BOARD MEETING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
JOE SERNA JR., CAL/EPA HEADQUARTERS BUILDING
1001 I STREET
BYRON SHER AUDITORIUM
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
THURSDAY, MAY 25, 2006
9:00 A.M.
JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
LICENSE NUMBER 10063
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
ii
APPEARANCES
BOARD MEMBERS
Dr. Robert Sawyer, Chairperson
Ms. Sandra Berg
Mrs. Barbara Riordan
Ms. Dorene D'Adamo
Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
Dr. Henry Gong
Ms. Lydia Kennard
Supervisor Barbara Patrick
Supervisor Ron Roberts
STAFF
Ms. Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer
Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer
Mr. Michael Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer
Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer
Mr. Tom Jennings, Acting Chief Counsel
Ms. Kathleen Tschogl, Ombudsman
Mr. Bob Barham, Assistant Chief, Stationary Source
Division
Mr. Pat Bennett, Manager, Vapor Recovery Certification
Section
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
iii
APPEARANCES CONTINUED
STAFF
Mr. Richard Bode, Chief, Health and Exposure Assessment
Branch
Mr. Richard Boyd, Manager, Process Evaluation Section
Mr. Bart Croes, Chief, Research Division
Mr. Bob Cross, Chief, Mobile Source Control Division
Mr. Dan Donohoue, Chief, Emissions Assessment Branch
Mr. Tom Evashenk, ZEV Implementation Section
Mr. Bob Fletcher, Chief, Stationary Sources Division
Ms. Mei Fong, Air Pollution Specialist
Ms. Peggy Jenkins, Manager, Indoor Exposure Assessment
Section
Ms. Diane Johnston, Senior Staff Counsel
Mr. Jack Kitowski, Chief, On-Road Controls Branch
Mr. Robert Krieger, Manager, Emissions Evaluation Section
Mr. George Lew, Chief, Engineering and Certification
Branch
Mr. Bill Loscutoff, Chief, Monitoring and Laboratory
Division
Mr. Kevin Mongar, Vapor Recovery Certification Section
Mr. Kirk Oliver, Senior Staff Counsel
Mr. Tom Phillips, Air Pollution Specialist
Mr. Ken Stroud, Chief, Air Quality Surveillance Branch,
Monitoring and Laboratory Division
Mr. Mark Williams, ZEV Implementation Section
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
iv
APPEARANCES CONTINUED
ALSO PRESENT
Mr. Jack Alquist, Guild Cleaners, Inc.
Mr. Steven Arita, Western States Petroleum Association
Mr. Bob Blackburn, Rynex
Mr. Kevin Brown, Engine Control Systems
Mr. Luis Cabrales, Residents of Pic Rivera for
Environmental Justice
Mr. Tim Carmichael, Coalition for Clean Air
Ms. Elaine Chang, South Coast Air Quality Management
District
Mr. San Cho
Mr. Paul Choe, Korean Dry Cleaners Association
Mr. Frank Choy, National Cleaners Association
Mr. Gary Cross, Industrial Truck Association
Mr. David Dawson, Textile Care Allied Trades Association
Mr. Steve Depper, Dutch Girl Cleaners
Ms. Sushma Dhulipala, San Francisco Department of
Environment
Ms. Jennifer Douglas, Prestige Cleaners
Mr. Eskil Eriksson, CEC
Mr. Randal Friedman, U.S. Navy
Mr. Roger Gault, Engine Manufacturers Association
Ms. Sandra Giarde, California Cleaners Association
Ms. Karen Hay, IMPCO Technologies
Mr. Yasuji Hiroi, Natures Best Cleaners
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
v
APPEARANCES CONTINUED
ALSO PRESENT
Ms. Bonnie Holmes-Gen, American Lung Association
Mr. Roger Isom, California Cotton Ginners and Growers
Association
Mr. Daniel Jussicha, Ontario Cleaners
Mr. Hans Kim, Natures Best Cleaners
Mr. Joseph Kubsh, Manufacturers of Emission Controls
Association
Mr. Lawrence Lee, OK Cleaners
Mr. Sam Lee
Mr. Lawrence Lim, Korean Dry Cleaners Association of
Northern California
Mr. Bill Magavern, Sierra Club of California
Mr. Timothy Malloy, UCLA School of Law
Mr. Jay McKeeman, California Independent Oil Marketers
Association
Mr. Wayne Morris, Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers
Ms. Sung Park, Natures Best Cleaners
Mr. Tim Pohle, Air Transportation for Environmental
Affairs
Ms. Betsy Reifsnider, Relational Culture Institute
Mr. Steve Risotto, Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance
Mr. Robert Schlingman, United Airlines
Mr. Doug Shinn, Korean Dry Cleaners Association of
Northern California
Mr. Peter Sinsheimer, Occidental College
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
vi
APPEARANCES CONTINUED
ALSO PRESENT
Mr. Bob Smerling, Brentwood Royal Cleaners
Mr. Rudie Smit, Meile Professional
Mr. Thomas Son, Korean Dry Cleaners Association of
Northern California
Mr. Kwon Taekook, Fashion Cleaners
Ms. Lisa Tsan, Fay Cleaners
Ms. Lynnette Waterson, California Cleaners Association
Dr. Kathy Wolf, Institute for Research and Technical
Assistance
Ms. Jill Whynot, South Coast Air Quality Management
District
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
vii
INDEX
PAGE
Pledge of Allegiance 1
Roll Call 1
Opening remarks by Chairperson Sawyer 2
Item 06-5-1
Chairperson Sawyer 3
Executive Officer Witherspoon 4
Staff Presentation 4
Board Discussion and Q&A 19
Wayne Morris 28
Bonnie Holmes-Gen 30
Item 06-5-2
Chairperson Sawyer 33
Executive Officer Witherspoon 34
Staff Presentation 37
Ombudsman Tschogl 54
Sushma Dhulipala 82
Frank Choy 84
Jack Alquist 87
Jennifer Douglas 91
Hans Kim 93
Bobby Smerling 94
Paul Choe 99
Daniel Jussicha 100
Yasuji Hiroi 100
Kwon Taekook 102
Lisa Tsan 106
Lawrence Lee 107
Sung Park 107
Rudie Smit 109
Steve Depper 113
Lawrence Lim 115
Thomas Son 118
Sang Cho 119
Sam Lee 120
Elaine Chang 122
Jill Whynot 128
Tim Carmichael 134
Betsy Reifsnider 143
Luis Cabrales 145
Peter Sinsheimer 148
Zion Orpaz 151
Timothy Malloy 153
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
viii
INDEX CONTINUED
PAGE
Item 06-5-2(continued)
Doug Shinn 158
Kathy Wolf 161
Sandra Giarde 163
Steve Risotto 166
Lynnette Watterson 170
Bob Blackburn 173
Bill Magavern 175
Eskil Eriksson 176
Ex Partes 178
Board Discussion and Q&A 183
Motion 198
Vote 200
Afternoon Session 201
Item 06-5-4
Chairperson Sawyer 201
Executive Officer Witherspoon 201
Staff Presentation 204
Ombudsman Tschogl 223
Roger Gault 225
Gary Cross 226
Karen Hay 233
Roger Isom 238
Tim Pohle 239
Robert Schlingman 241
Randy Friedman 243
Joseph Kubsh 245
Kevin Brown 248
Motion 253
Vote 254
Item 06-5-3
Chairperson Sawyer 255
Executive Officer Witherspoon 255
Staff Presentation 256
Ombudsman Tschogl 261
Board Discussion and Q&A 263
Steven Arita 265
Jay McKeeman 268
Motion 274
Vote 274
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
ix
INDEX CONTINUED
PAGE
Board Comments 274
Public Comment
Randal Friedman 274
Adjournment 276
Reporter's Certificate 277
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
1
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Good morning. The May 25,
3 2006, Public Meeting of the Air Resources Board will now
4 come to order.
5 Would all please rise and join me in the Pledge
6 of Allegiance.
7 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was
8 Recited in unison.)
9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Will the Clerk of the Board
10 please call the roll.
11 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Ms. Berg?
12 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Here.
13 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Ms. D'Adamo?
14 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here.
15 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Supervisor DeSaulnier?
16 Dr. Gong?
17 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Here.
18 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Ms. Kennard.
19 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Here.
20 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Mayor loveridge?
21 Supervisor Patrick?
22 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Here.
23 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Mr. Riordan?
24 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here.
25 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Supervisor Roberts?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
2
1 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Here.
2 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Dr. Sawyer?
3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Here.
4 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: We have a quorum.
5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
6 I have just a few opening remarks I'd like to go
7 over before we get started.
8 At this time I would like to inform all the
9 witnesses signing up to speak today, please be aware that
10 the Board will be imposing a three-minute time limit so
11 that everyone gets a chance to speak.
12 I would also like to ask that each speaker put
13 his or her testimony into his or her own words. You do
14 not have to read written testimony to us. We have that
15 for the record. It's much more effective and easier for
16 the Board to follow you if you go straight to the main
17 points you want to make.
18 We also have translation services available in
19 Korean for those who need it. The headsets are available
20 outside the hearing room at the attendant sign-up table.
21 And in Korean from the translator.
22 (Korean translation.)
23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
24 I would now like everyone in the room to please
25 note the emergency exits to your right of the hearing
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
3
1 room, as well as through the rear, through the main
2 entrance. If exiting through the rear of the hearing
3 room, please follow the exit signs to the left just past
4 the restrooms.
5 In the event of a fire alarm, we are required to
6 evacuate this room immediately. Evacuees will exit down
7 the stairways and possibly to a relocation site across the
8 street. When the all-clear signal is given, we will
9 return to the hearing room and resume the hearing.
10 Agenda Item 06-5-1, Health Update.
11 I would like to remind anyone in the audience who
12 wishes to testify at today's hearing on any of the agenda
13 items to please sign up with the Clerk of the Board.
14 Also, if you have a written statement, please provide 30
15 copies when you sign up to testify.
16 The first item today is the monthly health
17 update. Today the staff will present recent information
18 on ozone generators. Air quality agencies have greatly
19 reduced outdoor ozone levels in California. However, we
20 haven't fully eliminated the threat of high zone ozone
21 levels to human health. Some so-called air cleaners are
22 being marketed today that produce harmful levels of ozone
23 indoors in excess of our outdoor standards. We will be
24 hearing about the nature of this problem this morning. We
25 do need to do whatever we can to reduce these exposures,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
4
1 starting of course with public education.
2 Ms. Witherspoon.
3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Dr.
4 Sawyer. And good morning, members of the Board.
5 For many years staff has been monitoring the
6 problem of air cleaners that intentionally generate ozone
7 in private homes and other indoor spaces. Last year we
8 presented information to the Board on the results from a
9 U.S. EPA study showing that these devices could produce
10 extremely high ozone levels indoors, well above
11 health-based standards. Despite continued health warnings
12 from ARB and other groups, a growing number of
13 manufacturers continue to aggressively promote these
14 devices as beneficial to susceptible individuals, such as
15 those with asthma and other respiratory diseases. No
16 state agency has clear authority to address this growing
17 problem, and the federal agencies with relevant authority
18 do not exercise it.
19 In today's item we will discuss recent test
20 results, summarize our currently actions to address the
21 problem, and discuss our continuing concern about these
22 devices.
23 Tom Phillips, a member of the Health and Exposure
24 Assessment Branch, will make the staff presentation.
25 Tom.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
5
1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST PHILLIPS: Thank you,
2 Ms. Witherspoon. And good morning, Dr. Sawyer and members
3 of the Board. Thank you for this opportunity to update
4 you on ozone generators.
