BOARD MEETING STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 1990 EAST GETTYSBURG AVENUE FRESNO, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 2003 9:00 A.M. TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NUMBER 12277 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii APPEARANCES BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Alan Lloyd, Chairperson Mr. Joseph Calhoun Ms. Dorene D'Adamo Professor Hugh Friedman Dr. William Friedman Mr. Matthew McKinnon Supervisor Barbara Patrick Mrs. Barbara Riordan BOARD MEMBERS EXCUSED Dr. William Burke Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Supervisor Ron Roberts STAFF Ms. Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Michael Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Kathleen Tschogl, Ombudsman Ms. Kathleen Walsh, General Counsel Ms. Alexa Malik, Board Secretary PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii APPEARANCES CONTINUED STAFF Mr. John Damassa, Chief, Modeling and Meterology Branch Mr. Kurt Karperos, Manager, Transportation Strategies Section Ms. Kate MacGregor, Health and Exposure Assessment Staff Ms. Sylvia Morrow, Planning and Technical Support Division ALSO PRESENT Ms. Diane Bailey, NRDC Ms. Shirley Batchman, CA Citrus Mutual Mr. Steven Bonaker, Imperial Sugar Ms. Judy Case, Fresno County Supervisor Mr. Dave Crow, Fresno District Office Mr. Manuel Cunha, Nisei Farmers League Ms. Teresa DeAnda, El Comite Bienestar Earlimart Ms. Sandra Duval, Lumber Association of California and Nevada Mr. Tom Frantz, AIR Ms. Josefine Garcia, El Comite Bienestar Earlimart Mr. Kevin Hall, Sierra Club, Tehipile Chapter Mr. Roger Ison, California Cotton Growers Association Ms. Linda Mackay, Association of Irritated Residents Ms. Tracy Mason, CRPE Mr. Joe Miranda, El Comite Bienestar Earlimart PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv APPEARANCES CONTINUED ALSO PRESENT Mr. Brent Newell, Association of Irritated Residents Ms. Mary Reynolds, Western Propane Gas Association Ms. Patricia Slingerland, IMPCO & ITA Mr. Saffet Tannikulu, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Mr. Mike Tunnell, American Trucking Association Mr. Peter Weiner, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 v INDEX PAGE Pledge of Allegiance 1 Roll Call 1 Chairman's Remarks 2 Mr. Dave Crow 2 Item 03-5-1 Chairperson Lloyd 4 Executive Officer Witherspoon 5 Staff Presentation 6 Q&A 11 Item 03-5-2 Chairperson Lloyd 13 Executive Officer Witherspoon 16 Staff Presentation 18 Q&A 39 Ms. Linda Mackay 50 Ms. Mary Reynolds 53 Mr. Peter Weiner 59 Mr. Mike Tunnell 62 Ms. Sandra Duval 64 Ms. Patricia Slingerland 65 Ms. Shirley Batchman 69 Mr. Manuel Cunha 70 Mr. Kevin Hall 82 Mr. Brent Newell 89 Ms. Diane Bailey 102 Ms. Tracy Mason 106 Mr. Tom Frantz 112 Mr. Steven Bonaker 116 Ms. Teresa DeAnda 117 Mr. Joe Miranda 120 Mr. Roger Ison 122 Q&A 132 Vote 139 Vote 140 Item 03-5-3 Ms. Judy Case 150 Chairperson Lloyd 151 Executive Officer Witherspoon 152 Staff Presentation 153 Mr. Tannikulu 164 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 vi INDEX CONTINUED PAGE Adjournment 169 Reporter's Certificate 170 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Good morning. The June 26, 3 2003, public meeting of the Air Resources Board will now 4 come to order. 5 Supervisor Patrick, will you lead us in the 6 pledge? 7 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Certainly. Please join us. 8 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was 9 Recited in unison.) 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 11 Would the clerk of the Board please call the 12 roll. 13 SECRETARY MALIK: Dr. Burke? 14 Mr. Calhoun? 15 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Here. 16 SECRETARY MALIK: Ms. D'Adamo? 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here. 18 SECRETARY MALIK: Supervisor De Saulnier? 19 Professor Friedman? 20 PROFESSOR HUGH FRIEDMAN: Here. 21 SECREATRY MALIK: Dr. Friedman? 22 DR. WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Here. 23 SECRETARY MALIK: Mr. McKinnon? 24 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Here. 25 SECRETARY MALIK: Supervisor Patrick? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Here. 2 SECRETARY MALIK: Ms. Riordan? 3 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. 4 SECRETARY MALIK: Supervisor Roberts? 5 Chairman Lloyd? 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Here. 7 It's a pleasure to be in Fresno, and I would like 8 to invite Dave Crow to the podium to invite us here. 9 Thank you very much for your hospitality, Dave. 10 MR. CROW: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of 11 your Board and the public. Indeed, I'd like to welcome 12 you to Fresno and our district office. By my count, it's 13 been almost twelve years. You picked a wonderful time. I 14 won't comment on the weather outside. We do have air 15 conditioning so that will help you get through the day. 16 On a serious note, I would like to also commend 17 the adoption of our district's PM10 plan submittal. Our 18 Board had a lengthy hearing last week, a very democratic 19 meeting. Everybody was engaged and participated. Our 20 Board unanimously recommended the plan for your 21 consideration. And similarly, I'd like to thank your 22 staff. They've done an excellent job on the staff 23 analysis of this plan, and I commend them for your 24 attention. So have a good day and a successful day, and I 25 hope you'll adopt our plan. Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, Dave. 2 I don't know whether our two members from the 3 Valley, Supervisor Patrick or Mr. D'Adamo, want to say 4 anything at the beginning. 5 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: I'd just say thank very much 6 for being here. We always appreciate it when you come to 7 the Valley. Of course, this is Dr. Lloyd's second visit 8 to the Valley in a rather short period. 9 This plan is very important to our district, as 10 you are all well aware. And we appreciate the fact that 11 you're in Fresno today at the district offices and video 12 conferencing this to the two remote locations as well. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 14 Ms. D'Adamo. 15 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I just might add that I'm 16 looking forward to the testimony today and am very pleased 17 that the Valley seems to be engaged in this issue. That 18 may not have been the case several years ago. And I know 19 there are different perspectives and just am looking 20 forward to hearing the specifics. Thank you. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I would echo that. When I 22 did the trip through the Valley on the fuel cell vehicles, 23 I was really impressed. At all the stops people were 24 really concerned about clean air, really concerned about 25 what we're doing about it, concerned, in support of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 new technologies. And in listening to the TV, the news 2 this morning, ABC indicated that you could call them up to 3 the web page and get more information on health effects of 4 air pollution. I was really heartened and really 5 impressed. 6 Just a note to my colleagues, the mics are live. 7 So if you want to mute them, you have to hold it down. 8 And as soon as you release them, you're on again. So if 9 you could also keep the papers away from the mics, it 10 would be helpful. 11 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Can everybody hear 12 us out here? Is it okay? 13 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Louder. 14 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Louder. I wasn't 15 sure if we were projecting. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: With that, I think we'll 17 start the first agenda item today, Item 03-5-1. I would 18 like to remind anyone in the audience who wishes to 19 testify on today's agenda item to please sign up with the 20 clerk of the Board. Also if you have a written statement, 21 please give 30 copies to the clerk of the Board. 22 The first item on the agenda today is 03-5-1, a 23 public meeting to consider a health update. And for those 24 who are not familiar with our Board meetings, we always 25 start off with a health update reflecting some of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 recent research findings on the impact of air pollution on 2 public health. So it's a continuation today, and I think 3 it sets the stage very nicely for our deliberations on the 4 plan. 5 On this item today, staff will be presenting 6 recent findings on the relationship between exposure to 7 particulate matter and the risk of hospitalization for 8 acute or chronic respiratory conditions in residents of 9 California's Central Valley. This study was funded by the 10 Board as part of our health effects research program. The 11 results presented here directly demonstrate the adverse 12 health effects of exposure to particulate air pollution in 13 this California region and will improve our understanding 14 of the effects of these pollutants on the health of 15 vulnerable populations, and again, sets the stage for why, 16 in fact, we need to focus on particulates and what we can 17 do to help in the Valley. 18 So with that, I'd like to turn it over to 19 Ms. Witherspoon to introduce the item. 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, 21 Dr. Lloyd. And good morning, members of the Board. I'm 22 not used to this. Can everyone here me? No. Any better? 23 That's better. 24 In June of last year, the Board adopted new 25 annual average standards for PM2.5 and PM10. The staff PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 renewed numerous epidemiologic studies from across the 2 country on the health effects of particulate pollution 3 which were used to support the new annual standards. At 4 the time, very few studies focusing on the California 5 population were available when those standards were put 6 into place. However, today staff will present the results 7 of a recently completed study funded by the Air Resources 8 Board that focused exclusively on the Central Valley 9 population. The Central Valley has some of the higher PM 10 levels in the state, and the population here is frequently 11 exposed to unhealthy levels. 12 Kate MacGregor from the Health and Exposure 13 Assessment Branch will make the staff presentation. 14 Ms. MacGregor. 15 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 16 presented as follows.) 17 MS. MACGREGOR: Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon. And 18 good morning, Chairman Lloyd, and members of the Board. 19 In today's health update, we will focus on the 20 results of an ARB-funded study recently completed in the 21 Central Valley of California under the direction of 22 Dr. Steven Van der Eden and the Kaiser Permanente team. 23 This is an important study that contributes to our 24 understanding of the effects of particulate matter 25 pollution, especially the fine particle fraction, on the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 respiratory health effects of this population. 2 Surprisingly, there are relatively few studies 3 that have examined the health effects of particulate 4 matter on the California population. There are even fewer 5 that have focused on the effects of PM2.5 due to the fact 6 that ambient exposure data for PM2.5 has rarely been 7 available until now. This study provided us with an 8 important opportunity to evaluate the usefulness of the PM 9 monitoring network for daily ambient exposure assessment, 10 and the results I will present today will demonstrate the 11 importance of this monitoring effort. 12 --o0o-- 13 MS. MACGREGOR: This study was designed to 14 evaluate the effective increasing ambient particulate 15 matter and other gaseous pollutants, such as nitrogen 16 dioxide, on the rate of hospitalizations or emergency room 17 visits for cardiac and respiratory conditions. 18 The study was conducted between January 1996 and 19 December 2000 and focused on approximately 500,000 members 20 of the Kaiser Permanente health care plan in Stockton, 21 Sacramento, Modesto, and Fresno. Approximately 77 percent 22 of the study participants resided in the Sacramento area. 23 Daily hospitalizations and emergency room visits 24 for acute respiratory conditions, such as croup, acute 25 bronchitis, pneumonia, and chronic respiratory conditions, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 such as asthma, COPD, and emphysema were evaluated in 2 relation to daily ambient pollution concentrations. 3 Statistical analysis was used to examine the daily changes 4 in air pollution based on 24 hour average concentrations 5 and incorporated controls for confounding effects, such as 6 major co-pollutants and climate. 7 --o0o-- 8 MS. MACGREGOR: The study was successful in 9 finding statistically significant associations between 10 particle air pollution and respiratory conditions and to a 11 lesser extent between gaseous co-pollutants and 12 respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. 13 We believe the small percentage of the very 14 elderly in the Kaiser population, plus the 12 percentage 15 in the over 65 age category, may have contributed to the 16 lack of findings related to pollutant levels in cardiac 17 conditions. We will focus our discussion today on the 18 result of the respiratory health effects of particle 19 pollution levels. 20 --o0o-- 21 MS. MACGREGOR: The association between fine 22 particular matter pollution and respiratory conditions was 23 the most important finding of this study. As stated 24 previously, very few studies have focused on this 25 relationship due to a lack of exposure data. We found a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 significantly stronger association between health effects 2 and PM2.5 compared to the effects observed for PM10. 