it 8 can enter a home through a central air system or other 9 leakage points. 10 Several approaches are used to reduce indoor CO to 11 safe levels. Unvented combustion appliances, such as 12 hibachis and kerosene heaters, should never be used 13 indoors. Vented appliances should be used instead and 14 should be properly installed and maintained. This 15 involves measuring CO and inspecting venting systems 16 regularly. 17 A complimentary approach is to develop appliance 18 emission limits and venting requirements. These measures 19 are especially needed to assure good air quality even 20 when adequate ventilation is not provided, due to human 21 error or venting system failures. Such appliance 22 requirements should also include noise and installation 23 requirements for range hoods. Indoor combustion 24 appliances are very common in California, but their 25 emissions and venting are not generally regulated for 195 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 purpose of public health protection. 2 It is also important to encourage the use of CO 3 detectors. These detectors help prevent fatal CO 4 poisoning. A high level of public awareness and properly 5 trained professionals are also essential components to 6 the success of any method. The public needs to be aware 7 of the potential hazards and what they can do to 8 recognize and prevent them. Professionals in the 9 building, environmental, and healthcare industries need 10 the proper training and equipment to identify and solve 11 indoor air quality problems. 12 Before I leave CO, I should mention another indoor 13 combustion pollutant, nitrogen dioxide, that is also 14 raising many health concerns. The ARB's CHildren's 15 Health Study and several studies of asthmatics have 16 recently found significant associations between 17 respiratory health and NO2 levels, or the presence of 18 indoor NO2 sources. Indoor NO2 is produced by the same 19 sources that produce indoor CO, so that measures to 20 reduce indoor CO will usually reduce indoor NO2 as well. 21 Ozone in general thought to be an outdoor air 22 problem. However, indoor sources of ozone, such as air 23 purifiers that intentionally generate ozone, and office 24 machines, such as printers and copiers, have increased in 25 the last decade. These products are marketed widely for 196 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 use in offices, schools, and homes, but are not currently 2 regulated. 3 Another source of indoor ozone can be outdoor 4 ozone. Under high air exchange conditions, indoor levels 5 can equal outdoor levels. Homes with swamp coolers can 6 have indoor ozone levels that exceed the state standard 7 because the swamp coolers bring outdoor air directly into 8 the building. 9 The last type of pollutant I would like to discuss 10 is biological pollutants. this slide shows one of the 11 cutest sources of biological pollutants, the dust mite. 12 It is microscopic in size and feeds on human skin flakes 13 in house dust. Dust mites thrive in a bedding and 14 carpets and are a major allergy trigger. There are 15 several other types of indoor biological pollutants that 16 are allergenic and/or toxic. In addition, indoor molds, 17 bacteria, and viruses can cause serious respiratory 18 infections. 19 Biological pollutants are major players in indoor 20 air quality. A recent National Academy of Science report 21 on asthma and indoor air quality found that these 22 biological pollutants were a significant cause of asthma. 23 Over 35 percent of the U.S. population currently have 24 allergies, which often leads to sinus infections. 25 The occurrence of molds, bacteria, and dust mites is 197 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 prevented by controlling moisture from water leaks, 2 condensation, and relative humidity, and by controlling 3 dust and debris. 4 Next, I would like to discuss indoor air quality 5 problems and the solutions. We have identified several 6 types of IAQ problems in California. These problems 7 often occur in combination. 8 Indoor pollutant sources are the primary cause of 9 IAQ problems, as we have just discussed. The indoor 10 sources of VOCs, PM, CO and other pollutants are quite 11 common, but current laws, regulations, and ordinances do 12 not address most of these sources. 13 Poor ventilation is another cause of poor indoor air 14 quality. This can be especially noticeable after 15 construction, renovation, or repairs. In addition, noisy 16 ventilation systems sometimes cause occupants to turn off 17 the system, thus compounding IAQ problems that may 18 already exist. 19 Moisture-related pollutants, such as molds, are yet 20 another cause of IAQ problems. Increased flooding during 21 recent years, changes in building practices, and poor 22 building maintenance have increased the incidence of such 23 pollutants. 24 There are several solutions to these problems that 25 can be pursued. Design and construction standards for 198 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 new and renovated buildings could be developed that would 2 require the use of low-emitting building materials and 3 finishes, including paints, caulks, and flooring. This 4 approach would reduce indoor pollutant sources at the 5 start. Building standards could also require improved 6 ventilation system design and performance testing. 