5 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was
6 Presented as follows.)
7 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST PHILLIPS: Today I will
8 first provide a brief background on this problem. Then I
9 will discuss the results of our tests of ozone generators
10 and update you on your statewide survey of portable air
11 cleaner usage and our outreach activities.
12 I will also summarize the related activities of
13 other groups.
14 Finally I will discuss the next steps that are
15 planned.
16 --o0o--
17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST PHILLIPS: Ozone
18 generators are a serious public health problem because
19 they can emit large amounts of ozone in enclosed spaces.
20 Ozone generators are portable appliances that are designed
21 to intentionally emit ozone. They are marketed as
22 so-called air purifiers, often with misleading claims
23 about ozone's effectiveness or toxicity.
24 Some other popular types of portable air
25 cleaners, such as ionizers and electrostatic
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
6
1 precipitators, also emit ozone, but as a byproduct of
2 their design rather than as an intentional product, and
3 generally at lower emission rates. In this update we are
4 focusing only on ozone generators, that is, those devices
5 that purposely emit ozone.
6 In January 2005 we presented a health update to
7 you on ozone generators. We highlighted the study by EPA
8 researchers. We found that an ozone generator could
9 produce over 300 parts per billion, or ppb, of ozone
10 inside a test house. This level of ozone exceeds our
11 health-based California ambient air quality standards.
12 Studies have shown that much higher ozone concentrations
13 are needed to effectively kill microbial contamination on
14 indoor surfaces and that ozone is ineffective at removing
15 indoor air pollutants.
16 Ozone generators are not marketed in retail
17 stores, but rather via the mail, the Internet and direct
18 distributors.
19 Federal agencies in a few states have taken
20 action such as lawsuits and public health warnings. But
21 these have had little effect on the problem of ozone
22 generators. The Federal Food and Drug Administration, or
23 FDA, has an ozone limit of 50 parts per billion for air
24 cleaners that are marketed with a medical or health claim,
25 but they rarely enforce this regulation. The Underwriters
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
7
1 Laboratory, or UL, also uses a 50 ppb limit for their air
2 cleaner testing.
3 In California, regulatory authority to address
4 ozone generators is lacking.
5 --o0o--
6 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST PHILLIPS: Now I will
7 move on to our test results.
8 We worked closely with staff from our Monitoring
9 and Laboratory Division, who tested four models of ozone
10 generators.
11 The four models tested were:
12 The Alpine Air XL-15, also known as Lightening
13 Air RA 2500;
14 The Biozone 500;
15 The Prozone Whole House model; and
16 The Prozone Compact model.
17 These models were selected because they were
18 widely advertised in California or on the web, and are
19 intended for use in occupied spaces.
20 You can see these models displayed on the table
21 behind me. They are not turned on.
22 (Laughter.)
23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST PHILLIPS: We measured
24 both room concentrations produced by these models and
25 their direct emission rates of ozone.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
8
1 --o0o--
2 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST PHILLIPS: This photo
3 shows the setup for the room concentration tests. To
4 simulate conditions in a small bedroom or home office, we
5 tested the ozone generators in an 88 square-foot room
6 furnished with a desk and upholstered chair. The room has
7 a linoleum floor, and the walls and ceilings are painted
8 wallboard.
9 The ozone generator was placed on the desktop
10 near the center of the room. The probes for the ozone
11 monitor, nitrogen oxide monitor, and temperature and
12 humidity sensors were placed three feet from the ozone
13 generator.
14 Background ozone concentrations in the adjoining
15 room were measured during the test and were relatively
16 low, ranging from 1 to 12 ppb during the test.
17 The room was not served by a mechanical air
18 ventilation system. We measured the indoor/outdoor air
19 exchange rate of the room and found that the rates before
20 and during the testing remained fairly stable, at 0.25 and
21 0.28 air changes per hour. These rates are in the lower
22 range of air change rates in homes. But would be common
23 in homes with closed windows and doors.
24 We tested the ozone generators at low ozone
25 settings and at high or medium settings, as the devices'
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
9
1 controls allowed. We operated the devices according to
2 the manufacturers' instructions.
3 --o0o--
4 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST PHILLIPS: This graph
5 shows the results of the room tests of the four models at
6 medium and high settings for ozone output. The left axis
7 shows the room ozone concentrations in parts per billion,
8 or ppb. The bottom axis shows the time in minutes since
9 the ozone generator was turned on in the room. The dashed
10 horizontal lines near the bottom of the graphic show the
11 one-hour California ambient air quality standard of 90 ppb
12 and the FDA and UL limits of 50 ppb.
13 The ozone generators were operated until the room
14 concentrations leveled off, or for about three hours,
15 whichever came first. For example, the yellow line shows
16 the highest ozone levels measured in the study. These are
17 from the Prozone Whole House unit when operated on its
18 continuous setting. This shows that the room
19 concentration increased very rapidly when the device was
20 turned on at zero minutes. The ozone levels reached 400
21 parts per billion in about 60 minutes, and dropped quickly
22 when the unit was turned off at 180 minutes, or 3 hours.
23 This continuous maximum setting used in this test
24 is recommended only for periods when the home is
25 unoccupied.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
10
1 As shown by the yellow and dark pink lines on the
2 graph, the Prozone Whole House and Prozone Compact units
3 exceeded the one-hour state standard and the FDA limit by
4 a wide margin.
5 The Biozone unit when operated at a high fan
6 speed also exceeded these levels, as shown by the blue
7 line.
8 The Alpine Air unit, shown by the red line,
9 exceeded the FDA limit and reached the one-our state
10 standard when operated at its medium setting. We would
11 expect even higher room ozone levels if we had tested the
12 Alpine Air unit at one of its higher settings.
13 --o0o--
14 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST PHILLIPS: This graph
15 shows the results of the room tests when the air cleaners
16 were operated at low settings for ozone output.
17 The Prozone Whole House unit, shown by the yellow
18 line, was operated at its lowest timer setting, which is
19 at 15 minutes of operation per hour.
20 This intermittent mode is the recommended setting
21 for an occupied home. It produced a peak ozone level of
22 291 parts per billion and, as you can see, produced
23 concentrations well above both 50 and 90 parts per billion
24 for a good portion of the time.
25 The Biozone unit, as shown by the blue line,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
11
1 exceeded 50 and 90 ppb when operated with the fan set at a
2 low speed. Fan speed is the only setting that can be
3 adjusted on this model. The ozone output is the same at
4 both speeds.
5 The Alpine Air unit when operated at an ozone
6 generator setting 100 square feet, the lowest setting, did
7 not appear to produce any ozone. The room concentration
8 was similar to background concentration.
9 The Prozone Compact only has an on/off switch.
10 It could not be operated at a low setting, so it is not
11 included in this graph.
12 --o0o--
13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST PHILLIPS: This chart
14 highlights some of the information shown on the previous
15 graphs, specifically how quickly each model reached 90
16 ppb, the level of the one-hour state standard. These
17 results were obtained when the units were operated at
18 settings recommended for occupied spaces.
19 As shown in the right column, the Prozone Whole
20 House model produced room levels of 90 ppb in just seven
21 minutes, although it was on its intermittent, or lowest,
22 setting.
23 The Prozone Compact model produced 90 ppb in 20
24 minutes.
25 For the other two models it took about one or two
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
12
1 hours to reach 90 ppb. The Alpine unit produced a maximum
2 of 89 ppb. But considering the precision of the
3 measurements, this is essentially equal to 90 ppb.
4 The test methods used by FDA and the Underwriters
5 Laboratory for certain types of air cleaners differs
6 somewhat from the methods we used. But based on our
7 results, we believe that the devices we tested would not
8 meet their 50 ppb limits.
9 Also, we concur with their 50 ppb limits for air
10 cleaners. During California's warmer months many
11 locations have elevated outdoor ozone levels that increase
12 levels indoors. And emissions from air cleaners would add
13 to existing levels of ozone indoors.
14 --o0o--
15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST PHILLIPS: We also
16 tested the ozone emission rates of the four models of
17 ozone generators. The units were operated at settings
18 that were generally the same as those for the room tests.
19 As shown on this photograph, a Teflon duct, the
20 long white tube in the photo, was attached to the blower
21 fan outlet from the ozone generator. The ozone emission
22 rate was measured by inserting the ozone probe into the
23 duct at a standard distance downstream. The average
24 concentration of ozone in a cross-section of the duct and
25 the average air velocity in the duct were used to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
13
1 calculate the emission rate for ozone.
2 The results of our emission tests were consistent
3 with the results for the room tests; that is, the higher
4 room concentrations were produced by the ozone generator
5 models and settings that had the higher emission rates.
6 The results were also consistent with those from the few
7 previous studies available.
8 --o0o--
9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST PHILLIPS: Based on the
10 room and emission tests just described, we've concluded
11 the following:
12 First, all four ozone generators produced room
13 ozone levels at or above the California health-based air
14 quality standard of 90 ppb and above the FDA limit of 50
15 ppb. The Prozone models produced indoor ozone levels that
16 would trigger smog alerts.
17 Next, the measured emission rates were consistent
18 with the room test results in the previous studies.
19 Finally, these devices are not safe to operate in
20 occupied spaces. Because people tend to operate their air
21 cleaners for long periods, sometimes continuously
22 throughout day and night, it is clear that occupants would
23 experience prolonged exposure to ozone at unhealthy levels
24 when using ozone generators such as these.
25 Nonetheless, manufacturers market these devices
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
14
1 to vulnerable groups such as persons with asthma and other
2 respiratory conditions and families with children.
3 --o0o--
4 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST PHILLIPS: Now, I would
5 like to update you on our other related activities.
6 As you may recall, we recently funded a statewide
7 survey on portable air cleaners. The objectives of this
8 survey are to determine the percent of California
9 households that are using ozone generators, how often and
10 how long portable air cleaners are used in homes, and the
11 reasons people are purchasing these air cleaners.
12 To answer these questions we have contracted with
13 the UC Berkeley Survey Research Center to conduct a
14 telephone survey. In order to obtain a representative
15 sample, households will be randomly selected from across
16 the state. The researchers will make more than 10,000
17 calls and complete interviews with approximately 1800
18 households.
19 This information will help us to address the
20 potential impacts of ozone generators on public health.
21 We expect the survey results in the fall.
22 --o0o--
23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST PHILLIPS: We have also
24 increased our efforts to make Californians aware of the
25 problem of ozone generators. Although thousands of people
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
15
1 have visited our website or contacted us directly for
2 information about ozone generators, many more people are
3 unaware of the health risks. Therefore we are making a
4 proactive effort to educate key professional groups and
5 the public.
6 We are contacting key groups that can help
7 disseminate this information, including local air
8 districts and local health officers and other groups shown
9 on the slide and others such as the allergy and asthma
10 groups and the American Association of Retired Persons.
11 We have developed a slide presentation to use when
12 contacting these groups.
13 In addition, we are distributing our new ozone
14 generator fact sheet. And you should have a copy of this
15 in your packet.
16 We will continue to update our website, which has
17 an updated list of ozone generators currently on the
18 market. Since our last update to the Board the number of
19 ozone generators on our list has doubled.
20 We've included the updated list of ozone
21 generators in your copies of fact sheet. We expect these
22 devices to continue to proliferate unless a major change
23 occurs.
24 --o0o--
25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST PHILLIPS: These photos
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
16
1 illustrate a few examples of some new models of ozone
2 generators on the market. Unlike many of the earlier
3 models, which typically were large and boxy in form, these
4 devices are now available in a wide variety of shapes and
5 sizes for a variety of creative uses.
