1 MEETING 2 BEFORE THE 3 CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BOARD HEARING ROOM 11 2020 L STREET 12 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1997 20 9:30 A.M. 21 22 23 24 25 Vicki L. Medeiros, C.S.R. License No. 7871 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 ii MEMBERS PRESENT 2 John D. Dunlap, III, Chairman 3 Joseph C. Calhoun Dr. Friedman 4 Lynne T. Edgerton Mark DeSaulnier 5 Jack C. Parnell Sally Rakow 6 Barbara Riordan Ron Roberts 7 8 Staff: Michael Kenny, Executive Director Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer 9 Mike Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Kathleen Walsh, General Counsel 10 Jim Schnoning, Ombudsman 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 iii I N D E X 2 --o0o-- 3 Page 4 Proceedings 1 5 Call to Order 1 6 Pledge of Allegiance 1 7 Roll Call 1 8 Opening remarks by Chairman Dunlap 2 9 AGENDA ITEMS: 10 Open Session to Provide an Opportunity for Members 11 of the Public to Address the Board on Subject Matters Within the Jurisdiction of the Board 13 12 97-7-1 Public Meeting to Consider the 13 Report to the Legislature - Progress Report on the Phase-Down of Rice Straw 14 Burning in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin Report 15 Introductory remarks by Chairman Dunlap 19 16 Staff Presentation: 17 Mike Kenny 20 18 Mr. Yates 24 Ms. Hyrnchuk 28 19 Mr. Forest 48 Mr. Schoning 62 20 Public Comment: 21 Mr. Romano 63 22 Mr. Withycombe 70 Mr. Carrancho 80 23 Mr. Wong 86 Mr. Carnahan 90 24 Mr. Camp 94 Ms. Puglia 98 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 iv I N D E X (Continued) 2 Page 3 97-7-2 Public Meeting to Consider a Status Report on the San Joaquin 4 Valley Fine Particulate Matter Study 5 Introductory remarks by Chairman Dunlap 107 6 Staff Presentation: 7 Supervisor Patrick 108 Ms. Magliano 109 8 Adjournment 132 9 Certificate of Reporter 133 10 --o0o-- 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 --o0o-- 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Will this, the September meeting 4 of the California Air Resources Board, come to order. 5 Mr. Parnell, would you lead the Board and audience 6 in the pledge. 7 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was 8 lead by Mr. Parnell.) 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mr. Parnell. 10 Ms. Hutchens, call the roll for the Board. 11 MS. HUTCHENS: Calhoun. 12 MR. CALHOUN: Here. 13 MS. HUTCHENS: Supervisor DeSaulnier. 14 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Here. 15 MS. HUTCHENS: Ms. Edgerton. 16 MS. EDGERTON: Here. 17 MS. HUTCHENS: Dr. Friedman. 18 DR. FRIEDMAN: Here. 19 MS. HUTCHENS: Mr. Parnell. 20 MR. PARNELL: Here. 21 MS. HUTCHENS: Supervisor Patrick. 22 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Here. 23 MS. HUTCHENS: Ms. Rakow. 24 MRS. RAKOW: Here. 25 MS. HUTCHENS: Ms. Riordan. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Here. 2 MS. HUTCHENS: Supervisor Roberts. 3 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Here. 4 MS. HUTCHENS: Supervisor Silva. 5 Chairman Dunlap. 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Here. 7 Thank you. 8 Mayor Hilligoss. 9 Patty, would you come to the podium, please. 10 Recently Patty Hilligoss has been appointed to 11 State Inspection and Review Committee after having served on 12 our Board for five and a half years, since January of 1992. 13 Patty, in addition to serving on the Bay Area Air 14 Quality Management District Board, has been the Mayor of 15 Petaluma since January of 1987. 16 As if these two positions don't keep her busy 17 enough, she is also a member of the Executive Board of the 18 Association of Bay Area Government's Air and Waste Management 19 Board, the League of California Cities and numerous other 20 civic and charitable organizations. 21 Patty has been a part of many far reaching 22 regulatory decisions made by this Board during her tenure 23 here. 24 The Low-Emission and Zero-Emission Vehicle Program, 25 the development of the 1994 Ozone SIP and the Cleaner Burning PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 Gasoline Program, to name just a few. 2 She can be proud to know that she had a role in 3 advancing the improvement of air quality in California. 4 Patty, we have several presentations we would like 5 to make to you today, and I have several of your colleagues 6 here to help me with that, so I would like to ask Barbara 7 Riordan to read and present to you a letter from our 8 Governor. 9 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: This is from, indeed, the 10 Governor of the State of the California, Governor Pete 11 Wilson, to Patricia Hilligoss. 12 On behalf of the State of California, it gives me 13 great pleasure to extend my sincere congratulations as you 14 retire following five years of outstanding service as a 15 Member of the Air Resources Board. 16 Throughout your long and distinguished career, you 17 have established an exemplary reputation for quality 18 management and effective leadership. 19 You have, indeed, earned the respect and the 20 admiration of all who have had the pleasure of working with 21 you. 22 Your expertise, as well as your friendship, will 23 sorely be missed by your colleagues at the ARB. As you take 24 time to reflect upon the significant accomplishments that 25 have marked your career in State Service, you can take great PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 pride in knowing that your efforts have made a profound 2 difference in the lives of all Californians. 3 I join everyone at the Air Resources Board in 4 applauding you, and I look forward to working with you in the 5 future as you fill your new role on the California Inspection 6 and Maintenance Review Committee. 7 Please accept my best wishes for a future that 8 continues to bring you great reward and fulfillment, 9 sincerely, Pete Wilson. 10 And I say congratulations also, Patty, because you 11 have been a wonderful Member of this Board. Thank you, very 12 much. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, we have another couple to 14 do, Patty, so indulge us just for a moment. 15 Thank you, Barbara, very much for that. 16 I would like to now ask Joe Calhoun to read a 17 Resolution that all of our Board Member colleagues have had 18 an opportunity to sign. 19 It is coming, we are getting it signed. Okay, well 20 we will skip that, and we will go to Lynn Edgerton. 21 We will ask Lynn to read a letter from Acting 22 Secretary, Peter Rooney, who heads up CAL EPA. 23 MS. EDGERTON: Mayor Hilligoss, I think it is apt 24 that I come after Barbara Riordan. 25 I was startled to realize as I came in this morning PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 and had the honor of reading this to you that you and Barbara 2 are the two remaining Air Board Members from when I first 3 joined the Board. 4 I guess that I am moving into a position of some 5 seniority myself. It is not a small matter because those of 6 us who follow always stand on the shoulders of those who 7 proceed, especially in a successful endeavor. 8 Your accomplishments have enabled whatever 9 accomplishments of those of us who followed will achieve and 10 have achieved, so I am very mindful of that, and you are one 11 of my heroines. 12 On behalf of Peter Rooney, Acting Secretary for 13 Environmental Protection: Dear Member Hilligoss, on behalf 14 of the California Environmental Protection Agency, I wish to 15 extend my gratitude for your years of service on the Air 16 Resources Board. 17 Your participation on the Board has provided a 18 valuable district perspective in assisting the Board in its 19 role of making complex and far-reaching regulatory 20 decisions. 21 I wish you the best in your future endeavors and 22 know that you will continue to be an active advocate for 23 improving the environment in your community service. 24 Thank you so much for your wonderful friendship and 25 participation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. 2 While we are waiting for the Resolution, Patty, I 3 would like to make a small presentation to you. I have in 4 this small box, in my hand, a flag, a State flag that flew 5 over this building that is retired from service. 6 We thought it would be appropriate for us to give 7 you this noble display of affection from the State and 8 appreciation for your service. 9 I will hand this to you now as we kill time for a 10 minute for this Resolution. I would be happy to have the 11 text, Wendy, that we could have Mr. Calhoun read, the 12 Resolution, if you could get that for us. 13 MR. CALHOUN: Patty, it is an honor for me to read 14 Resolution 97-38, presented to you by the Air Resources 15 Board. 16 Whereas Mayor Pat Hilligoss has ably served as the 17 Bay Area Air Quality District Manager of the Air Resources 18 Board since January 28, 1992, when she was appointed to the 19 Board by Governor Pete Wilson, where Mayor Hilligoss served 20 as the Sonoma County Representative and Secretary of the 20 21 Member Board, Director of the Bay Area Air Quality Management 22 District, the regional legacy of that work was to achieve 23 clean air within the nine San Francisco, Bay Area Counties 24 where Mayor Hilligoss assumed responsibility for the Bay Area 25 Air Quality Management District Board of Directors as PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 Chairperson of this Personnel Committee and Budget Finance, 2 Legislative and Public Outreach Steering Committee, Mayor 3 Hilligoss has contributed greatly to her home communities, 4 the City of the Petaluma, and incorporated cities, population 5 of 50,000, by serving as Mayor and Coucil Member since 6 January 1, 1987, as well as Chairwoman of the Planning 7 Commission, whereas Mayor Hilligoss was a Member of the 8 Executive Board of the Association of Bay Area Governments, 9 more than 560 regional and planning agencies across the 10 nation working to help solve problems in land use, housing, 11 environmental quality and economic development, Mayor 12 Hilligoss has served in a number of other ways to support 13 local, regional and Statewide community efforts, including 14 membership and service with the Air and Waste Management 15 Association, the League of California Cities, Petaluma Rotary 16 Club, Petaluma Chamber of Commerce and many other civic and 17 charitable organizations, whereas Mayor Hilligoss has 18 contributed to maintaining the quality of the air in 19 California cities and supporting the work and policies of the 20 Air Resources Board, including the successful introduction of 21 California Cleaner Burning Gasoline and the introduction of a 22 consumer oriented Zero-Emission Vehicle Program and the years 23 of Environmental Protection Agency approval of California 24 State decision to land ozone, now therefore be it resolved 25 that the Air Resources Board expresses its wholehearted PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 appreciation of the contributions Mayor Hilligoss has 2 maintained in improving air quality throughout the State of 3 California and for her longtime commitment and service to the 4 communities of the State, executed Sacramento, California, 5 this 25th day of September 1997, signed by John Dunlap, 6 Chairman of the Air Resources Board and other Board Members. 7 Congratulations, Patty, thank you. 8 Patty, in addition to being appointed to the 9 Inspection and Maintenance Board, I want to be sure to get 10 your telephone number when my friends call and complain about 11 the Board's smog check number, I want to make sure and give 12 them the right number. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Excellent idea, Joe. 14 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: I did attend my first meeting and 15 right at the beginning three gentlemen, well, I couldn't call 16 them gentlemen, because they got up and yelled and yelled and 17 yelled, and I asked one of the others if this was normal, and 18 he said, no. 19 So, hopefully it will not be that bad. I want to 20 thank you for all these wonderful honors, and I will be proud 21 to hang this in my office, this Resolution, as a remembrance 22 of the ARB. 23 I have thoroughly enjoyed working with you all for 24 the five years that I have been on, and there have been a lot 25 of changes since I joined. Barbara Riordan is the only one PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 left serving when I was appointed. 2 I appreciate the support and trust you have given 3 me, and maybe the reason they put me on the INM Committee is 4 because they figure I can take a lot of guff. 5 I would like to thank the staff members for all 6 their help over the years, and I will miss them and my fellow 7 Board Members. 8 I have enjoyed working with all of you. 9 Thank you, again. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Patty. It was great 11 to have you come back and join us this morning. 12 We have a couple items of business that I would 13 like to run through before we get into the Agenda Items. 14 First, is the month of September, as Autumn 15 arrives, so has National Pollution Prevention Week. 16 Air Quality Programs have always focused on 17 preventing pollution from getting into the air in the first 18 place. 19 Pollution prevention is a more recent idea in other 20 areas, like solid and hazardous waste, where there is now 21 increasing emphasis on finding ways to produce less waste 22 through improved technologies and better management 23 practices. 24 National Pollution Prevention Week is a reminder to 25 all of us regulators, industry, environmentalist and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 consumers, that pollution prevention should be a way of 2 life. 3 We should be alert for ways to prevent pollution 4 from entering into our environment and that includes those of 5 us in the air quality field. 6 New environmental technologies have enabled the Air 7 Resources Board to enjoy tremendous success in improving air 8 quality over the years. 9 We should also remember that a bicycle, or a 10 carpool can reduce pollution just as effectively as a 11 computerized oxygen sensor consumer or and electrically 12 heated catalyst. 13 Pollution prevention involves not only choices 14 among technologies but choices among our daily habits, as 15 well. 16 Our staff recently produced a new pamphlet with a 17 strong pollution prevention theme, 50 things you can do for 18 cleaner air, and if you haven't seen this pamphlet, I 19 encourage you to pick up some on the table outside. It 20 contains a number of very good ideas. 21 So, we have a Resolution before us, it's in the 22 packet, I won't read it at this juncture, except to remind 23 you that it is important for us to support pollution 24 prevention efforts, this is Pollution Prevention Month. 25 I hoped to be able to bring this to the Board in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 August early, and Ron had suggested last year, as I recall, 2 that we get it done earlier, and we did, we got it in the 3 same month. I think last year we dealt with it in October, 4 as I recall. 5 It's important, and I would recommend to the Board 6 that we move and Resolution 97-39 in honor of Pollution 7 Prevention Week. 8 There is a motion and a second. 9 Any discussion on this Item? 10 Very good. We will move forward on a voice vote. 11 All those in favor, say aye. 12 Any opposed? 13 Very good. Thank you. 14 The next item of business is a pleasure for me, it 15 is the introduction of a new Board Member. Some of you that 16 watch such things notice to my right, to the audience's left, 17 is a new gentleman that has joined our Board, Mark 18 DeSaulnier, who is a Contra Costa County Supervisor, is 19 joining our Board. 20 The Governor has appointed him from the Bay Area 21 Air Quality Management District. He was appointed on 22 July 30, 1997, and since we didn't have that August meeting, 23 as I mentioned, today serves as his inaugural meeting. 24 The Supervisor has represented District 4 of Contra 25 Costa County for over three years, previous to which he PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 served as a Mayor and City Council Person for the City of 2 Concord. 3 As a successful restaurateur, he knows firsthand 4 the burden posed by regulatory agencies, and I think we can 5 all look forward to a unique perspective on these and many 6 other types of issues. 7 Furthermore, I believe that he will be a strong and 8 proactive voice for our Board in the Bay Area, which is, I 9 believe, vitally important, given the District's recent 10 non-attainment redesignation by the Federal Government. 11 The Supervisor is a Member of the Concord Chamber 12 of Commerce, the Contra Costa Council and the Metropolitan 13 Transportation Commission. 14 He also served on the Concord Planning Commission 15 as a Member of the Holy Cross Varsity and Alumni Association, 16 from which he earned a Bachelor's Degree in 1974. 17 So on behalf of the Air Resources Board and staff, 18 welcome, it is a pleasure to have you join us, Mark. 19 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Thanks, John. 20 Well, it is always a little humbling when you start 21 one of these new appointments, but today I feel particularly 22 humbled given the presentation to Patty just before me, and I 23 hope that I can earn your trust and your friendship that is 24 evident in the reception that you gave Patty, so I look 25 forward to it, and I should mention that Ellen Garvey, of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 Bay Area Air Quality District, is in the back. 2 I don't know whether Ellen is here checking on me 3 or -- I will try to represent us well, Ellen. 4 Thank you for the welcome, and I really look 5 forward to it. 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: You are welcome. Thank you. 7 Good morning, Ellen, glad you could join us. 8 Well, with that, we have reversed our Agenda a bit, 9 we have an open comment period now before we get into the 10 first Agenda Item. 11 We have someone that would like to address us. We 12 have a representative from Duffy Electric Boat Company, Karl 13 Tahti. 14 If you are here, Karl, if you would come forward. 15 We are pleased that you were able to come this morning and 16 tell us a little bit about your activities with electric 17 boats. 18 MR. TAHTI: Thank you, very much, for having me. 19 We have been building electric boats for 27 years 20 in Southern California, in Newport. We ship them around the 21 world, and we manufacture electric boats worldwide. 22 Rather than bore you with me talking about the 23 boats, I have do have a two-minute video that was broadcast 24 on the Chamber of Commerce TV show recently, if we could play 25 that now. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 (Thereupon a video was shown.) 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And you are located in Costa 3 Mesa? 4 MR. TAHTI: Yes. 5 We manufacture boats that transport people both in 6 pleasure and business as well. We have four rental 7 operations in Newport Harbor that utilize about 30 of our 8 boats year-round. 9 Marriott Resort in Palm Springs, you have seen 10 those, we have had electric boats there. We just replaced 11 the old fleet with a brand new fleet of custom-made electric 12 boats just for their application, which from what I 13 understand is a long waiting line of guests just to do a five 14 minute tour around the hotel. 15 We have them in Thailand. Pleasanton and Oxnard 16 both have rental boats of ours, and of course, elsewhere 17 around the world. 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: How are you doing in San Diego? 19 MR. TAHTI: We had some rental boats at Marriott 20 down there, but Mission Bay is a large bay, Coronado Keys, we 21 have a lot of boats. 22 Our markets are pretty unique. Next year, we hope, 23 and we talked with the Yellow Cab Company in Orange County, 24 and we believe that they will be setting up a fleet of taxi 25 cabs in the harbor of our boats just to get people from one PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 end of the harbor to the other, so that will be interesting 2 to see how that comes out next year. 3 Several thousand customers, like the video said, 4 have our boats primarily in Newport, but surprisingly a lot 5 of small markets just here in Sacramento and Stockton area 6 there is -- just two weeks ago I was up here and I saw 14 7 different lakes either existing or being built, that were 8 electric-only lakes, which we hate it when that happens. 9 As far as the relationship to a gas engine our 10 drive system is about equal to a 15 horsepower outboard, so 11 we have a lot of thrust. It is not like petroleum motors, it 12 really is a powerful little unit. 13 Of course, we look in terms of a thousand boats in 14 Newport and a few thousand around the country, those are 15 actually replacing two-stroke outboard engines for the kind 16 of use that they are getting, for traveling five miles an 17 hour for people just enjoying the harbor. 18 We think that they replace the outboard engine, 19 which I think the statistic that I saw was that they emit 20 about 140 times more pollutants, horsepower for horsepower, 21 than a car does. So, getting rid of those outboards has been 22 quite an improvement. 23 The main thing, I think one of the reasons that I 24 am glad to be here is usually the publicity you see in 25 electric boats and the people who are working on a boat in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 their garage or there is a news release of one boat that 2 somebody built in a storage unit somewhere and it might go 3 around the world at 20 miles an hour with two batteries, you 4 know, just unbelievable statistics. 5 Like I said, we lead the world in manufacturing 6 electric boats. That means right now somebody could order a 7 boat, and we would deliver it in two weeks. 