3 For PM10, we observed a range of increases from 4 2.3 percent for acute respiratory hospitalizations to 5.5 5 percent for chronic respiratory hospitalizations. 6 --o0o-- 7 MS. MACGREGOR: For PM2.5, the effects were 35 to 8 50 percent higher across the board with the greatest 9 effect seen in chronic respiratory hospitalizations. This 10 is consistent with other studies that have compared these 11 two size fractions of particulate matter, and it is 12 believed to be due to a greater intrinsic toxicity of 13 PM2.5, greater indoor infiltration rates, lower exposure 14 measurement air, or other as yet unknown factors. 15 --o0o-- 16 MS. MACGREGOR: Another interesting finding of 17 this study was the relative increases observed in 18 emergency room visits or hospitalizations as they relate 19 to increasing particulate matter pollution which varies 20 significantly by geographic region. 21 --o0o-- 22 MS. MACGREGOR: In this slide we compare the 23 emergency room visits for chronic respiratory conditions 24 in the four different cities which have increasingly high 25 rates of particulate pollution. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 --o0o-- 2 MS. MACGREGOR: For PM10 we observe an increase 3 in levels as we move down the Central Valley from 4 Sacramento to Fresno. 5 --o0o-- 6 MS. MACGREGOR: For PM2.5 we also observe an 7 increase in concentration in Sacramento to Fresno. 8 --o0o-- 9 MS. MACGREGOR: And interestingly, the rates of 10 emergency room visits per 1000 population decreased in 11 association with increasing pollution from city to city, 12 with the highest rates observed in Fresno. 13 Although the study did not separate specific 14 emission diagnosis in each area, Fresno has a higher rate 15 of asthma, at least 25 percent higher in the pediatric 16 population compared to the rest of California. And this 17 may play an important role in the increased emergency room 18 visits. 19 --o0o-- 20 MS. MACGREGOR: The results of this study confirm 21 our belief that reduction of particulate matter pollution 22 in the Central Valley is of great importance to the health 23 and well being of this, the FACES project, currently 24 underway in Fresno, will help us further refine our 25 understanding of the health impacts of particle pollution PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 on asthmatic children. However, additional studies will 2 be needed to evaluate the effects of pollution on the very 3 elderly and those with pre-existing conditions. The 4 information we obtain from this research can be used to 5 support the need to maintain and improve the fine 6 particular monitoring, while at the same time looking for 7 further pollution reduction measures in a small size 8 fraction. 9 --o0o-- 10 MS. MACGREGOR: Thank you for your attention 11 today. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have 12 about the study. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed. 14 Do my colleagues have any questions or comments? 15 Professor Friedman. 16 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I had a question 17 maybe you or Dr. Friedman could answer. 18 Do we need additional studies for the elderly and 19 youth particularly, particularly the elderly? 20 MS. MACGREGOR: Yes. I think so. Particularly 21 for the elderly because in this particular study which was 22 rather small, and we don't know about whether it's a study 23 population that's generalizable to the overall population 24 of the valley. Further study would be needed to see what 25 effects PM10 or PM2.5 is having on cardiac conditions. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 And usually -- those conditions are usually with people 2 that have pre-existing conditions -- is where we see that 3 effect. 4 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: We are 5 funding -- the ARB is funding a major study of children, 6 and I think what the -- these findings are not unexpected, 7 except for the low or indeterminate incidences of 8 cardiovascular effects in the adult population. And I 9 suspect that that is a reflection of the strategy of the 10 health plan which is not to enroll old sick people. And I 11 mean, you know, and as a result it's not an absolutely 12 representative population. It's the elderly who are at 13 risk with respect to cardiovascular effects with 14 particulate pollution. And there are many, many studies, 15 though, that confirm that relationship. I'm not sure that 16 it's required to repeat it in a specific geographic 17 location just because it's absent from this particular 18 study. 19 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Thank you. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 21 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Could you go back to 22 slide 6. I'm looking at a black-and-white copy of a color 23 graph. I'm having trouble. That's it. So I guess what 24 my question is, is this graph representative of averages 25 or bad days or the highest day? I mean, I get that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 there's an increase from about seven or eight 2 hospitalizations to 90 hospitalizations. 3 MS. MACGREGOR: What we're showing basically is 4 the overall results of the study, which was a five-year 5 study. And the means that you're looking at across the 6 different cities are based on annual averages for those 7 areas. That was data used in the study to evaluate the 8 health effects. So you see that it increases. The rates 9 of hospitalizations were also done for each independent 10 center. And once they were weighted by the person in the 11 study, Fresno stood out as being the highest. 12 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Okay. Thanks. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed. 14 And any other comments? Ms. Witherspoon? No. Thank you 15 very much indeed. Since it's not a regulatory item, it's 16 not necessary to officially close the record. 17 So we move on to the main agenda item for today, 18 and that is Agenda Item 03-5-2, public meeting to consider 19 approval of the San Joaquin Valley 2003 PM attainment 20 plan. We're also considering the approval of the 21 commitment for six new statewide strategies that have been 22 incorporated into the plan. As we all know, the San 23 Joaquin Valley has formidable air quality challenges. We 24 just heard that the emerging science continues to show 25 harmful effects from ambient particulate. We also know PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 from prior presentations that the progress in San Joaquin 2 Valley has been less rapid than other areas of the state 3 due to the severe inversion conditions that exist here, 4 among other factors, although I must say the Valley has 5 never obtained the high levels that were recorded in the 6 70s and 80s in the South Coast Air Quality Management 7 District. 8 Again, I show my colleagues who live in the 9 valley can attest to the importance of this agenda item 10 today and of the region's growing awareness of air quality 11 is a serious public health issue. Supervisor Patrick sat 12 and deliberated on the plan last week as part of the 13 San Joaquin Valley Program. 14 The PM10 plan before us benefits from the Board's 15 decade-long commitment to the California regional 16 particulate matter air quality study. This is the largest 17 and most comprehensive particulate field study in the 18 country. It was made possible only by the collaborative 19 efforts of government and industry. 20 Again, let me thank Supervisor Patrick for her 21 work as Chairperson of the committee overseeing the study. 22 Also, I would like to express my appreciation for all 23 people that went back -- continue to go back to Washington 24 to get money for this very important study. A few of the 25 people I recognize from the farmers, Manual Cunha, Wes PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 Clark, Catherine Rehise-Boyd, and there may be others. 2 But again, a truly collaborative effort. So I'd like to 3 express my appreciation for those individuals and other 4 organizations that I may have left out. It's really been 5 an excellent cooperation with the local district as well. 6 I'd also like to thank my colleague, Ms. D'Adamo, for her 7 leadership on the Ag. Air Quality Advisory Committee, 8 particularly in the last year has been reinvigorated. 9 D.D. has done an outstanding job working with the 10 community and addressing these issues. I would like to 11 express my appreciation for the participants on that 12 Committee and for the staff to help out. So I think 13 that's very good. 14 As we hear this item, the Board has a dual role, 15 to evaluate the technical basis and local control strategy 16 for the plan adopted by the district last week and 17 consider and make our own commitments for future rule 18 making. So we're obligated. Reducing emissions from 19 motor vehicles is central to the valley's PM10 plan. In 20 addition to control strategies already adopted, the Valley 21 needs even more from our program to meet the federal 22 particulate standards. The staff is proposing more 23 reductions in vehicle NOx emissions, along with a diesel 24 particulate control under development to lower the health 25 risk from diesel engines. Again, we all recognize a very PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 important component. 2 Following the staff presentation and questions 3 from Board members, we open the hearing for public 4 comment. We'll take testimony on both the PM10 plan and 5 the proposed commitment for state measures. However, the 6 Board will vote separately on those items. 7 I would like to now ask Ms. Witherspoon to 8 introduce the item and begin the staff presentation. 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, 10 Dr. Lloyd. The Board's deliberations today are aimed at 11 protecting San Joaquin Valley residents by taking the 12 actions needed to meet the first health milestone for 13 particulate matter, or PM10, the federal 25 hour, and 14 annual average PM10 standard. In the future you will be 15 considering plans to meet the even more stringent and more 16 health protective PM2.5 standards. 17 The plan before you today accomplishes several 18 objectives. First, the plan satisfies the clear need to 19 put a new valley PM10 SIP in place. It includes an 20 attainment based on existing controls and upon new 21 measures that will reduce direct PM10, NOx, and SOX 22 emissions by a combined 245 tons per day by 2010. The 23 greatest portion of these reductions comes from ARB 24 regulations for cleaner vehicles and fuels. And those are 25 supplemented by local dust, smoke, and industrial PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 controls. 2 Second, the strategy cuts both fine particles and 3 ozone by continuing to make NOx control a priority. By 4 reducing the precursor chemicals that form particulate 5 matter at the fine end of the size spectrum, the plan is a 6 down payment on federal and state PM2.5 attainment. 7 Third, submitting the plan to U.S. EPA will allow 8 EPA to take the administrative actions needed to avoid the 9 imposition of sanctions on the region which would 10 otherwise be imposed on August 28th of this year. The 11 sanction threat stems from the lack of approvable PM10 12 plan and the region's inability to attain the PM10 13 standards by the original 2001 deadline, and that deadline 14 has been moved out to 2010. 15 Finally, the six new statewide measures would 16 continue ARB's efforts to achieve emission reductions in 17 the 2010 time frame across California. These measures are 18 a subset of the larger statewide strategy that staff has 19 proposed for your consideration later this year and which 20 will be included in both the San Joaquin Valley and the 21 South Coast Air Quality Management District ozone 22 attainment plan. And you'll be hearing those towards the 23 end of this year. 24 As noted by Dr. Lloyd, the Valley PM10 plan uses 25 the best available science to define the most effective PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 path to reduce harmful particulate levels in the valley. 2 The district's commitment to revisit the attainment 3 demonstration and plan when the final results of the 4 particulate study are available provides additional 5 assurance that the control strategy will respond to any 6 new information. We believe that plan meets the 7 applicable requirements and merits your approval. It is 8 an important next step but not the last one to improve air 9 quality throughout the San Joaquin Valley. I'll now ask 10 Ms. Sylvia Morrow to make the staff presentation. 11 MS. MORROW: Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon, and good 12 morning, Chairman Lloyd and members of the Board. 13 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 14 presented as follows.) 15 MS. MORROW: Before you today is the 2003 state 16 implementation plan that demonstrates how the San Joaquin 17 Valley will meet the federal 24 hour and annual average 18 standards for inhaleable particulate matter, or PM10. 19 There are three parts to my presentation. First, 20 I'll review the nature of the San Joaquin Valley 21 particulate matter pollution and how that guides the 22 attainment strategy. Second, I'll summarize ARB staff 23 review of the plan. And third, I'll describe the state 24 emission reduction strategy needed for the plan. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 MS. MORROW: Today's item includes two 2 inter-connected proposals for your consideration. The 3 overarching item is approval of the San Joaquin Valley 4 PM10 plan as a revision to the California SIP. To reduce 5 emissions to attainment levels, the plan builds on 6 controls already adopted by this Board, the San Joaquin 7 Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, U.S. EPA, 8 and other agencies. The plan also identifies the need for 9 new district rules and state regulations to achieve the 10 remaining emission reductions. One week ago the 11 district's governing board adopted the overall plan based 12 on the combination of commitments for new Valley measures 13 and anticipated state measures defined by ARB staff. 14 We are proposing that the Board adopt the new 15 state commitments, which would complete the attainment 16 demonstration and then allow the Board to consider 17 approval of the entire plan. 18 --o0o-- 19 MS. MORROW: Now let me first describe the nature 20 of the San Joaquin Valley particulate pollution and what 21 that means in terms of an effective attainment strategy. 22 --o0o-- 23 MS. MORROW: The San Joaquin Valley faces 24 significant air quality challenges. The region currently 25 violates all federal and state ozone and particulate PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 matter standards by significant margins. This slide 2 compares Valley air quality to federal standards using 3 data from 1999 to 2001. The height of the column is the 4 percentage by which the Valley exceeds the standards. The 5 first column shows that the highest PM10 level measured 6 over 24 hours was almost 40 percent over the federal 7 standard. The peak was reported in Bakersfield. 8 The next bars for the subsets of fine particles, 9 or PM2.5, and ozone measured both over one hour and 10 eight hours also show that the Valley needs considerable 11 pollution reduction to meet these standards. The plan 12 before you today addresses the first column, PM10, but 13 will also provide benefits toward meeting the PM2.5 and 14 ozone standards. 15 --o0o-- 16 MS. MORROW: So what is PM10? Specifically, PM10 17 are particles 10 microns and less in diameter, 18 approximately 1/6 the diameter of a human hair. PM10 is a 19 complex chemical soup of directly emitted dust and soot 20 particles formed in the atmosphere when gaseous emissions 21 react, in the same way ozone is formed. Ammonium nitrate 22 is the most prevalent type of secondary particulate. The 23 composition of Valley PM10 varies by season and location. 24 --o0o-- 25 MS. MORROW: The prime atmospheric conditions for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 particle formation are high humidity, low winds, and cold 2 temperatures. These conditions occur frequently in the 3 Valley during the wintertime where week-long cold, foggy 4 episodes occur regularly. In these conditions, emissions 5 of nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides react with organic 6 gases to form nitric and sulfuric acid vapors. These acid 7 vapors then combine with ammonia to form nitrate and 8 sulfur particulate. Because valley NOx emissions are many 9 times greater than SOx emissions, ammonium nitrate is the 10 primary problem. 11 --o0o-- 12 MS. MORROW: PM10 levels are unhealthy throughout 13 the entire San Joaquin Valley. As you can see from this 14 map, monitoring sites from Modesto to Bakersfield 15 including a 24-hour PM10 standard. Hanford, Bakersfield, 16 and Visalia also exceed the annual average standard. The 17 sources of PM10 pollution are also widespread. 18 --o0o-- 19 MS. MORROW: To better understand these sources, 20 we analyze the chemical composition of the particles 21 filtered from the ambient air, as well as their relative 22 contribution to the total measured PM10 levels. The 23 California Regional Particulate Study has provided 24 extensive data regarding particle composition beyond that 25 available from the permanent monitoring networks. The PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 study has also given us important information about how 2 high values build up over time. 3 This chart highlights the composition of PM10 for 4 several high episodes at several locations. 5 The left bar, from a fall episode in rural 6 Corcoran, is dominated by dust, the top light blue band. 7 The other two bars illustrate the shift to the wintertime, 8 nitrate-dominated episodes. Fresno has a higher 9 contribution from wood smoke compared to Bakersfield on 10 the same New Year's Day in 2001. 11 The primary cause of PM10 levels above the 12 federal standards has changed over the last decade. 13 Fall-type episodes driven by dust predominated in the 80s 14 and early 90s. Most recently the highest PM10 values 15 occur in the winter and are dominated by ammonium nitrate. 16 However, reduction in dust, smoke, and ammonium nitrate 17 are all critical to bring PM10 down to attainment levels. 18 --o0o-- 19 MS. MORROW: What are the key sources of Valley 20 PM10 and its precursors? Fuel combustion in vehicles and 21 stationary sources provide both fine particulate and NOx. 22 Dust from paved and unpaved roads, agricultural operation, 23 and construction activities are significant sources of 24 direct PM10. 25 Smoke from residential wood burning is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 significant. In the past, smoke from agricultural and 2 forestry burning was a big contributor to high PM10 3 levels, but state and local smoke management programs have 4 greatly reduced the impact. On the highest PM days shown 5 on the prior bar chart, these types of burning were 6 prohibited. 7 Finally, the largest source of ammonia in the 8 San Joaquin Valley is animal waste. It accounts for over 9 80 percent of the current emissions followed by 10 fertilizers and composting. 11 --o0o-- 12 MS. MORROW: To formulate an effective PM10 13 attainment strategy in the San Joaquin Valley, it is 14 critical to understand how precursor emissions interact to 15 form ammonium nitrate. As I described earlier, ammonium 16 nitrate precursors include NOx, ROG, and ammonia. The 17 amount of each precursor in the atmosphere relative to the 18 others determine how much ammonium nitrate is formed. 19 The chemistry is complex, but essentially the 20 precursor in the shortest supply will limit how much 21 ammonium nitrate is produced. In other words, the 22 ingredient you run out of first dictates the amount of 23 pollution formed. Reducing emissions of this limiting 24 precursor provides the best opportunity to cut particle 25 levels. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 --o0o-- 2 MS. MORROW: Multiple studies have examined the 3 relationship among NOx, ROG, and ammonia including papers 4 published in peer-reviewed journals that specifically 5 examine San Joaquin Valley chemistry. 6 The plan relies on two basic types of information 7 to understand San Joaquin Valley nitrate chemistry. The 8 first analysis of measured air quality data. The second 9 is computer simulation of San Joaquin Valley nitrate 10 formation. 11 The first approach uses analytical tools to 12 evaluate monitored precursor concentrations. The key 13 information is the relative amounts of each precursor in 14 the air. This approach identifies which precursor is in 15 the shortest supply and whether reducing emissions of the 16 other precursors may also reduce nitrate formation. 17 Analysis of air quality measurements yield good 18 information about nitrate formation at the specific 19 locations in the Valley where the data were collected. To 20 understand precursor relationships on a macro-scale 21 throughout the Valley, the plan also includes regional 22 modeling. 23 Taken together, these studies have looked at data 24 collected over three different periods in the last 25 ten years during fall and winter conditions at locations PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 from the north to the south part of the Valley. 2 --o0o-- 3 MS. MORROW: The district reaches conclusions in 4 the plan about how to reduce ammonium nitrate. ARB staff 5 were part of the technical team and concur with the 6 district's findings. 7 The overall conclusion of the study is that NOx 8 control is the most effective approach to reduce ammonium 9 nitrate particles. The results for ammonia control were 10 not conclusive. This assessment focused on changes from 11 controlling ammonia emissions and did not consider the 12 impact of removing ammonia sources entirely by relocating 13 livestock operations outside the Valley. 14 The analysis of measured air quality data 15 indicated that ammonia reduction would not be effective. 16 In other words, given the relative amounts of NOx and 17 ammonia in the Valley, ammonia reductions would not 18 accelerate attainment compared to a NOx-only approach. 19 The computer modeling suggests that a small area 20 around Bakersfield could benefit from ammonia control, but 21 this analysis still showed NOx control as more efficient. 22 However, the monitored air quality data for Bakersfield 23 suggested there would be no benefit from ammonia 24 reductions in Bakersfield. 25 The available science demonstrates a clear PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 relationship between reducing NOx emissions and lowering 2 particulate levels. The science is inconclusive regarding 3 the impact of ammonia reduction on PM10. We expect that 4 future air quality modeling developed from the complete 5 results of the regional particulate study will address the 6 inconsistencies and shed more light on the impacts of 7 ammonia controls. 8 --o0o-- 9 MS. MORROW: ARB staff concludes that the most 10 effective way to cut Valley particulate pollution is to 11 reduce both direct PM10 and NOx emissions simultaneously 12 across the Valley. Dust and smoke dominate the 13 directly-emitted pollution so measures to reduce them are 14 critical, and regional NOx reductions are the key to 15 reducing ammonium nitrate. 16 --o0o-- 17 MS. MORROW: With the understanding of particle 18 chemistry and composition in the Valley as context, let's 19 move on to the staff's evaluation of the San Joaquin 20 Valley plan. 21 --o0o-- 22 MS. MORROW: The San Joaquin Valley PM10 plan 23 lays out an enforceable strategy to attain the federal 24 PM10 standards by 2010. The district found, and ARB staff 25 concurs, that 2010 is the earliest practicable date. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 The plan provides for best available control 2 measures, or BACM, on all significant sources of PM10 and 3 PM10 precursors that the attainment demonstration 4 indicates should be reduced to accelerate attainment. 5 Under the Federal Clean Air Act, BACM is at minimum a 6 requirement to be implemented prior to developing an 7 attainment SIP. In that context, BACM is an 8 across-the-board approach. This plan provides the basis 9 to refine and focus BACM in the most effective way 10 provided by the science of the attainment demonstration. 11 The Valley PM10 plan reduces a combination of 12 direct PM10 and NOx by 5 percent per year to ensure steady 13 progress. This is an additional requirement of federal 14 law for areas that have failed to attain the PM standard. 15 The plan appropriately applies a 5 percent reduction 16 requirement to the emissions targeted by the attainment 17 strategy, directly-emitting PM10 and NOx. The district 18 uses a combination of reductions in each pollutant to 19 reach the 5 percent total. This approach is consistent 20 with the calculation convention for demonstrating ozone 21 progress. 22 Finally, the district has committed to a 23 mid-course review in 2006 to ensure they are on track to 24 attain in 2010. The mid-course review will include 25 re-evaluating the attainment strategy using the latest PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 technical information from the regional particulate study. 2 During the mid-course review, the district will consider 3 again the need for ammonia control based on the updated 4 science. 5 --o0o-- 6 MS. MORROW: As I said earlier, the key elements 7 of an effective strategy are reducing directly-emitted 8 PM10 and secondary-formed ammonia nitrate particles. The 9 strategy to reduce direct PM10 includes local dust 10 control, local smoke reduction, and statewide diesel 11 particulate controls. The strategy to cut regional 12 secondary ammonium nitrate includes statewide NOx controls 13 on engines and local stationary combustion rules. 14 --o0o-- 15 MS. MORROW: With existing and new controls, the 16 plan will reduce NOx by over 200 tons per day and direct 17 PM by over 40 tons per day. These numbers are the net 18 effect and take current growth forecasts into account. 19 NOx emissions are projected to drop between now and 2010. 20 The plan contains new district NOx rules, and ARB staff is 21 proposing new statewide strategies to reduce NOx even 22 more. 23 But without the plan, directly-emitted PM10 is 24 projected to rise because of an increase in vehicle miles 25 traveled and associated road dust. The measures in the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 plan would reverse this trend. 2 --o0o-- 3 MS. MORROW: The district board has committed to 4 adopt 14 new or tighter rules as part of the local control 5 strategy which will reduce 66 tons per day of PM10, 16 6 tons per day of NOx, and 6 tons per day of SOx in 2010. A 7 portion of the PM10 reduction is consumed by growth in 8 road dust and construction. The plan contains dust 9 reduction strategies for roads, parking lots, and 10 agricultural sources including on-field activities. 