6 The models shown here, beginning in the top row
7 from left to right, include two desktop models: The USB
8 Air Purifier with ozone on the left, which is powered by a
9 computer USB port; and the Moonland UFO desktop ozone
10 purifier.
11 We will pass the Moonland device to you, but it
12 is not turned on. Note that it also has a packet that
13 releases a lemon fragrance. Recent research funded by ARB
14 and others shows that when such fragrance compounds are
15 combined with ozone, harmful reaction products such as
16 formaldehyde and ultrafine particles are produced. So
17 with models like this one, one would be exposed not only
18 to increased levels of ozone but also increased levels of
19 formaldehyde and ultrafine particles.
20 Other models shown here include one designed to
21 fit inside shoes to deodorize them. Another model is an
22 optical mouse for use with desktop computers. And two
23 models are designed for use inside vehicles.
24 We have not found any ozone emission data for
25 these models. However, many of these small units, such as
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
17
1 the USB units, are designed to be used in close proximity
2 to the user, and could produce unhealthful ozone levels in
3 the user's breathing zone.
4 --o0o--
5 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST PHILLIPS: Other groups
6 have recently focused on ozone generators as well.
7 Assembly Bill 2276 by Assemblywoman Pavley would require
8 ARB to develop regulations to address ozone generators.
9 The bill is now being considered in the Senate.
10 As we discussed in our last update, we had also
11 asked the Attorney General's office to review our legal
12 options for addressing ozone generators. While a lawsuit
13 might well be successful, it may be ineffective at
14 stopping manufacturers of ozone generators based on the
15 experience of the Federal Trade Commission in suing Alpine
16 Air. This is because manufacturers could easily avoid the
17 lawsuit's effects by such simple acts as changing their
18 names, corporate status or product claims. The AG's
19 office has stated support for the Pavley bill.
20 The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has
21 authority to regulate consumer products. To help decide
22 whether action is needed regarding ozone generators, the
23 CPSC has hired a consultant to review the literature on
24 ozone emissions from air cleaners. However, strong action
25 is not expected.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
18
1 The Underwriters Laboratory is currently
2 reviewing their standard test method for measuring ozone
3 emissions from electronic air cleaners. Not all
4 manufacturers use this method and the test method has some
5 technical limitations. However, UL anticipates an
6 improved method within the next year. ARB staff are
7 serving on UL's ad hoc committee to develop an improved
8 test method.
9 And, finally, Consumer Reports magazine published
10 two articles in 2005 that have greatly increased awareness
11 about the effectiveness of air cleaners and their ozone
12 emissions. We were able to post one of their articles on
13 our website, and will be posting the second article soon.
14 --o0o--
15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST PHILLIPS: What are the
16 next steps to prevent this unnecessary exposure to ozone?
17 First, we plan to continue following proposed
18 legislation such as AB 2276 by Pavley.
19 Next, we will send letters to the Food and Drug
20 Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission
21 to encourage further action on their part.
22 We will continue with our proactive outreach
23 efforts with key target groups and complete the survey on
24 portable air cleaners. We also will continue to
25 participate in the UL effort to revise their air cleaner
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
19
1 test standard.
2 And, finally, we plan to present another update
3 to you when we have substantial progress to report.
4 I should note that we received two comment
5 letters recently on this item.
6 Thank you for your kind attention. And we would
7 be happy to answer any questions you may have.
8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you, Mr. Phillips.
9 Do any of the Board members have questions?
10 Dr. Gong.
11 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Well done presentation, Tom.
12 Two points. One is I think the data you
13 presented are excellent. Staff's to be congratulated for
14 coming through with some very quantitative data. In fact,
15 my initial impression was when I saw the numbers is that
16 it's so high for some of the brands.
17 The other question -- or the question I have
18 is -- the FDA has set a limit of 50 parts per billion for
19 these pieces of equipment. Is there any scientific
20 rationale for that 50 part per billion threshold? Is
21 there any history behind that I'm -- I'm not aware of any.
22 But are you?
23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST PHILLIPS: We've over
24 the years tried to find it, without any success. And we
25 tried again recently, and there's -- we haven't had any
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
20
1 luck. The best we've heard is that it may have been based
2 on the feasibility of just achieving that level. And that
3 was based on recollections from EPA staff, who had
4 contacted FDA. And many of those people have since
5 retired at FDA. So we have some people that are trying to
6 see if there's any documented record of it. But we really
7 don't know if there's a sound health basis for that level.
8 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Right. It gives the
9 impression that 50 parts per billion is okay regardless of
10 where you're coming from. So I think that's one important
11 number to pursue, in a sense, to clarify.
12 The related question is really about the quality
13 control of these machines. We saw one brand emit no ozone
14 when it was supposed to. I forget which one. So I mean
15 if I were a consumer, I'd say I'm not getting my money's
16 worth. If I want some ozone, I want it, you know.
17 (Laughter.)
18 BOARD MEMBER GONG: But it's not emitting it,
19 according to your numbers.
20 But when it emits it high, it really emits it
21 high and I get a blast of it.
22 So I'm just really questioning about the quality
23 control of these pieces of equipment.
24 But, anyway, I really commend you on the
25 research. And I think it just adds more information, that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
21
1 if you buy an ozone-generating machine, you get zone, as
2 well as many impurities, I'm sure.
3 Thank you.
4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Supervisor Roberts.
5 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Yeah, I'm just curious.
6 And I feel like I've missed out on something. But
7 what's -- given the wealth of negative publicity that's
8 out there regarding ozone, what's driving this, you know,
9 multiplication of units available and just the basic -- I
10 mean did Time magazine having something good to say about
11 this and I missed it or -- what's causing the consumers to
12 want these things?
13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST PHILLIPS: Well, we
14 think it's maybe an unintended consequence of a lot of
15 publicity on our part and EPA's and others about the
16 importance of indoor air pollution. And so consumers are
17 looking for a quick fix. And these types of units are
18 much quieter than the traditional types of air cleaners
19 that have a fan that blows all the time and may rattle and
20 so on, and then you have to change the filter and so on.
21 And these are very quiet, simple devices. And they
22 promise the world in terms of removing pollutants and
23 curing your ailments.
24 The Asian manufacturers have also started to come
25 on strong in terms of a lot of new manufacturers are on
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
22
1 our list on the web now and they have several different
2 models. And so we think it's generally the consumers are
3 looking for a quick fix. And a lot of people have
4 allergies or asthma, as you know. And these are somewhat
5 affordable. You know, some of them are around 200 to
6 $400. Some of these newer units are much cheaper. And
7 the one you can get that you wear around your neck is
8 around a hundred dollars.
9 So we think it's easy to sell the product. It
10 meets a demand. It's one of the fastest growing
11 markets -- the air cleaner market is a very big growth
12 area right now in this field.
13 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: What was the conclusions
14 in the Consumer Reports article?
15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST PHILLIPS: They were
16 looking at different units. But the ones they were
17 looking at were a different type of unit. And they found
18 that they generally weren't very effective at removing
19 dust particles using some standard industry test methods;
20 and that they also produced a fair amount of ozone. And
21 we've seen that in Scientific Journal articles as well.
22 So these; were not ozone generators per se. They
23 were a different type of air cleaner. But those have
24 related concerns in terms of how effective are they
25 really. And then ozone emissions may be significant too.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
23
1 And that is on our website.
2 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I'll read it before I
3 purchase, for sure.
4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Berg.
5 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you.
6 What consumer labeling, if any, is required on
7 these ozone emitters?
8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST PHILLIPS: I don't know
9 of any that's currently required other than maybe
10 electrical safety requirements. But I gather from recent
11 discussions, even those may not be required unless it's
12 like a major appliance, like a refrigerate. But for these
13 small appliance, apparently not.
14 BOARD MEMBER BERG: As we get this information
15 out, will this be covered by Prop 65 warnings at any time
16 or -- it seems to me that in light of lack of authority,
17 at least if we can continue to get information out to the
18 consumer, that that might be helpful.
19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Prop 65 only
20 applies to carcinogens. And ozone's not designated as a
21 carcinogen.
22 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you.
23 INDOOR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER
24 JENKINS: Peggy Jenkins. Just to add one clarification
25 regarding labeling.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
24
1 These devices, the ozone generators, the majority
2 of them do make medical claims, and really should be
3 regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. They do
4 fall under their jurisdiction. The problem is the
5 manufacturers do not have their products certified, and
6 FDA does not really enforce their regulations. And so
7 they slip through the cracks. They are actually required
8 to become certified and to have a label placed on them,
9 but they don't do it. So there is that hole there, that
10 crack.
11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. D'Adamo.
12 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I had asked the question
13 during staff briefing about the cost, the comparative
14 costs between these air purifiers that rely on ozone and
15 others. And as I recall, it would be fairly easy to
16 convert over in the industry that relies on ozone to other
17 methods. In other words there wouldn't be high costs
18 associated with it. I just wanted to confirm that. And
19 then I have a follow-up question on it as well.
20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST PHILLIPS: The costs
21 would be similar in terms of general fabrication and
22 components and so on, from what we can tell. We haven't
23 talked to manufacturers specifically to see, you know,
24 what it would entail.
25 These units are very cheap to produce. And
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
25
1 there's even some do-it-yourself websites where you can
2 make your own. But the market cost is fairly substantial.
3 I mean it's -- but they're -- I think they're pricing it
4 to whatever the market will bear.
5 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And then what about these
6 newer models, these portable ones, like the one that you
7 passed down, could that be converted over to other
8 technologies that don't rely on ozone?
9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST PHILLIPS: Perhaps an
10 ionizer where it's just one small electrode. But the
11 types that have filters and fans tend to be bigger and
12 take more power and so on. So there's probably a -- you
13 know, if you go to the hardware store, I think you see a
14 little bigger units for that type of air cleaner. But
15 cost-wise, you'd also start running into more costs. From
16 what we've seen on the shelves, I think a lot of those air
17 cleaners tend to cost more, you know, in the hundred/two
18 hundred dollar range.
19 INDOOR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER
20 JENKINS: I would add, there is some research from out of
21 China. Some Chinese investigators did study the ozone
22 production of ionizers relative to sort of wire diameter
23 and the actual details of the construction of the device.
24 And they actually found that with some small changes one
25 can greatly reduce the ozone and still have an ionizer
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
26
1 that will create the ions to reduce the particles.
2 So certainly technologically it looks quite
3 feasible. I think the Devil would be in the details for
4 each designed and each shape. But with some change in
5 wire diameter, distance between the charge and so on, it
6 seems like with some fine tuning one can have a device
7 that works with lower ozone emissions.
8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: That's good to hear,
9 because with these newer models it looks like -- you know,
10 they're so inexpensive and high tech, it seems that
11 there's a tremendous growth potential for their market.
12 Which I assume you'll be looking into when you look at the
13 survey, not just current usage but the growth potential as
14 well?
15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST PHILLIPS: Right.
16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. And then the last
17 question. I think probably the best situation would be
18 for us to have clear authority, maybe with the Pavley
19 bill. But in the meantime, just curious, if -- the device
20 that was sent down here that had air freshener beads in
21 it, don't we have authority to regulate air fresheners
22 like sprays and that sort of thing under our authority
23 relative to consumer products? And if so, would we --
24 have you looked at that? If not on the device, what about
25 these devices that contain air freshener product?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
27
1 AIR QUALITY SURVEILLANCE BRANCH CHIEF STROUD:
2 Yes, Ms. D'Adamo, we do have authority for air
3 cleaning products here. They're related to the volatile
4 organic content of the air cleaners. And we haven't done
5 any investigation into that. So I think we'll turn around
6 and evaluate these things and see what they actually do
7 contain.