7 Emission limits for consumer products and appliances 8 could be developed to reduce emissions at the 9 manufacturer's level. This would create a level playing 10 field and remove gross emitters. 11 Another part of the solution is to develop 12 guidelines for IAQ. These guidelines would identify best 13 practices for reducing indoor pollution and personal 14 exposures. They would also recommend health-based target 15 levels for indoor pollution. Our existing guidelines for 16 indoor formaldehyde and combustion pollutants use these 17 strategies. 18 A state training program for operation and 19 maintenance of building and ventilation systems is also 20 part of the solution. This program would develop the 21 infrastructure for the early identification of potential 22 IAQ problems and make preventive maintenance the norm. 23 Last but not least, the improved coordination of 24 state, local and federal agencies is absolutely essential 25 to the resolution of California's IAQ problems. In order 199 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 to train professionals, build public awareness, and 2 implement improved building and appliance standards, a 3 multi-agency approach will be required. 4 This slide ranks the effectiveness of general 5 techniques for improving IAQ, in decreasing order, based 6 on the results of a variety of research studies. The 7 most effective and reliable technique is source removal, 8 modification, or reformulation. We discussed examples of 9 this earlier. 10 Improved ventilation is also an essential technique, 11 but it is not nearly as effective as source control. It 12 can also be energy intensive for some pollutants, such as 13 formaldehyde, that off-gas over a long period of time. 14 The training of building, environmental and 15 healthcare professionals is necessary to create the 16 infrastructure to prevent, diagnose, and remediate IAQ 17 problems. Public education is necessary to increase 18 awareness among the general public so that they can make 19 good choices when they buy consumer products, when they 20 buy or remodel a home and when they conduct any indoor 21 activity that generates pollutants. 22 However, public education is only part of the 23 solution. It's effectiveness is always limited because 24 it can never reach everyone. Finally, air cleaning 25 devices are one of the first ways people think of to 200 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 combat indoor pollutants. Although these devices can 2 supplement some of the other techniques for controlling 3 particles, their effectiveness is very limited. 4 I would now like to discuss the increasing level of 5 activity that is targeted toward identifying and 6 resolving indoor air quality issues throughout 7 California. This slide shows the major State agencies 8 involved in indoor air quality. The Department of Health 9 Services has the lead authority to coordinate the State's 10 response to indoor environmental problems. They conduct 11 research and public education activities and address 12 concerns regarding specific pollutants, such as 13 biological contaminants, household lead, and indoor 14 radon. However, like ARB, DHS does not have authority to 15 regulate indoor sources of pollutants. The other 16 agencies listed all have program that impact indoor air 17 quality in some way but none has the authority or mandate 18 to specifically address indoor air pollution. 19 Currently, there is a growing concern regarding 20 indoor air quality in California. The Governor's budget 21 for this coming fiscal year includes $1 million for a 22 study of environmental conditions in portable classrooms 23 to be conducted jointly by ARB and DHS. While there have 24 been a number of highly publicized cases of possible 25 problems from toxic VOCs and mold in several school 201 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 districts, there are no reliable data on the scope and 2 extent of indoor air quality problems statewide. 3 Senate Bill 25, Escutia, became effective this past 4 January 1. It requires the ARB and Office of 5 Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to review our 6 health-based ambient air quality standards an toxic air 7 contaminant regulations and to determine whether they are 8 sufficiently protective of children's health. In 9 addition, the bill requires ARB to expand its monitoring 10 efforts, including monitoring in indoor spaces, such as 11 schools and day care centers where children spend much of 12 their time. 13 Finally, there are a number of bills pending in the 14 State Legislature that would impact indoor air quality. 15 Several deal with school indoor air quality and safety. 16 Other bills call for green building measures or provide 17 tax credits for environmentally friendly construction, 18 which may include measures to improve indoor air quality. 19 However, none would provide the authority or mandate to 20 directly address sources of indoor pollution. 