8 We make them day after day after day after day. We 9 have boats coming out of our plant. Our current production 10 line is seven boats. We have 16 to 21 feet. 11 You might have seen the model in the video, which 12 is a 30-foot boat that was co-designed with Halsey Harshoft 13 on the East Coast, and of course, our 62-foot long, which 14 should be launched sometime next month, the end of next 15 month, and we hope to generate a lot of publicity from that 16 as well. 17 Thank you, very much. 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. 19 Ms. Edgerton, you had a question. 20 MS. EDGERTON: Are the boats part of the solution 21 for the Lake Tahoe challenge? 22 MR. TAHTI: We have had a few boats in the Tahoe 23 Keys. 24 Our markets kind of fall in two areas. One is, of 25 course, electric only. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 It's a no-brainer. They can't have anything else. 2 Lake markets, really where we are strongest is if 3 there is a restriction on either horsepower or speed. 4 When lakes allow boats to go 40 miles an hour, then 5 people usually don't want a boat that goes five. 6 So, no, not yet. 7 Our answer will be, if we had a boat that goes 10 8 or 15 miles an hour, that's when we will have an impact, 9 because most people don't want to go 20 or 30, but they do 10 want to go 10 or 15. 11 That all hinges on battery development, and since 12 our relationship with Trojan Battery dates back 30 years 13 practically, we are kind of in-the-know as far as where 14 batteries are going to take us, because to generate 15 horsepower requires battery technology. 16 As a matter of fact, our next big project, next 17 year, we hope to utilize the Saturday Evening One Technology. 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes. 19 MRS. RAKOW: You mentioned the taxi type in harbor, 20 can they go in an area that has rougher waters, like San 21 Francisco Bay? 22 MR. TAHTI: They can. 23 Again, most people aren't comfortable if they are 24 only going five miles an hour. We have crossed the Catalina 25 Channel. We have been to Catalina and back. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 I'll take our boat out of the harbor in Newport and 2 I'll go a couple miles out in the ocean without a problem. 3 We had a big charity event last week where we have 4 50 or 60 of our boats get together for a big rally. It's a 5 lot of fun. 6 We have boats that come up from Dana Point. They 7 can go. Again, most people are not as comfortable going 8 slow. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: That is great. 10 Any other questions? 11 Thank you for making the trek up to share with us 12 what you are doing. It is an interesting process. 13 MR. TAHTI: If you come down to Newport Harbor, we 14 have our rental location right down there in Newport, and we 15 would be happy to let you take the boat out for an hour or 16 two. 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: We will work with Supervisor 18 Silva, who is missing today, but we will make sure that he 19 gets a package, and Joe Calhoun lives down there, we will see 20 if we can get a field trip or something. 21 Well, good luck to you. If you wouldn't mind, keep 22 us on the mailing list, and perhaps in a year or so, we could 23 get you to come back and tell us how things are going. 24 Thank you. All right. 25 I am told I might have been remiss in my comments PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 opening up the Open Comment Period, but this is an 2 opportunity for anyone in the audience to come and address us 3 on any item that isn't on the Agenda Item today. 4 We are asking that each witness that would want to 5 take this opportunity limit their comments to the 6 jurisdictional subject matter of the Board. 7 So, is there anyone else who would like to address 8 us before we close the Open Comment Period? 9 Okay. I think you are for rice, yeah, we will come 10 to that in just a moment, you will get an opportunity. 11 Seeing that no one wishes to speak in the Open 12 Comment Period beyond what you have already heard, I will 13 close the Open Comment Period and move to our first Agenda 14 Item. 15 Thank you. 16 I would like to remind those in the audience who 17 would like to speak on any of the two remaining Items that we 18 ask you to please sign up with the Clerk of the Board. 19 If you have a written statement, please provide her 20 with 20 copies. She sits to my left over here in the 21 purple. 22 The next Item on the Agenda is 97-7-1, a public 23 meeting to consider the 1997 Report to the Legislature, 24 progress Report on the Phase-Down of rice straw burning in 25 the Sacramento Valley Air Basin. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 This item was a Draft Report to the Legislature 2 on the progress of the implementation of the 3 Connelly-Areias-Chandler Rice Straw Burning Reduction 4 Act of 1991. 5 This Act requires that the burning of rice straw be 6 phased-down in the Sacramento Valley, and beginning in 7 September 2000, it allows rice straw burning only for disease 8 management. 9 The Act requires the Board and the California 10 Department of Food and Agriculture to jointly Report 11 biennially to the Legislature on the progress of the 12 Phase-Down Act. 13 I notice out in the audience we have A.J. Yates, 14 A.J., if I could get you to stand up and maybe wave to us, 15 who is the Under Secretary at Food and Agriculture, we are 16 pleased that he has been able to join us today. 17 If there are problems with the Phase-Down Act, the 18 Board and the Department may provide recommendations to the 19 Legislature on how the Phase-Down Act should be changed. 20 The Draft Report, which we will consider today, is 21 the second of these biennial reports. During the preparation 22 of this Report, our staff teams devoted many hours to working 23 with growers, scientists, environmental groups and others to 24 enhance both our and their understanding of all sides of this 25 issue. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 I had an opportunity to attend a number of those 2 meetings over the course of the last six months or so. 3 The Board and the Department held two public 4 workshops, two stakeholder forums and individual meetings 5 with interested parties earlier this summer. 6 About 250 copies of the preliminary Draft Report 7 were mailed out for public comment. The Advisory Committee 8 on Alternatives to Rice Straw Burning, which the Act created, 9 also held public meetings to hear comments on the Committee's 10 Draft Report. 11 I personally, as I mentioned, met with a number of 12 individuals involved. Our job today is to determine whether 13 the Draft Report before us accurately describes the progress 14 of the Phase-Down Act and faithfully reflects the concerns of 15 interested parties. 16 The Draft Report lists some of the ideas for 17 changing the Phase-Down Act that have been offered by 18 stakeholders. 19 The only recommendation agencies are making in the 20 Draft Report, and it appears to be accepted by stakeholders, 21 is to create financial incentives for the rapid development 22 of alternatives to burning. 23 The burning of rice straw has long been a 24 contentious issue in this valley. The rice growers have 25 traditionally relied upon burning to dispose of rice straw PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 and to control plant diseases that damage rice, and residents 2 of the valley have consistently complained about air quality 3 impacts. 4 I realize that there are many strongly held views 5 about the need to burn rice straw, and some of those views 6 will be mutually exclusive. 7 It is the Board's intention to hear from all 8 parties and to be sure that the Report reflects all points of 9 view, though it may take awhile, we will listen to all who 10 wish to speak, and please help us to be as efficient as 11 possible as we consider this Item, keep your remarks to the 12 point and avoid repetition if you can. 13 I also encourage each witness to offer points that 14 are specific. 15 With that, I would be happy to have Mr. Kenny 16 introduce this Item. 17 Mike, good morning. 18 MR. KENNY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members 19 of the Board. 20 As the Chairman has already indicated, the staff of 21 both the Air Resources Board and the Department of Food and 22 Agriculture have jointly prepared this Draft Report that is 23 before you today. 24 As Chairman Dunlap explained, the Act requires that 25 the agencies submit a Report on the progress of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 Phase-Down Act of rice straw burning every two years. 2 This is the second such biennial Report. Each 3 biennial Report is to include economic and environmental 4 assessments of the Phase-Down Act. 5 The status of these low and cost-effective 6 alternatives to rice straw burning, the recommendations of 7 the Advisory Committee on rice straw burning alternatives, 8 which the Act created, and recommended changes to the Act if 9 any. 10 The staff of the Technical Support Division 11 prepared the Report with assistance from our Compliance and 12 Research Divisions. 13 We are seeking the Board's approval of this Draft 14 Report so that we may finalize it and send it to the 15 Legislature. 16 Mr. A.J. Yates, Under Secretary for the Department 17 of Food and Agriculture, worked with our staff and directed 18 his staff to help us in the preparation of this Report, we 19 appreciate his presence here today. 20 Before I turn the presentation over to Lesha 21 Hyrnchuk, of the Meteorology Section of our Technical Support 22 Division, who will present to you a summary of the Report, I 23 would like to ask A.J. to make any comments he might have, 24 A.J. 25 MR. YATES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 Board, it is pleasure to be here today. 2 First, I would like to acknowledge the dedicated 3 work of the staff of both agencies in preparing this Report 4 in a timely and professional manner. 5 Also, to acknowledge the sustained effort by the 6 management of our agencies to coordinate policy concerning 7 implementation of the Phase-Down Act. 8 It is often difficult to balance public and 9 industry demand with reasonable enforcement of law. I look 10 forward to continued cooperation between our agencies. 11 I especially want to thank those who have 12 volunteered their time and considerable energies to 13 participate in the Alternatives Committee. 14 Their work is probably the most important task of 15 all, laying the foundation for the long-term solution of 16 straw utilization. 17 Special recognition goes to Lloyd Forest for 18 chairing the Committee since its formation. 19 Now I would like to take a moment to review the 20 California Department of Food and Agriculture's 21 responsibility under the Act. 22 The Department has several key roles in 23 implementing the Act, including working with the Air 24 Resources Board to prepare this Report to the Legislature on 25 the progress of the Phase-Down Act. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 The Department also helps support the work of the 2 Rice Straw Alternatives Advisory Committee and the Rice Straw 3 Disease Management Committee. 4 The Air Resources Board must also consult with the 5 Department and the Air Pollution Control Council as final 6 regulations are adopted to issue permits for conditional 7 burning to control diseases. 8 The Department also works closely with the 9 Agricultural Commisioners, whose job it is to determine 10 disease levels and associated yield reductions in the 11 program. 12 The Air Resources Board and the Department will 13 annually review if other disease control measures are 14 available other than burning. 15 The Department and ARB jointly may make a 16 determination to allow burning to exceed acreage limits if 17 warranted by extraordinary circumstances. 18 I should mention that under a separate statute the 19 Department is also charged with administering a Rice Straw 20 Tax Credit Program. 21 It provides a tax credit of $15 per ton of straw 22 purchase for use. This program is limited to $400,000 per 23 year, which only represents about 9,000 acres of rice here in 24 the Valley. 25 Finally, representing the Agency whose mission it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 is to preserve and protect California agriculture, I would be 2 remiss not to mention the unique role that rice plays in the 3 Sacramento Valley. 4 The rice industry in the Sacramento Valley is the 5 backbone of the region's agricultural economy and also plays 6 a very important role in its ecology by providing winter 7 habitat for migratory fowl. 8 The industry may soon play an important, or 9 increasingly important role in water resource management for 10 the State by providing flood control opportunities and 11 perhaps additional off-stream water storage. 12 These are just some of the reasons why straw rice 13 industry is so important to California. In 1991, when the 14 Rice Straw Phase-Down Act Law was enacted and an agreement 15 was entered into in good faith by all stakeholders, the rice 16 farmers of the Sacramento Valley have more than lived up to 17 their part of the agreement by significantly exceeding the 18 mandated reduction in each year of the Phase-Down Act. 19 Just last year growers eliminated rice straw 20 burning on 59 percent of the acreage when the law mandated a 21 50 percent reduction. 22 But a promise was made also to support development 23 of off-farm uses of rice straw. So far, less than one 24 percent of the rice straw is used off-farm. 25 The rest is incorporated into the soils at a cost PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 that can wipe out a farmer's profits, or burned on the 2 remaining acres allowed. 3 The time is rapidly approaching when straw burning 4 is banned completely, except for disease control. The key to 5 long-term success is a public-private partnership to support 6 the development of off-farm uses of rice straw. 7 Speaking as a farmer, we can no longer afford nor 8 do we want to be a part of the problem. We can expect to be 9 a part of the solution. 10 Opportunities exist to promote the rice straw into 11 useful, environmentally-friendly products, such as energy, 12 paper, construction material, livestock feed and bedding and 13 erosion control. 14 I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here 15 today, and I look forward to our two agencies working 16 together as we continue to try to address this very important 17 issue to California and to the agricultural industry. 18 Thank you, Chairman Dunlap. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mr. Yates. 20 I appreciate the opportunity to work with you and 21 your team. This Board may recall two years ago when we 22 considered the Report last time, the presenter was Peter 23 Rooney, who is now the Acting Secretary of CalEPA, and I know 24 at a very high level in this administration we are very 25 concerned about rice straw issues. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 So, thank you. I appreciate your team working with 2 us. 3 With that, Mr. Kenny, how do you wish to proceed? 4 MR. KENNY: Lesha Hyrnchuk will begin the 5 presentation at this point. 6 MS. HYRNCHUK: Good morning, Chairman Dunlap and 7 Members of the Board. 8 As the Chairman and Mr. Kenny already stated, this 9 Draft Report is being presented to you today for your 10 consideration and approval so that we may send the Report to 11 the Legislature to inform them about the progress of the 12 Phase-Down Act of rice straw burning, particularly during the 13 last two years as required by the Act. 14 The Connelly-Areias-Chandler Rice Straw Burning 15 Reduction Act of 1991, is commonly called the Phase-Down 16 Act. 17 It applies only to straw and only in the Sacramento 18 Valley. This is the second biennial Report to the 19 Legislature, as required by the Act, to inform the 20 Legislature and the Governor about the progress of the 21 Phase-Down Act. 22 This Report is a joint effort of the Air Resources 23 Board and the California Department of Food and Agriculture. 24 This slide shows the outline of my presentation. I 25 will present some background information, list the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 requirements of the Phase-Down Act, Report the progress of 2 the Phase-Down, discuss the economic and environmental 3 effects, give the status of the development of alternatives 4 to burning, discuss the future alternatives to burning 5 identified by the Advisory Committee on Alternatives to Rice 6 Straw Burning, which was created by the Act, and summarize 7 the Advisory Committee's recommendations and finally, offer 8 the Air Resources Board and the California Department of Food 9 and Agriculture's recommendation concerning the development 10 of alternatives. 11 I will briefly describe the rice growing in 12 Sacramento Valley, discuss the history of agricultural 13 burning regulations in Sacramento Valley and the effects of 14 the changes to these regulations, and briefly discuss how 15 the air quality effects of rice straw burning differs by 16 season. 17 First, a brief background on rice growing. The 18 Sacramento Valley produces about 95 percent of the rice grown 19 in California. 20 The average during the last five years is 465,000 21 acres planted in the Sacramento Valley. Last year, 1996, 22 there were about 515,000 acres planted. 23 Rice ranks as the fourteenth agricultural commodity 24 in the State with annual revenues of about $300 to $400 25 million, producing about four tons of rice per acre and 3 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 tons of straw per acre, resulting in about 1.5 million tons 2 of straw each year. 3 The next background item is the history of 4 agricultural burning regulations in the Sacramento Valley. 5 Until 1970, there was no regulation of agricultural 6 burning. That year, Legislation was enacted to direct the 7 Air Resources Board and the Air Pollution Control District's 8 in the State to regulate agricultural burning, but not to 9 prohibit it. 10 The Program was a simple Burn-or-No-Burn 11 Declaration. This is the Program that still exists in all 12 parts of California, except for the Sacramento Valley. 13 In 1981, testing started on what is called the 14 Variable Acreage Allocation Program for the Sacramento 15 Valley. 16 This is the current Program in which the Sacramento 17 Valley Basinwide Air Pollution Control Council, called the 18 BCC, develops a yearly agricultural burning plan which 19 specifies the conditions for burning. 20 The burn plan specifies the criteria to be used in 21 deciding when, where and how much agricultural burning may be 22 done on a day-to-day basis. 23 The burn plan specifies the atmospheric model to be 24 used to match the amount of burning allowed each day to the 25 ability of the atmosphere to disperse smoke on that day. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 The final requirement on our list is the Phase-Down 2 Act. Since it became effective in 1992, each year the Act 3 specifies the maximum percentage of the number acres of rice 4 planted in the Valley that may be burned. 5 I will discuss the requirements of the Act further 6 in a few minutes. 7 This slide shows how progressively Improved 8 Agricultural Burning Smoke Management Programs have reduced 9 the number of smoky hours at the Sacramento Executive 10 Airport, which is located south of the City, during October 11 and November. 12 In the preregulation days of the 1960's, 24 percent 13 of the hours were reported as smoky, reduced visibility. 14 After the Burn-or-No-Burn Program went into effect, 15 smoky hours were reduced to 14 percent. 16 The Variable Acreage Program started in 1981, has 17 reduced smoky hours to four percent. Notice that this slide 18 shows the smoky hours during the fall months, this is because 19 this is the time of year most effected by agricultural 20 burning. 21 This pie graph shows the contributions of various 22 source categories of PM10 emissions, including rice straw 23 burning. 24 On the typical burn day in the fall, burning 3,000 25 acres of rice straw contributes about 10 percent of the days PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 PM10 emissions, making it the fourth highest PM10 contributor 2 after farming operations, unpaved road dust and construction 3 and demolition categories. 4 This slide shows how the air quality from 5 particulates and smoke varies by season. This graph shows the 6 five year average of the monthly PM10 exceedences of the 7 State standard by month. 8 As you see, the fall and winter months PM10 9 standard exceedences are most prevalent. During September, 10 October and November, about 50 percent of the days recorded 11 an exceedence somewhere in the Sacramento Air Basin. 12 Those are also the months when growers prefer to 13 better their fields soon after harvest to prepare for next 14 year's planting. 15 Also notice that exceedences are infrequent during 16 the spring months. This is despite the fact that even more 17 acres have traditionally been burned during the spring. 18 This is because of the Valley's meteorology. 19 During the spring and summer, the atmospheric conditions are 20 less stable enabling particulates from all sources to 21 disperse more easily. 22 This slide is another illustration of the better 23 meteorological conditions during the spring. The graph shows 24 fall on left and spring on the right. 25 The left bar in each group of the five years and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 right bar in each group shows the five year average of acres 2 burned during each season. 