8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. Thank you.
9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: What do you anticipate you
10 will do next? Are you going to continue testing or -- and
11 will we get a good market survey of how many are out there
12 and what the magnitude of the problem is?
13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST PHILLIPS: Richard, do
14 you want to address the testing issue?
15 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE:
16 Sure.
17 A couple of -- one is, we're going to -- well,
18 actually they're doing the survey right now, which should
19 tell us how many of these at least ozone generators are
20 out in homes in California, as well as other types of air
21 cleaners. And it gets back to the issue of how much
22 interest there is in California for air cleaning devices.
23 And so we hope to have that hopefully by the end of the
24 year. And so we'll bring that information back.
25 As far as other types of air cleaners, we're
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
28
1 hoping right now of testing other devices as well and
2 continue on. We felt that the testing we've done -- this
3 was our first step into it -- was fairly successful, and
4 we've worked pretty well at it here. And so we hope to
5 bring more information back to the Board on that.
6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Thank you very much.
7 We have two requests to speak from the public.
8 First is Mr. -- oh, wait a second, I had the
9 wrong list -- a representative from the Association of
10 Home Appliance Manufacturers.
11 Excuse me. I misplaced your name.
12 MR. MORRIS: Thank you very much, Mr. Sawyer and
13 members of the Air Resources Board and to the staff as
14 well.
15 I would like to speak briefly on this matter.
16 And I am here representing the Association of Home
17 Appliance Manufacturers. We are a trade group
18 headquartered in Washington DC. We represent over 180
19 manufacturers of home appliances, many of the brand names
20 that you pass by in your homes everyday, such as G.E. and
21 Whirlpool and Frigidaire, Honeywell, Sunbeam.
22 We represent over 20 manufacturers of portable
23 room air cleaners. AM also administers and has operated
24 for over 20 years a performance certification program
25 based on the only performance certification and American
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
29
1 National Standard for performance of air cleaners. This
2 is ANSI/AHAM Standard AC-1. And we list in our directory
3 the performance of these air cleaners, allowing consumers
4 to choose the one that is proper for their home and
5 situation.
6 We support the ARB's proposed limit of ozone
7 emission concentration at the 50 parts per billion level.
8 Our members have always complied with this level and we
9 will continue to do so.
10 We would only ask that the Board and staff -- of
11 two things briefly. The American National Standard for
12 safety of room air cleaners, which was mentioned by Mr.
13 Phillips and Ms. Jenkins, is ANSI/UL Standard 867 and
14 ANSI/UL Standard 507. We are pleased that the ARB staff
15 are participating in that revision process that is
16 underway. We would request that the Board continue to
17 operate in that activity. And we believe that this effort
18 is noted -- is not noted in the report and needs to be
19 done.
20 We believe that ARB should be very careful about
21 what they label as air cleaners in their reports and press
22 releases and notices, so that it's very clear that most
23 air cleaners do not produce ozone in excess of the 50
24 parts per billion federal guideline or the ANSI standards.
25 Terms such as "ionizers" or "precipitators" need to be
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
30
1 carefully used to distinguish these from the technology
2 used behind legitimate and good air cleaners from those
3 that generate purposely ozone.
4 I'm going to continue to work with the ARB staff
5 in this important area and we will continue to support you
6 in your efforts.
7 Thank you very much.
8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you, Mr. Morris.
9 Bonnie Holmes-Gen.
10 MS. HOLMES-GEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
11 Board members for allowing me to enter into this
12 conversation. I'm with the American Lung Association of
13 California.
14 And I wanted to comment that the Lung Association
15 is extremely concerned about this problem of
16 ozone-generating air cleaning devices. And as you've seen
17 these devices, many of them are not cheap. These can be
18 fairly expensive devices that people are purchasing. And
19 they are unaware in most cases that they're actually
20 creating a smog alert in their home rather than cleaning
21 the air.
22 And we're especially concerned that a large
23 percentage of people that are using these devices are
24 sensitive individuals, with asthma or emphysema or other
25 lung illnesses, that are again trying to improve their air
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
31
1 quality in their home.
2 And another reason that people use these devices
3 that maybe hasn't been focused on -- a lot of people are
4 concerned about the outdoor air quality. They're living
5 in areas with high air pollution levels. They're Living
6 in areas that may be close to a toxic hot spot, a diesel
7 hot spot, and they are concerned about protecting their
8 families from outdoor air pollution too that's seeping
9 into their home. And I think -- you know, you heard some
10 testimony about this at the last hearing on the emission
11 reduction plan at ports. And some families were
12 mentioning they were using air cleaning devices to try to
13 address the problem -- the pollution problems they were
14 experiencing in their communities and to protect their
15 families inside their homes.
16 These devices clearly are not safe and must be
17 regulated. We appreciate very much the work that you have
18 been doing, your staff has been doing over the past couple
19 of years on this issue, especially the recent fact sheet
20 that's been put on the website and distributed. It's an
21 excellent fact sheet. And we need to do more to get that
22 out to people so they understand the problems.
23 We are sponsoring the Pavley legislation that has
24 been mentioned, AB 2276, and we're very pleased that that
25 bill is moving along. And as was mentioned, it's already
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
32
1 passed the Assembly floor and is in the Senate. And that
2 bill would for the first time give the State Board the
3 authority to regulate emissions from these devices,
4 including the ability to adopt a ban on the sale of
5 devices that exceed the FDA standard of 50 parts per
6 billion. And it would also require air cleaning devices
7 to follow the FDA requirements that are not being
8 followed, as you've heard, for testing, certification and
9 labeling to ensure that consumers have proper information
10 when they go to purchase devices to know which devices are
11 complying and which are not.
12 We agree with Dr. Gong. We need to keep looking
13 at the 50 ppb level and that standard -- need to keep
14 evaluating that. But since we do have that level
15 established in the federal regulation, we think it makes
16 sense to move ahead and adopt legislation to at least get
17 ozone levels from these devices, you know, below that
18 level at this point.
19 So we would -- and I also want to just comment
20 that we appreciate that many device manufacturers are
21 complying and producing devices that are, you know,
22 compliant with that 50 ppb standard. But, as you've
23 heard, we still have a big problem. And we need to get --
24 we need to have state authority. We need to pass AB 2276.
25 And we would greatly appreciate any help that you could
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
33
1 provide, and we would urge your support of that
2 legislation so the State Board can be out front on this
3 issue, as you are out front on so many other outdoor air
4 pollution issues.
5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much.
6 Does staff have any additional comments?
7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Just one thing.
8 I want to acknowledge the contribution that the Monitoring
9 and Laboratory Division made to this item. While they
10 were not at the table, they innovated several brand new
11 methods for measuring emissions from these devices. And I
12 got a chance to see all their different sampling trains,
13 and it really was, you know, quite a work effort. So I
14 want to congratulate them and share that accomplishment
15 with you.
16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. And I'd add my
17 own appreciation for the measurements which were done and
18 reported to us. Fine. Since this is not a regulatory
19 item, it's not necessary to officially close the record.
20 And we will move to Agenda Item 06-5-2. The next
21 item for our consideration this morning is the proposed
22 control measure for perchloroethylene dry-cleaning
23 operations.
24 This proposal would amend the existing
25 dry-cleaning control measure that the Board adopted in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
34
1 1993. The amendments would update the definition of "best
2 available control technology" and eliminate the use of
3 perchloroethylene in existing dry cleaners located in
4 residential buildings and new perchloroethylene dry
5 cleaners located near sensitive receptors.
6 At this time I'll ask our Executive Officer, Ms.
7 Witherspoon, to introduce this item.
8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Dr.
9 Sawyer.
10 California's Toxic Air Contaminant Control
11 Program was established in 1983 and has two steps to
12 protect public health from toxic airborne substances. The
13 first step is the risk assessment or identification phase
14 where the Board lists substances as toxic air
15 contaminants. The second step is the risk management or
16 control phase where the Board adopts regulation to achieve
17 the maximum feasible reduction in emissions. Today's
18 regulation is part of that second step.
19 The Board identified perchloroethylene, or Perc,
20 as a toxic air contaminant in 1991. Two years later, in
21 1993, the Board adopted the existing dry-cleaning control
22 measure. This measure set forth equipment, operations and
23 maintenance, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for
24 dry-cleaning operations and required the use of best
25 available control technology as it was defined at that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
35
1 time.
2 In 2003 staff began an evaluation of the
3 effectiveness of the existing dry-cleaning control
4 measure. The evaluation found that Perc emissions from
5 dry cleaning have been reduced by about 70 percent since
6 1993. However, there are still some local elevated health
7 risks from dry-cleaning operations. The evaluation also
8 showed that the Perc BACT definition needs to be updated
9 since technology has improved significantly since 1993.
10 Those two factors are what motivated us to begin work on
11 the regulation before you today.
12 Another significant change since 1993 was a
13 decision by the South Coast Air Quality Management
14 District to phase out Perc in its jurisdiction by 2020.
15 As we worked on our proposed rule revisions, we
16 considered also whether a statewide Perc phaseout was
17 appropriate, and concluded that a different approach was
18 preferable. The proposed amendments we're presenting
19 today focus on risk management instead. And I'd like to
20 spend just a couple of minutes explaining why.
21 The Perc phaseout in the South Coast is causing
22 dry cleaners to go back to hydrocarbon systems, which we
23 would like to avoid. We think that the risk management
24 approach is as good or better than a Perc phaseout given
25 the alternatives today. We considered a combined phaseout
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
36
1 of Perc with a prohibition on new hydrocarbon systems.
2 But that would most likely push dry cleaners to
3 silicone-based cleaners, which do not yet have a clean
4 bill of health from the Office of Environmental Health
5 Hazard Assessment.
6 The two environmentally benign methods for dry
7 cleaning, water-based systems and carbon dioxide systems,
8 are both -- well, carbon dioxide is very expensive at this
9 time and water-based systems are not yet well accepted by
10 the industry. So they are unlikely to move to those
11 systems unless mandated to do so.
12 So that was the basis of staff's decision to go
13 with risk management, allow very well controlled Perc
14 systems to continue in operation, and also to allow some
15 hydrocarbon substitution but not to force it by a
16 phaseout.
17 However, the notice for today's hearing gives the
18 Board wide latitude as to how to deal with the remaining
19 hot spot risk from Perc machines in California. And we
20 have described several alternative approaches in the staff
21 report, including a Perc phaseout.
22 You have wide discretion as you consider the
23 staff's presentation and public testimony today. Staff
24 believes we've proposed a responsible and balanced
25 approach given all the facts and alternatives and the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
37
1 status of technology today, but ultimately that will be
2 the Board's decision.
3 The staff presentation this morning will be made
4 by Ms. Mei Fong of the Stationary Source division.
5 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was
6 Presented as follows.)
7 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: Good morning, Dr.
8 Sawyer and --
9 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: Mei,
10 just a second. I'd like to make sure that we've
11 reannounced that there is Korean translations available
12 and that those headsets are available. So if we could
13 reannounce that in Korean please.
14 (Korean translation.)
15 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE:
16 Okay. Mei, let's go ahead.
17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: Okay. Good
18 morning, Dr. Sawyer and members of the Board.
19 Today we are proposing amendments to the control
20 measure for perchloroethylene dry-cleaning operations.