21 In summary, research findings and exposure 22 assessments have led us to conclude the following key 23 points: The health risk from indoor pollution is high 24 when compared with the risks from many other 25 environmental problems. Indoor sources are significant 202 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 contributors to air pollutant exposure and risk. 2 Personal exposures are often very high, primarily due to 3 people's proximity in indoor sources. 4 In addition, we have found that manufacturers, 5 school administrators, and the public are increasingly 6 seeking solutions to existing air quality problems, as 7 well as standards or guidelines that will assure a 8 healthful indoor environment. A more focused, 9 comprehensive effort could achieve large reductions in 10 risk. Although much effort has been directed toward 11 research and public education, no agency has explicit 12 authority to set emission limits or develop standards to 13 protect indoor air quality. 14 Again, our goal is to identify and reduce 15 Californian's exposures to indoor air pollutants. 16 However, we believe that there are many potential 17 opportunities to reduce risk that are not currently being 18 pursued or are not being pursued sufficiently. 19 Staff has concluded that additional regulatory 20 authority would provide an effective opportunity to 21 reduce emissions and exposure from many types of indoor 22 sources. Labeling programs could address a portion of 23 the problem through an economic incentive approach. 24 Additional guidelines would be helpful but would require 25 resources and improved cooperation among the agencies 203 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 involved. A State level training and oversight program 2 for school facility and public building managers, utility 3 company inspectors, and others would be very beneficial. 4 And finally, public education efforts should be increased 5 to encourage actions such as the use of low-emitting 6 products and materials and carbon dioxide detectors. 7 Thank you very much. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. The last item 9 address is public education efforts. Are there any 10 events planned to further that effort? 11 STAFF: We do have an All-Star symposium coming up 12 next week with experts from around the country and 13 various people from the State agencies here in California 14 to discuss the problems and what can be done about it, 15 and everyone's invited. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: That will be next week? 17 STAFF: In Sacramento. 18 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I'd like to thank you for a 19 comprehensive and well-presented report. Before I make a 20 comment, on behalf of all the Board members, I wanted to 21 congratulate the man on the left who has just been 22 appointed the head of our research division so 23 congratulations. 24 The issue as you plainly stated many times is that 25 no one appears to have no idea what regulatories are. 204 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 This is a multi-agency and the research division has 2 accumulated great piles of studies, both from the trial 3 study and forthcoming studies in Fresno, which is going 4 to again increase the mass of that pile on indoor 5 pollutants, and I'm not a politician, but there must be 6 some way or we ought to start now to seek a multi-agency 7 task force to really specifically address the issue of 8 regulatory authority. 9 I mean we now have enough data to understand the 10 importance of this element of air quality. We spend 11 almost 80 percent of our time indoors and the environment 12 indoors is dreadful often. So I don't know how to 13 facilitate such an activity, but surely we need to 14 galvanize the agency so involved to really sit and 15 specifically direct a mechanism. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yeah, I would certainly concur. 17 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Particularly, when we see, 18 and I know Dr. Burke has done some in South Coast, drawn 19 attention to looking at the health impacts on the young 20 and the old, both of those spend a considerable amount of 21 time indoors. And again, I think staff will agree some 22 of the options there -- 23 BOARD MEMBER C. H. FRIEDMAN: I notice there are 24 pending legislation for schools. It occurs to me, and 25 this is a very hip-pocket reaction, but it occurs to me 205 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 that while it may be appropriate for legislation, we 2 could reach it to regulate and perhaps delegate to our 3 Board, or some other agency, regulatory authority to 4 regulate admissions and so forth from indoor air quality 5 as set air quality standards for public places and spaces 6 and buildings. 7 It seems to me there would be some significant 8 problems literally with you regulating what goes on in 9 the home. It's one thing to regulate products that end 10 up in the home, consumer issues there, but ultimately 11 what people burn in their fireplace, and how they live 12 their lives within their own homes might be a problem. 13 Only education can help, but in terms of regulation, that 14 may might be a brave new world. 