3 The right bar in each group shows the five year 4 average of complaints received during each season. Nearly 5 all complaints from the public about smoke from agricultural 6 burning are received during the fall. 7 During the last five years, 97 percent of the smoke 8 complaints were received during the fall, even though more 9 acres were burned during the spring. 10 With that background, we will now move on to the 11 requirements of the Act. Listed here are the basic 12 requirements of the Phase-Down Act. 13 To Phase-Down Act the burning of rice straw from 14 1992 to 2000, after which burning will be allowed only for 15 disease management. 16 The Act requires that an Advisory Committee be 17 appointed to study alternative uses of rice straw and to 18 develop a list of priority goals for the development of 19 alternatives. 20 I will present the Alternatives Advisory 21 Committee's recommendation in a few minutes. Another 22 Advisory Committee, which the Act created, is responsible for 23 assisting in the development of regulations to be followed 24 starting September, the year 2000, when the burning of rice 25 straw would be allowed only for disease management. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 This Committee was formed late last year and it has 2 met several times. Finally, the biennial Report to the 3 Legislature, to be developed jointly by the Air Resources 4 Board and the California Department of Food and Agriculture 5 on how the Phase-Down Act is progressing, and the reason we 6 are here today. 7 This slide shows the Phase-Down schedule of the 8 Phase-Down Act. The Act specifies the maximum rice acreage 9 that may be burned annually as the decreasing percentage of 10 rice acreage planted. 11 The burn year starts September 1 and ends 12 August 31 of the following year. The year the crop was 13 planted designates burn year. 14 For example, the 1996 burn year runs from September 15 1, 1996, through August 31, 1997. In the 1996 burn year, 50 16 percent of the acres planted were allowed to be burned. 17 After September 1, 2000, burning rice straw is only 18 allowed for disease management. Up to 25 percent of the 19 acres planted may be burned, up to a maximum of 125,000 20 acres. 21 To prepare for writing this Draft Report Report to 22 the Legislature, the staff's of the Air Resources Board and 23 the Department of Food and Agricultural made the following 24 efforts for public outreach. 25 Two workshops were held in April, one evening at PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 the Colusa County Fairgrounds, and one Saturday in 2 Sacramento. 3 Two stakeholder forums were held, one in March and 4 one in June. Numerous informal meetings were held with 5 individuals and various groups. 6 The Alternatives Advisory Committee held many 7 public meetings, including two meetings to discuss its 8 updated Report. 9 About 250 copies of the preliminary Draft Report 10 Report and the Alternatives Committee Report were mailed out 11 for public comment. 12 The Act requires the following items to be 13 addressed in the biennial Report. The progress of the 14 Phase-Down, the economic and environmental assessments, the 15 status of alternatives to burning, the Alternatives Advisory 16 Committee's recommendations and any recommended changes to 17 the Act. 18 These items will be covered in the same order. The 19 Phase-Down has proceeded as required. 20 During each year, so far, the amounts of rice straw 21 burned have been slightly less than allowed by the Act. 22 For example, in the 1996 burn year, 41 percent of 23 rice acreage planted were burned compared to 50 percent 24 allowed by the Act. 25 The Phase-Down has prevented the burning of almost PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 400,000 acres in the last two years. This slide shows that 2 during each year of the Phase-Down so far, the amounts of 3 rice straw burned have been slightly less than allowed by the 4 Act. 5 There are two main reasons why fewer acres were 6 burned than allowed. Districts require each grower to 7 designate which fields they will not burn, because individual 8 fields may be hundreds of acres, and because it may be 9 difficult to burn only part of the field, many growers 10 designate more no-burn acres than required. 11 Another reason is when some fields, which the 12 growers hope to burn in the fall do not get burned, the 13 growers may end up incorporating the straw during the fall 14 rather than wait to burn during the spring. 15 Shown on the graph are the percentages of planted 16 and burned acres of rice for the five Phase-Down years. 17 Although the percentage of acres planted that were 18 burned in the early years were decreasing, there was an 19 increase of planted acreage. 20 This graph shows the number of acres of rice 21 planted and burned during the first five years of the 22 Phase-Down Act. 23 Note that during the first three years, the number 24 of rice acres planted kept increasing, resulting in not much 25 of a change in the number of acres burned, this was a concern PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 voiced by the Board in the first biennial Report two years 2 ago. 3 This trend has changed, however with the number of 4 acres of rice planted stabilizing, resulting in a substantial 5 drop in acres burned. 6 In first year of the Phase-Down Act, about 303,000 7 acres were burned, in the latest burn year 1996, about 8 211,000 acres were burned. 9 The economic effects on rice growers result 10 primarily from the fact that currently the only alternative 11 to burning is incorporating the straw into the soil. 12 The cost of soil incorporation is estimated to 13 range from $8 to $75 an acre with an estimated average of $36 14 for each acre incorporated. 15 This compares to an average of $2 per acre for the 16 cost of burning. In 1996, when 50 percent of acreage was 17 allowed to be burned, the additional cost over all acres 18 planted was estimated at $17 per acre planted. 19 This represents an increase in the cost of rice 20 production. For perspective, the average revenue from an 21 acre of rice was about $780 last year. 22 In terms of the entire economy of the Sacramento 23 Value, this has had a small impact. However, the impact is 24 larger on the northern rice counties and may be significant 25 on individual growers. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 Implementing the Phase-Down Act has also increased 2 the workload of the local Air Pollution Control Districts and 3 the Agricultural Commissioners. 4 The districts must now track which fields are 5 designated not to be burned in compliance to the Phase-Down 6 Act requirements. 7 At the same time, because the district's revenues 8 to operate the Burn Program are derived from burn fees based 9 on the number of acres burned, the declining number of acres 10 burned results in declining revenues. 11 The districts have the authority to increase fee 12 schedules and to support implementation of this program from 13 other revenue sources. 14 The next three slides cover the environmental 15 effects of Phase-Down. Emissions have decreased during the 16 spring, because the Phase-Down Act of burning has primarily 17 taken place in the spring. 18 Emissions have increased during the fall, because 19 there has not been much change in fall burning and because 20 soil incorporation is primarily done during the fall. 21 Overall, annual emissions have decreased for all 22 pollutants, but especially for fine particles, PM 2.5. 23 This graph compares PM10 and PM 2.5 emissions from 24 the disposal of rice straw for the last two burn years to 25 what they would have been without the Phase-Down Act. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 The lower portion of each bar shows emissions from 2 burning rice straw and from diesel exhaust from operating the 3 farming equipment used for soil incorporation. 4 The top portion of each bar shows soil and dust 5 emissions from incorporating straw into the soil. 6 The emissions from burning and exhaust produce 7 primarily the fine particles called PM 2.5, which are a 8 greater health concern. 9 Emissions from burning also may travel farther 10 distances from their release point, up to 300 or 400 miles 11 and may stay airborne for a longer time. 12 Total PM10 decreased by about 20 percent, while the 13 fine particles PM 2.5, decreased by almost 40 percent. 14 The potential environmental effect of soil 15 incorporation are listed here, rice growers are concerned 16 repeated soil incorporation may cause increases in rice 17 diseases and decreases in yields. 18 Yields did decrease in 1995 by up to 15 percent, 19 but research has not established that these yield reductions 20 are attributable to incorporation. 21 Growers are also concerned because soil 22 incorporation is more costly, difficult in heavy clay soils 23 and that it may cause a delay in planting during the spring. 24 Many fields are flooded after the straw is 25 incorporated into the soil to enhance the decomposition of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 the straw. 2 Other concerns heard about possible environmental 3 effects of this practice are the effects on fish, 4 particularly salmon, water fowl habitat and water 5 conservation concerns. 6 We now move to status of alternatives to burning. 7 This slide shows the status of alternatives development, the 8 Advisory Committee's estimates of straw usage. 9 The Advisory Committee has estimated that only 10 0.6 percent straw was used off-field in 1996. Soil 11 incorporation has been the only alternative to date. 12 The Committee estimates that only two percent of 13 straw would be used off-field by the year 2000, if no changes 14 are made to nurture their development. 15 The Committee believes that if their 16 recommendations are implemented, the results would be 25 17 percent off-field use by the year 2000. 18 Currently, 99 percent of straw that is not burned 19 is incorporated into the soil. This situation is likely to 20 continue, although it could change if other alternative uses 21 for rice straw are aggressively pursued. 22 In the last year, only about 8,800 tons of straw, 23 out of one and a half million tons available, were removed 24 from the fields and used for erosion control and livestock 25 feeding and bedding. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 Financial and business strategies are needed for 2 nurturing the development of alternatives to burning. 3 Listed here are some promising projects that are 4 currently being developed. 5 The rice paper project. Last year several of the 6 State's newspapers, including The Los Angeles Times, The San 7 Francisco Chronicle and The Sacramento Bee, printed a portion 8 of their papers using a test run of newsprint made from 9 agricultural waste including rice straw. 10 A plan to create paper pulp from rice straw is 11 currently being planned. A plan to produce fiberboard has 12 been constructed in the County of Colusa and is expected to 13 use about 21,000 tons of straw yearly, representing about 14 7,000 acres. 15 There are two rice straw to ethanol projects in 16 development in the Sacramento Valley. The Alternatives 17 Advisory Committee has estimated that if the best case 18 projections of the two projects are fulfilled, up to 40 19 percent of the average yearly production of rice straw could 20 be used. 21 With the next several slides I'll discuss potential 22 alternatives to burning identified by the Alternatives 23 Advisory Committee and the Committee's recommendations. 24 The Advisory Committee on Alternatives to Rice 25 Straw Burning was created by the Act to identify alternatives PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 to burning and to develop a list of priority goals for the 2 development of alternative uses of rice straw. 3 The Committee includes 10 members representing the 4 rice industry, health and medical professions, elected County 5 Supervisors, environmentalists and an end-user of rice straw 6 business representative. 7 The Committee has updated their status Report and 8 it is included in your Board book material. The Committee 9 Chairman, Lloyd Forest, is here today, and might be persuaded 10 to say a few words after my presentation. 11 The Committee identified these potential 12 alternatives. In the category of energy production and 13 by-products, there are transportation fuels, industrial 14 chemicals, direct combustion, ethanol and anaerobic 15 digestion. 16 In the area of the manufacturing and construction, 17 paper, fiberboard, composites, panels and bale construction. 18 Another promising category in which rice straw has 19 already been used is environment mitigation for erosion 20 control and fire rehabilitation. 21 The last identified category is for livestock, food 22 and bedding. 23 This slide summarizes the Alternatives Advisory 24 Committee's recommendations. The Committee has recommended 25 that financial incentives, demonstration projects, loan PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 guarantees and regulatory support be provided to promote rice 2 straw consuming projects. 3 The Committee has recommended the support of 4 research on agricultural practices to manage straw disposal 5 problem. 6 Last year, a new State Tax Credit Program was 7 established for the purchasers of rice straw. The California 8 Department of Food and Agriculture administers this program 9 in which end-users of rice straw may get a tax credit of $15 10 for each ton of California grown rice straw purchased in each 11 of the next 12 years. 12 The total credits granted to all taxpayers must not 13 exceed $400,000 each year. This represents about one and a 14 half percent of the rice straw generated yearly. 15 The Advisory Committee has recommended this cap be 16 raised. Virtually all stakeholders believe that the 17 emergence of economically sound activities that consume large 18 amounts of rice straw will be the key to the successful 19 implementation of the Phase-Down Act. 20 This slide shows the one recommendation from the 21 Air Resources Board and the Department of Food and 22 Agriculture for your consideration today. 23 To establish a coordinated Statewide policy to 24 provide policy and financial support for the establishment of 25 out-of-field uses for rice straw. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 In the next two slides, I will discuss the recent 2 developments which would change the Phase-Down Act. 3 Senate Bill 318, authored by Senator Mike Thompson, 4 passed both the Assembly and the Senate. SB 318 would 5 essentially pause the Phase-Down Act for three years, fall 6 burning of rice straw would be limited to 90,000 acres, about 7 the average of what has been burned during the fall during 8 the last four years, 110,000 acres would be allowed to be 9 burned in the spring plus another 50,000 acres may be burned 10 during the spring to the extent they are not burned in the 11 fall. 12 The fall burn limits apply from September 1, to 13 December 31, while the spring burn limits apply January 1, to 14 May 31, of the following year. 15 SB 318 would also relax the disease burning 16 requirements after September 1, 2001, that allow burning 25 17 percent of planted acreage up to 125,000 acres. 18 Under the current law, the County Agricultural 19 Commissioner makes a determination after the rice has been 20 harvested whether a pathogen actually caused a significant 21 quantifiable reduction in yields. 22 Under SB 318, the County Agricultural Commissioner 23 would need to find that the existence of a pathogen will 24 likely cause a significant quantifiable reduction in yield 25 and the current, or the next growing season, and this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 determination may be made before the rice has been 2 harvested. 3 This slide shows the new projects and additional 4 requirements which would be created under SB 318. 5 By September 1, 1998, the Air Resources Board is to 6 develop an Implementation Plan and Schedule to achieve 7 diversion of not less than 50 percent of rice straw produced 8 towards all field uses by the year 2000. 9 The implementation plan would be developed in 10 consultation with the Department of Food and Agriculture, the 11 Alternatives Advisory Committee and the Department of Trade 12 and Commerce. 13 The status of the Implementation Plan and the 14 Schedule and progress towards achieving the 50 percent 15 diversion goal would need to be included in the currently 16 required biennial reports to the Legislature. 17 The Bill would also create the Rice Straw 18 Demonstration Project Fund to be administered by the Air 19 Resources Board for developing demonstration projects for new 20 rice straw technologies. 21 The grants would provide up to 50 percent of the 22 cost for each demonstration project according to the criteria 23 developed by the Board in consultation with the University of 24 California, Department of Trade and Commerce and the 25 Department of Food and Agriculture and the criteria adopted PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 at a noticed public hearing. 2 The grants are to be allocated during the 1997-1998 3 and 1998-1999 fiscal years. Another Bill, AB 1571, allocates 4 $2.5 million for this program for the first fiscal year. 5 SB 318 would add projects dealing with the disposal 6 of agricultural waste to the list of projects which may be 7 considered for financing by the California Pollution Control 8 Financing Authority. 9 The Bill would also require the Air Resources Board 10 and the California Department of Food and Agriculture to 11 jointly collect and analyze data relevant to air quality and 12 public health impacts, and to the extent feasible, the 13 economic impacts that may be associated with the burning of 14 rice straw pursuant to the revised schedule in the Bill. 15 The findings of this analysis would be presented in 16 a Report to the Legislature by July 1, 2001. 17 Before I conclude my presentation, I would like to 18 Report on three additional comment letters that were received 19 after the Draft Report was printed. 20 The first letter is Mr. Leland Drew, a rice grower 21 from Yuba City. Mr. Drew describes the disadvantages of rice 22 straw incorporation, the benefits of fall burning and the 23 disadvantages of spring burning. 24 Mr. Drew also points out that rice growing changes 25 carbon dioxide to oxygen during the 130-day growing season. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 Mr. Drew urges that rice growers be allowed to 2 contribute scientific data, rather than experts who are not 3 rice growers, and has suggestions for improving the burning 4 program under which he estimates his losses at over $100,000 5 in three years. 6 The second letter is from Nacy Sumat, Manager of 7 Regulatory Affairs, Arconol Incorporated. Arconol has a 8 permit to build a rice straw to ethanol plant in Rio Linda. 9 The letter lists the benefits to the local 10 community and to the environment of the proposed plants. 11 They support the recommendations of the 12 Alternatives Advisory Committee and offer additional 13 suggestions for public policy and funding assistance to 14 overcome the hurdles they have experienced in trying to move 15 to commercialization. 16 The third letter is from Mr. Rodney Hill, Air 17 Pollution Control Officer of Northern Sierra Air Quality 18 Management District. 19 Mr. Hill describes the ongoing problem of smoke 20 from rice straw burning in the Sacramento Valley inundating 21 his District in the foothills. 22 The Northern Sierra District received two 23 complaints about such impacts a couple of weeks ago on 24 September 8. 25 Mr. Hill discusses the following issues that he PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 feels need to be addressed. He states that allowing 2 Agricultural Commissioners, who are also APCO's, Air 3 Pollution Control Officers, to have decision-making authority 4 over Agricultural Burning Programs is an inherent conflict of 5 interests. 6 He urges the Air Resources Board's oversights to 7 ensure coordination of agricultural burns between airbasins 8 and coordination of prescribed fires, especially when the new 9 Federal PM 2.5 standards are implemented. 10 He expressed concerns that Senate Bill 318 may 11 increase the smoke impacts to the western foothills of the 12 Sierra Nevada. 13 This concludes my presentation on the second 14 biennial status Report to the Legislature, as required by the 15 Connelly-Areias-Chandler Rice Straw Burning Reduction Act of 16 1991. 17 I would like to introduce Mr. Lloyd Forest, 18 Chairman of the Alternatives Advisory Committee. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Do we have to coax him? 20 You indicated we might have to coax Lloyd to say a 21 few things. 22 Welcome, Mr. Forest. 23 MR. FOREST: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. 24 I roll over quite easily. I am easily coaxed. 25 I want to compliment Lesha on the Report. She PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 probably did a better job than I would have done in 2 presenting the findings of the Committee, and I would also, 3 if I might, take a couple of minutes and compliment your 4 other staff on behalf of the Committee, Arndt Lorenzen, Lesha 5 also, Terry McGuire, Don McNerny, they had a lot of patience 6 in dealing, not only with the Committee, but with all of the 7 participants in the Committee's process of taking comments 8 and involved in the Report and they did an excellent job, and 9 really, on before of the Committee, thank you. 10 I would also compliment you on, actually the other 11 appointees of the Committee. I have sat on a lot of 12 Committee's, and some of you know, I used to be in State 13 Government up until 1986, and this Committee has been one of 14 the easier ones to work with. 15 I think that it is a microcosm, the stakeholders in 16 this whole rice growing issue. I saw in the other Members of 17 the Committee, a willingness to rise above our respective 18 postures and positions and try to come up with some 19 recommendations and some findings that were in the public 20 interest and the public good and each of the Committee 21 Members did that. 22 As a result, I think at least what you see here, on 23 any one of the Committee Members as any one of you on a 24 particular vote may have modified it slightly, but we had an 25 unanimous vote for what you see before you today, from the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 Committee. 