21 --o0o--
22 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: I'll presentation
23 will cover the topics on this slide.
24 --o0o--
25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: In 1991, Perc was
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
38
1 identified as a toxic air contaminant. As a result, the
2 Board adopted a number of regulations to reduce exposures
3 to Perc. Also, the districts have adopted rules to reduce
4 or eliminate the use of Perc in degreasing operations.
5 --o0o--
6 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: Based primarily
7 on these actions, the statewide ambient Perc risk has gone
8 down by about 80 percent since the early nineties. The
9 current potential cancer risk due to ambient Perc
10 concentrations is about two in a million statewide.
11 --o0o--
12 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: As shown on this
13 table, the statewide levels of Perc are significantly less
14 than many other toxic air contaminants. Consequently,
15 additional Perc reductions are not needed to address
16 ambient exposures. Now efforts are focused on near-source
17 exposures to Perc.
18 --o0o--
19 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: This slide shows
20 that we still have high near-source levels of risk from
21 Perc dry cleaners. The majority, over 70 percent, of the
22 dry cleaners show a potential cancer risk, over ten in a
23 million, which is a common significance level used in the
24 districts' air toxics programs.
25 --o0o--
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
39
1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: The next few
2 slides provide a brief characterization of dry-cleaning
3 facilities in California.
4 There are about 4300 Perc dry-cleaning facilities
5 statewide. Most are owner-operated small businesses with
6 few employees. They are usually located near residences.
7 Oh, sorry. I'm sorry Slide 8.
8 To summarize, we need additional controls because
9 dry-cleaning facilities are a major source of Perc. The
10 near-source risk remains high. And we can provide
11 appropriate separation between facilities and homes and
12 schools.
13 --o0o--
14 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: The next few
15 slides provide a brief characterization of dry-cleaning
16 facilities in California.
17 There are about 4300 Perc dry-cleaning facilities
18 statewide. Most are owner-operated small businesses with
19 few employees.
20 They are usually located near residences. And a
21 handful of those are co-residential facilities, where
22 people live in the same building that house the
23 dry-cleaning operation.
24 --o0o--
25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: The Perc
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
40
1 dry-cleaning technology has evolved over the years.
2 Currently there are three types of Perc machines in
3 operation. These I'll refer to as converter machines,
4 primary control machines and secondary control machines.
5 The difference in the machines is related
6 primarily to the efficiency with which Perc is managed.
7 In 1993, we required converted and primary machines as the
8 best available control technology, or BACT. In the past
9 ten years machines have improved to the point where
10 secondary control machines are BACT. The emissions from a
11 secondary control machine are now 50 to 75 percent less
12 than older machines, and they are typically much more
13 reliable on a day-to-day basis.
14 --o0o--
15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: As of 2003, most
16 machines in service, 66 of them -- 66 percent of them, are
17 older converted and primary control machines. And these
18 machines account for the majority, 78 percent, of Perc
19 emissions.
20 --o0o--
21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: When a Perc
22 machine is opened to removed the cleaned garments, the
23 residual Perc left in the cleaning drum is released into
24 the room. Most dry-cleaning facilities have a very simple
25 ventilation system that rely on open windows, doors and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
41
1 fans to vent Perc emissions from a facility.
2 Since these emissions are released at ground
3 level, they have little opportunity to disburse before
4 reaching nearby residences. As a result, we see the
5 highest risk levels near Perc facilities that have simple
6 ventilation systems.
7 Enhanced ventilation systems capture fugitive
8 Perc emissions and vent them to the outside through a
9 stack on the roof of the building. This allows emissions
10 to disburse and reduces the Perc emissions -- Perc
11 concentration before it comes in contact with people.
12 --o0o--
13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: There are
14 basically four alternatives to Perc dry-cleaning available
15 in use today. All have higher costs, particularly the
16 carbon dioxide systems. And each has its own issues.
17 Based on our 2003 survey, hydrocarbon systems
18 have the greatest market share, but used a reactive
19 hydrocarbon that contributes to smog formation.
20 Green Earth or D-5 has unanswered questions
21 regarding its toxicity.
22 And dry cleaning in CO2, although promising
23 non-toxic -- or non-smog forming technologies, are limited
24 due to their cost and market acceptance.
25 --o0o--
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
42
1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: Based on recent
2 information provided by the South Coast and Bay Area AQMD,
3 the market share for alternatives is now approaching 35
4 percent, with the majority being hydrocarbon systems.
5 These changes are due to increased concerns about the
6 handling of Perc as a hazardous waste, the potential for
7 water quality contamination, and air quality impacts.
8 The districts are generally encouraging the use
9 non-Perc alternatives. In addition, the South Coast AQMD
10 has adopted a rule which prohibits new dry cleaners from
11 using Perc and completely phases out all Perc dry cleaners
12 by the end of 2020.
13 --o0o--
14 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: I will now
15 present our proposed amendments.
16 --o0o--
17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: There are several
18 factors we considered when developing the proposed
19 amendments. First, we focus on areas outside the South
20 Coast AQMD because they have an equivalent rule. We then
21 wanted to eliminated the risk from co-residential
22 facilities, reduce the near-source risk from existing
23 facilities to less than ten in a million for most
24 locations through the use of BACT and enhanced
25 ventilation, and provide separation between near
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
43
1 facilities and residences.
2 And to the extent possible, we wanted to minimize
3 the economic impacts to this small business industry.
4 --o0o--
5 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: As such, there
6 are about 2300 facilities affected by our regulation -- or
7 proposed Regulation, with Perc emissions of about 2.6 tons
8 per day.
9 --o0o--
10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: For
11 co-residential facilities the potential risks from Perc
12 machines is estimated to be between 50 and 100 chances in
13 a million. Therefore, we are proposing to prohibit the
14 installation of Perc machines and new and existing
15 co-residential facilities. We are also requiring existing
16 co-residential facilities to expeditiously replace
17 existing Perc machines with non-Perc alternatives.
18 This action will reduce the risk from these
19 facilities to near zero, as some Perc spotting agents may
20 continue to be used.
21 --o0o--
22 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: Existing
23 facilities must install a non-Perc machine or a Perc
24 machine with BACT and enhanced ventilation. We have also
25 included a distance requirement to reduce exposures near
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
44
1 residences sooner.
2 --o0o--
3 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: These actions
4 will result in machines being replaced at about 1500
5 facilities and will achieve a 40 percent reduction in Perc
6 emissions and a 65 to 75 percent reduction in near-source
7 risk.
8 --o0o--
9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: For new
10 facilities to address near-source risk, we are proposing
11 that new Perc machines cannot be installed unless they
12 meet a distance criteria. Those that meet the distance
13 criteria must install non-Perc machines or Perc machines
14 with BACT and enhanced ventilation.
15 --o0o--
16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: The resulting
17 risk for sensitive receptors from new facilities will not
18 be less than five in a million.
19 In addition, all new Perc machines will have BACT
20 and enhanced ventilation similar to those required for
21 existing facilities.
22 --o0o--
23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: The next two
24 slides show the implementation schedule for the proposed
25 regulation.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
45
1 The requirements for the co-residential
2 facilities are effective July 2007 for new facilities and
3 July 2010 for removal of all Perc machines in existing
4 facilities. The requirements from new Perc facilities are
5 effective beginning in July 2007.
6 --o0o--
7 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: This slide shows
8 the implementation dates for existing facilities.
9 For existing facilities there are over 800
10 machines that are currently meeting the BACT definition
11 and will not need to -- and will only need to install
12 enhanced ventilation.
13 Beginning in July of 2009, the facilities closest
14 to receptors will need to replace their equipment and
15 install enhanced ventilation.
16 It is important to note that by July 2010 about
17 80 percent of the machines will be replaced with BACT
18 machines and all facilities will have enhanced ventilation
19 systems.
20 --o0o--
21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: We have also
22 reviewed and revised as appropriate other requirements in
23 the original dry-cleaning regulation. This includes good
24 operating practices, record keeping, reporting and a
25 certification procedure for integral secondary control
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
46
1 machines.
2 --o0o--
3 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: Next I would like
4 to discuss the potential impacts of our proposed
5 regulation.
6 --o0o--
7 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: For
8 co-residential facilities, we will eliminate the use of
9 Perc and therefore the risk. For existing facilities, we
10 will reduce the risk by 65 to 75 percent. And for new
11 facilities the regulation will result in very low
12 exposures and risks to those located close to these
13 facilities.
14 --o0o--
15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: In addition, the
16 proposed amendments will further reduce Perc emissions by
17 about 40 percent, and thus lower the potential cancer risk
18 due to ambient Perc exposure to less than one in a million
19 outside of South Coast by 2016.
20 --o0o--
21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: To provide
22 perspective on the impacts of our regulation, we analyzed
23 our 2003 survey data that provided us with Perc use by
24 facility outside the South Coast AQMD. These two charts
25 shows the percent of machines with estimated cancer risk
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
47
1 at 100 feet in three risk ranges: Less than 10, 10 to 25,
2 and greater than 5 in a million.
3 The risk levels were calculated using meteorology
4 data representative of the area.
5 The upper graph shows the current distribution of
6 risk levels at 100 feet. Note that about 15 percent of
7 the facilities have an estimated risk level greater than
8 25 per million and 55 percent have estimated risks in the
9 10 to 25 million range.
10 The lower chart represents the risk levels at 100
11 feet based on the proposed amendments. As shown, there is
12 significant increase in the number of facilities in the
13 less than 10 per million range and a significant decrease
14 in the number of facilities in the other two risk ranges.
15 Upon full implementation we expect that 99
16 percent of the Perc facilities will have risks at 100 feet
17 of less than 25 per million and 70 percent will have risks
18 less than 10 in a million.
19 One thing that is important to note here is that
20 not all facilities actually have people living within 100
21 feet of them. In fact, according to our 2003 survey, only
22 about one-third of the facilities have someone living
23 within 100 feet. As a result, the number of facilities
24 with risks less than 10 in a million is slightly greater
25 than what is shown here.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
48
1 --o0o--
2 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: The annual costs
3 that may occur range from $2,000 per year, for those
4 needing only to install enhanced ventilation systems, to
5 about 15,500 per year for facilities that must completely
6 replace the equipment due to our regulation.
7 We used a five-year-long period because this is
8 typical for the industry. Because of cash flow concerns,
9 it is important for dry cleaners to be able to recover
10 their costs. For example, to recover costs a $15 dry
11 cleaning bill will increase by 10 cents, to 90 cents.
12 The analysis on costs show that about 40 percent
13 of the dry-cleaning facilities may experience significant
14 at-risk economic impacts if they are unable to recover
15 their costs.
16 --o0o--
17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: Next I would
18 discuss several key issues that have been raised.
19 --o0o--
20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: Several
21 commenters have recommended a phaseout of Perc at a future
22 date similar to the approach used by South Coast AQMD.
23 --o0o--
24 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: For background,
25 the South Coast AQMD amended Rule 1421 at the end of 2002.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
49
1 The major requirements of the rule are that secondary
2 control machines are required for all existing Perc
3 machines. And these machines need to meet specified risk
4 levels of either 10 or 25 in a million.
5 In addition, the rule requires that all Perc
6 dry-cleaning machines be removed by the end of 2020.
7 --o0o--
8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: Staff does not
9 recommend that we -- staff is not recommending that we
10 phase out Perc for several reasons. Our proposed
11 amendments will reduce near-source risks to much lower
12 levels. Based on our estimates, 70 percent of the
13 dry-cleaning facilities will pose less than 10 in a
14 million risk, and 99 percent of the dry-cleaning
15 facilities will pose less than 25 in a million risk.