15 MR. KENNY: Couple procedures. We're looking to 16 regulate people's activities in their homes and how they 17 live their lives. We're imposing, though. There should 18 be some regulations in regards to the products that are 19 used to construct those homes and buildings because what 20 we're seeing now is very high levels that are gas levels. 21 There are materials used in the carpeting, in the wall, 22 board materials, all those different types of products 23 have simply the ability to be constructed or manufactured 24 in a low emitting fashion. Instead, what's happening is 25 we're not seeing that. This is actually a fairly serious 206 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 issue and fairly serious problem. And it's a place where 2 we think we need to look at some direct regulatory 3 provided. We also think providing a regulatory direction 4 will correct a level, fair playing field that everyone 5 will compete on, and we don't have to and yet at the same 6 time, there may not. They might have a condition as a 7 result of that. 8 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: It's been so long since I sold 9 a house, a long time. If you saw a house, don't you have 10 to have a rate through the house? 11 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Being admitted only, 12 actively only. The appliances are turned on. 13 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Something I realized. If we 14 went after this kind of legislative authority in some 15 way, even in public facilities, I think that's a great 16 idea. What committee in the legislature would that go 17 through? 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Supervisor Roberts? 19 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Which would be our 20 legislative guy, speaking for the legislature for the Air 21 Board? You're talking about what committee would the 22 general subject -- 23 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Put it into a form, a 24 legislature form, what committee of the legislature? 25 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: In all probability go to the 207 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 environmental safety committee on the senate side and the 2 toxic on the assembly side. 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Do you have any names of those 4 committees? 5 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: We could talk with the 6 chairman of the environmental safety side if the 7 regulatory authority was for specific building material 8 or building codes. And you're talking about we may go 9 into some other committees? 10 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Can you help me out on the 11 major thing? I think -- 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think someone was trying to say 13 something. Peggy? 14 MS. JENKINS: My name is Peggy Jenkins. I am 15 manager of Indoor Care Quality Program. We do not have 16 any requirements for testing here in California of our 17 homes. Many home buyers would like that information so 18 in many transactions there's a quick radon test done. 19 Often, those are individuals who come to California from 20 back east. Lots of eastern states have very high radon 21 levels, and they do have requirements for testing. 22 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Radon was not what I was 23 changing. What I was changing was the concept. You are 24 right. We can't go into someone's house and say, "Hey, 25 you can't smoke, but if there was a way that we identify 208 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 certain levels in a house, at least at the transfer of 2 sale point, there could be a state requirement that 3 certain tests -- you have to have a permit. So that's 4 only structural things. 5 BOARD MEMBER C. H. FRIEDMAN: How about having a 6 permit away and just having -- 7 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: That was the concept I was 8 changing with that common -- 9 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I was just wondering, are 10 there any scheduled reports due to the legislature, or is 11 there a plan as a result of the upcoming workshop or 12 seminar to provide a report to the legislature? 13 STAFF: We are going to produce a report. I don't 14 know if there have been any plans to present that to the 15 legislature, but certainly that would be available to 16 everyone. 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Likewise, to report back to 18 the Board, I would find it helpful. 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I agree. I think, in fact, it 20 would be very good. You have laid out some opportunities 21 to reduce risk here some in the outside. Maybe what you 22 use next week, maybe when some of the people would 23 actually push this out with the options and 24 recommendations and come back to us maybe in a couple of 25 months. 209 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 Just one discussion. I think that when Ken, we are 2 doing an area amount of work, it's great with one aspect 3 of children. There are lots of children who are very 4 young and inside these homes for very long periods of the 5 day, possibly four hours, some for longer. The potential 6 of exposure and longer lifetime to eventually develop 7 reactions to those exposures. 