2 I would like to thank you for the representation 3 that you made in appointing a Committee, and also thank the 4 Committee for the patience in getting here. 5 Also, at each of our meetings we had, and in fact, 6 there are some of the Members in the audience from both the 7 environmental side and interested citizens, as well as the 8 rice growing industry, we had many meetings, long hours, and 9 as you face in your deliberations, very tedious times, but 10 everybody exhibited a lot of patience and listening and 11 respecting other people's opinion. 12 With that, maybe I could direct your attention and 13 make a few comments on the Report, if you have the separate 14 Report, it would be page 1 and 2, the Executive Summary, and 15 if you have the Board package, it would be on pages 90 and 16 91. 17 If you permit me, I might make a few comments 18 relative to summarizing the Report. As Lesha indicated, a 19 little change and findings of this Report from the 1995 20 Report. 21 We found, and looking at the market place 22 currently, there is less than one percent of the rice straw 23 is being used by any commercial application. 24 If you continue business-as-usual, the year 2000, 25 it is unlikely that there will be more than two percent in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 the marketplace. 2 That obviously shaped the Committee's 3 recommendations for looking at what can Government do, 4 particularly State Government, and the agencies to bring 5 those technologies, which are surfacing, are there in the 6 marketplace, bring them into the marketplace sooner, and 7 particularly as it relates around 2000 year time period. 8 There has been, I would add, there has been a lot 9 of activity in the last two years since we produced that 10 first Report. 11 A lot of new entrepreneurs have surfaced, and a lot 12 higher attention prioritywise at both the local Government 13 levels, certainly in the rice industry, the environmentalist 14 community and the State Legislature in how to address this 15 problem. 16 There was originally an expectation, I think, 17 erroneous, as we have grown to see, that if they mandated a 18 Phase-Down Act in the Legislature of the rice straw, that the 19 commercial entrepreneurs would come in and create an use for 20 that rice straw. 21 I would suggest that the entrepreneurs are there, 22 the technologies are there, you are out of phase with the 23 marketplace, and those technologies being there by the year 24 2000, there is going to be a lag. 25 As our Report indicates, even under, at least, our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 set of recommendations, the ones that we thought were, at 2 least, doable and implementable, that there is still going to 3 be a lag under the best case analysis. 4 I see again in SB 318, a further and even harder 5 mandate to come up with a plan, on your part, to do something 6 by the year 2000, very, very difficult. 7 On page 2, of the Committee's Report, and again, I 8 will be a bit redundant. 9 MS. HYRNCHUK: Page 92 in the Board book. 10 MR. FOREST: Okay. 11 On page 2 of the Report, I am going to focus your 12 attention on the three areas of roles for Government and 13 maybe talk a little bit about them perspectivewise. 14 I think God is paying me back for having worked in 15 Government for about 24 years, since 1986 in the private 16 sector, having to deal with Government on commercialization 17 issues, I would suggest that it has been a great education 18 working both sides of the street, so to speak, at different 19 times in my career, but it has made me very, very cautious on 20 public subsidies, particularly on new technologies. 21 My firm, I think that one of the reasons that I was 22 appointed, is that we specialize in biomass area, ag waste, 23 forest residue, urban waste and putting them into an end-use 24 market, and most of our clients are investment banks or 25 developers, and that is really on the private sector side. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 I have often recommended to them that, don't go to 2 Government for subsidies, because they really can screw up 3 your whole business plan and your weighting of your 4 decisions. 5 That leads you to, where is it appropriate, how can 6 you artfully sculpture Government subsidies without really 7 dominating the decisions of the marketplace as to which of 8 those entrepreneurs win the footrace. 9 I would say that background colors, I think, 10 certainly, my way of approaching the recommendation, and I 11 think it probably influences the Committee, and I know it's 12 one that you as policymakers in this agency will deal with 13 and have dealt with. 14 Maybe to put it in perspective, the assumptions in 15 my mind is something like this, there is a major footrace. 16 If you are an entrepreneur in the marketplace and 17 trying to add some value in the marketplace and get your 18 technology, or your product, or your service commercialized 19 where you are making a profit and a return for your 20 investment. 21 Since 1986, I started about five companies, one of 22 them is a consulting company, the others are in areas 23 unrelated to this, fortunately. 24 I have dealt with, as all these entrepreneurs do, 25 the problem of risking all of your assets in order to get PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 something in the marketplace that adds value, and that is the 2 test for these entrepreneurs, is to find somebody in the 3 marketplace that will say the following, I will pay you for 4 adding the following value, and then you overlay upon that, 5 that's going on out there. 6 The marketplace is the question of public 7 subsidies. The marketplace is very ruthless in sorting out 8 new technologies, new products, and it strictly comes back to 9 that one question: Can you find somebody out there who will 10 pay you to add some additional value? 11 I say that sincerely, because my concern on 12 recommendations like this and subsidies, is that Government 13 in trying to bring these technologies into the marketplace 14 sooner, which is really what you are doing with subsidies, 15 you are not trying to bring technologies into the marketplace 16 that wouldn't make it without Government subsidies, and in my 17 opinion you shouldn't, is that you should try and do it by 18 keeping the weight of the decision in the private marketplace 19 of adding that value. 20 So that gets me to one other perspective that I 21 would like to leave with you, and that is, you start on the 22 commercialization side of what is happening on the 23 marketplace and somebody comes up with a good idea and that 24 is on how to add a new product in the marketplace. 25 The next step in that commercialization process is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 to get it documented and get it reviewed by the people with 2 expertise that can critique it and tell you, what I call deal 3 killing issues. 4 If you get past that stage, then you try and go to 5 your own assets, people that believe in you, your friends, 6 your relatives and borrow some money to begin the development 7 of it. 8 About 90 percent of the good ideas, many of them 9 which could add a lot of value to the marketplace, are weeded 10 out at that stage of the process. 11 Those that can go beyond that and then begin 12 covering something besides just their technical expertise of 13 that particular concept and cover the expertise needed on 14 risk assessment, on environmental impacts, permitting the 15 marketing side the economics of what you are displacing in 16 the marketplace and the risk, in effect, of putting some 17 money into that concept at a very early stage before you have 18 much certainty that it is going to generate any profit on the 19 back end to recover your investment. 20 The people that do that are a small percentage of 21 the people in our society, but to go to that stage and why I 22 have a lot of respect for all of the entrepreneurs we have 23 listened to on this Committee, and some you will probably be 24 hearing from today, is that you have to risk all of your 25 assets, you have got a sole belief in that product that is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 not on the marketplace, to risk those assets. 2 The marketplace weeds all those entrepreneurs out 3 for a variety of reasons. Again, the question, I think, on 4 these recommendations, is how do you, as Government, based 5 upon public benefits that you have to justify the taxpayer 6 that you want to subsidize these technologies of getting into 7 the marketplace, how do you do it in a manner that brings 8 them in the marketplace sooner and also leaves the decision 9 to the marketplace of sorting out, in a very ruthless 10 fashion, those that truly are adding value to the 11 marketplace? 12 I don't have a good panacea formula for that. My 13 clients, particularly on the investment side and the 14 developer side, that's what we do in, what we call, risk 15 assessment feasibility study, but to let you, give you some 16 perspective, at least what is my comments and a lot of the 17 deliberation that you have had with the Committee, that is 18 how we are looking at the recommendation for subsidies, that 19 is very important to at least give you that background. 20 I think that if as SB 318 envisions, that you have 21 a plan that is implementable by the year 2000, that diverts 22 50 percent of the rice straw. 23 I think I had a call from Terry McGuire yesterday 24 on that question and my answer initially was I don't think it 25 is possible. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 After thinking about it, I had forgotten about the 2 ability to throw money at a problem, I think it is possible, 3 if there is enough money put into it within the next year. 4 An estimate, and this is not in the Report and the 5 statute passed out to the Committee got the Report together, 6 but an estimate that I would have is that it would probably 7 take on the order of $10 million a year, on a five plus year 8 basis, plus, probably, an initial commitment of about $30 9 million. 10 Probably it would have to be done during this next 11 year in order to have any impact of significance by the year 12 2000. 13 With that, Mr. Chairman, I apologize for going into 14 some perspective building background on it, but I felt it 15 might be of value to you in your deliberations. 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mr. Forest. 17 I also appreciate the time and effort you put in on 18 this endeavor, I know it's not always pleasurable, because 19 there is an awful lot of contrasting opinions. 20 What I would like to do, can you stay with us a 21 bit. We may need to call you back. 22 On a few comments, I was grateful for your honesty, 23 I don't know if I should be offended as a representative of 24 Government though, because philosophically, I tend to agree 25 with you that when Government gets involved in trying to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 subsidize or promote, we often times can make a mess of 2 things. 3 There have been some examples, and I know you are 4 very familiar with the work that the Energy Commission has 5 done and this Board. In past times it has worked, but I know 6 it can be a challenge in many instances. 7 Thank you. 8 Are there any questions of Lloyd? 9 MR. FOREST: I was criticizing myself. 10 I had been a party to passing out millions of 11 dollars in some of my past assignments and some of them 12 really did not support the decision in the marketplace. 13 I use myself as the critical target here. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. 15 Mr. Parnell. 16 MR. PARNELL: Lloyd, first of all, I want to thank 17 you. 18 I have known Lloyd for many, many years, and the 19 dedication and the pain that he has gone to, to head this 20 Committee, and I think it is almost unprecedented, where you 21 get interested parties together to bury their individual 22 agendas and start to really look at an issue with problem 23 solving in mind and so I commend you for that. 24 I just wanted you to clarify one thing for me. I 25 also have been involved with Government here and there for a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 while, and I agree with you, I think, that subsidies by 2 Government that are continuing subsidies sometimes run amok, 3 because you basically get into the marketplace things that 4 probably won't stand on their own economically without the 5 subsidy, and I guess that I wanted your comment just briefly, 6 and I think you covered it, but maybe more specifically now, 7 if we are going to subsidize, it seems to me that they allow 8 these technologies that may languish if there isn't a little 9 up-front money to allow some pilots to be built to be able to 10 determine whether or not they are attractive to the 11 investment community. 12 It seems like that is where Government can 13 interface with the problem solving and yet have their, lets 14 see, how do I say that, become unattached to the result and 15 let the private sector make its own decisions after they have 16 had a fair opportunity to demonstrate whether or not the 17 particular technology is economically viable. 18 MR. FOREST: I am glad you asked that question, 19 Jack, because during the deliberations on SB 318, I was asked 20 to come in and talk with some of the staff and the rice 21 growers and then subsequently add some input. 22 The question that came to me from that process was 23 is there a gap in the private marketplace for demonstration 24 funding, and the answer is yes. 25 Typically, a demonstration project is not PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 economically projected to be economical and may be a 2 break-even project. If you are fortunate, it may even make a 3 little bit of money. 4 To a private investor, at least my clients, they 5 would not expect to get a return on that investment. There 6 is a stage in the commercialization between a laboratory 7 bench test, or a very small application, and moving it up to 8 what you would call a production scale, in this case, and 9 that is not a full-blown commercial facility in terms of 10 production and return on investment. 11 The private market is not forthcoming to move that 12 into the marketplace. I think there is an appropriate role 13 for Government. 14 Typically, the entrepreneurs that get it that far, 15 90 plus percent of them have dropped out once they get it to 16 that stage for lack of funding, usually, but I think that 17 there is a role, and I think that is probably one of the two 18 and a half million demonstration project funding was in that 19 Legislation. 20 MR. PARNELL: Thank you, Lloyd, for your comments. 21 Behind my appointment somewhere it says that I 22 represent agriculture, and agriculture is all that I have 23 been about in my entire lifetime. 24 As we move forward on this project, the first and 25 the burning issue is to find and resolve the issue of rice PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 straw burning, but beyond that there is another phase that if 2 we entertain the idea of just getting alternatives to the 3 extent that the rice grower can rid himself of the problem of 4 burning, that's one issue, but I really believe that the 5 whole rice straw issue is an issue that when it's ultimately 6 resolved, so long as we don't muddy it up too much, we will 7 be adding something to the bottomline of rice growers, and 8 God knows they need it. 9 There is a potential here if we all keep our caps 10 screwed on tightly and correctly that maybe there will be 11 technology emerge here that will do really something positive 12 for this very dynamic group of people that put their net 13 worths at risk every year they put seed in the ground up 14 there. 15 MR. FOREST: It is a potential for win, win, win, 16 with the citizens, with the environment and then adding to 17 the income and the future of the rice growers. 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Lloyd. 19 What I would like to do is hear from our 20 Ombudsman. 21 Mr. Kenny, do you have anything else to add before 22 we get to the witnesses? 23 Mr. Ombudsman, can you say a word or two about the 24 process? 25 I mentioned a bit in my remarks, we heard a bit PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 from our presenter and staff, but could you give us your 2 views, briefly, and then we will get into the witnesses? 3 MR. SCHONING: Certainly. 4 Mr. Chairman and Members, most but not all matters 5 that come before you are matters of Statewide impact. 6 This one does affect only a portion of California 7 directly, but it affects a portion that ARB itself finds 8 itself a member of that community. 9 We believe, members of the staff as you have 10 already heard, have reached out together with their partners 11 at the Department of Food and Agriculture effectively through 12 a variety of workshops and efforts. 13 The Chairman himself described many of the efforts, 14 and he has been a part of that outreach effort. We think it 15 has been broad-based and constructive, and hopefully it will 16 prove productive. 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Jim, I appreciate 18 that. 19 Why don't we get into the witness list. I will ask 20 my Board Member colleagues to just hold questions. 21 I will give you plenty of opportunity to ask 22 anything that you would like unless you need any clarifying 23 points covered by staff. 24 I'll ask the witnesses to come forward. Ed Romano, 25 from Glenn County; Earl Withycombe, from American Lung PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 Association. 2 If I could get you to just to move forward, perhaps 3 sit in the front row and then cue up as I call your names. 4 Joe Carrancho, Rice Producers of California; Al 5 Wong, Arbokem Canada; Howard Carnahan, a rice grower; Glen 6 Camp, from the Enviro Board of California; Ingrid Puglia, a 7 citizen representative. 8 So, Mr. Romano, and again all of the other 9 witnesses, if you could come forward to the front row, I'd 10 appreciate it. 11 Good morning, Mr. Romano. How are things in Glenn 12 County? 13 MR. ROMANO: Oh, they are fine, I guess. I am here 14 now, so everything is fine in Glenn County. 15 If you want to look at one of those despicable 16 characters that Rodney Hill described in his letter, here I 17 am. 18 I also have joining me here today from Colusa 19 County, Harry Krug. Why don't you stand up, Harry, so they 20 see what one of those despicable characters looks like. 21 That is kind of the large and the small version of 22 those types of individuals. As you know, I happen to be the 23 Agriculture Commissioner at Glenn County. 24 I also serve as Air Pollution Control Officer. I 25 am even more contaminated than Rodney said, I am also a small PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 businessman. 2 So, I have all kinds of contamination. I wanted to 3 let you know that Glenn and Colusa Counties had an electorate 4 vote for 60 years, it joined the two Counties on the 5 Sacramento River, I guess we are innovators, even though we 6 come from up north where we are a little more backwards than 7 the people down here in Sacramento and San Francisco. 8 I was going to make some pointed remarks about your 9 Report, but I thought, oh, they did a fine job putting the 10 Report in there. 11 There is a lot of good information and it will 12 certainly hold the door back, and so I am not going to spend 13 my time commenting on those. 14 I will just make a few comments that I think may 15 move us forward. We are often accused of being an Ag 16 Commissioner wanting growers to burn all they can burn and I 17 got to thinking, well, you know, that really is not my 18 desire. 19 I live up there. I don't care whether a rice 20 grower burns an acre or not. 21 But I do care about one thing, and I think that the 22 people that wrote the Bill cared about one thing, they said 23 the reason that we are here today is to look how it affected 24 our industry. 25 One of the goals of the Department and of the Air PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 Resources Board today is to provide a transition period to 2 the phase-down, to tweak the phase-down, say, so we can 3 maintain a viable rice industry while we are accomplishing 4 the other goal, which is clean air. 5 We all like clean air. It is good for crops and it 6 is good for all of us. I'm afraid I don't see this Report 7 doing that. 8 I know I wasn't contacted, I know Harry wasn't 9 contacted, what can we do to make this work a little better? 10 How could we keep a viable rice industry 11 through this transition period, and how could we also 12 improve the air? 13 I don't see suggestions in this Report that go 14 about doing that. I see 318 maybe making a step in that 15 direction. 16 I see alternatives, yes, they are great, if we can 17 convince someone to buy the products or someone to give us 18 the money to build the plants to produce the products. 