11 --o0o-- 12 MS. MORROW: The plan includes more stringent 13 industrial controls on sources such as boilers and 14 stationary internal combustion engines. The plan also 15 calls for local measures on residential wood burning and 16 space heating. The residential wood burning proposal 17 provides for mandatory no-burn days when high PH10 levels 18 would occur. 19 The plan also proposes an indirect source 20 mitigation fee to fund incentive programs. New 21 development projects that generate vehicle traffic would 22 be required to offset the associated emissions by paying a 23 fee to fund incentive programs. 24 --o0o-- 25 MS. MORROW: The environmental impact of large PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 dairies are the focus of considerable attention in the San 2 Joaquin Valley. Air emissions from livestock waste 3 include large amounts of ammonia contributing to 4 particulate matter and significant quantities of reactive 5 organic gases leading to ozone. 6 --o0o-- 7 MS. MORROW: A great deal of work is underway to 8 better quantify the air impacts of these emissions. The 9 air district through its Agricultural Technical Advisory 10 Committee has completed a dairy research action plan that 11 identifies specific research needs for emission data for 12 ammonia, organic gases, and particulate matter. This 13 summer, Fresno State is doing air monitoring to estimate 14 the total emissions from a dairy. The next step will be 15 testing emissions from an individual source within a dairy 16 operation at US Davis. This work could begin later this 17 year. 18 As I described earlier, preliminary analysis of 19 the impact of ammonia reductions were inconclusive. Using 20 the final air quality modeling tools from the regional 21 particulate study that will be available in 2005, and 22 emission data from the new research, the district will 23 re-evaluate the need for ammonia reduction. The district 24 board has committed to complete the re-evaluation and 25 revise the plan accordingly in 2006. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 --o0o-- 2 MS. MORROW: A number of questions came forward 3 at the district hearing to consider the plan. First, is 4 2010 the earliest attainment date practicable? ARB staff 5 believes it is. The air district commits to secure all 6 the local reductions in dust and smoke by 2007. The NOx 7 controls already adopted by ARB and U.S. EPA for mobile 8 sources half the total reductions for attainment in the 9 plan time frame of '99-2010. These benefits occur over 10 time as tighter emission standards for new engines phase 11 in through 2010 and the fleet turns over to cleaner 12 vehicles and equipment. Additional state vehicle measures 13 proposed in the plan would require time to realize the 14 full benefits achieving the last increment of reductions 15 necessary in the additional years. 16 The second question was about the need for 17 ammonia controls. I described our understanding of the 18 science on the question earlier. ARB staff believes the 19 district's commitment is appropriate given the available 20 information and further work underway. 21 The third question is if the 5 percent annual 22 progress element is adequate. We believe it is. The 23 progress demonstration satisfies federal requirements. It 24 relates correctly to the attainment strategy and achieves 25 greater than five percent reductions in the early years, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 thereby maximizing near-term public health benefits. 2 Lastly, is the agricultural conservation 3 management plan adequate? Under the district's proposal, 4 farmers with plots over 100 acres would need to select and 5 implement soil conservation practices to reduce dust from 6 on-field operations. Examples of these practices include 7 reduced tilling, irrigation techniques, planting of cover 8 crops, and road maintenance. The farmer would identify 9 the chosen techniques in a brief dust management plan 10 submitted to the National Resource Conservation Service 11 consistent with the district rule. The Conservation 12 Service would collect data from farmers about program 13 implementation and provide that information to the air 14 district. 15 As a backstop, if the data indicates that the 16 program is not getting the needed emission reductions, the 17 district would step into the Conservation Services role on 18 program implementation and increase the number of dust 19 reduction practices farmers must implement. With the 20 backstop provision, ARB staff believes the measure the 21 district proposes to develop would accelerate attainment 22 and meet federal requirements. 23 --o0o-- 24 MS. MORROW: Now that you have heard about the 25 San Joaquin Valley PM10 plan, I will move on to the state PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 proposal for state emission reduction commitments to 2 support this plan. 3 --o0o-- 4 MS. MORROW: The majority of the state's 5 contribution to PM10 reduction is due to the future 6 benefits of measures already on the books. Despite 7 growth, new engines standards being phased-in over the 8 next decade reduce Valley NOx emissions by more than 9 50 percent for passenger cars, over 20 percent for 10 heavy-duty trucks and buses, and over 30 percent for 11 off-road equipment. The next increment of reductions 12 needed for attainment by 2010 depends on cleaning up the 13 existing fleet. 14 --o0o-- 15 MS. MORROW: In addition to the 140 tons per day 16 of NOx reductions already secured, staff is proposing that 17 the Board commit to develop and consider new statewide 18 measures, plus achieve specific regional emission 19 reduction targets in the Valley. 20 ARB has proposed a package of 20 new statewide 21 measures to aid ozone and PM10 attainment, published as 22 the Proposed 2003 State and Federal Element of the 23 California SIP. The Board will consider the entire 24 package in the fall concurrent with the South Coast SIP. 25 The full complement of measures will also be essential for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 the upcoming Valley ozone SIP. 2 Today's proposal is for the Board approval of the 3 subset of measures that would achieve NOx and diesel 4 particulate reductions in the Valley by 2010. 5 --o0o-- 6 MS. MORROW: ARB staff began developing the 7 statewide strategy two years ago with scoping meetings 8 around California in 2001. The staff draft for the 9 statewide measures was released in January of this year. 10 We participated in 11 joint district/ARB workshops in the 11 San Joaquin Valley and South Coast and held a more 12 technical session focused on ARB measures in April. We 13 released a formal staff proposal in May and are 14 recommending a modification today in response to public 15 comments on the forklift strategies. I'll describe this 16 modification shortly with the specific ARB measures. 17 --o0o-- 18 MS. MORROW: As parts of the San Joaquin Valley 19 PM10 plan, we propose that the Board commit to develop and 20 consider adopting four new statewide measures between 2003 21 and 2008. The Bureau of Automotive Repair has already 22 committed to implement further improvements to the state's 23 enhanced smog check program. We also propose that the 24 Board commit to further reduce NOx by 10 tons per day and 25 diesel particulate matter by a half ton per day in San PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 Joaquin Valley by 2010. The state could achieve these 2 reductions by adopting the ARB and BAR measures defined in 3 the plan or by adopting other measures so long as the 4 total obligation is met. 5 --o0o-- 6 MS. MORROW: If the Board approves a commitment 7 to develop specific regulations, what happens next? A 8 control measure in a plan provides a general approach as a 9 starting point for an extensive public process to develop 10 a potential regulation. 11 For each measure, ARB staff evaluates the vehicle 12 end product use, the resulting emissions, control 13 technology, and operational changes that could reduce 14 emissions, the feasibility of control, the potential 15 environmental and economic impacts, and alternative 16 approaches to achieve the objective. 17 ARB staff hold meetings with effective industries 18 and the public to discuss the technical data collected and 19 concepts for a regulation. The next step is release of a 20 staff report and technical evaluation to support a 21 regulatory proposal. Following a 45-day comment period, 22 the Board hears public testimony and acts on the proposal. 23 The Board can accept, reject, or modify the proposal based 24 on public comment. Throughout this entire process, 25 staff's analysis of the most effective approach evolves. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 The regulation ultimately considered and adopted by the 2 Board may closely follow or divert from the plan measured 3 based on the updated and more comprehensive information 4 gained during regulatory development. 5 --o0o-- 6 MS. MORROW: We are proposing to develop two new 7 ARB measures that focus on reducing emissions from 8 existing on-road vehicles that account for about 9 three-quarters of all vehicle emissions but only 10 one-quarter of all miles traveled by 2010. The first is a 11 program to replace worn-out emission control equipment 12 such as catalytic converters, evaporative canisters and/or 13 oxygen censors in older passenger cars. The Board heard a 14 promising report from staff a few months ago on the 15 preliminary results of a pilot program to assess the 16 feasibility of the approach. 17 --o0o-- 18 MS. MORROW: The second measure is an omnibus 19 strategy to clean up the entire truck and bus fleets using 20 a combination of potential approaches. Staff is already 21 developing a proposal to accelerate computer reprogramming 22 on mid-1990s trucks with emission control defeat devices 23 intended to improve fuel economy at the expense of 24 illegally high NOx emissions. In a legal settlement with 25 ARB and US EPA, engine manufactures are obligated to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 provide the computer software upgrade to eliminate these 2 cheater devices, but not until the engines come in for 3 rebuild anyway. Owners of these trucks are delaying 4 rebuilds for hundreds and thousands of miles beyond 5 historical average, foregoing the needed emission 6 reductions from the settlement. 7 Other approaches for this measure include diesel 8 risk reduction programs, like the trash truck regulation 9 to be considered this summer, technological and 10 operational restrictions on extended idling, addition of 11 on-board diagnostic for new truck engines, and 12 manufacturer responsibility to test trucks after sale for 13 continued compliance with emission standards. 14 --o0o-- 15 MS. MORROW: We are proposing to develop two new 16 statewide measures to reduce emissions from off-road 17 equipment in the San Joaquin Valley. The first measure is 18 an important component of the Board's plan to reduce the 19 health risk from toxic diesel particles. It focuses on 20 diesel-fueled equipment used in construction, farming, and 21 industrial operations by retrofitting control technology 22 or accelerating engine replacement with cleaner models. 23 We had initially proposed two separate measures 24 for large spark igniter or LSI engines. This category of 25 industrial equipment includes forklifts and compressors. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 The first original measure, called off-road LSI-2 targeted 2 retrofits or existing equipment. The other measure, 3 called off-road LSI 3, sought to increase the purchase of 4 electric forklifts where that technology is feasible for 5 the job conditions. 6 In response to considerable comments from the 7 forklift manufacturers, forklift users, and the propane 8 industry supplying forklift operators, we are recommending 9 that these two measures be consolidated. This action 10 would provide for a multi-faceted and flexible approach to 11 achieve the combined reductions from the two measures on 12 the same schedule. 13 Board members may refer to Attachment A in the 14 proposal resolution 3-14 for our description of the 15 revised off-road LSI-2 measure. Copies of the new measure 16 text are also available for the public at the sign-in 17 table. The consolidated measure would focus on cleaning 18 up the fleet of industrial gas equipment like forklift and 19 compressors. The approach would involve retrofit of basic 20 vehicle controls on existing equipment and setting zero 21 and near-zero emission standards for new forklift 22 purchases. Part of the technology that could do the 23 job -- part of the measurement development process would 24 be to determine what is the cleanest type of technology 25 that can do the job, considering the type of application PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 and operating conditions. The structure and specific 2 requirements of future regulatory proposals would be 3 developed over the next year in consultation with the 4 affected industry and the public. 5 --o0o-- 6 MS. MORROW: Staff recommends that the Board 7 approve the state commitment to develop specific measures 8 and reduce 10 tons per day of NOx and one-half-ton per day 9 of diesel particulate in the Valley by 2010. Contingent 10 on the approval of the state commitment, staff also 11 recommends that the Board adopt the San Joaquin Valley 12 PM10 plan as a revision to the California SIP for 13 submittal to US EPA. 14 The plan would clearly reduce PM10 levels with 15 new measures throughout the San Joaquin Valley to benefit 16 public health. The plan satisfies state and federal 17 requirements and would help avoid the imposition of 18 federal sanctions in the Valley. Thank you. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed. 20 Any questions from or comments from the Board? 21 Mr. Friedman. 22 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: I just have a 23 question that sort of relates to the pace of change. 24 Could you clarify for me in terms of the Valley plan, you 25 in one place state you're committed to a revision in 2006. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 Is 2006 the year in which you will study to see if the 2 changes are being effective so that a revision won't occur 3 until 2007? That's three-and-a-half, four years from now. 4 TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES MANAGER KARPEROS: Dr. 5 Friedman -- excuse me. The 2006 date that this district's 6 committing to keys off the results of the particulate 7 matter study that Ms. Morrow referred to in her 8 presentation, that study which is ongoing now. 9 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Can you use the mic 10 so we can all hear you. 11 TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES MANAGER KARPEROS: Kurt 12 Karperos, ARB staff. 13 The 2006 date keys off the completion of the 14 particulate matter study that was referred to in staff's 15 presentation. That work is ongoing now, and the final 16 tools -- the final modeling tools, the data, will be 17 available in 2005. So the district would begin their 18 revision and assessment process in 5 and would have the 19 revision completed by, I believe, March of 2006. 20 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: I guess I'm still 21 a little confused. You're talking about the health study 22 we just heard? 23 TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES MANAGER KARPEROS: No, 24 I'm sorry, Doctor. Ongoing in the Center Valley now is a 25 study of atmospheric chemistry of particulate matter. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: If changes need 2 to be made, they really will be made in 2006? 3 TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES MANAGER KARPEROS: 4 Absolutely. 5 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: That's what I 6 wanted to clarify. 7 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: And, Dr. 8 Friedman, if I could also add, the district board had a 9 question about reporting on progress and asked their staff 10 to report annually on the progress of the plan. 11 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Thank you. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Just on that item, I'd like 13 to say some more later, but I share your concern that we 14 have to wait until 2000 -- even 2005, 2006. I think we 15 can do some more looking at the role of ammonia without 16 saving that until later. 17 Ms. D'Adamo. 18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Yes. I had a question 19 regarding the 2006 date, kind of teeing off Dr. Friedman's 20 question, that it seems to be in harmony with when we'll 21 be receiving additional particulate matter studies. What 22 is the exact date for that? And then also, same question 23 on the dairy research action plan. I thought we would be 24 having information on that prior to 2006. 25 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: I'll start PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 broadly on -- the 2006 timing works quite well for both 2 PM10, and also we're anticipating the schedule for the 3 PM2.5 federal plans. As you heard from the presentation, 4 the secondary component of the PM10 problem which is, in 5 essence, PM2.5 in the Valley is very significant. So 6 there's a little bit of uncertainty in terms of the 7 federal schedule for the 2.5 plan, but we expect they will 8 be due in 2007. So in our view, the timing is aligned 9 quite well to make any revisions to the PM10 plan while 10 the PM2.5 plan is being developed. And clearly, the 2.5 11 plan will require new emission reduction strategies. And 12 because it's focused on secondary, it will be absolutely 13 essential to have good answers on the ammonia and NOx 14 situation by 2006 because we'll have the additional drive 15 of the 2.5 plan in that time frame. 16 And the -- do -- 17 TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES MANAGER KARPEROS: 18 Again, Kurt Karperos, ARB staff. I believe the question 19 you asked was about the dairy action plan. 20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And the CRPAQS. 21 TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES MANAGER KARPEROS: 22 There's multiple phases to the dairy action plan in terms 23 of trying to evaluate the emissions from dairies. It's 24 testing is -- took place some last year and there will be 25 more this summer. That work is looking at the dairy as a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 whole. What are the total emissions coming off the dairy? 2 There are also plans -- and that work could start this 3 year depending if we're able to line up things with UC 4 Davis to zero in and examine the emissions from specific 5 operations within the dairy, whether it be lagoon, the 6 feed, or the milk and that type of thing, as opposed to 7 going -- at least the bubble of that overall total 8 emissions from the Valley. 9 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: But the date that you 10 expect the studies to be complete? 11 TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES MANAGER KARPEROS: The 12 initial studies for the total dairy, including some of the 13 speciation work is available now, and we would begin 14 hopefully later this year on the particular operation. I 15 don't have with me here -- right here the completion of 16 that, but I have some papers at the desk I can go through. 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. If I can just add, 18 I know through the Ag. Air Advisory Committee there are a 19 number of representatives here today. Maybe the 20 representatives could discuss their involvement in those 21 studies. I believe -- the reason I asked the question is 22 because I think it's all intended to fall into place with 23 that 2006 review date, which is looking for some 24 confirmation of that for the record. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. Calhoun. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: One of the slides had a 2 bullet which stated the next increment of reduction by 3 2010 depends on cleaning up the existing fleet. I know 4 we've done a lot of talk about this, but I'm wondering, 5 Mr. Cackette, if you'd like to refresh our memory on what 6 we are doing to clean up the existing fleet and the status 7 of those programs. 8 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Okay. 9 There's -- in the plan there are several different 10 measures that get at the existing fleet. They focus on 11 cars and light trucks. They focus on on- and off-road 12 diesel, and there's one that focuses -- that has a lot of 13 attention here today -- on possible retrofits for large 14 spark-ignited engines, otherwise known as forklifts in 15 this discussion. 16 On the passenger cars we're continuing with our 17 study to identify whether some of the common emission 18 controls on the oldest cars and light trucks can be 19 replaced at sometime during their life, latter part of 20 their life, and whether those will be -- provide good 21 emission reductions and cost-effective emission reductions 22 and whether they're possible to do -- pragmatically can we 23 implement them in some matter. We've done sort of a 24 pre-pilot study. We're doing a pilot study now. There 25 would be a full scale demonstration program required PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 before we have a complete answer. But we believe there's 2 enough promise to have a measure in here that identifies 3 emission reductions that could occur this decade from 4 retrofitting passenger cars and light trucks. 5 We also have several improvements to the smog 6 check program which were committed to several years ago 7 that are still in the implementation phases. Those are 8 included in the plan as ways of getting at older vehicles. 9 On heavy duty, both on- and off-road, we have a 10 number of measures that are under development to either 11 retrofit vehicles with particulate filters or with 12 oxygenation catalysts or re-engine those vehicles with 13 newer engines that have lower emissions and better fuel 14 economy. And those regulations -- the emission reductions 15 are contained in these on-road 3 and off-road 1 in the 16 plan. Those are coming to the Board. The next one comes 17 next month, which is on trash trucks, one on public fleets 18 follows the on-road public fleets. Another one next year 19 on on-road private fleets, then followed by regulations 20 that affect off-road equipment. 21 There's a whole series of those which will reduce 22 direct particulate emissions by -- potentially according 23 to our risk reduction plan by as much as 75 percent this 24 decade. And also have -- because of the way they're being 25 developed, they'll also have some -- unanticipated in our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 original plan -- in our risk reduction plan, there will be 2 significant NOx reductions. I think that comes along with 3 some of those items as well, which will help with the 4 secondary nitrate formation here in the Valley. 5 And then the third item is on the forklifts where 6 there's a specific measure -- on the part of a specific 7 measure in the plan is looked at retrofitting gasoline and 8 propane, internal spark-ignited forklift engines with 9 three-way catalysts which is what the new forklifts are 10 being equipped with now. We think it's possible to 11 retrofit those on older ones and get significant 12 reductions. 13 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Thank you. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Any comments from my 15 colleagues at this time? Questions? We've got some 16 additional comments. I think I'll wait until later for 17 those. 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Is it your intent 19 to go to public testimony at this point? 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes. 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Before you do, if 22 I just might mention of all the measures that the state is 23 committing to, that the Air Resources Board is committing 24 to in this plan, the only one that drew any controversy 25 was the forklift measure. So you should have their -- a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 redraft of the forklift measure where we initially had 2 proposed two separate concepts. One to seek greater 3 electrification of new forklifts, and the second to 4 retrofit with a three-way catalyst, the existing. 5 And what we have done now based on extensive 6 public comment is to combine that all into a single 7 measure and add a third possibility which is to capture 8 the over-compliance of new propane forklifts, which are 9 excelling with cleaner technology and meeting our grant 10 standard by a considerable margin. 11 We don't know yet as we come to final rule making 12 at the end of '04 what the final measure will look like. 13 But the point of redrafting it today is to say we've got 14 all the possibilities on the table. We have retained the 15 fundamental commitment to tonnage that the plan relies 16 upon. And when we come back to you, we will have a 17 thoroughly vetted, very well-balanced, with as much 18 flexibility as we can provide to the forklift owners and 19 operators, measure taking advantage of various options 20 before us. 21 And so what we -- there's a chart here that 22 summarizes the measures, and the redraft of the forklift 23 measure is attached. So you -- if you can find the chart, 24 you'll have the redraft. 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Mr. Chairman. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes. 2 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: If I might add, this is an 3 issue I've been concerned about. And although I haven't 4 yet gone through the proposal in detail, it appears this 5 gives us greater flexibility and the end result would be 6 the same. So I think we're on the right track. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And again, we appreciate your 8 concern, Ms. D'Adamo which has come through to staff and 9 your concern to try to pull these together. So I think, 10 again, we appreciate your efforts here. 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: What we thought 12 you might do as you go to public testimony is take up all 13 the forklift comments first. I think that will go 14 quickly, and then we can come back to overall issues about 15 the plan. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Just to give a heads up to 17 staff. The areas I'm going to be focusing on, I'm not 18 happy with the timetable for looking at the most effective 19 way to look at ammonium nitrate control. Clearly, that's 20 a big issue. Whatever we can do in the shorter term, I'd 21 like staff to come up with a concerted effort to come back 22 to us in a shorter term. 23 One, we've got some letters here talking about 24 already fugitive dust measures applied in South Coast, are 25 they applicable here? And then in the enforceability of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 some of the fugitive dust plans in the plan here and 2 involved in the federal government. So I'll reserve that 3 until later I think. 