8 But again it's one of those places where we have to 9 do some work with the different state agencies over time. 10 But the lack of direction from the legislative standpoint 11 really has been impeding our abilities to come up with 12 anything that's going to be effective. It determines our 13 resolving these issues. 14 BOARD MEMBER C. H. FRIEDMAN: I'm trying to see if 15 we can't resolve that in a few minutes, step forward in 16 developing a clear legislative concept. Not that we can 17 draft legislation here, but could we go through the 18 agency and through the Governor's office and see if that 19 can become a big part of it? The executive branch, the 20 Governor's and administration proposals, I'm sure they 21 can get sponsorships if they buy in. And part of this 22 Board, maybe we could do that. I don't know whether 23 staff was developing the outlines of suggested 24 legislative solution. 25 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I think this is an area that 210 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 we have looked at in their reports that you received to 2 ask to be part of the foundation to continue discussions 3 with the executive branch. There's been a lot of 4 attention that's been growing over recent areas over the 5 subject, both at cap level and departmental level. 6 There's been discussions going to each staff and staff 7 request departments after and our staff here, which is 8 responsible for the indoor pollutants. 9 And there is work that is continuing on school 10 subject on portable -- subject of portable school 11 building where there's going to have to be some 12 cooperative relationships. And we can also bring those 13 discussions up through the food chain and to the people 14 in the Governor's office and continue our discussions 15 there. 16 BOARD MEMBER C. H. FRIEDMAN: That's a good start 17 with schools, but obviously it's a problem. I agree with 18 Mr. Kenny here. We need to sharpen the focus, naturally 19 try to move this ahead. And I know there's a desire 20 maybe to follow up on an incentive program, and I think 21 you had some comments there, and it may be a good idea, I 22 say, to flush that out. But as we talk about educating 23 the public, we have to do a significant educational job 24 to the food chain so we understand what the options are 25 there and what can be done. 211 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 BOARD MEMBER C. H. FRIEDMAN: We do have the -- 2 we're assuming the authority to expend funds for 3 educational purposes and research it. 4 MR. KENNY: We have been doing that. Professor 5 Friedman. The folks -- we have some of the best in the 6 world, and they've been very effective. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think this is going to be a 8 continuing problem because as we got more and more 9 greater energy deficiencies, in our homes, the same thing 10 happens there. 11 MR. MCKINNON: Staff may have already been here, but 12 it occurs to me that beyond kind of multi-agencies 13 talking about where to go, there's also expertise shared 14 in agencies on how to do things. For instance, I think 15 Calhoun has done a lot of indoor problem solving, done a 16 lot of monitoring, sometimes hazard control and that kind 17 of thing. So I don't know how real it would be, but it 18 seems to me maybe one of the things to do would be to 19 have kind of a meeting with everybody involved in it and 20 set some kind of priorities and also kind of develop kind 21 of an area of expertise and see if there's something that 22 can be moved on together. And maybe you already talked 23 to the Governor's office about that, I don't know. But 24 I'd be interested in helping with it or whatever. 25 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I think we all are in 212 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 accord. What I'd really like to see is this heightened 2 our profile as an activity to really stop limping away at 3 the fringes here, and you know, go for what the issue 4 really is. Maybe with staff's help, preparation of 5 something formal not just inspections can be made and of 6 course it's going to require a task force and meetings. 7 But I'd like to see a very substantial heightened being 8 of our profile as a catalyst in this. After all, there's 9 been an enormous amount of work in the NRP and research 10 division and very important information and you might as 11 well push it. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. Croes, one question. Do you 13 have adequate resources for this research area? 14 MR. CROES: I've only been on the job for a week. 15 Let me turn that over. I think the answer is yes. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: This was a test. 17 MS. JENKINS: The honest answer is I don't feel we 18 have adequate resources, but that's not to say that we 19 can't do a little more or a lot more with what we have 20 with added support. We could do more with more 21 resources. I think that's always true. Particularly 22 from the perspective of generating, for example, public 23 materials that is more source intensive than something 24 redeveloped -- our guidelines. Because there are no 25 standards there, they become, in some people's minds, a 213 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 defect of standard. We have to really focus everything 2 we say in those guides to make sure it's accurate and 3 correct and well within good science and that takes a lot 4 of staff efforts, a lot of effort to get that out. I 5 wouldn't turn down extra resources. 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: May be bringing this to a close. I 7 think the staff has heard the great concern the Board has 8 in these. Maybe we could get staff to reflect on those 9 comments. I think we've heard a good report for the 10 Board. Clearly, you've heard we want to move ahead. How 11 we move ahead, I think various paths. And Mr. Kenny do 12 you have a realistic time to come back to us with some 13 follow up? 14 MR. KENNY: I think what we'd like to do -- I 15 actually don't have a time frame in mind. What I'm 16 thinking I'd like to lay out exactly what we're thinking 17 about and bring that back to you, realistically in the 18 summer or fall. But I wasn't thinking of any specific 19 time frame. I don't understand that. 20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think, again, I think next week, 21 putting something together with people to move that 22 ahead, and I think one of the next items we see is it 23 addresses one issue that we'll get to in that time. 24 Again, any more comments? Then I guess we have nobody to 25 testify on this item. It's not a regular item so this 214 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 concludes the record. Thank you very much. 2 Our last item today is the research proposals we 3 have from the research divisions. We have three 4 proposals. One of them I mention is looking at 5 continuing to monitor for indoor pollutants which 6 obviously fits right into the earlier discussion. And 7 does the staff have anything to say about the proposals, 8 Mr. Croes? 9 MR. CROES: Chairman, it's always your -- would you 10 like a brief overview of the proposals, or would you just 11 like to open the Board to questions? 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: What's the wishes of the Board? 13 Would they like a brief presentation, or are they 14 sufficiently comfortable that they can ask questions? 15 Who would like a short discussion? Hands up for those 16 who want a short discussion. No? So I guess we'll ask 17 questions. Thank you. 18 Let me lead off with one then. Continuing in on two 19 again, is there some submission that MO2 is involved 20 with, maybe some of the issues, some management type 21 issues and yet when in the proposal I thought we're not 22 going to be able to get that monitor into the homes for 23 the existing study; is that right or am I misinterpreting 24 existing studies, being the USC study? 25 MR. CROES: Actually, that will probably be the 215 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 first study that we will use the monitors. And the 2 monitors that we have, we have four in existence, those 3 will be upgraded and tested and they will be used in that 4 test study for some additional testing. So in the homes, 5 yes. 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Will carbon monoxide be included 7 in the reactivity? 8 MR. CROES: Yes, carbon monoxide is being included. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any questions from the Board 10 members? 11 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I thought all three 12 proposals were very straight forward, very simple, not 13 very expensive. 14 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: If you'd like to make a 15 motion Dr. Friedman -- 16 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I move, approve all. 17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: And I second that. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: All in favor say, "aye." 19 ALL: Aye. 20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I guess the last item is the open 21 comment period. We have no one to sign up to testify so 22 with that we'll officially close the April 27th Board 23 meeting. Thank you all. 24 ***** 25 216 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 3 4 I, Juliet Y. Eichenlaub, CSR 12084, a Certified 5 Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of California, do 6 hereby certify: 7 That the foregoing proceedings were taken down by 8 me in shorthand at the time and place named therein and 9 were thereafter transcribed under my supervision; that 10 this transcript contains a full, true and correct record 11 of the proceedings which took place at the time and place 12 set forth in the caption hereto. 13 14 15 I further certify that I have no interest in the 16 event of this action. 17 18 19 EXECUTED this day of , . 20 21 22 23 Juliet Y. Eichenlaub 24 25 217 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 20 21 22 23 24 25 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (888) 326-5900 111