19 I think that we need to step back, as you the 20 Board, we are probably in fault as Air Pollution Districts 21 and in part by looking at some of the things maybe that we 22 can do to reach the two goals, a little better job than this 23 Report does. 24 This Report has got a lot of fine information and 25 it talks about whether smoke is good or bad or not. I am not PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 going to talk on that, because we could spend all of our 2 time. 3 What we need to do is sit down together and go to 4 the Legislation and say here are the things that you can do 5 to make this better so we can have a viable rice industry and 6 so that we can have cleaner air. 7 I think that we can do that if we work together. 8 I don't know if this Report does that. 9 It says that the phase-down does nothing, but if 10 you look at your Report on page 27, you will see that the 11 smoke hours have even decreased further since the phase-down 12 was in. 13 It does certainly reduce the pressure on burning, 14 but burning is a tool that farmers do need to control 15 diseases, and we can't miss that point. 16 We do need someone to produce food on our ground, 17 and we do want clean air. I think as you look through this 18 Report, maybe we need to hold off awhile and sit down and see 19 if we can make some suggestions that will really reach those 20 two goals of a viable rice industry and cleaner air. 21 Thank you. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. 23 Mr. Krug, Harry, did you want to add or subtract of 24 that? 25 I apologize for pointing out to the audience, Harry PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 Krug is also from Colusa County. He is the Air Pollution 2 Control Officer and the Ag Commissioner. 3 Okay. Good. 4 Dr. Friedman. 5 DR. FRIEDMAN: I would like to ask a question which 6 emanates my own ignorance about growing anything. 7 I've heard, and I believe that the argument that 8 when you burn, you get rid of disease. If you just took the 9 rice straw, didn't burn it, took it someplace else for some 10 alternative purpose, aren't you leaving the pathogen in the 11 soil? 12 Won't the next crop be affected so that while the 13 Alternative Program makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways, it 14 certainly doesn't specifically alter the potential for 15 disease, or am I misreading that, the farmers amongst you 16 must tell me if I am misreading that? 17 MR. McGUIRE: There is no research going on. I 18 can't comment on this as an expert other than to say that 19 UC Davis and others are optimistic that if you remove the 20 substraight, you take the infection reservoir, certainly you 21 leave some spores and things there, but you can hopefully 22 reduce the disease incidence a great deal by removing the 23 straw from the field, but I reiterate, that is not 24 established. 25 DR. FRIEDMAN: So, it is like having a little bit PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 of ammonia, but not a lot. 2 MR. McGUIRE: Having a little bit, and I think the 3 general consensus is that none of these plants pathogens are 4 eradicable, but instead are more manageable and the less 5 infection reservoir that you have at the beginning of the 6 season, the less prevalence you will find. 7 MR. SCHEIBLE: Like many of the diseases, like 8 stemrot are very endemic, and it's managing the disease so 9 that the yield loss, or the level, does not seriously affect 10 the quantity harvested. 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I don't want to get sidetracked 12 too far, but Dr. Friedman brings up a good point. 13 Could you mention what the law allows for now 14 relative to disease control and burning, just actually what 15 can be done, riceblast, for example, how that was dealt 16 with? 17 MR. SCHEIBLE: Well, there is a provision in the 18 law that says if there is unique or unusual circumstances 19 that produce a threat and the phase-down is in the way of 20 mitigating that, that we can waive the provision for a good 21 cause, and we at the Department of Food and Agriculture, we 22 exercised that last year to allow acres that suffered from 23 riceblast, which a very serious disease that hadn't been seen 24 before in the Sacramento Valley, to be burned without 25 counting against the allocation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: There is a provision for disease 2 being dealt with, something obviously we as stewards of this 3 Program and in concert with Food and Ag, we take very 4 seriously, but there is an Executive Order Provision where 5 the Governor can declare a need to have these acres burned in 6 order to control disease. 7 Mr. Romano, did you want to add anything to the 8 question? 9 MR. ROMANO: Just briefly, that removing the straw 10 provides some relief from disease, some diseases. Burning 11 provides, as we might say, an organic means of controlling 12 disease. 13 We certainly don't want to eliminate that, but I 14 think that between the two, you can do a good job of it. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Good deal. 16 Mr. Romano, one thing I can't let pass, and I don't 17 want to indict Harry necessarily, but I may if he has a 18 comment, we really worked hard, and I know because I 19 personally directed the outreach here, to reach out to people 20 to be inclusive and include them in the process here, so I am 21 very surprised that you guys were not noticed and asked to 22 participate. 23 MR. ROMANO: We did sit down as sister agencies and 24 talk about the issues. 25 You had a public meeting and we were both there, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 but we never sat down as the big brother agency, the ARB, we 2 would do it in a second, but we were never brought into that 3 Report, it says here is what can be done to improve it. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. 5 Mr. Withycombe, followed by Joe Carrancho. I don't 6 see Joe in the front row, Joe get up here. 7 I want everybody in the front row. I went through 8 the list, Al Wong, come on. 9 MR. WITHYCOMBE: Mr. Chairman, and Members of the 10 Board, my name is Earl Withycombe, representing here today 11 the American Lung Association of California. 12 With respect to that question that you were just 13 deliberating, the Committee that negotiated SB 318, a group 14 of representatives from the rice grower community and the 15 public health environmental communities went through a fact 16 finding session to come up to speed with the current 17 information available in this field before undertaking 18 negotiations. 19 During that fact finding session, we heard from Dr. 20 Bob Webster, pathologist from UC Davis, who indicated that 21 the results of some research that he's conducting now 22 indicates that if the straw is removed annually that will 23 keep fungus levels down to the level achieved by burning the 24 same field three years out of every four. 25 We have heard, basically, that if the fields were PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 to be burned it was his recommendation that they be burned 2 every other year to maintain a high safety margin for 3 maintenance of control of disease, and his research indicated 4 that if you remove the straw three years out of every four 5 you would achieve the same control level on those diseases. 6 My presentation today is on the Report and some of 7 the issues that the Report covers. First of all, we would 8 like to thank the Board and the staff for the development of 9 what we see is very useful and informative. 10 We have followed this particular issue with 11 significant interest because of the concerns of our 12 constituents in the metropolitan and rural areas of this part 13 of California for the last 25 years, and we will continue to 14 be here to make presentations to urge that you recognize this 15 as a serious public health matter in this region, as we 16 continue to stand here offering our assistance and what 17 information we have from the public health side to assist you 18 in your deliberations toward achieving our goals of clean 19 air. 20 With respect to the state-of-the-art of the Rice 21 Burning Program, at this point, we feel there are a number of 22 gaps in knowledge that we still need to identify and 23 address. 24 Rice smoke in our communities is still a component 25 of particulate that we cannot accurately identify because of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 deficiencies in the existing methods that we have been using, 2 chemical mass balance, for example, looking at the elemental 3 distribution in the smoke in our air compared to the rice 4 smoke. 5 We feel the Board should be looking at the 6 possibility of greater success with other markers such as 7 organic gas, biological markers, which have been used by 8 Kasp, for example, in the first instance, very successfully 9 in Los Angeles. 10 In the second instance, looking at biological 11 markers of the very small organisms that live and thrive in 12 the habitats of unique plant species, this is a methodology 13 that is being used with success in eastern Washington to 14 identify the relative sources of future dust emissions. 15 We feel that there may be an opportunity to further 16 analyze chemical mass balance as a tool if we analyze aged 17 rice smoke as opposed to fresh smoke that Brian Jenkins in 18 his burn lab in UC Davis has been evaluating. 19 Regardless, we deserve to be able to provide better 20 answers to both growers and to the general public about how 21 much particulate in our air is really being generated by rice 22 smoke and how much is coming from other sources. 23 By virtue of the fact that a week ago last Tuesday 24 the new Federal PM 2.5 standards, the ozone standards, became 25 effective, urges that we identify the outstanding data gaps PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 with respect to PM 2.5 concentrations in our Valley and 2 identify the rice smoke contributions to those, especially on 3 the episode days, those days when we have a great deal of 4 rice straw burning going on. 5 We feel that the health effects are poorly 6 characterized, and with respect to this issue we applaud the 7 Board in approving the research that we have urged for the 8 last couple of years that you consider that would expose both 9 healthy and sensitive individuals to concentrations of rice 10 smoke and other types of smoke to begin to determine whether 11 the information that we are receiving may have some validity, 12 that is it appears that there are some unique antagonists in 13 rice smoke that is especially irritating to lung passages. 14 We don't know whether that is of the form 15 particulate that rice smoke is in our air or whether some 16 unique chemical agent such as the silicon content that is 17 present that may be responsible. 18 Regardless, we feel that it behooves us to identify 19 at what level people are adversely affected, and those levels 20 may be much lower than the research indicates that people are 21 adversely affected by soil particulates in the air, for 22 example. 23 With respect to Senate Bill 318, you are charged 24 with undertaking a study for 43 years on the health effects, 25 effects on air quality of burning that is now regulated in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 the fall, but now it is allocated to some degree in the 2 spring. 3 We stand ready, as a Lung Association, to help you 4 in that regard, if there is anything that we can do to 5 assist. 6 I would mention that we are participating currently 7 in providing information to the Department of Health Services 8 with respect to the analysis of the Medi-Cal data looking for 9 relationships between asthma incidents and air quality as 10 identified by several air quality parameters. 11 We are also providing information in working to 12 support an effort that is being conducted by the Kaiser 13 Permanente Group, analyzing the relationship between air 14 pollution and health outcomes for their four million 15 subscribers in Northern and Southern California. 16 We hope to be able to bring that information 17 definitely by the time that you have to generate your next 18 biennial Report. 19 We think that the program needs to recognize some 20 data gaps and collection efforts and improve those. We do 21 not have now, as your staff recognized, on the Report that is 22 before you, a good handle on identifying how many acres are 23 burned in spring. 24 We have had an intensive fall burning program that 25 is very effective in keeping track of acres burned, so if you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 use this data to develop and analyze further the health 2 effects and activity in the field, we have no such database 3 in the spring. 4 In fact, we can't accurately identify in the Report 5 how many acres are burned in the spring since SB 318 is now 6 looking carefully at shifting allocating of burning the 7 spring, the atmosphere is better prepared to disperse that 8 smoke to make sure that the counting programs are in place to 9 do as adequate a job in spring as we have in the fall. 10 We feel that the spring Monitoring Program, or 11 actually, the Program throughout the year, needs to expand 12 the network of telemetry of air quality monitoring stations 13 to include that portion of the Sierra Nevada foothills where 14 you are receiving expressions of concern, such as the letter 15 that was in the record today from the Air Pollution Control 16 Officer Rod Hill. 17 We know from anecdotal information and calls coming 18 into our office that those people that live above the 1500 19 foot level, Placer County and Nevada County, receive some 20 significant concentrations on days when we in the Valley 21 think that it is good day for burning, because the plumes are 22 lofted to the inversion height of 1500 feet and slightly 23 below the Sierras. 24 We are not effected at the ground level, but there 25 is a significant impact up there that we at least are not now PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 tracking with the automated system that feeds us back data on 2 an hourly basis. 3 We will not solve this problem unless we bring the 4 fruition of the alternatives, technological alternatives, to 5 utilize rice straw in ways other than incorporating it into 6 the soil or burning it. 7 We can't emphasize too much the fact that we all 8 need to continue to press forward and persevere and bring 9 these technologies forward. 10 We applaud the Board for the work, the leadership 11 that you have shown in the last year in bringing together the 12 stakeholders, the workshops and the investment workshop. 13 We urge you to continue in that course and maintain 14 a very active role in getting these technologies to market 15 and available to growers to solve their problem and give them 16 an alternative to produce a product that reduces the impacts 17 that we are most concerned about. 18 With respect to your ongoing operations in managing 19 the Ag Program, we urge you to continue to allow burning on 20 marginal days only with care and caution. 21 Our concern is that the use of burning on days when 22 the meteorologic conditions suggest that there is a chance 23 that things might go wrong is a dangerous proposition and is 24 one still allowed under the prescriptions that are adopted by 25 the rice growing counties, and we appreciate your concern and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 your communications that you forward to them about burning on 2 these days, and we to urge you to continue to do so. 3 We also would mention from within our public health 4 community a message that the citizens at risk, the largest 5 citizens at risk to smoke in our atmosphere, there is a 6 growing population, I speak of senior citizens, not only in 7 this community, but also in the communities up and down the 8 Sacramento Valley. 9 Their unique concerns and needs should be 10 considered as you make a decision either today and follow-up 11 on any of the recommendations in the Report in the future, 12 that chronic respiratory pulmonary disease and other lung 13 diseases that occur in much higher percentages of these 14 citizens are uniquely exacerbated by levels of PM 2.5 in the 15 air, but with smoke it is a significant component. 16 We thank the Board for its increased interest in 17 this important public health issue, and we look forward to a 18 continued good working relationship with you and your staff 19 reaching our mutual goal of clean air. 20 Thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. I appreciate those 22 comments. 23 We have two Board Member questions to my left. I 24 wanted to, before I forget, I wanted to invite you to stay 25 for the second Item, it has to do with some of the progress PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 made in the San Joaquin Valley. 2 If you have time, we would like you to remain and I 3 think that you might learn a few things and see where we have 4 been going there. 5 Supervisor Roberts and then Dr. Friedman. 6 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: If I could go back to your 7 opening comments, and if you could help clarify something for 8 me. 9 In reference to, I think, UC Davis, it sounded like 10 burning every other year was effective in taking care of the 11 problem with respect to the disease and other things, but 12 then you said, I thought that I understand, that basically, 13 removing the rice straw three out of four years was an 14 equivalent to that? 15 MR. WITHYCOMBE: That's correct. 16 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Let me, before you, you did 17 not say what happens in that fourth year though. 18 Do you burn in that fourth year? 19 Is it three years of removal and one year of burn, 20 or is it plowed under, or what do you do in that fourth 21 year? 22 MR. WITHYCOMBE: I am speaking from a statistical 23 standpoint. 24 If you incorporated the straw in the ground on the 25 fourth year, so that all the organisms stayed in the field, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 removing the straw three years out of four, incorporating 2 into the soil the fourth year, produces the same level of 3 control that burning every other year would produce, 4 according to Bob Webster. 5 Let me preface those remarks by saying, burning 6 every other year is not a program or a solution supporting 7 what the American Lung Association wants. 8 I am bringing that information because that is what 9 we heard in testimony, and I think he was trying to be very 10 careful in phrasing that. 11 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: I understood that you weren't 12 necessarily encouraging that as a solution, but it wasn't 13 clear to me what happened in the fourth year that if you had 14 to have, for instance, burning every fourth year as opposed 15 to every other year, what you are saying is three years 16 removal and one year of plowing under is an equivalent to 17 that. 18 MR. WITHYCOMBE: The message that I would like to 19 leave with you is that the straw is removed every year, you 20 will achieve better level of the control of disease than 21 would be achieved by the burning recommendations of the 22 UC Davis plant pathologist. 23 DR. FRIEDMAN: I wanted to strongly support the 24 comment that you made about the imperative that exposure 25 effects in humans be directly studied in some controlled PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 manner. 2 You had indicated that such was already funded. In 3 fact, in my discussions with the Research Division, it would 4 appear that this grant will be viewed this year. It is not 5 funded yet. 6 I asked them in advance of the meeting for an 7 outline of that study, and I am quite sure it will be, but we 8 have to keep an eye on it, because it is really central to 9 supporting the science behind all of these arguments. 10 MR. WITHYCOMBE: I spoke prematurely. 11 I would urge you to support that. 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: We will ask Mike Kenny to keep 13 all four eyes on that one for us, and let us know, let Dr. 14 Friedman know how the consideration of that project is going, 15 if you would, Mike. 16 Any other questions for Mr. Withycombe? 17 Thank you. Appreciate your comments. 18 All right. Mr. Carrancho. 19 Joe, we appreciate you coming all the way down here 20 to the Air Board. We have been fortunate enough to hear your 21 views in the past. 22 Efficiency is the watch word of the day. We have a 23 handful of other witnesses we need to hear from. 24 MR. CARRANCHO: I could probably go on here for two 25 or three hours. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 You are going to have to listen to layman down here 2 at the bottom end. You talked about the Air Commissioners 3 and the Air Pollution Officers being a polluter. Well, I am 4 a polluter that pollutes him. 5 I kind of take offense to this gentleman who wrote 6 this letter. I do not doubt the integrity of either one of 7 these Ag Commissioners at all. 8 These gentlemen work the best they can with what 9 they have to do. Both of them are interested in clean air. 10 Both of them are interested in the community. They 11 try to administer the Program as best they can. 12 I mean to say that they would take advantage of 13 that. I really kind of resent that statement. 14 But to get back to this thing here, I would like to 15 thank the Board. We have all worked at this. 16 Myself, my wife kept track, I have 93 trips to 17 Sacramento since the first of the year. That is not my game, 18 but it seemed that I had to do it. 19 I was one of the -- first off, I am the founder of 20 Rice Producers of California. One of the first things that I 21 did, I got a hold of Mr. Al Wong, who at the time was trying 22 to get paper going from rice straw and arrange for three 23 loads of rice straw to get to Canada, which was, by the way, 24 paid for by farmers and a few other interested people, we had 25 some people from the ARB, one man gave $100 toward it, and we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 had a little donation from the Lung Association. 