16 A phaseout would impose greater costs to a small
17 business industry operating on slim profit margins. A
18 Perc ban would likely force dry cleaners to move to
19 hydrocarbon cleaning, resulting in not only greater
20 hydrocarbon emissions, but slowing the growth of the
21 market for non-Perc, non-VOC technologies.
22 Finally, the districts retained authority to take
23 action to further reduce near-source risk or to adopt
24 their own rules.
25 --o0o--
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
50
1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: We have received
2 comments on both sides of the issue concerning the use of
3 hydrocarbon machines. Some advocate prohibition, while
4 others advocate its continued use on the premise that the
5 hydrocarbon emission impacts can be mitigated through the
6 upcoming implementation plans.
7 --o0o--
8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: Staff is not
9 proposing to prohibit hydrocarbon machines because they're
10 the most common alternative. And other alternatives of
11 issue are lined earlier in the presentation.
12 With complete transition, the hydrocarbon
13 emission increase is about one ton per day outside the
14 South Coast. However, nonattainment areas will still need
15 to mitigate this increase with reductions from other
16 sources.
17 In addition, a second generation of hydrocarbon
18 machines may be needed to improve upon the existing BACT
19 and reduce the hydrocarbon emissions.
20 --o0o--
21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: The industry has
22 expressed various concerns with the proposed regulation.
23 The main concern was with the cost of the regulation.
24 They have pointed out that dry cleaners are small,
25 family-owned businesses and have low profit margins.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
51
1 Therefore, the cost to comply would force them to close.
2 They also maintain that our regulation
3 unnecessarily causes the replacement of well maintained
4 machines that have a useful life longer than 15 years.
5 And they have issues with the performance and
6 acceptance of the available alternatives.
7 --o0o--
8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: The proposed
9 requirements would impact a dry cleaner's profitability to
10 varying degrees, depending on their ability to recover
11 costs. However, changes are necessary to reduce a
12 near-source risk from Perc dry-cleaning facilities. In
13 addition, BACT has substantially improved over the last
14 ten years.
15 The proposed amendments do minimize potential
16 short-term cash-flow difficulties by providing at least
17 two to three years' lead time for installing new machines
18 and enhanced ventilation systems. And many of the current
19 machines are allowed up to the end of their useful life.
20 Finally, dry cleaners should be able to recover
21 costs by increasing price.
22 --o0o--
23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: In the last
24 several days we have received numerous minor comments on
25 our proposed amended regulation. The comments do not
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
52
1 affect the basic premise of the regulation. And the
2 specific language focused on technical, regulatory
3 language, implementation and siting issues. Some of these
4 comments may improve the clarity of the regulation.
5 However, we have not had adequate time to review these
6 comments. Therefore, we would recommend that the Board
7 direct staff to review and, if appropriate, propose 15-day
8 changes to the regulation to address these comments.
9 --o0o--
10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: We will now look
11 at next steps.
12 --o0o--
13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: We will continue
14 to review technologies for opportunities to further reduce
15 Perc and hydrocarbon. Based on the proposed amendments,
16 we will develop implementation guidance for the amended
17 regulation and develop amendments to the existing training
18 requirements of the environmental training program. And
19 we anticipate going to the Board with these amendments at
20 the end of 2006. And we will continue implementing AB
21 998.
22 --o0o--
23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: AB 998
24 encourages the use of non-toxic and non-smog forming
25 alternatives through a grant incentive program and a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
53
1 demonstration program that showcases the qualifying
2 non-toxic and non-smog forming alternatives.
3 The program began in 2004 and is funded through a
4 fee on Perc use in dry-cleaning operations.
5 Sixty-five percent of the funds are to be used in
6 grant program. The current qualifying technologies for
7 grants are water-based systems and carbon dioxide systems.
8 To date we have awarded 14 grants and expected to
9 issue another 30 grants in the next few months, for a
10 total of about $450,000.
11 The available funding for the demonstration phase
12 will only allow for a few projects at this time. We
13 recently issued a solicitation for projects and expect to
14 award funds for the first projects this summer.
15 --o0o--
16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: The following are
17 the staff's recommendations.
18 --o0o--
19 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST FONG: Staff recommend
20 that the Board adopt the proposed amendments, with
21 direction to review and recently -- to review the recently
22 submitted technical comments and proposed amendments, as
23 appropriate, through the 15-day process.
24 We also recommend that the Board direct the staff
25 to continue to evaluate and promote non-toxic and non-smog
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
54
1 forming alternatives through the grant and demonstration
2 program. And we recommend the Board direct the staff to
3 closely check alternatives and report back to the Board on
4 progress in 2008.
5 Thank you. That concludes my presentation.
6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much, Ms.
7 Fong.
8 Madam Ombudsman, would you please describe the
9 public participation process that occurred while this item
10 was being developed add share any concerns or comments you
11 may have with the Board at this time.
12 OMBUDSMAN TSCHOGL: Thank you.
13 Dr. Sawyer and members of the Board. The
14 regulation before you has been developed with input from
15 many stakeholders representing various dry cleaners in
16 California, the dry cleaners associations, the California
17 Cleaners Association, the Korean Dry Cleaners Association
18 of Northern California, that of the Korean Dry Cleaners
19 Association of Southern California, Green Earth Cleaning,
20 Professional Wet Cleaning, Rynex Cleaning, Carbon Dioxide
21 Cleaning, Green Jet, Kelleher Equipment, SalesStar,
22 Halogenated Solvent Industry Alliance, solvent
23 manufacturers, dry cleaning, environmental training
24 instructors, Institute for Research and Technical
25 Assistance, the Coalition for Clean Air, and the Natural
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
55
1 Resources Defense Council.
2 Staff began the ATCM background work with
3 industry representatives in April of 2003. They made over
4 a hundred site visits to facilities in 66 cities, which
5 covered nine local air districts. They also conducted
6 four surveys. And in October of 2005 the draft regulatory
7 concepts language process began.
8 To gather public input, staff held four
9 workshops. Two were held in Sacramento, one was in
10 Oakland and the other was in El Monte. Approximately 80
11 stakeholders attended the four workshops.
12 Additionally two meetings were held with the
13 Korean Dry Cleaners Association in the Bay Area in March
14 of this year, and at least 150 stakeholders attended each
15 meeting.
16 Staff formed a dry-cleaning ATCM work group, and
17 this group met 13 times. All of the meetings were held in
18 Sacramento and each included teleconferencing. More than
19 25 stakeholders attended each of these work group
20 meetings.
21 In addition to work group meetings, staff held
22 individual meetings with industry representatives, state
23 and local agencies, environmental pollution prevention and
24 public health advocates, as well as other interested
25 parties. There were numerous telephone calls and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
56
1 electronic mails.
2 The staff report was released on April 7th, 2006.
3 Nearly 5700 hard copies of the notice were mailed to
4 stakeholders and interested parties and more than 300
5 stakeholders received the information via the list serve.
6 Thank you.
7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
8 Do Board members have any questions at this time?
9 Dr. Gong.
10 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11 Very nice report. I have two questions up front.
12 Slide No. 5 shows the Perc ambient risk.
13 According to this slide, it looks like, I think you said,
14 80 percent risk reduction since 1993. So that in itself
15 is a significant improvement in protecting public health.
16 My question -- and I guess there's another slide
17 perhaps about ambient levels of Perc in the air throughout
18 the State of California through 12 monitoring stations or
19 something. Or is that -- maybe that was in the --
20 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE:
21 Slide 28?
22 BOARD MEMBER GONG: -- report.
23 Anyway, that looked like it was a low level as
24 well in our general atmosphere.
25 My concern though related to this is that, what
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
57
1 about the hot spots, what about these high concentrations
2 locally in the areas where the Perc is used in
3 dry-cleaning? Are there any active measurements in these
4 local areas, rather than spread out throughout the state?
5 Do we have any values for that? I mean I can imagine it
6 could be much higher and therefore the risk is much
7 higher. This reminds me a little bit about last month's
8 goods movement issues related to port exposures. Obvious
9 the closer you are to the source of emissions, the more
10 likely your exposure and the risk thereof.
11 So that's sort of one question in itself. Do we
12 have any data about these local neighborhood exposures?
13 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: Dr.
14 Gong, this is Dan Donohoue.
15 With respect to actual measurements of Perc
16 emissions near or within the close proximity of
17 facilities, the main group of data there was testing done
18 by the Bay Area sometime ago with respect to
19 co-residential, that is, emissions within the living area
20 where there's a facility downstairs from that. There's
21 been some work done both by Bay Area and New York.
22 Generally those were showing concentrations that would
23 result in health risk in the 50 to 100 in a million range.
24 With respect to the values that we've reported
25 here that what we think the near source risk level would
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
58
1 be, is that's really based upon looking at the emissions
2 and then doing some ambient air -- then doing some
3 modeling analysis. And we would expect with
4 implementation of the regulation that the near-source risk
5 would be less than 25 in a million for 99 percent of the
6 situation and less than 70 percent for the others. But
7 those -- there is not actual a lot of on-site modeling
8 data done -- or monitoring data done for that other than
9 the ambient -- the 17 or so ambient monitors that are
10 throughout the state.
11 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Right. Well, again, I'm
12 concerned about the local risk.
13 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE:
14 Right. And that's exactly the reason why we've, you know,
15 put this regulation in the format we have, whereas it's
16 not like diesel PM where we have this large regional risk
17 and the sources tend to have emission footprints that are
18 miles. We're talking here basically about emission
19 footprints that are a square block before they go below
20 ten in a million. And so the regulation is specifically
21 set up as, number 1, let's get rid of the real high ones
22 that are co-residential; let's prevent new ones from being
23 within that 100-foot zone of residences, let's get them
24 separated out clear to 300 feet; and then let's put the
25 best technology on the existing ones and improve the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
59
1 ventilation to get those risks, you know, well below 25 in
2 most cases.
3 BOARD MEMBER GONG: The proposed regulations also
4 indicate 100- and 300-feet spaces. Take the reverse. Can
5 an apartment building or a school or any other sensitive
6 receptor build closer to a dry cleaner that uses Perc?
7 You're looking -- the regs are looking from the dry
8 cleaner out. But I'm saying can they be encroached by
9 other entities that know nothing about dry cleaning, Perc,
10 whatever? According to what I read, it's a completely
11 independent process. Is that correct?
12 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE:
13 There's kind of two subtleties to -- number 1,
14 the way we've set up the regulation, and a number of
15 people have commented that they're not thrilled about
16 this, is that we've said it can't be within 300 feet of a
17 residence or it can't be within 300 feet of a zone where
18 residential use is allowed. So that means that if in the
19 future -- it doesn't -- it means that if it's that zone
20 and that zone may put a house in it, you've still got to
21 be 300 feet away from the boundary of that thing. So in
22 that case, if the houses go in in that area, they will be
23 300 feet. So that aspect of the regulation takes care of
24 it.
25 The regulation in and of itself, since we do not
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
60
1 have the zoning authority or the permitting authority for
2 where people build, it does not prevent in the future
3 somebody from coming in and building closer to an existing
4 facility. However, ARB has -- the body a little over a
5 year ago put together land use handbook guidance. The
6 siting criteria with respect to -- in that guidance is
7 identical to the siting criteria that we've used here.
8 So from a public information standpoint, you
9 know, we think we have a mechanism to get the message out.
10 So that reverse impact, you know, is less likely to occur.
11 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Thank you.