4 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Just to give the 5 staff a heads up for my questions, I'm holding them until 6 I hear public testimony. But one of the submissions to us 7 was by Earth Justice, and they raise a number of questions 8 that I'd like staff to respond to. Maybe Ms. Walsh could 9 do that. 10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The legality of 11 the plan. 12 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: On the legality of 13 the overall plan. 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We'd be happy to 15 do that at the appropriate time. 16 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: At the appropriate 17 time. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I see they are going to 19 testify. I see them on the list. With that, what I think 20 we'll do, unless there are any more questions -- 21 Mr. McKinnon. 22 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Same thing. I'm going to 23 withhold until I hear the public testimony. I did have a 24 lot of concern about the forklifts, and I'm really 25 interested in how the modification is thought about. And PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 I understand we'll have hearings later to deal with that. 2 But I think I'm glad that there's a change. Put it that 3 way. Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. So the process 5 we're going to use is to have remote testimony from 6 Bakersfield and Modesto first of all, and then we'll come 7 back here. So first of all, we have -- in Bakersfield we 8 have Linda Mackay signed up to testify. We have 9 Bakersfield first of all. 10 MS. MACKAY: Morning. First of all, I want to 11 thank the Board for coming into our region so we can more 12 easily give you our input. My name is Linda Mackay, and I 13 live in Kern County. 14 A couple of years ago, myself and others living 15 throughout the San Joaquin Valley founded the Association 16 of Irritated Residents, A-I-R, AIR. Not only are our 17 noses, throats, and lungs irritated by the foul air of 18 this Valley, but we are irritated residents because time 19 after time we've seen our public officials, who I used to 20 believe in and thought they worked to protect our families 21 and children -- instead, we've seen them more often than 22 not serving the interest of polluting industry and that 23 includes agriculture. 24 In particular, our concerns are with the huge 25 livestock projects that are moving into our region, the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 mega dairies. We are living in some of the richest 2 agricultural-producing regions of the nation. We have 3 some of the poorest people of the nation living here. 4 Evidently, some people are making a lot of money off our 5 area, driving expensive cars, and living in large homes 6 with access to all the health care they need, while others 7 are working in low-paying jobs, living in third-world 8 conditions without any kind of health care. 9 I have too many friends living in this Valley who 10 have no medical insurance. They can't go to the doctor 11 without worrying about the cost. Those conditions 12 illustrate a real lack of balance. Having one small 13 portion of the population in the Valley who are reaping 14 the benefits and using the resources of our Valley to do 15 pretty well for themselves, but then a huge number of 16 other people of this Valley who are just being used up, 17 period. And then being poisoned on top of that. Bottom 18 line, we have an epidemic number of people with asthma and 19 other respiratory illnesses here in the Valley. We know 20 it's caused by our bad air. 21 This is a crisis, and you can't accept a plan in 22 good conscious that's going to take the slow route to 23 fixing the problem. Lives are dependent on us adopting an 24 aggressive plan to clean up the air now. In poll after 25 poll, consumers had said they are willing to pay more if PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 it means an improvement in air quality. 2 Are the industries willing to do the right thing 3 and follow more stringent PM10 regulations and take a 4 little less profit to clean our air? I wonder how many 5 are willing to do that. I also wonder if you as a 6 regulatory agency have enough courage to go against the 7 large polluting industry folk who want you to approve this 8 passive, inadequate plan. I hope you have enough courage 9 to do the right thing to balance some of the imbalances. 10 I'm a mother, and recently I became a 11 grandmother. And from that place I hope you think of the 12 children and vote no on this PM10 plan. I hope you have 13 the courage to ask the Regional Valley Board to go back to 14 the drawing board and address our air pollution crisis 15 adequately. I hope that's what you do, because frankly 16 I'm really tired of being irritated. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 18 Looking at Modesto, if there's anybody in Modesto 19 who's going to speak on the forklift issue, then I'd ask 20 them to wait until we have testimony on forklifts from 21 Fresno. I guess not. 22 The two speakers signed up in Modesto, Mike 23 Tunnell and Sandra Duval, are they going to talk about 24 forklifts? Yes. Let's have the testimony on the 25 forklifts at this end first of all so we can set the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 stage. And I'd like to ask Mary Reynolds and Peter Weiner 2 to come to the podium, please. 3 MS. REYNOLDS: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and 4 members of the Board. My name is Mary Reynolds, and I am 5 President of the Western Propane Gas Association. And as 6 the Chairman just indicated, I'm here to speak to you 7 about the propane issue. I will also tell you I'm feeling 8 somewhat schizophrenic this morning because, thanks to 9 staff in a meeting yesterday, we made great strides and 10 also the meetings with members of the Board in revising 11 this measure so that we think it's one that's actually 12 workable for not only the propane industry but also for 13 the end users. We look forward to that process. 14 Having said that, I do want to highlight a couple 15 of the issues. And I won't belabor in the interest of 16 time. I do want to address some of the concerns that 17 brought us to this point, and those are the same concerns 18 we will be grappling with as we go through the rule-making 19 process. 20 I'm also convinced, based on the comments of 21 staff and certainly the concern of the members of the 22 Board, we will ultimately finish the process with 23 something that will give us what we all want, and that's 24 cleaner air. 25 Having said that, again, I'd like to focus on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 what is now being called formally LSI-3 -- this is where I 2 get schizophrenic -- it's now LSI-2, the consolidated 3 measure. Specifically, this deals with forklifts with a 4 lift capacity of equal to 8,00 pounds or less. The 5 revised implementation date based on the data we saw this 6 morning has been changed from 2005 with an implementation 7 date of 2006. We welcome, as I've said, the opportunity 8 to work with staff and other stakeholders to develop 9 feasibility control measures that would reduce real 10 emissions. 11 In light of recent meetings, as I've indicated, 12 we think we can reach that goal. And we can do so by 13 creating additional certification bins, retrofits, and 14 other measures yet to be worked through. WPGA is 15 committed to doing our part to find solutions to help 16 California improve air quality. Thus, I'd like to address 17 some of the concerns you have that we will work through on 18 this measure. 19 We first -- let me back up and tell you that some 20 of the basis for the problems that we had was that this 21 measure went to print prior to getting any input from the 22 industry or end users. In fact, we first became aware of 23 it in January when it was posted on the South Coast 24 websites as one of their control measures. 25 But since that time, we have worked diligently to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 determine the ramifications of the measure. And as part 2 of that process we hired Sierra Research to conduct an 3 analysis of it. We have submitted their findings in 4 writing, so I won't detail them now. But suffice it to 5 say, they concluded that as written, it was highly likely 6 that the measure would cause at least 10 percent of the 7 forklift users to retain their older higher-emitting 8 forklifts longer and that others would opt to buy the 9 pre-purchased, the 2004 model year. Thus, they concluded 10 under that scenario that they would certainly negate the 11 benefit of the measure. 12 In addition to not getting the emissions benefit 13 associated with the measure, it could also cause other 14 unintended consequences, such as the elimination of 15 hundreds of jobs in the propane industry alone, as well as 16 causing other businesses in California that sell propane 17 literally to go out of business because their market is 18 tied to providing fuel to forklifts. 19 This measure would also deprive many forklift end 20 users from a much-needed piece of equipment which we'll 21 discuss momentarily. 22 I have with me a stack of letters that I'd like 23 to leave with staff. These letters are from both members 24 of the propane industry and also end users that go to 25 great detail on why they didn't think this original LSI-3 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 was workable, and moreover, they detail what needs to be 2 addressed as we go through the rule-making process. So I 3 will submit those. 4 There was a number of folks that called me that 5 wanted you to know they could not be here today to comment 6 because they are working. But nonetheless, the lack of 7 their attendance is not to say they are complacent. If I 8 might -- and maybe to facilitate this process and the 9 testimony, I would appreciate if I could ask for a show of 10 hands, not only here but in the other two sites, of those 11 that are present because they are concerned about the 12 forklift measure. Show of hands. 13 (Thereupon there was a show of hands) 14 MS. REYNOLDS: If I do a good job, I'll empty the 15 room. I would like to submit that there is a lot of 16 interest on this issue, and it's reflected by the hands 17 that you just saw. Furthermore, I'd like to say that 18 having said that we think that, again, in going through 19 the rule-making process and the commitment of staff that 20 we can resolve those issues that we are discussing. 21 One of the comments that was of great concern to 22 end users was there was a general sentiment that propane 23 lifts are interchangeable with electric. And I'm here to 24 tell you that is not necessarily the case. For example, 25 the electric forklifts do not perform well in harsh PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 weather, on steep ramps, or grades, rough terrain, or in 2 pushing and pulling application of heavy loads. 3 I'd like to briefly paraphrase comments submitted 4 to the ARB by WalMart. 5 "Currently, each our 130 stores in California 6 uses propane-powered forklifts -- a 7 propane-powered forklift to move heavy pallets 8 and cardboard bales. Electric forklifts, which 9 we use in certain indoor facilities, simply don't 10 have the power to do that job. Electric 11 forklifts require lengthy battery charging, space 12 to store and recharge batteries and are less 13 reliable when exposed to the elements. 14 "Our company, as well as many across the 15 state, would be willing to work with you on 16 alternatives to this measure that would meet 17 everyone's goals." 18 And I certainly think to side bar that the 19 consolidated measure goes a long way toward that goal. 20 Likewise, the Manufacturers' Counsel of the 21 Central Valley which represents 39 member companies here 22 in the San Joaquin District shared similar sentiments. 23 That counsel, by the way, represents business and industry 24 that includes E&J Gallo, JS Wes, Con Agra, Del Monte, 25 Foster Farms, Frito Lay, Hershey's, PG&E, packing houses, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 and the list goes on. That gives you a sense of the 2 diversity of those groups that have similar concerns. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Did I misunderstand you in 4 our earlier conversation when you said six minutes? 5 MS. REYNOLDS: I'll talk fast. And I'm almost 6 done. 7 But that one brief quote from the Manufacturers' 8 Counsel. They said, "We are concerned with this measure 9 and the resulting pollution associated with manufacturing 10 batteries, battery storage, and disposal. Required 11 electrical and structure increased electrical generation 12 during on-peak hours will provide fewer exhaust emission 13 reductions in the long run. The goal must be to gain real 14 attainable emissions that are not just on paper." 15 I would submit that taking the multi-faceted 16 approach, as mentioned in the revised LSI-2 consolidated 17 forklift emission measure will address a number of these 18 concerns as raised by myself and other stakeholders. 19 For these and many other reasons outlined in our 20 written comments, WPGA looks forward to working with staff 21 and with other stakeholders as we did in 1998 to develop 22 feasible controls with measures that will, in fact, 23 improve California's air quality. 24 Thank you for your time, your commitment, and 25 your attention. And my six minutes is now up. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And I wasn't trying to be 2 facetious there, but I think we'd like to thank the 3 industry very much for bringing forward some very 4 constructive suggestions. I think the Board members and 5 our colleagues here had some concerns, and I know 6 Mr. McKinnon had some concerns about the job issues. So 7 again, I think we're headed to actually a very 8 satisfactory resolution. I appreciate the spirit with 9 which the industry has responded and come forward with 10 really constructive suggestions so we don't sacrifice any 11 emissions, but in fact, maybe there's a better way of 12 getting this. 13 MS. REYNOLDS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 14 members of the Board. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. Weiner. 16 MR. WEINER: The lawyer will be briefer than the 17 client. 18 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 19 Board. I want to express my appreciation, and certainly, 20 I think Mary has as well, for the receptivity and 21 accessibility of work members and staff in listening and 22 responding to the concerns and data we've submitted on 23 this topic. It doesn't always end up this way. So -- and 24 as a result of these, we are no longer in opposition to 25 this measure. Just to be clear. You do have a submittal PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 from us that is, but obviously it did not take into 2 account this revision. 3 I think I'm going to try to get a copy of 4 Catherine Witherspoon's presentation of this measure. I 5 thought it was elegant and definitely included the kinds 6 of issues and multi-faceted approach we're talking about. 7 I think because this is a public hearing and because 8 there's been so much controversy as you saw expressed by 9 the hands in the room that both Mary Reynolds and I are 10 trying to essentially put forth what those concerns were 11 so that you don't have to hear from everybody. She has 12 done it so well that I'm not going to repeat what she has 13 said. 14 But we did have concerns about the feasibility of 15 the electric forklift as expressed in the former measure. 16 I think many of those have been dealt with in the revised 17 measure. We think the consolidated measure, LSI-2, may 18 still have some overly optimistic language about the 19 feasibility of using electrics, but is a much more 20 balanced approach. 21 We have suggested and the Sierra Research data 22 that was submitted showed that using the device of 23 certification bins which these manufactures can certify 24 will get the state and the district comfortable emission 25 reductions that in a sense already exist but can't be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 counted. The consolidated measure LSI-2 talks about lower 2 standards toward near-zero and zero emission. We would at 3 least suggest that you look at both those approaches. And 4 I think Ms. Witherspoon's presentation said that because 5 you may get them faster that way in terms as -- just the 6 development of the standard. 7 We were also concerned about LSI-3 as it might 8 affect consumer user behavior. I believe that the 9 consolidated measure avoids that problem. And finally, we 10 were concerned that any rule be fair or any measure be 11 fair to the manufacturers of the internal combustion 12 engine, the propane vehicle manufactures that have 13 invested over $33 million in reaching the current 14 standards and who, of course, have been over compliant. 15 So we want to make sure that any kind of rules that are 16 implemented will continue to encourage those kinds of 17 investments. And again, we think that the consolidated 18 measure, LSI-2, has the potential to achieve those desired 19 results. 20 And, again, we very much appreciate the 21 interaction with staff. Thank you. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you, Peter, for your 23 interaction. 24 With the comments by Mary and Peter, anybody want 25 to testify on this issue? Maybe it's -- bear in mind it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 may be duplicative. Recognize also we will be going 2 through the usual rule-making process. So this is just a 3 precursor to that. And there will be full work shopping. 4 There will be full disclosure on the website, and people 5 can get that information. So that will be happening. 6 There will be full involvement reflecting of the recent 7 revisions of staff here. 8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Mr. Chairman. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes, Ms. D'Adamo. 10 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: In light of the fact there 11 are so many individuals here today, just a suggestion 12 maybe we could get their names and addresses so we can 13 send them information about future workshops. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That would be great. 15 Excellent idea. 16 Maybe we can put a sign-up sheet over there, pass 17 it around so people can do that. Thank you, Peter. 18 So with that, I would like to go back to Modesto 19 so, in fact, we don't forget Modesto. And the two people 20 who had signed up, Mike Tunnell and Sandra Duval, I don't 21 know whether they want to talk about this particular 22 measure or not. But please step forward and begin your 23 presentation. 24 MR. TUNNELL: Good morning, Chairman Lloyd, and 25 members of the Board. My name is Mike Tunnell. I'm with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 the American Trucking Association, and I'm here on behalf 2 of ATA and the California Trucking Association. 3 To be honest with you, I haven't seen the revised 4 proposal, so I have no idea other than what was previously 5 presented. But I just wanted to give you a brief overview 6 of what our members' concerns were on the prior version. 7 And I'll leave it to your discretion and staff's whether 8 those concerns have been addressed. 9 You know, we use quite a few forklifts at freight 10 terminals to transfer freight from the trucks to the 11 loading docks, and we use electric forklifts and 12 non-electric forklifts for different reasons. And we 13 wanted to make sure that the flexibility was maintained so 14 that this wasn't a measure that would require us to 15 purchase electric forklifts -- the leap to electric. We 16 feel there's reasons for using non-electric technologies, 17 and we just felt that the best approach would be an open 18 approach that leaves open the different possibilities. 19 And it sounds like that's been -- the language has been 20 modified to take that approach and we would support that. 21 And I think I'll just leave it at that. Thank 22 you. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed. 24 And I think we're trying to address all your concerns. So 25 we'll make sure that you get copies of those changes. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We are arranging 2 to send the redrafted measures to both of the field 3 offices in Bakersfield and Modesto. So you'll have them 4 momentarily. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 6 MS. DUVAL: Good morning. My name is Sandra 7 Duval. I'm representing the Lumber Association of 8 California and Nevada. We have about 450 independent 9 lumber dealers and supplier members. Most of our members 10 are small family-run businesses that supply lumber and 11 other building material to contractors and the general 12 public. 13 We are encouraged this morning to hear the 14 consolidated measure. And again, I haven't had a chance 15 to review it. But just from what we've heard, it does 16 sound like this goes a long way toward addressing our 17 concerns as well. 18 We use forklifts extensively in our business. 19 Our stores are open longer than the time that a forklift 20 battery lasts on electric forklifts. We also run them 21 outside on uneven surfaces and on inclines. So in that 22 regard, propane forklifts serve our needs very well and 23 electric forklifts, unfortunately, would not. 24 So we look forward to working with the Air 25 Resources Board staff on the measure and hope that we can PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 continue to use equipment that really will serve our 2 needs. Thank you. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. And 4 please make sure that we have your contact information. 5 So with that, we'll come back to Fresno. And we 6 have Patricia Slingerland, Shirley Batchman, and Manuel 7 Cunha. 8 MS. SLINGERLAND: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and 9 Board. I'm here representing two different companies 10 today. One is an association, the Industrial Truck 11 Association. And since we did not have the revised before 12 we prepared our statements, I will be forced to read their 13 statement as is. And I'm sure they will adjust it. 14 The Industrial Truck Association, or the ITA, 15 opposes the measure designated as LSI-3, which now 16 apparently doesn't exist, which we refer to as the 17 forklift electrification measure as part of the state SIP 18 element for the proposed PM10 plan for the San Joaquin 19 Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. 20 ITA is the trade association located in 21 Washington, DC, that represents the manufacturers of the 22 vast majority of internal combustion and electric 23 forklifts sold in California and throughout the U.S. 24 Almost all of our forklift manufacturer members 25 manufacture electric forklifts, as well as the internal PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 combustion engine forklifts. And the key members -- some 2 key members manufacture only electric forklifts. Despite 3 these vested interests in the electric forklift market, 4 all ITA members, including those manufacturing only 5 electrics, oppose this forklift electrification measure. 6 ITA has been heavily engaged in the debate over 7 the LSI-3 since learning of it in January of this year. 8 Unfortunately, the hearing today conflicted with the ITA's 9 long-planned General Engineering Committee meeting in 10 Baltimore, which prevented attendance by the major 11 forklift manufacturers and ITA staff. However, I would 12 like to state briefly why ITA opposes the LSI-3 and any 13 similar measure to force the wholesale electrification of 14 forklifts. I would then refer the Board and staff to 15 ITA's extensive written comments, which we filed on June 16 28th for elaboration on these points. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Which is now outdated. 18 MS. SLINGERLAND: Pretty much, yeah. 19 The electrification proposal came out of nowhere 20 earlier this year without notice to the industry. Since 21 sometime in 1997 until a few months ago, we were 22 consistently told that emissions regulations for forklift 23 engines would consist of increasingly lower emissions 24 levels for our IC engines and that CARB was working 25 closely with U.S. EPA on a harmonized national approach PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 that would require increasingly greater use of advanced 2 automotive-type technology on our engines. ITA's written 3 comments give the chronology. 4 In good faith reliance on those representations, 5 ITA members spent about $40 million and attained a 90 6 percent reduction from the unregulated baseline emissions 7 of their IC engines, even though the current regulations 8 have never been authorized by EPA and have never been 9 enforceable. We now face the prospect that these new 10 engine designs and the forklifts that use them that they 11 cannot be purchased after January 1, 2005. 12 Electric forklifts have been around for a long 13 time and are important and useful products offering 14 several advantages over IC trucks for certain users. 15 Electric forklifts are typically quieter than IC trucks. 16 They don't expose indoor workers to carbon monoxide. They 17 may require less regular maintenance, and they may even be 18 less expensive to operate than an IC forklift over their 19 life. 20 These features have translated to a 45 percent 21 market share for the forklifts for the 8,000 pound 22 capacity or less. And as electric forklifts become more 23 versatile, primarily in terms of the instantaneous power 24 they can deliver and the amount of work they can do before 25 needing recharging, they need succeed in increasing their PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 market share. 2 The question, however, is whether CARB can or 3 should simply mandate that all forklifts at or below 8,000 4 pounds be electric. We believe the answer must be no, 5 primarily because electric forklifts still present 6 important performance limitations for many users and will 7 for the indefinite future. Those limitations include the 8 use in harsh environments, use on steep ramps for pushing 9 and pulling loads, and for continuous high lifting, use of 10 high speeds with greater acceleration and for longer runs, 11 use in powering attachments without diminishing other 12 forklift functions, and use where productivity needs 13 require full power over complete shifts and multiple 14 shifts. In short, as even the companies manufacturing 15 only electric forklifts recognize, electric forklifts are 16 generally not interchangeable with IC forklifts. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We have a copy of the 18 statement. 19 MS. SLINGERLAND: Yes. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So we can read that. 21 MS. SLINGERLAND: Okay. In conclusion, the IC 22 engine forklifts have become quite clean and are becoming 23 cleaner. 24 And my other statement is from IMPCO 25 Technologies. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: You have to read that? 2 MS. SLINGERLAND: I'm not reading it. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. We have a copy. 4 Is it along the same lines? 5 MS. SLINGERLAND: Similar. Just we wanted to 6 state that we are in correspondence with Rose Castro of 7 CARB for the aftermarket, and originally it was going to 8 be LSI-2, and we do have the technology to help with the 9 closed loop conversions and cleaning up forklift 10 applications in use and further new protection. And thank 11 you very much for listening to our concerns. We really 12 appreciate it. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Report back to 14 your members that mission's accomplished. 15 MS. SLINGERLAND: Thank you very much. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Shirley Batchman, Manuel 17 Cunha, Kevin Hall. 18 MS. BATCHMAN: Good morning, members of the 19 Board. I'm Shirley Batchman. I represent the citrus 20 industry in California. I'm with California Citrus 21 Mutual. 22 As many of you heard this morning, I came with 23 one set of comments and I have another to deliver. As 24 being a stakeholder and the end user of forklifts both in 25 the field and in our packing houses, we have some severe PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 concerns about the regulations. We've talked with staff 2 many times, and I just wanted to tell you how pleased I am 3 to hear that you have listened to our concerns and you 4 have now come up with a regulation that we are proud to 5 support. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 7 MS. BATCHMAN: So I just want to let you know, 8 and I'll let it go at that. 9 We can now continue with our operations. Now, as 10 long as I'm here, so I won't take any time later, I just 11 want you to know our industry is supportive of the PM 10 12 plan. Agriculture has a significant place and a role to 13 play. We are supportive and we hope that you will adopt 14 it as well as the associated resolution that goes with it. 15 Thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed. 17 Again, we appreciate working with the industry. 18 It's very important. 19 MR. CUNHA: Good morning, Chairman Lloyd, and 20 members of the Board and your staff and Catherine 21 Witherspoon as well. My name is Manuel Cunha, President 22 of the Nisei Farmers League, also a member of the 23 United States Department of Agriculture, U.S. Air Quality 24 Task Force that was put into law by Congress in '96 so 25 that USDA would look at air quality as EPA has with its PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 advisory committee. I'm very happy to say that advisory 2 board is working very well in addressing the issues 3 confronting agriculture across the country in which the 4 1990 Clean Air Act really never addressed agriculture. So 5 I really appreciate the opportunity this morning to be 6 here. 7 The first thing I would like to acknowledge is a 8 couple folks of the Air Resources Board staff. First, I'd 9 like to acknowledge the tremendous work that your staff 10 has done on the PM10 study of 1992. And today you've had 11 various discussions on when that information is going to 12 be coming out on the modeling and that information. Some 13 of that information has already come out as far as -- not 14 the modeling part, but some of the data that has helped 15 guide agriculture going through what it has been going 16 through for the past ten years, which is very, very bad 17 data. I want to thank Karen Magliano and her staff very, 18 very much for the hard work that she has gone through and 19 the other staff members; Lynn Terry for her efforts of 20 working very hard in trying to raise the $31 million for 21 the largest PM10 study. And that's Central Valley, which 22 includes Edward Air Force Base, San Luis Obispo, down to 23 Sacramento and the Sierra Nevadas. And also I'd like to 24 thank the Chairperson of that committee, Barbara Patrick 25 very much for her efforts in working and taking the trips PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 to DC and all of the different changes and plane 2 schedules. And Mr. Les Clark who this year put his life 3 on the line in a plane who had an emergency landing when 4 an engine went out. That's how much dedication he has for 5 raising money for this study. Thank you for not jumping 6 off the plane and at least raising our money. 7 Again, it's been an honor to work with D.D. on 8 the advisory board. We thank you very much. And Dr. 9 Lloyd as well, yourself, pulling that committee to work 10 together on issues of agriculture in California as a whole 11 rather than San Joaquin Valley because air quality is an 12 issue for this entire state. And we want to thank both of 13 you very much for that. 14 Also one last person I would like to thank which 15 the study did help. In your agriculture emissions 16 inventory, there were a lot of zeros for agriculture. On 17 one emission we were creating nothing as the inventories 18 showed zero. But due to some of the data that has come 19 out in the agricultural field studies through this study, 20 we were able to modify and give real numbers to those 21 zeros on farming operations, land planing, harvesting, and 22 all that. And I want to thank Patrick Gaffney for his 23 hard, long efforts of sitting down with industry for not 24 just a few hours, but probably 1,000 plus hours in getting 25 that inventory to where it makes air districts have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 something to work with now to figure out what agriculture 2 is. And again, I want to thank staff. 3 Before I forget, I am asking this Board to 4 approve the PM10 plan this Valley has submitted on various 5 basis. I know there's been questions, and I'll take the 6 most difficult one first. That is the ammonia issue. The 7 USDA Air Quality Task Force commissioned and asked -- 8 along with the Secretary of Agriculture -- the National 9 Academy of Science commissioned a task force to evaluate 10 ammonia emissions from confined annual operations, which 11 include the chickens and those critters that run around in 12 confined areas. And that report has been issued in 13 November of 2002, gave a very comprehensive discussion of 14 what we need to do with ammonia and the problems it had in 15 the emission factors. 16 Now, saying that, though, in that in August we 17 will be meeting in Oklahoma, the task force will be, to 18 discuss the next procedures which is an aggressive plan 19 for the research and to find out where we have those 20 problems and the data that we need to help figure out what 21 is going on with ammonia from these types of operations. 22 And Dr. Lloyd, I can assure you that the Air 23 Quality Advisory Board in this Valley along with the Dairy 24 Subcommittee, this was appointed by the Agricultural 25 Technical Committee that Mr. Mark Boise chairs, is moving PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 forward with an aggressive research plan that has been 2 submitted in working with your Technical Advisory 3 Committee, which is part of the PM10 and ozone study. 4 They are moving aggressively, and they are going to hope 5 to have answers way before 2006. And we -- and several of 6 us that have other responsibilities will be watching very 7 closely that that stays on track and doesn't fall behind. 8 So I assure you we will have some answers to help you as a 9 Board and staff figure what are we doing with ammonia to 10 address that problem in all levels, including the chickens 11 and those types of critters that run around. Okay. 12 The last thing is I want to thank the staff, 13 Catherine Witherspoon very much for the forklift 14 opportunity to allow us some flexibility because we do 15 have agriculture dust, problems with, that get into 16 terminals of electrical equipment that cause major 17 problems for electric forklifts in our environment. And 18 you just can't throw water down on the side of a hill 19 because then you slide down a hill rather than go up a 20 hill to create or stop some of the dust. But, again, I 21 want to thank the staff very much for the working -- 22 coming up with the resolution that you have. 23 I also would like this Board to adopt the plan 24 with the resolution that our Board has adopted to go 25 forward to EPA. In that resolution is very important PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 issues to make sure that the Valley plan is the Valley 2 plan, and not taking other control measures that are used 3 in other states or in other districts that have been 4 classified totally different than our Valley, such as a 5 high wind erosion area that the Conservation Service has 6 done many, many years of work across this country. But 7 taking something from Oklahoma and applying it to the San 8 Joaquin Valley does not make sense at all. And especially 9 when in our industry agriculture produces over 350 10 different commodities in this Valley, all type of farming 11 equipment, as well as a farmer today may change his 12 operation because of the market demand. 13 As you noticed, my industry, which many of my 14 growers are raisin growers and wine growers. I've already 15 pulled out more than 25,000 acres of vineyards of raisins. 16 I'm going to pull out another 25,000 more than likely and 17 50,000 acres of vineyard wine grapes. 100,000 acres is 18 going to go out. Those farmers have specialized equipment 19 that they have purchased for those type of operations. 20 Now what type of crop do they go into? Very much of a 21 very hard decision to make because of the economics were 22 not there for farmers to do. So we are being very 23 conscientious. 24 Last in the plan is the CMP, the conservation 25 management practices. We believe what we have proposed in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 our plan is the most workable feasible means. And in that 2 it talks about voluntary -- working with a federal agency 3 that has a relationship with farmers today. That's the 4 Natural Resources Conservation Service. Let me give you a 5 quick one second, and then I'll be off because I know I'm 6 over time limit -- is that voluntary programs such as 7 farmers in the Valley over the past four years have oiled 8 over 600 miles of road in an equip-funding program through 9 NRCS in which funds are given by the Department of 10 Agriculture and the farmers put in the rest of the funds. 11 Also over 20,000 acres of brush from almonds has 12 been chipped and not burned in a program we have developed 13 voluntarily, the biggest program nationwide that I don't 14 think anybody can -- I would hope -- that we have 15 voluntarily removed over 2500 diesel pump engines. And if 16 I look at the time line, it's probably two years and seven 17 months that we actually replaced diesel engines of all 18 sizes in a voluntary program through your commitment of 19 Carl Moyer has been a tremendous program, not just for 20 agriculture, but for all industry. But, again, through a 21 voluntary program where farmers put money in and you, as 22 the state, were able to give money to air districts. We 23 also have done farm tractors and other pieces of 24 equipment. That has been great. 25 Lastly, farmers are concerned about the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 environment. They live here. They've been raised here. 2 My oldest farmer just retired, Japanese American, out of 3 Dinuba, 90 years old. Finally his wife told him he had to 4 stop farming. She was not being able to travel at 90 5 years old and wanted to do some traveling. And he had a 6 little health problem, but he's back on his feet. So they 7 have now retired. And the sad part of it is the children 8 do not want the farm because of the problems and the 9 uncertainty of their life of being a farmer. 10 But, again, I want to thank all of you for coming 11 into the San Joaquin Valley. Your staff has been 12 outstanding. 13 Dr. Lloyd, we appreciate all the hard work that 14 you have given, support to the agriculture industry of 15 this state so we can produce the most safest food of all. 16 And, again, thank you all and thank Catherine 17 very much for her efforts in working with the Ag Advisory 18 Committee. We appreciate that. 19 And, Lynn, for your efforts of traveling to raise 20 money. I know you had to put up with me and Les and 21 you've had to take some aspirin and things. And we 22 appreciate it very much. Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: When you are pulling out your 24 grapes, what are you going to do with the grape stakes? 25 MR. CUNHA: We'll discuss that later. We're not PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 prepared for that one, I don't think. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: It's an issue that I promised 3 some of your colleague -- they asked me that question. 4 MR. CUNHA: We'd like to -- in talking with your 5 staff on this, we have some ideas to help to resolve that 6 problem. It's a sad situation when the EPA authorized 7 that product to be used, that at the end of the day EPA 8 will no longer allow anybody to use that. I guess it's 9 over with now, but my farmers are stuck with those stakes 10 never knowing that you could not burn those treated 11 stakes. Now we can't take them to landfills because of 12 the landfills refusing them. We can't burn them because 13 of the chemicals in them. 14 And now I have piles of stakes around this 15 community. I'm greatly concerned of terrorism. We've had 16 seven major terrorism fires last week in Madera, 17 arsonists. One of them you probably saw this morning. 18 Huge sprinkler systems on wheels was torched in their 19 field. These grapes stakes are going to be a great 20 entertainment for someone to torch deliberately to cause 21 havoc. But we are going to be working with your staff on 22 trying to resolve a problem or a solution to this as well 23 as with the district. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think -- according to Lynn, 25 I think Ed Lowery of the Department of Toxic Substances PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345