2 We all got together and sent this rice straw up and 3 Mr. Wong made paper, and the rest is history. I have out 4 there a whole bunch of different things out in the hall of 5 different things that are made with rice straw. 6 One of the ones that I think is going to be first 7 is probably paper, and that's because we have such a strong 8 personality in Al Wong. 9 He has come a long way. There is not only paper. 10 Our group endorses just about anything that uses 11 rice straw. We have got erosion control, rice straw 12 buildings, houses and so on, plastic intrusion, carbons, 13 bedding for animals, last year that was a big thing because 14 of the flooding, feed for animal, sounds walls, straw for 15 fibers and acoustics and wallboard, fiberboard, and we used 16 rice straw for flood control and mulching. 17 These are just a few of the things that can be 18 done. The problem is every time that something has to be 19 done like this, I went to a meeting where the stakeholders 20 were all going to be there, I noticed that some of you people 21 were there. 22 We all discussed what needed to be done. The only 23 thing wrong there was there a lack of one particular person, 24 that was bankers. They weren't interested. 25 First thing that you got to have is a track PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 record. 2 How do you have a track record if you have never 3 done it? 4 These entrepreneurs are really up against it. I 5 was one of the ones that, with Earl and some of the others in 6 the environmental community, that negotiated 318. 7 This may not be a workable solution, but it is as 8 close as we can come. If we had done this when we went in 9 there with the original 1378, maybe we wouldn't be in such a 10 bad position. 11 You talk about disease control, and I wanted to 12 bring in a little statistic that I have. 13 I am presently in my harvest. I have probably 14 about 80 percent of my ground infected with blast. 15 Last year I had one field. This year I have got 80 16 percent of them. 17 This one field last year, my polluting Ag 18 Commissioner gave me permission to burn it. This field last 19 year made 66.6 sacks to the acre. 20 That is not a win-win situation. Believe me, that 21 is a loss. I also had to use a lot of chemicals and so to 22 try to control it. 23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: How many sacks did you get to a 24 good acre? 25 MR. CARRANCHO: This field for the last 13 years PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 has never produced under 91, until last year, 13 years. 2 Last year I got hit with the blast, and I had 3 weeds. I was allowed to burn that field, and this year I got 4 done thrashing it yesterday, and I got the figures this 5 morning and totaled them up before I came out here. 6 I don't have the dry weight, but that field this 7 year produced 104.4. Now, the only difference is that I 8 burned it. The other years I incorporated it. 9 The other thing is that I did not have to use four 10 different applications of chemicals to kill my weeds. I just 11 went through the first time. I know Jack here can relate to 12 that. That gets very expensive. 13 So what are you doing here? 14 You are putting a bunch of chemicals over here for 15 clean air. 16 You talk about the $36 in your Report. That does 17 not take in the fact that, yes, we have to incorporate that 18 rice straw, and that is $36. 19 How about all the extra chemicals that we have to 20 use? 21 That is not counted in here. 22 How about the loss in yield? 23 That is not counted in here. 24 For the last little thing, and I know you have 25 heard this before, but on the way up here today, to come up PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 here I have to drive on the other side of Maxwell, because I 2 farm in both Maxwell and Colusa Counties, and as I came up 3 here, I looked over to the Buttes, and I cannot see them. 4 So, I called an Ag Commissioner, I know we have not 5 been able to burn for awhile, and I said, how long has it 6 been since we burned, and he said, three days, no burning in 7 three days, I can't see the Buttes, but I can see this red 8 haze coming off of Sacramento and coming off of Fairfield 9 down I-5 and going down and meeting us all down there and all 10 this pollution is coming out into my clean valley, and I have 11 to clean it, my trees and my plants and what have you. 12 Ladies and gentlemen, the farmer, the whole thing 13 cannot be mitigated on the back of the farmer, you have to do 14 your part. 15 You will see on your graph there, one of your worst 16 months is November. We are not burning in November. 17 That nice little fire that you want in your 18 fireplace that you put your log in there that you just got 19 done cutting three weeks ago and you stick it in the 20 fireplace for effect. 21 Don't do that in November. That would help the air 22 pollution. You have the Kings over here, that brings in a 23 lot of people. That also brings in hundreds and hundreds of 24 cars. 25 You brag about your airport out here. It has PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 increased threefold. That has increased the pollution 2 threefold. 3 That has increased the cars coming in. Now you 4 want to build better roads out into the counties out here, so 5 these people who live in the city, they can't afford to buy a 6 $500,000 home. They can buy one out there $125,000, and they 7 commute 100 miles to and from work. 8 Make a bedroom state out of there, use our 9 facilities, our fire, or hospitals or roads and come back 10 here and spend their money. 11 So, we are just a bedroom community. Let's not 12 blame it all on the farmer. 13 The farmer will step up and do his part, but don't 14 mitigate it on our backs. 15 Thank you. 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Joe. 17 Any questions of the witness? 18 Okay. Thank you. 19 Mr. Wong. 20 MR. WONG: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 21 Members of the Board. 22 I would like to offer some observations and I don't 23 have an answer to these very difficult problems of rice straw 24 burning. 25 Three years ago I knew nothing about rice straw PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 burning in the Sacramento Valley. Prior to that, I didn't 2 even know the place existed. 3 Since that time, I found something very 4 interesting. While all the studies have been going on for 5 the last three years, maybe six years or more, is that they 6 all seem to come to the same inevitable conclusion: There is 7 no obvious economic or technical advantages of using rice 8 straw over other biomass as a manufacturing material. 9 That itself creates a major problem for any 10 would-be investors. 11 They say, why should I invest in rice straw 12 manufacturing when I could go to Kansas and make that nice, 13 nifty strawboard, clean, gold color? 14 Why should I come to California? 15 Why should I fight this rice straw problem? 16 So that is just an observation, because even with 17 the best project, my guess is that your return is 20 percent 18 to 30 percent. 19 So, it's just like any other investment 20 opportunity; is this the place to put a new industry, invest 21 in new enterprise? 22 That is a real fundamental problem, so, I think the 23 driving force has to be something other than that. 24 The second thing is that if you look at all the 25 studies done to date, It looks like it is going to take PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 somewhere between $300 to $700 of capital investment to 2 handle one single ton of straw in this Valley. 3 So, it is very simple arithmetic, take an average 4 of $500 per ton, you have got a million tons, you need $500 5 million to solve this problem. 6 You say I want to solve it in five years. That 7 means an inflow of a half a billion dollars, I mean, that's 8 kind of unrealistic to assume that $100 million a year 9 somebody is going to plunk into the Valley to build a rice 10 straw manufacturing industry. 11 In the last meeting that I was invited to attend, I 12 suggested that maybe a trustfunds should be developed. 13 Take money from all the different agencies and pool 14 it into this trust fund as a revolving trust fund to lend 15 money of that order of magnitude, maybe a $100 million pool, 16 40 new industries get started. 17 A small amount helps. There is no question about 18 it, but it is not going to help as fast as you want it to 19 solve the problem. 20 The third point, which is very important to me 21 personally, I think that the farmer has got to have some 22 positive income in resolving the rice straw burning problem. 23 He cannot afford to give away the straw just to 24 stay out of jail. He will plant something else. 25 It is not interesting to him. You have got to give PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 him some money. 2 Now, the number that was quoted, $36 per acre for 3 incorporating the straw into the soil, it costs $2 an acre to 4 burn. 5 I think the farmer should get $120 an acre for 6 selling the straw. I think that would give the farmer lots 7 of incentive, and that in itself creates the kind of economic 8 driving force to solve the rice straw burning problem. 9 Somebody is making money. The farmer is making 10 money. 11 He is going to find ways to solve this disease 12 problem and that creates incentive, and a true economic 13 incentive will do something about the problem. 14 Farmer's are not irresponsible people, but they 15 like to stay in business as well. We need everybody to 16 cooperate, and everybody has got to be able to make some 17 money out of solving this problem. 18 That is all I have to say about my observations. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. I appreciate that 20 view. 21 Okay. Three remaining witnesses. 22 Howard Carnahan, Glen Camp and Ingrid Puglia. 23 Mr. Carnahan, please come forward. 24 Thank you. Hello. 25 Can you add anything to what that eloquent farmer, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 Mr. Carancho, just said? 2 MR. CARNAHAN: Well, I would say this, you know, it 3 is individual statistics are good, but also they have 4 limitations. 5 In that regard, I would say that this last fall, a 6 year ago, we had Mother Nature around the rice growers 7 shoulders and had the best climate to incorporate the straw 8 in a timely basis. 9 We had the same this thing last spring. We had 10 rains during the winter to help decompose the straw. 11 We had ideal situations in the spring where growers 12 had their land prepared and waited before planting rather 13 than having the wet straw out in the field to delay their 14 operations. 15 So, this probably has been the best rice year in 16 the history of the rice industry here in California. 17 So, don't be surprised if the yields are either a 18 record or near record. 19 But, don't attribute that to incorporation or to 20 burning. That is my first comment. 21 The other thing about disease and removing the 22 straw, I will back up and just say for those who are not 23 aware, I spent my entire career in agricultural research, the 24 last 25 years in plant breeding, developing new varieties of 25 rice with shorter height and earlier maturity and some PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 disease resistance. 2 When the Legislation, which I think, 1378, is that 3 the Bill? 4 When that was passed, there was a group of people, 5 which did not include very many rice farmers, and they were 6 overly concerned with stemrot, because compared to other 7 problems that could be involved if they discontinued burning, 8 there was an assumption that rice straw would be removed and 9 be used for some useful purpose. 10 In the absence of doing that, however, I think that 11 the mass of straw that has to be incorporated if it isn't 12 taken off is such that if you don't get it off in a timely 13 basis, which is often the case in many, many years, then you 14 throw off your timing in terms of getting your crop planted 15 on a timely basis for when it should be, and getting an 16 adequate seed bed prepared, and all these side effects that 17 have negatives on producing the crop, in addition to the 18 buildup of disease. 19 So, I think disease, maybe in the minds of those 20 people, rose to the surface as something that to grab a hold 21 of on the assumption that the straw would be removed and 22 marketed and used for some useful purpose. 23 In the absence of that, then these other things are 24 equal or more important than the disease problem, and I'm not 25 sure that all of you people have that concept in your minds. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 I came from a farm originally in the Midwest, and 2 came through the Depression, and that leaves a pretty good 3 mark on you. 4 I see statistics here on what small part that rice 5 has on the value of the Valley, but I know that if you are a 6 farmer, and most of the people don't, they have their 7 investment in their equipment and that sort of thing so they 8 don't have much other place to go if their enterprise goes 9 down the tubes. 10 I see a statement in here that bothered me. It 11 says, I quote, we have no evidence that the phase-down has 12 forced any rice grower out of business. 13 It sounds to me like a bureaucratic statement. I 14 doubt that 95 percent of the rice growers were canvassed to 15 find out whether that was a true statement. 16 I'm not sure what the intent of the statement was. 17 That maybe there is no problem until people go out of 18 business. 19 I do know for a fact that a number of rice growers 20 in Glen County were refused loans from the credit 21 administration to put in a rice crop this year. 22 To my knowledge they did get financing elsewhere at 23 a higher rate. I think maybe a combination of those two 24 statements might be much better than the one, which I think 25 doesn't convey a useful message. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: You need to know this, that the 2 State Legislation, the Governor and this Board has repeatedly 3 asked staff to let us know about the economic impact of any 4 program that we are involved with. 5 So, I can assure you that the attempt to get at 6 that issue was an honorable one, not to improperly color it 7 in any way. 8 MR. CARNAHAN: I understand. 9 I commend those who have worked together here to 10 get this information together and getting their groups 11 together, I think that they have done a tremendous job. 12 I have sent in some comments about the Draft Report 13 that has been used to a considerable extent. There is one 14 area that I think is in error, and that is on page V-9, and 15 Table 5 on V-5, there are three lines on that Table which I 16 believe have erroneous numbers, and I would be happy to sit 17 down with the people and go through the calculations. 18 There is one other on page 66 of the Report, there 19 is one other statement that I think needs to be revised, and 20 that has to do with the blast disease and the assumption it 21 might just be a one-year deal. 22 I think there is adequate evidence right now that 23 it is not a one-year deal. It has spread to new areas and 24 the area where it was last year is larger. 25 I think that is the statement pertaining to that, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 the last three sentences, I believe, on page 66. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Carrancho's scientific study 3 pointed that out to us as well. 4 MR. CARNAHAN: Thank you very much. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. I appreciate that. 6 All right. We have two remaining witnesses. 7 Glen Camp and Ingrid Puglia. Mr. Camp, can I have 8 you come forward, sir. 9 I guess you provided written comments and you 10 support the Report. The Board's had a chance to look at your 11 comments. I have them right here. 12 Is there anything that you want to add to that, 13 sir? 14 MR. CAMP: We have a short five-minute video that 15 we would like to show and then maybe comment on that 16 afterwards. 17 (Thereupon a video was shown.) 18 MR. CAMP: Obviously this is a marketing and sales 19 video which we have used to demonstrate our mills that were 20 to be made in Northern California and are ready for overseas 21 customers. 22 We have actually had about 50 countries approach 23 us. We just sold one of our first mills to a group out of 24 Korea. 25 We really believe that rice straw is really the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 answer, domestically, as well. We just set up a 15,000 2 square foot facility now being built in Colusa on six acres 3 at the industrial park there, and we just acquired about 4 2,000 to 3,000 tons of straw, and we will be acquiring more 5 in the next few weeks. 6 So, we are going to be building a demonstration 7 facility there in Colusa, not just for customers coming from 8 around the world but for domestic purposes as well. 9 We have been approached by a number of different 10 building groups from all around the country. We see this as 11 a viable alternative not just for building homes but for also 12 sound walls. 13 We have been approached by about four or five 14 different States. We are working fairly close now with 15 CalTrans. 16 We have had several dealings with them, they see 17 opportunities with this. 18 We started this process back in 1992. This is my 19 first time I have ever been in front of a public hearing like 20 this. 21 We just continue to scratch away. I can say to 22 Lloyd Forest over there as an entrepreneur having spent 23 whatever I spend and the sacrifices that my family has made 24 and the investors that I have brought into this, it has been 25 a five and a half year process, and it has been very PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 difficult. 2 The other numbers that were represented by 3 Mr. Wong, I don't believe are correct in that it doesn't take 4 that kind of money to solve the problem, a fraction of that, 5 that is my opinion. 6 I studied this for the better part of five and a 7 half years. 8 We have the opportunity in Colusa to build about 9 eight plants. We have got six acres there. 10 The first plant is going in January. The mill has 11 already been built, and we are just building the facility 12 right now. 13 We will build additional plants as we need them to 14 accommodate hopefully orders from big companies, construction 15 groups and so on, and so forth. 16 In addition to that, we will probably remain in 17 California and continue to provide jobs for the manufacturing 18 of these mills, which we hope to send overseas on a turn-key 19 basis. 20 I just came back from China, and they want a lot of 21 these, and they are fairly efficient from the standpoint of 22 using about 50 or 60 types of straw material, which can be 23 used to build very affordable housing, very quickly I might 24 add. 25 We have been working very close with U.S.A.I.D., PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 the EPA in Washington D.C., Habitat for Humanity, the Exxon 2 Bank, OPEC, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, World 3 Bank has approached us for projects throughout Russia, the 4 Middle East and also the Red Cross. 5 I see just tremendous opportunity for the use of 6 this product. I see it mostly for use of rice straw. 7 We found that rice straw works the best. We tried 8 everything from sisal that has been sent to us from Tanzania, 9 to wheat straw from Kansas and sugar cane from Mexico. 10 They all work, of course, but nothing like rice 11 straw. So, we will be a big customer here in the Valley. 12 I think some of the things that have been said 13 already, I don't have to repeat. At this time, I would like 14 to open it up for questions. 15 Thank the Board for allowing this. 16 DR. FRIEDMAN: This is very exciting. I want to 17 make a friendly suggestion. 18 The video shows fibers flying all over the place 19 and inundating the air, and the one worker was without a 20 mask. 21 For the point of view of your own liability, it 22 costs a few cents for a mask, and I really think that is a 23 good idea. 24 MR. CAMP: That worker was me, by the way. I agree 25 with you, and that process is a different process. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 What you were seeing in the video right now was 2 primarily for our testing purposes, which we did at the end 3 of last year and the first part of this year. 4 That whole process is all enclosed now and with 5 cyclones, and it has a back house so that virtually nothing 6 goes in the atmosphere. 7 No humans enter. Every now and then we send the 8 pathfinder in there to find if there is intelligent life 9 growing. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Good. Mr. Camp, thank you. 11 I appreciate that. 12 Anyone else have any questions? 13 We want to wish you well. If you wouldn't mind 14 staying in contact with our staff and let us know how it goes 15 with CalTrans. 16 We have not been shy about encouraging sister 17 agencies in the State Government to take a look at some of 18 the technologies we have helped foster at least in some way 19 or seek solutions for them. 20 Thank you. All right. 21 Ms. Puglia. Private citizen. 22 You filled out a card and said you had some health 23 issues that you wanted to bring up before the Board. 24 MS. PUGLIA: I know that it is after 12:00. 25 I am Ingrid Puglia, and I won't keep you here, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 because it's lunchtime, especially after such an upbeat, I 2 felt like cheering. 