12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. D'Adamo.
13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'm concerned about the
14 near-source risk reduction as well. And looking at the
15 chart on Slide 6, comparing Perc to other substances
16 regarding ambient risk levels, I'm just wondering if you
17 have a similar chart regarding near-source risk, in other
18 words these hot spots that Dr. Gong is referring to.
19 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: Go
20 ahead, Mike.
21 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I can do
22 that.
23 For diesel PM near-source risk could be five to
24 ten times the level shown there. For Benzene and
25 1,3-butadiene you have the same issue. If you live near
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
61
1 the traffic sources you will have far elevated risks above
2 ambient. So I don't think it's dramatically different.
3 For some of the compounds, like formaldehyde,
4 which is a secondary pollutant, you don't have near-source
5 ambient risk but you have indoor risks that are much
6 higher.
7 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. I personally am
8 just really struggling with this, because I can think of
9 examples where we have not phased out substances or
10 technologies such as the dual path that we have for
11 diesel. But then I think of other industries as well, for
12 example, methyl bromide in the agricultural industry.
13 There's been a total phaseout mainly because -- well,
14 there are exceptions, there are exceptions. But there is
15 over a period of time going to be a phaseout. And the
16 purpose behind that is worker protection. And what
17 puzzles me is if we're just looking at the co-residential
18 in terms of the targeted area for phaseout, the concern
19 that I have is, what about the workers working with Perc?
20 And then also a lot of these dry-cleaning establishments
21 are in little strip malls that have other mom-and-pop-type
22 businesses, other employees that would be exposed over a
23 period of time, not just eight hours a day. A lot of
24 these people are probably working in these establishments,
25 you know, 12, 14 hours a day.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
62
1 So I'm wondering what the rationale is to just be
2 looking at the restriction on co-residential as opposed to
3 worker exposure risks.
4 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE:
5 Yeah, with respect to -- you know, we have looked at both
6 the co-residential and eliminated that. We've looked
7 at -- for all the other facilities. Basically the cancer
8 driver is exposure to residences, because you assume that
9 they are exposed their entire lifetime, and 70 year
10 lifetime versus a worker that's 40.
11 So basically the risk associated -- the risk for
12 a worker is always -- at the same distance, is always
13 going to be less than the risk for the residential as far
14 as it's calculated. You know, the worker risk -- we have
15 provided in here estimates of worker risk. To the extent
16 that the workers are closer than the nearest residence,
17 those risks are going to increase. However, in the
18 calculations here we assume that the worker is always
19 there at the exact same time that the Perc machine is
20 operating, which often isn't the case in that they start
21 these operations at 3:30 in the morning and all that.
22 So we really do think that when you look at and
23 you treat this as a residential risk, 70-year risk versus
24 a 40-year risk, and that the residents are essentially
25 there all the time, that that results in the most
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
63
1 conservative risk assessment methodology.
2 So the charts that you saw earlier that say 70
3 percent is going to be less than 10 and 25 percent is less
4 than -- that would -- those numbers would even be greater
5 for a worker at that 100-foot distance.
6 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And the
7 regulation if adopted as proposed would achieve the high
8 percentage risk reduction, and the ventilation
9 requirements would also help reduce even the risk to the
10 individuals that directly handle the dry-cleaning, the
11 workers in the facility themselves.
12 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: What about nearby
13 businesses? I'm not familiar with the ventilation
14 systems. Is it vented out to distances far away or just
15 vented out to --
16 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: It's vented
17 out so that it goes out of the -- above the facility and,
18 therefore, has much less impact near source. Actually at
19 300 feet it doesn't make much difference. It's all
20 designed to ensure that the fumes -- the plume doesn't get
21 directly into neighboring businesses or homes.
22 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE:
23 Yeah, under the current situation basically those
24 emissions roll out the doors and windows at ground level,
25 at breathing zone level. With enhanced ventilations,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
64
1 those would be vented. They would be collected in the
2 facility, removing it from the workers' interface, put in
3 to a stack that would be five to ten foot high and vented
4 out of the roof of the building, which will allow for much
5 better dispersion of those emissions before they impact
6 nearby workers or residences.
7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Ms. D'Adamo, just
8 to get back to your first question on the relative scale
9 and whether it's the same. I think Mr. Scheible answered
10 that it was. But I asked staff what was the max risk from
11 a dirty dry cleaner without good controls, localized risk.
12 And the answer was on the order of 100 in a million. And
13 you may remember from the goods movement assessments, we
14 saw spikes of 1500, 2,000, you know, et cetera, for
15 diesel. So the relative ranking here holds when you put
16 it in a localized context as well.
17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Kennard.
18 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Thank you.
19 I have a slightly different set of questions
20 relative to the economic impact of this. Clearly there's
21 no question there's some enormous health benefits. And
22 you've done a very admirable job on the economic impact in
23 terms of the costs of conversion. However, if you look at
24 your own section 7, page 15, the cost per garment
25 theoretically is up to 90 cents. And I'm thinking of my
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
65
1 own dry cleaning. A shirt is no more than $2. That's
2 almost a 50 percent increase. How do we get to the
3 logical conclusion that there's a reasonable opportunity
4 to pass this cost on to the consumer?
5 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: I'll
6 take a crack at that, because we actually went through
7 quite a bit of discussion about how to present the cost.
8 That 75 cents per garment is averaged over all of the
9 pounds of clothes that are cleaned in a dry cleaner. So
10 we looked at the annual revenue, we divided it by the
11 pounds of clothes, and then we looked at what the
12 incremental cost would be. And that works out -- if you
13 assume an industry standard is each garment weighs a
14 pound, then it works out to be 75 cents. We think the
15 better indication of what the impact would be is
16 represented in the slide here, which is if you have a
17 $15 -- not here, but, sorry, whatever slide it was in the
18 presentation that said that the impact we think on cost
19 for a $15 dry-cleaning bill would be somewhere on the
20 order of 10 cents to 90 cents.
21 So we were also sort of struggling with that 75
22 cent per garment issue as well. So we think that that is
23 a better representation of what the cost is.
24 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE:
25 Slide 30.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
66
1 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: Slide
2 30.
3 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: And you find the use of
4 dry-cleaning services to be price inelastic in that
5 regard? You know, there is a threshold over which people
6 will not want to utilize dry cleaning and therefore it
7 could dramatically impact the volume of business for these
8 small businesses.
9 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: It
10 could. No question about it. And the third bullet on
11 that slide indicates that if we use as a metric the fact
12 that an increase in -- an impact on profitability of
13 greater than 10 percent we typically consider to be a
14 significant impact. And our analysis would -- if the dry
15 cleaners are unable to recover the costs, then we would
16 estimate that 40 percent of those facilities would have a
17 significant adverse impact.
18 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: And when you say
19 significant adverse impact, would that mean the
20 potentiality of losing their business, having to shut
21 down?
22 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: Yes,
23 potentially. Not all of those obviously would. But some
24 may close. And that, you know, is comments that we have
25 heard from the industry as well. And one of the reasons
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
67
1 why we didn't go the next step, to hydrocarbon machines as
2 well, because there is a significant additional expense
3 associated with those machines.
4 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: And then my final question
5 on the economic impact is -- there was a debate about
6 whether the useful life of the machines was in excess of
7 15 years. What was the industry calculating their useful
8 life of machines to be?
9 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER:
10 Typically we use 15 years. That's what we used
11 in the 1993 regulation. Much of the industry would agree
12 that 15 years is a reasonable time. However, there are
13 some businesses that, you know, take extremely good care
14 of their machines and feel they have a longer useful life.
15 We'll note that the costs there in the first
16 bullet indicates that there is a five-year time period
17 over which we amortize the loans. So that additional 5 to
18 15 or whatever is -- presumably they've already recovered
19 their cost of the machine over that period of time.
20 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Thank you.
21 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE:
22 Generally in discussions with the industry they
23 were looking at additional 2 to 5 years beyond the 15.
24 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Okay. Thank you.
25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Are there other questions?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
68
1 Yes, Ms. Berg.
2 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you.
3 I have a follow-up question on the economics.
4 When the original regulation was passed in 1993,
5 there was a lot of economic discussion to the dry cleaners
6 as well. And how has that ferreted out?
7 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: I
8 think there's been somewhat of a shift in the industry.
9 There are certainly new businesses that have come in and
10 businesses that have gone out. It's really difficult for
11 us to track, and we have not done that explicitly to look
12 at how many businesses, you know, had to close because of
13 our previous regulation. There wasn't a lot of feedback
14 that we got from the industry subsequent to the adoption
15 of that regulation. But we haven't looked specifically at
16 what that impact would have been in numbers-wise.
17 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you.
18 Also, my second concern is that we do have -- my
19 understanding is we do have regulation through the Toxic
20 Hot Spots Program. And is Perc on that list?
21 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: Yes.
22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes, it is.
23 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And what is the threshold of
24 reporting for Perc?
25 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: For
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
69
1 dry cleaners it's -- there's a couple different ways to do
2 this. Sorry, I'm kind of stumbling around here.
3 There's been a lot of businesses that have run
4 into the Hot Spots Program, larger businesses, aerospace,
5 for example, that at one point were using a lot of Perc.
6 And so they -- the Hot Spots Program was designed around
7 phases. And it was structured around how many actually
8 criteria pollutants you emitted, not necessarily on the
9 Perc emissions.
10 So over time all of those phases should have come
11 in. There is -- essentially dry cleaners fall within a
12 category that's called industry-wide. And the districts
13 had the -- since it came under one common SIC code
14 basically, they have not come in -- the districts have not
15 brought them in under the Hot Spots Program. But if they
16 were to bring them under the Hot Spots, the dry cleaners
17 certainly would have had to notify the public that their
18 risks were greater than ten in a million. And in some
19 cases and in some districts they would have had to
20 incorporate controls to reduce that risk.
21 The levels differ amongst the districts in the
22 state, from 25 in a million in the South Coast Air Quality
23 Management District, up to 100 in a million before they're
24 required to take any action to reduce their risk. But at
25 this point in time the districts have been working on a --
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
70
1 what we call an industry-wide risk assessment, which is a
2 standard method that allows them to determine what the
3 risk is from individual facilities. And that document has
4 been in development for many years now. So the dry
5 cleaners have actually not gone into the Hot Spots
6 Program.
7 If there are facilities after our regulation that
8 have residual risk that the districts -- the local
9 districts find are not acceptable, they have the authority
10 under the Hot Spots Program to bring these facilities in
11 and require them to further mitigate their impacts, either
12 through, you know, capping the amount of Perc they can
13 use, or looking at alternatives over a period of time.
14 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And do we have any feeling
15 for what that might cost the industry?
16 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER:
17 Well --
18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The one exception
19 to what Mr. Fletcher was just describing is in the South
20 Coast where they integrated hot spot risk thresholds into
21 their dry-cleaner rule as interim control requirements.
22 And they haven't yet gone through those retrofits to bring
23 them down to below 25 in a million. But we believe it's
24 the same control devices that we're recommending as BACT.
25 So they would be doing the integral secondary controls,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
71
1 which their rule requires. And enhanced ventilation,
2 because there is no other way that we're aware of to come
3 below those thresholds. Either that or they'll accelerate
4 for those sources the turnover away from Perc, which is
5 otherwise delayed until 2020.
6 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I'm just trying to get my
7 arms around, that, regardless, the cleaning industry is
8 going to have to do something. And whether they get
9 pulled into the hot spots regulation or as we move forward
10 or as the individual districts decide to do something, it
11 looks to me to be an inevitable. The question is is what
12 is that something?