3 I am also kind of embarrassed because I piped up 4 earlier, but this is my first time here, and I did not know 5 how you run things, and I thought I hitched myself a free 6 ride on an electrical boat. 7 It didn't work out. I will be very brief. 8 I am here because for 16 years I have been a 9 pediatric nurse on a very, very large pediatric unit in 10 Sutter Memorial Hospital. 11 The thing that sent me in a spin, and also Dr. 12 Saylor, when we heard that they were going to increase the 13 rice burning in spring, the lights went on, and the reason 14 why, and you enjoy being educated, and this is a little bit 15 off the beaten track, but it is very serious stuff. 16 In spring, children, two years or less, are subject 17 to a massive outbreak of RSV. RSV stands for respiratory 18 syphistio virus. 19 It is a virus that invades the respiratory system, 20 their lungs, the bronchia, the nasal passages, the sinuses 21 and it creates a thick, obstinate secretion, to the point 22 that every bed in our unit is filled, that every respirator, 23 these kids can't even breathe, we got them intubated, we have 24 them on antiviral fogs where people have a tendency to get 25 pregnant aren't even allowed in the room. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 These kids suffer. They are on the brink of dying, 2 and some of them die. Now, spring is a time where allergens, 3 irritants to the respiratory system, are at an all time high 4 to begin with. 5 Anybody with sensitive respiratory passages is 6 subject to extra irritation due to pollens and things that 7 have nothing to do with rice. 8 The RSV virus, for children under two years of age, 9 if you combine anything else on top of that you might have 10 kids die while they are already on the brink. 11 I am very, very -- Dr. Saylor, he was supposed to 12 check me out, he went ballistic. He spent half an hour just 13 hyperventilating, and then he said, you are okay, you can go 14 home, obviously because I was talking. 15 What to do. You heard the gentleman from the Lung 16 Association, and I support everything he says and most of all 17 research into the health effects of this stuff. 18 There is in your printout there is also that there 19 are carcinogens that are produced. We should look into 20 these. 21 There is a man, Bob Webster, that was just 22 mentioned, who is doing research at UC Davis. Please stay in 23 touch with him. 24 Let these experts give you the information that you 25 need to make your decisions, because, God bless you, you are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 here, and you are making decisions. 2 I am so glad we got you. I can't tell you how 3 happy I am. 4 And also, if you look at this and you find that 5 there may be no alternative but to keep on tuning down on the 6 rice burning, then by all means have the courage to recommend 7 that. 8 This young man with his boards, if we are really 9 forced to deal with it aggressively, hopefully you can help 10 everybody to find ways. 11 I understand a lot of it is -- also, I dug up an 12 article from The Sacramento Bee from December 4, 1989, and 13 December 19, 1989. 14 I want to hold something up for you to see. I 15 don't know if you can see this, but one of these is asbestos, 16 the lower one, and the one up here is the rice straw. 17 Both of them have been magnified by the same 18 magnification. In other words, these sizes are identical. 19 It talks about asbestos, and it talks that there is 20 no tolerance for asbestos fiber. I would be so happy if the 21 same steps were taken looking at the silicon fiber in rice 22 straw that were taken to identify the pathology of asbestos, 23 because I am not certain that we know everything about the 24 rice silica emissions and what they do to people. 25 There is a cancer. It's called mesophilioba. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 It is a very, very bad lung cancer. It's prevalent 2 in the rice burning areas of the Valley. 3 I have an article here that I will leave with the 4 desk that shows you the cancer rates. It shows you the 5 cancer rates, and they are above average, and they have been 6 for a long time. 7 Basically, I am going to let you go to lunch. 8 It's late. Please stay on top of the medical 9 research as much as you can, hospitals will give you 10 statistics for last two years of health records and lung 11 disease. 12 Why don't you cash them in and then keep track of 13 what happens in spring. If there is a marked increase, that 14 might give you a red light. 15 Thank you for hearing me. I am sorry it is so 16 late. That is all I have to say, and you are very kind. 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. 18 Any questions of our last witness? 19 Okay. 20 MS. PUGLIA: One little thing, we traveled through 21 China, and I read in your Report that you looked at Korea and 22 Japan and some other places for how they deal with rice 23 straw. 24 I believe that in China, I observed that they turn 25 it into charcoal on the fields. They are just simply piling PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 it up. 2 They put fire down below, and there is a slow 3 combustion that is smokeless. Nothing is said here about 4 China, and they do live on rice there. 5 So, other countries may have answers. 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you very much for those 7 views and for the time you put in to be here. Okay. 8 Does anyone else wish to speak on this issue? 9 Mr. Romano are you going to brighten our day? 10 We need to move on, so make it brief. 11 MR. ROMANO: The research that we were talking 12 about was the removal of straw based on stemrot not the other 13 ones. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. 15 Mr. Carrancho. You have to come up to the mike. 16 This is it. I am going to close the record. 17 Mr. Kenny, have your staff get ready to go through 18 the letters real quick. 19 Okay. Joe, the hour is late. 20 MR. CARRANCHO: The only thing that I wanted to 21 mention here today was all these companies, all of these 22 entrepreneurs that need rice straw, one thing that they do 23 need, they need rice straw throughout the year. 24 One thing that hasn't been talked about here today 25 is we need a way of storing this rice straw throughout the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 year. 2 We can't just leave it out in the rain. The 3 magnitude of rice straw we have, 1.5 million, takes an awful 4 lot of acres under roof, covered. 5 They have talked about tarping it, and there have 6 been a few people who have made a success out of it but very 7 few. 8 One of the things I think you ought to look into is 9 the storage for this rice straw, because we only have a one 10 month window to get it off the field, and we need somewhere 11 to put it. 12 Thank you. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: On that drive home, Joe, you 14 swing by that Kings Arena, and you see if they have got any 15 space there for you. 16 You have all those opinions about those guys. 17 If there is nothing else, Mr. Kenny, why don't you 18 summarize the written comments, and we will move on this 19 Item. 20 MR. KENNY: We have incorporated those into the 21 presentation already. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: That was the tail end of yours. 23 Okay. Very good. 24 The Board has been long suffering in that they 25 haven't had an awful lot of questions on this issue. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 I know that those who have served on the Board for 2 a couple of years lived through this in 1995. I know that I 3 did. 4 I am grateful for the witnesses. I know there were 5 only eight or so, but I was appreciative of the views they 6 expressed. 7 It seemed to be similar to the 100 or so that spoke 8 in 1995. I know that we had a chance to hear the differing 9 views. 10 Does the Board have any questions? 11 This isn't a regulatory Item. We can kick it 12 around a bit and then move on the Report, but I want to know 13 if there are any other technical questions or issues that 14 people feel that they need to know more about. 15 Okay. Mr. Parnell. 16 MR. PARNELL: I don't mean to elongate it, but just 17 reemphasize what I already said earlier, and that is as we 18 look at technologies and we start to put money into 19 technologies, if that should be the case, helping them bridge 20 the gap, that valley of death between viability and research, 21 I hope that we are cognizant of some of the things that, 22 well, one of the things, Joe just brought up, is that storage 23 is required for some technologies and may not be required for 24 other technologies, and that is significant difference when 25 you get the bottom line costs, and I would hope that as we go PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 through that process, if we get to that point, that we will 2 be cognizant of that. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes. Good point. 4 Yes. Mr. Calhoun. 5 MR. CALHOUN: If SB 318 does become Law, it seems 6 as though this Board has an obligation to develop a plan to 7 solve it. 8 Many of these problem things that Mr. Romano said, 9 things, and questions and observations that a lot of the 10 others had here, they would have an opportunity to 11 participate in developing this plan to solve this problem. 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. 13 The Bill is on the Governor's desk. It had 14 significant support. 15 We were certainly engaged in that process. I think 16 that if it becomes law, we will be able to use our expertise, 17 pull people together and make sure that we develop a plan. 18 I am very mindful of the point that we would need 19 to develop any such work in concert with stakeholders, and 20 I'm concerned that a few felt that they were left out of the 21 process, but we will make sure that we capture them if that 22 Bill becomes Law. 23 The Chair would entertain a motion to move the 1997 24 Report to the Legislature on the Phase-down of Rice Straw 25 Burning in the Sacramento Valley Air Basins. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 Okay. A motion by Dr. Friedman and a second by 2 Supervisor Roberts. 3 Is there any other discussion on this Item? 4 All right. We will proceed with a voice vote. 5 All those in favor, say aye. 6 Any opposed? 7 All right. The vote seemed to be unanimous. 8 Thank you very much. Thank you to staff for a fine 9 presentation, I appreciate that. 10 I know it was not an easy presentation to pull 11 together. We have one remaining Item. 12 I am going to ask staff to quickly change 13 positions, and I am going to ask staff, also, Mr. Kenny, to 14 be particularly sensitive to the clock and make sure that 15 staff cuts to the quick on the Report. 16 While staff is getting set up, I will make my brief 17 remarks. 18 Vicki, are you okay for a couple of minutes? 19 We will be done in 20 minutes. All right. 20 I will make my remarks brief, as well. Again to 21 remind the audience to see the Clerk of the Board if they 22 want to provide any comments. 23 The next item in the Agenda is 97-7-2, a public 24 meeting to consider staff's Report on the San Joaquin Valley 25 Fine Particulate Matter Study. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 This study and its predecessor, the Ozone Study, 2 are among the premier scientific efforts in the nation. 3 These studies are landmark examples of the use of 4 the public and private partnership concept for providing 5 sound science for environmental management. 6 The objectives of both studies were to develop the 7 technical tools needed by decision-makers to effectively 8 address complex regulatory issues. 9 The recent propagation of revised Federal Fine 10 Particulate Matter Standards highlights the need for studies 11 of this nature. 12 The San Joaquin Valley Study is uniquely positioned 13 to lead the nation to an improved understanding of this 14 health threatening air pollution problem. 15 Today, the staff will provide the Board with a 16 brief overview of the Fine Particulate Matter Study, 17 highlight some of its major achievements to date and describe 18 where the Study is heading in the future. 19 Before we begin the staff presentation, I would 20 like to ask Board Member Barbara Patrick, recently appointed 21 to Chair the Study Policy Committee, to offer a few remarks 22 and to introduce the Agenda Item. 23 Barbara. 24 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Thank you. 25 It is my pleasure to introduce this Item. Although PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 I have only been recently appointed to be the Chairman of the 2 Policy Committee, I have for some period of time been 3 familiar with the work that has been going on. 4 I am very impressed with the technical research and 5 the organization of this Study, and I have had a chance to 6 meet with all of the stakeholders, and this really provides a 7 unique opportunity for people with varied interests to get 8 together with a common goal of providing cleaner air in the 9 San Joaquin Valley. 10 The process is one that I know you are all going to 11 be interested in hearing about. There is a lot of exciting 12 work taking place and I understand that Karen Magliano is 13 going to be giving us the presentation today. 14 MS. MAGLIANO: Thank you, Supervisor Patrick. Good 15 afternoon, I guess it is now, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 16 Board. 17 Today's presentation provides staff's Report on the 18 San Joaquin Valley Fine Particulate Matter Study. The 19 presentation will discuss the Study objectives, structure and 20 funding, highlight some of the significant accomplishments of 21 the Study and describe the scope of some of the future Study 22 efforts. 23 In order to set the stage for this presentation on 24 the Fine Particle Study though, it will be helpful to first 25 take a bit of a step back and provide some background on its PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 predecessor the San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Study on 2 Ozone. 3 The Ozone Study was actually initiated back in 4 1986, by a consortium of public and private sector leaders 5 who saw that there was a need for a different kind of 6 approach for addressing the Valley's air quality problems. 7 The initial scope of the Study actually encompassed 8 both ozone and particulate matter. It was downscaled to 9 address primarily ozone due to initial budget constraints. 10 A small portion of the funding, however, was 11 retained to address the limited particulate matter research 12 and the continuing need for particulate matter study was 13 recognized. 14 The outcome of this partnership was an $18 million 15 program that provided the tools needed by decision makers to 16 develop sound control plans for obtaining the ozone standard 17 in the San Joaquin Valley. 18 The Ozone Study really laid the foundation for the 19 Particulate Matter Study and many of its strengths have 20 carried over to help support the success of the PM program. 21 Of course, the Ozone Study really helped pioneer a 22 public/private partnership type of approach to air quality 23 problems, essentially promoting the idea of cooperative 24 environmental management. 25 Second, the sponsors of the Study jointly fund and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 manage the Program and cooperatively determine the Study's 2 objectives. 3 And third, the development of a sound technical 4 foundation at the outset of the program helps ensure the buy 5 into the results at the completion of the program. 6 Both the Ozone and the Particulate Studies are 7 following the same management structure that are shown in 8 this slide. 9 A Policy Committee acts as, essentially, the Board 10 of Directors for the Program, determining overall objectives, 11 study work elements and approving all contracts. 12 Membership on the Policy Committee shows the Board 13 blocks here, Federal Government, State Government, local 14 government and the private sector. 15 All sponsors of the Study are welcome to sit on the 16 Policy Committee, which is Chaired by Supervisor Barbara 17 Patrick. 18 Direction of the Study is determined by consensus, 19 and in the very rare instance when this cannot be achieved, 20 voting follows the four constituency blocks shown here, this 21 has actually only occurred once or twice during the 11 year 22 history of the Program. 23 A Technical Committee mirrors the Policy Committee 24 in Membership and directs the technical in implementation 25 aspects of the Program. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 The Technical Committee recommends contractors to 2 the Policy Committee, reviews reports and responds to 3 requests from the Policy Committee for information. 4 The Technical Committee is Chaired by staff of the 5 Air Resources Board. 6 Finally, the Study Agency, which was formed by a 7 joint powers agreement between the eight valley counties, 8 acts as a central banker for the Program, receiving funds, 9 issuing contracts and paying invoices. 10 The Study Agency is staffed by the San Joaquin 11 Valley Air Pollution Control District. The sponsors of the 12 Study really reflect the diversity of the Valley itself. 13 The Federal Government's sponsors include the U.S. 14 EPA, the Department of Defense, some additional sponsors that 15 are new to the Particulate Program are shown in parentheses, 16 and these include the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the 17 Department of Transportation, Interior and Energy. 18 State sponsors include the Air Resources Board and 19 the Energy Commission. Local sponsors include the San 20 Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, the Bay Area 21 Air Quality Management District and local counties and cities 22 in the Valley. 23 Private sector sponsors range from the oil 24 industry, which are represented by organizations such as WSPA 25 and Chevron, to the utility industry, represented by PG&E and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 the Electric Power Research Institute. 2 The agricultural industry has been a very strong 3 supporter of the PM Study with private sponsors including the 4 Farmers League and the California Cotton Ginners and Growers 5 Association. 6 One of the greatest assets of the Study has been 7 the ability of these various organizations to work together 8 to collectively raise funds for the Program. 9 Each year a group of sponsors from both the public 10 and private sector journey to Washington D.C., to lobby 11 Congress for Federal funds to support the Program. 12 The Congressional delegations they meet with always 13 express some surprise but also a lot of respect that this 14 diverse group of people can work together to collectively 15 solve the common air quality problem. 16 The highlight of the Ozone Program was a large 17 scale Field Collection Program that was carried out during 18 the summer of 1990. 19 Over $10 million was spent to collect one of the 20 largest air quality and meteorological databases ever 21 collected in the nation. 22 The scope of this effort can be seen in the map 23 that is shown here, which shows the vast number of sites that 24 were deployed during the eight weeks of monitoring. 25 There were over 330 surface sites and almost 50 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 upper air sites, and you can see that their range over a 2 region much larger than San Joaquin Valley itself, from north 3 of Sacramento down to the Tehachapi's and from the Pacific 4 Ocean up to the crest of the Sierra Nevada. 5 In addition to the many monitoring sites that were 6 shown in the previous slide, the Study also deployed what we 7 call our very own Air Force, a group of nine aircraft which 8 flew throughout the Valley collecting data on ozone and 9 meteorological patterns aloft. 10 This picture shows one of the aircraft that flew 11 offshore to gather data on levels of pollution which are 12 entering the Study region. 13 This aircraft was actually on loan from the Federal 14 Government where its usual activities would be tracking 15 hurricanes off the coast of Florida. 16 The mass amount of data that was collected during 17 the Field Program was then used to develop a number of tools 18 that supported data interpretation and decision making. 19 The premier effort was a development of an 20 integrated modeling system for emissions, meteorology and air 21 quality. 22 The diagram at left shows what we mean by the 23 concept of a modeling system. A model is essentially a 24 sophisticated computer program which simulates mathematically 25 what is actually taking place in the atmosphere. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 So, for example, the meteorological model simulates 2 the movement of the pollutants in the air. The emissions 3 model tracks when and where emissions are generated, and 4 finally, the air quality model combines these two pieces of 5 information together to simulate the process of chemical 6 reactions that take place to form ozone. 7 In order to make sure that the model is working 8 correctly, it's first tested for a known situation. In this 9 case, it was the data that we collected during the 1990 Field 10 Study. 11 Once the model is working correctly, and for this 12 application it worked extremely well, it can then be used to 13 evaluate what might happen in the future in response to 14 various control options. 15 In the case of the Ozone Study, the future scenario 16 model was the 1999 deadline required for achieving the 17 Federal Ozone Standard. 18 The modeling system developed is part of the Study 19 and provided the foundation for control study analysis that 20 was needed to support the 1994 Ozone SIP for the San Joaquin 21 Valley. 22 Through the use of this modeling system, the Valley 23 was able to demonstrate that the Federal Ozone Standard could 24 be achieved by 1999 through a combination of both new and 25 existing controls. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 As a testament to the success of this modeling 2 system, it continues to be used today to further evaluate 3 and fine tune control strategies outlined in the SIP. 4 It is also being applied in other parts of the 5 Nation. Finally, the same modeling system will provide the 6 backbone for future particulate matter modeling efforts as 7 well. 8 At the completion of the Study, the Policy 9 Committee published a Report which provided an overview of 10 the Program and highlighted some of the major policy relevant 11 findings. 12 Today, well over 1,000 copies of this document have 13 been distributed to sponsors, environmental and Governmental 14 organizations, in schools and libraries throughout the San 15 Joaquin Valley. 16 This Report has also served as a major selling 17 point in fundraising for the Particulate Study by 18 demonstrating that its predecessor had a proven track record 19 for producing well-founded and timely information. 20 The Policy Findings Document provided answers to 21 two long-standing questions. 22 One, what was the impact of pollution from outside 23 the Valley on Valley ozone concentrations? 24 Two, what was the role of hydrocarbons versus NOX 25 in controlling ozone? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 In reference to the first question, the Study 2 demonstrated that local emissions are the major cause of 3 ozone exceedences in the central and southern portions of the 4 Valley. 5 However, pollution generated in the Bay Area and 6 Sacramento can contribute significantly to ozone 7 concentrations in the northern Valley. 8 Second, the Study found that reductions in both 9 hydrocarbons and NOX will reduce peak ozone in most areas of 10 the Valley. 11 The Study also demonstrated that the Federal Ozone 12 Standard could be met without additional NOX controls on 13 certain oil production sources on the southwest side of the 14 Valley. 15 Oil industry officials have estimated that the cost 16 savings associated with not having to implement these 17 controls far exceeded the total cost of the San Joaquin 18 Valley Study. 19 As the Ozone Study itself was nearing completion, 20 renewed emphasis was being placed on particulate concerns. 21 So in 1991, at the initiation of the agricultural 22 community, a particulate component was added back into the 23 San Joaquin Valley Study, and the San Joaquin Valley Fine 24 Particulate Matter Study was born. 25 Its actual title is the California Regional PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 PM 10/PM 2.5 Air Quality Study, which is kind of a mouthful 2 and its acronym is not any better, so we usually just refer 3 to it as the PM Study, or Fine Particle Study. 4 The objectives of the Program were threefold. 5 One was to provide an improved understanding of the 6 nature and causes of high particulate matter concentrations 7 in the Valley and surrounding regions. 8 Two, it was to develop tools that would be useful 9 to decision makers in developing and evaluating alternative 10 control strategies. 11 Three, to understand the linkages between 12 particulate matter and other pollutants, specifically ozone. 13 Understanding these linkages is crucial, because 14 the precursors to ozone, hydrocarbons and NOX, are the same 15 for particulate matter as well and control strategies 16 developed for one can have an impact on the other. 17 The Particulate Matter Study has a number of 18 strengths which parallel those of the Ozone Study. 19 First, the Study continues the cooperative 20 partnership approach that was so successful in the Ozone 21 Program. 22 Second, the Study leads the nation in addressing 23 PM10 and PM 2.5 issues. Well before the current Federal PM 24 Standard Revision, the San Joaquin Valley Study had already 25 incorporated PM 2.5 as a major focus. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 Third, because the Study had a jumpstart on 2 providing PM 2.5 information, it scheduled to provide its 3 results in a time frame commiserate with the new Federal SIP 4 requirement. 5 This next slide depicts some of the nature of the 6 particulate matter problem in the San Joaquin Valley. 7 Most of the exceedences of both the Federal PM 10 8 and PM 2.5 standards occur during the fall and Winter 9 months. 10 If the exceedences that occur in these different 11 time periods are very different in composition, in the fall 12 the largest contributor, shown by the yellow portion of the 13 pie, is fugitive dust with smaller contributions from things 14 such as secondary ammonium nitrate and sulfate and carbon. 15 Secondary nitrate and sulfate are formed in the 16 atmosphere from chemical reactions that involve gaseous NOX, 17 SOX and ammonia. 18 Sources of carbon include combustion processes, 19 such as burning and motor vehicles and formation from gaseous 20 hydrocarbons. 21 That number often includes small trace metals and 22 water and other constituents that are not often measured. 23 Because much of the sample in the fall is comprised 24 of fugitive dust, we see a lot of coarse particles, those 25 between PM 2.5 and PM 10. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 In contrast, in the winter, rainy weather sets in 2 and this often suppresses the fugitive dust emissions. 3 Instead, colder, foggy atmosphere favors the 4 formation of secondary ammonium nitrate and sulfate, and 5 these become the dominate constituents, as shown in green. 6 Carbon also contributes a greater fraction as the 7 use of wood combustion and sometimes agricultural burning 8 increases. 9 These carbon and nitrate sulfate particles are 10 small, and winter samples tend to be dominated by particles 11 PM 2.5 and smaller. 12 In order to address this very complex problem, a 13 four-phase program is being designed. The planning and basic 14 research stage began in 1993. 15 One of the major outcomes of this stage will be 16 plans for subsequent emissions work, field monitoring, 17 modeling and data analysis. 18 During this stage, the U.S. Department of 19 Agriculture is also sponsoring extensive work to develop 20 improved agricultural emission factors for the major crops 21 and practices that take place in the San Joaquin Valley. 22 The second stage, which has just begun, is 23 development of a special approach to characterize the 24 contradiction from primary particles such as fugitive dust 25 and carbon sources. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 In the third stage, field monitoring programs will 2 address both fall and winter episodic conditions as well as 3 the annual average. 4 These are currently scheduled to take place during 5 1999 and 2000. They have an estimated cost of close to 6 $10 million. 7 They will be followed by modeling and analysis of 8 the data with overall completion of the program expected 9 in 2002. 10 I would like to next touch upon upon several of the 11 more innovative technical components of the Study that are 12 already underway. 13 The first of these is a planning stage program 14 known as the 1995 Integrated Monitoring Study, or 15 known as IMS 95. 16 The objectives of this Program were first to 17 collect data to better plan the future field studies 18 scheduled for 1999 and 2000 but also to provide some improved 19 information that could be used in the near term. 20 The Study was conducted during a period of two 21 weeks during the fall of 1995 and four weeks during the 22 winter of 1995-96. 23 It was a comprehensive Program measuring both air 24 quality and meteorological variables in the central and 25 southern San Joaquin Valley and had a cost of about two and a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 half million dollars. 2 During IMS 95, a type of monitoring that we call 3 saturation sampling was conducted. This is essentially what 4 the name implies. 5 We saturate an area with particulate monitors to 6 better understand how concentrations might vary throughout a 7 region. 8 This type of study also provides us with an 9 understanding of how well a central monitoring site might 10 represent a broader area. 11 This is an important aspect of the new monitoring 12 strategies for the new Federal PM Standards. This map 13 depicts a saturation sampling that was operated in the Fresno 14 area during the winter portion of IMS 95. 15 The blue dot is an ARB monitoring site located in 16 Fresno. Over 20 additional PM monitors were then placed 17 throughout Fresno in different kinds of environments trying 18 to collect information of different kinds of emission 19 sources. 20 So, houses, for example, denotes sites in 21 residential neighborhoods, while trees represent those in 22 agricultural areas. 23 What the data showed us is that while all the 24 concentrations of the sites tended to vary and go up and down 25 together in response to the overall weather patterns, the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 magnitude of concentrations in the individual site could vary 2 considerably. 3 This graph shows the minimum, average and maximum 4 concentration that was measured across any of the sites on 5 December 27, 1995. 6 One of the highest PM10 days that we recorded 7 during IMS 95, we could see that PM10 concentrations varied 8 by almost a factor of 2, from 60 micrograms per cubic meter 9 at the lowest site up to a 105 micrograms per cubic meter at 10 the highest site. 11 If you look at the chemical composition samples, we 12 can see some other interesting points. The green bar at the 13 bottom represents the secondary ammonium nitrate and sulfate 14 concentrations, and these are actually very similar across 15 the sites, only varying by about 5 micrograms per cubic meter 16 or so. 17 Instead, the variability that we see between sites 18 is seems to be caused by differences in the amount of carbon 19 and fugitive dust and some of the other materials. 20 So, for example, a site that might be located in a 21 residential neighborhood where there is great deal of wood 22 combustion may have a great deal more carbon than a rural 23 agricultural site. 24 Alternatively, a site near heavily traveled, 25 unpaved road may have much more fugitive dust than a lightly PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 traveled residential street. 2 What this suggests is that there may be a regional 3 component to PM composed of the secondary nitrate and sulfate 4 upon which contributions of local sources are then 5 superimposed. 6 In addition to assessing how particulate matter 7 concentrations vary in space through the saturation sampling 8 IMS 95 also conducted studies to determine how PM 9 concentrations vary in time. 10 Traditional PM monitoring collects data over a 24 11 hour period often measured only every sixth day. 12 This can often mask very important emission 13 information processes. Therefore, during IMS 95, four sites 14 collected PM10 and PM 2.5 data at three hour sampling 15 intervals every day. 16 This graph illustrates a typical pattern of PM 10 17 and PM 2.5 concentrations for that central site located in 18 Fresno on December 26 and 27, 1995. 19 The data show that the concentrations can vary up 20 to a factor of 10 within a single day, from 270 micrograms 21 per cubic meter at midnight on the first day, down to 25 22 micrograms per cubic meter at 9:00 a.m. on the same day. 23 The red line shows the 24-hour average PM10 24 concentration over the day demonstrating that the nighttime 25 concentrations have a very strong influence on the overall PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 24-hour average. 2 These large nighttime peaks are likely caused by 3 several phenomenon. 4 First, as nighttime sets in, the atmosphere becomes 5 colder and more stable, tending to trap and concentrate 6 pollutants near the surface. 7 Second, examination of the chemical composition 8 data on these days shows that there is a great deal of carbon 9 in these samples. 10 That, along with the timing, suggests that wood 11 combustion is probably a significant contributor on these two 12 particular days. 13 The graph also shows that the majority of PM 10 14 during this episode is composed of the finest particles, 15 approximately 70 to 80 percent is PM 2.5 and smaller. 16 The previous slides illustrated some of the new 17 understanding we have gained on wintertime PM 18 concentrations. 19 As discussed previously, in the fall there is a 20 very different kind of problem, which in turn requires a very 21 different kind of approach, and something that was referred 22 to in the earlier Item this morning. 23 While we know that fugitive dust is a major 24 contributor to fall particulate samples, with our current 25 technology we cannot determine which source types PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 specifically contribute to this measure of fugitive dust. 2 So, for example, the fugitive dust could be caused 3 by farming operations, paved roads, unpaved roads, 4 construction or most likely some combination of all of the 5 above. 6 Development of targeted control strategies is 7 difficult without an understanding of the relative importance 8 of each of these source categories. 9 The solution to this problem is being approached 10 through the Primary Particle Study, who is doing research 11 along with that of the Air Resources Board to pursue 12 development of methods which go beyond the traditional 13 species that we currently measure. 14 The objective of this research is to develop unique 15 patterns of new innovative species which can be used to 16 fingerprint individual source types. 17 So, for example, tire wear fragments or engine oil 18 deposits might be found in paved road dust, while dust from 19 agricultural fields may have residues of the plants that were 20 grown in the soil or unique organisms that serve to 21 differentiate them from each other. 22 We are also approaching the same kind of thing for 23 carbon as well. Once these sources themselves have been 24 fingerprinted, we can then look for the same markers for 25 fingerprints in ambient samples to determine the individual PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 contributions from the various source types. 2 How much does a program like this cost? 3 As you can see from the slide, the answer is, quite 4 a bit. 5 The overall budget for the Study is $27.5 million, 6 which is spread out for a period of approximately ten years. 7 The Federal Government is the largest contributor 8 with a goal of nearly $16 million over the life of the 9 Study. 10 The Air Resources Board for State funding and the 11 San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District for 12 local funding have also provided significant monetary 13 contributions. 14 Both of the organizations also support the Study 15 extensively with staff. The private sector has an expected 16 contribution of approximately $2 million. 17 To date, the Study fund raising team has raised 18 nearly $20 million, in part helped by a highly successful 19 Federal fund raising trip this past year. 20 This year the Study actually got more money from 21 the U.S. EPA than we requested from them, certainly a case of 22 being in the right place at the right time, but also a 23 testament to the persuasive powers of our fund raising team. 24 But just to emphasize a little bit that all 25 contributions great and small are welcomed by the Study. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 In 1996, the Study received a $1 million from the 2 Air Resources Board, but we also happily accepted a $100 3 contribution from the Bakersfield High School science club. 4 While we are moving closer to the major field 5 programs that are scheduled for 1999 and 2000, the Study can 6 already lay claim to a number of achievements. 7 To date, Study expenditures of nearly $8 million 8 have resulted in the following accomplishments. 9 First, collection of one of the best PM 10 and 10 PM 2.5 databases in the Nation through the 1995 Integrated 11 Monitoring Study. 12 Second, the development of improved agricultural 13 emission factors from crops such as almonds and cotton. 14 Third, evaluation of the innovative tracers for 15 identification of fugitive dust sources and carbon sources 16 throughout the Primary Particle Study and finally, use of all 17 of the above information has helped support the 1997 SIP for 18 the San Joaquin Valley. 19 The bottomline is, why is it important to support a 20 study of this nature? 21 Well, first and foremost, the information developed 22 through the Study will help ensure that effective and 23 equitable distribution of controls among sources, so that 24 sources which do not contribute to the problem will not be 25 burdened by unnecessary controls, while those that do carry PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 their fair share. 2 Second, the products developed as part of the 3 study, such as the models and the improved monitoring 4 methods, will have national significance and 5 transferability. 6 Finally, the Study truly provides a unique means to 7 address a highly complex air quality problem through the 8 leveraging of financial and technical resources from its many 9 stakeholders. 10 Thank you. 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: One correction. I think when you 12 are north of Fresno, almonds are called almonds. 13 Is that right? 14 MR. PARNELL: Almonds. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. 16 I learned that as a new member of this Valley. 17 Supervisor Patrick, how are you feeling about, I 18 know you have only been Chair a short time, but I know that 19 you have been briefed and had a chance to talk to some of the 20 others on the Board that had served there, how are you 21 feeling about that? 22 How do you feel about the work effort particularly 23 relative to your stakeholders in the Valley? 24 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: I think that they are very 25 encouraged with what is going on. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 They certainly are very encouraged by the fund 2 raising efforts that they had this past spring. 3 I think that what really gives this validity is 4 that all the stakeholders are there. They are present. 5 They are talking about the research that's being 6 done, and they are buying into it. 7 That really gives the Study itself a tremendous 8 amount of validity, because folks in the San Joaquin Valley, 9 just like people throughout the rest of the State, are saying 10 show me the science, and this is doing just that. 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Who is responsible for hitting 12 that high school for one hundred dollars? 13 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: No. 14 I am sure that it was Paul Lingular. 15 Kern County helped kick this off with a million 16 dollars the first time around. 17 I'm afraid we can't be so generous this time, but I 18 know that there were lots of folks who were hit up for money 19 on that. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Joe, I know you have tracked the 21 efforts there. 22 Does anybody else have any questions or comments? 23 Important study. From my part, I can't tell you 24 how many times I have heard the staff say it, and I have said 25 it as well, we have really been a leader in looking at PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 particulate matter, and we have done significant work in the 2 ozone area historically, but in particulates and fine 3 particles, and looking also at the ag interests to make sure 4 that we do have answers to some of those scientific questions 5 before we move towards regulating them in some way. 6 We are very concerned about us not having all of 7 the facts before some program hits them. I have learned to 8 be sensitive to those concerns. 9 Any questions before we wrap up? 10 Okay. Very good. 11 Thank you for a fine presentation. 12 Mr. Kenny, is there anything else before we 13 adjourn? 14 MR. KENNY: Nothing to add. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Preview for October. 16 Mike, Kathleen, what are we looking at? 17 MR. KENNY: I missed the question. 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Preview for October. 19 MR. KENNY: I think one thing that we do want to 20 put on the agenda for October is at least a Closed Session 21 discussion with the Board with regard to the recent lawsuit 22 that we were served with regard to the SIP. 23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. 24 I know that Ms. Edgerton and a few others were 25 interested in that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 With that, I will thank the staff for a fine job, 2 Mr. forest and others that helped out on those earlier Items, 3 I am grateful for your involvement. 4 With that, we will adjourn the September meeting of 5 the California Air Resources Board. 6 (Thereupon the Meeting of the Air Resources Board 7 was adjourned at 12:50 p.m.) 8 --o0o-- 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 2 3 4 I, VICKI L. MEDEIROS, a Certified Shorthand 5 Reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify: 6 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 7 foregoing hearing was reported in shorthand by me, Vicki L. 8 Medeiros, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of 9 California, and thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 10 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 11 attorney for any of the parties to said hearing nor in any 12 way interested in the outcome of said hearing. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 14 this fifth day of October, 1997. 15 16 17 18 VICKI L. MEDEIROS 19 Certified Shorthand Reporter 20 License No. 7871 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345