13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I think that's
14 right.
15 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Okay. Thank you.
16 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: And I
17 would just add that in most districts where the residual
18 risk threshold is 100 in a million, they would incur no
19 additional costs. It would be very unlikely after the
20 application of our regulation that there would be any
21 facilities that exceeded 100 in a million.
22 In the South Coast where the risk level is 25 in
23 a million, they are going to -- there will be facilities
24 that will have to incorporate additional ways to reduce
25 the risk, either through said capping the Perc use, which
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
72
1 would mean a reduction in the potential income, or in the
2 installation of, you know, better ventilation or the
3 replacement of the equipment itself. It's unclear how
4 they will meet that 25 in a million at this point.
5 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: But
6 that's covered by a separate rule. That's covered by the
7 South Coast rule.
8 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you.
9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Are there any other
10 questions from the Board members?
11 Dr. Gong.
12 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Phase 2. Real quick
13 question. The Grants Program, I believe that's under AB
14 998, just let me understand that a little bit better. The
15 money that funds that program comes from the little tax
16 that's levied on the Perc manufacturers, is that how it
17 works?
18 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: Dr.
19 Gong, this is Richard Boyd.
20 Yes, the money generated for AB 998 comes from a
21 fee that is assessed on Perc sales to the individual dry
22 cleaners.
23 BOARD MEMBER GONG: And will that program be
24 changed in any way as a result of these regulations?
25 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: No.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
73
1 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Will it be increased or --
2 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: No,
3 the -- the fee schedule is set by legislation and the
4 amount of the grant is set by legislation. So the actions
5 that you take here won't impact the program itself.
6 However, since the program generates its money by a number
7 of Perc dry cleaners, to the extent that the number of
8 Perc dry cleaners should be changed, that would impact the
9 actual amount of money that would be available at any
10 given time.
11 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I was just commenting that
12 the 14 grants in 2005 seems like a relatively small number
13 considering how many dry cleaners are out there could
14 avail themselves to this program.
15 And you have 30 applications for this year. Does
16 that mean you're also going to probably approve half of
17 them, is that -- I mean I don't know how the process
18 works.
19 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: One of
20 the issues that we've had with the program is a -- there
21 has been a lot of interest in the program. Unfortunately
22 a lot of dry cleaners have been hoping to get those grants
23 for technologies which aren't permitted under AB 998.
24 They've been looking to get grants for Green Earth and
25 hydrocarbon, for example. And so we do get a lot of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
74
1 interest. We do get some applications. But once we start
2 working with them and they found out what the -- they find
3 out what the actual requirements are and that they have to
4 consider a water-based cleaning technology or carbon
5 dioxide, their interest wanes.
6 So we have made a lot of effort to get dry
7 cleaners to apply and we do work with them pretty closely
8 through the process. But it is driven by their actual
9 interests and --
10 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Yeah, it's sort of
11 unfortunate that that turn of events happens.
12 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: Yes.
13 BOARD MEMBER GONG: And I'm sort of disappointed
14 in the yield for that program. That's what I'm really
15 saying.
16 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: I'm
17 sorry. I missed that last one.
18 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I'm disappointed in the yield
19 for that program from -- it seems like it should be one
20 that fulfills a promise and helps them go to the next
21 step. But it sounds like the door closes because they
22 cannot achieve everything they want. But you said there's
23 some --
24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, Dr. Gong,
25 let me address this head-on. There's about $700,000
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
75
1 available a year under this collection of revenues, and it
2 will grow. The fee schedule goes up on Perc. And it's
3 provided there are still as many Perc dry cleaners in the
4 system, we'll have similar revenues to administer. And
5 they're for two purposes: Demonstration programs, for
6 which we can provide up to 35 percent of the cost of the
7 demo; and then the actual purchase of equipment, which is
8 a flat $10,000 grant.
9 And what staff was attempting to explain is we
10 haven't had many applications for the $10,000 grant
11 because they would like to buy hydrocarbon systems, and so
12 far we've said no. If we're going to give a grant, we
13 want it for benign alternatives, which is water or CO2.
14 And those are not preferred alternatives in the industry.
15 And this is the dilemma.
16 In the South Coast they are offering a scale of
17 grants, with more money for CO2, a little less for water,
18 and only 5,000 for hydrocarbons. And depending on how you
19 feel about hydrocarbons, you might influence a change in
20 the staff's approach. But to us it's a pollutant, and we
21 haven't seen fit to give grants for moving to another
22 pollutant. Even though it's non-toxic, it does create
23 ozone, and ozone has adverse health effects.
24 So that's why you don't see so much progress.
25 The other thing that's happened on the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
76
1 demonstration programs is we got applications to examine
2 silicone-based systems, D-5. And we had a policy that we
3 shouldn't spend a lot of money on things that may be toxic
4 or as toxic as what we're trying to replace. And so we
5 conferred with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
6 Assessment, "Do you think it's wise to get involved in D-5
7 and silicone-based systems?" And they said, "We have
8 concerns about that chemical. There's been evidence of
9 uterine tumors in rats. And there's questions which we
10 are still evaluating about the transferability to humans."
11 And the industry, you know, is pressing them hard because
12 they don't believe it is transferable. But for the
13 meantime no money is going out the door for silicone.
14 So CO2 works, water works. Nobody's asking for
15 demo grants for that. But also no one's asking for
16 equipment grants to put them in.
17 So although we have been castigated and many
18 people -- and there's a letter from the Legislature
19 expressing disappointment that we're not doing better,
20 it's really some of our environmental principles are
21 getting in the way of money moving out the door. Once we
22 know what the ground rules are and what we're going to
23 fund, the money will just keep going. Because there are
24 large costs here to industry, and at 10,000 a machine,
25 we're offsetting maybe 20 percent of their compliance
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
77
1 costs.
2 But we'll have to decide if we're going to fund
3 hydrocarbon substitution.
4 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Is that decision made
5 internally?
6 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes.
7 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Within the ARB?
8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes.
9 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: I
10 just need to clarify, you know, just a couple things.
11 One, the legislation sets up how much money goes to grants
12 versus how much money goes to demos. And it's about 65
13 percent that goes to grants.
14 So actually between '04 and '05, those two years,
15 we brought in overall about $700,000. We're going to put
16 out -- we already put out 14 -- 140,000 with the 14
17 grants. We're fully anticipating that these other 30 will
18 be funded. That's going to be, you know, right around
19 450,000 that goes out.
20 That leaves us about 250 now to move into the
21 demonstration portion of the program. We released earlier
22 this month the request for proposals on the
23 demonstrations. But a demonstration because it's a
24 multi-year thing where you have a facility that's going to
25 attract people to come there, look at the technologies and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
78
1 all that, it's going to be a much more expensive
2 proposition to fund. And at $250,000 -- and it's going to
3 need to be multi-year -- we're thinking we can fund maybe
4 one to two -- probably two demos, northern and southern
5 California.
6 So the flow of money coming into here is really
7 realistically going to be around $500,000 a year
8 associated with this. If we're successful in reducing
9 Perc emissions on secondary machines, even though it goes
10 up a dollar a year -- you know, we're looking at that. So
11 at $50,000 we're going to be able to fund 30 grants and
12 probably two demos -- you know, 30 new things each year.
13 That's a far cry from what the South Coast -- $2 million
14 that they were able to kick in to the original part of
15 their program for funding and the -- as we understand it,
16 an additional million dollars that they're bringing in on
17 the second phase of that program.
18 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Okay. Thanks for explaining
19 that. I appreciate that.
20 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: And
21 just one other quick clarification.
22 The legislation does prohibit the use of a
23 hydrocarbon under the grant program. So without a
24 legislative fix, we would not be able to issue grants for
25 hydrocarbon emissions.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
79
1 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Um-hmm.
2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. D'Adamo.
3 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, that's interesting,
4 because what I was going to say before he said that was
5 that the dilemma really seems to be if we felt so strongly
6 about hydrocarbon being the fix, we would propose to phase
7 out Perc if that were the answer. But it's not
8 necessarily the answer because of the other emissions that
9 it generates.
10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yeah, we very
11 seriously considered phasing out Perc and banning
12 hydrocarbon substitution. But that led us -- we're
13 straight to silicone. And with a question mark about
14 whether that's any better, because we can't -- we don't
15 have enough leverage to induce a transition to water, with
16 so much resistance in the industry and only one percent
17 penetration today. And CO2 is prohibitively expensive.
18 And $10,000 grants are not going to make the difference in
19 getting people to go to those systems. I think they will
20 both gradually grow over time, especially water. But, you
21 know, a hundred percent conversion seems unlikely to us.
22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, and I was going to
23 make these comments later. But since we're talking about
24 this subject of the grant program and the various
25 technologies, I'd like to raise it now.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
80
1 I spoke with one of the witnesses that will be
2 speaking later today from Occidental College, and he
3 raised a very good point; and, that is, that aside from
4 the fact that there is a resistance within the industry to
5 convert to water-based systems, there's a lot of concern
6 out there amongst consumers, myself included -- I've asked
7 every dry cleaner if they have a water-based system that
8 I've come across, and they always feel -- make very strong
9 statements that they're going to ruin my clothes and all
10 the things that we normally hear.
11 But this individual Occidental College said that
12 ARB should be doing more to try and alleviate some of
13 those concerns, because there are dry cleaners that use
14 those systems and they claim that they're very effective.
15 So why not engage in -- I don't know what agency it would
16 be -- but on this whole issue of garment labeling so that
17 consumers feel confident that certain garments would -- it
18 would be perfectly safe to utilize a wet process.
19 Have we looked into that?
20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The staff
21 recommendation is to continue encouraging non-toxic
22 alternatives, and that would certainly be part of it. And
23 if we got applications for demos that really got to this
24 question of restretching, reblocking business, not just:
25 Does it make it clean, but does it damage the garment? I
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
81
1 mean that's really where the resistance is, I think, on
2 both the apparel manufacturing side and the dry cleaner
3 side and some on the consumer side too.
4 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: But how about on the issue
5 of labeling? I don't even know what agency --
6 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That is under
7 active consideration.
8 Do you know the status?
9 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: That
10 issue is handled by the Federal Trade Commission. And I
11 do believe that they have a recommendation in place to
12 move forward with some type of labeling guidelines for
13 per-garment care. I don't know what the actual
14 implementation status of that is --
15 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE:
16 Yeah. And I'm sure that some of the people who testified
17 may have just a little bit more information on the status
18 of that. There was information presented in one of the
19 comment letters that came in. But that certainly is an
20 area that we also can pursue and see if it -- you know, to
21 what extent that obstacle -- we can influence that change
22 on that.
23 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Thank you.
24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. We'll begin the
25 public comment period. And I'll be calling three people
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
82
1 to -- three witnesses at a time. And we will be applying
2 the three-minute limitation.
3 The first three speakers are Sushma Dhulipala,
4 Frank Choy, and Jack Alquist.
5 MS. DHULIPALA: Good morning, Board members. My
6 name is Sushma Dhulipala. I work with the San Francisco
7 Department of the Environment, and I'm here representing
8 the City and County of San Francisco today to state our
9 position on the proposed dry-cleaning ATCM.
10 And our position is that we don't support the
11 bill in its current form. We have two primary concerns,
12 and I will just outline them quickly to you.
13 Our first concern is the phase out of Perc. We
14 would strongly recommend that the Board completely phase
15 out Perc at existing sites and adopt a ban on all new Perc
16 sites. Because the way the bill is written right now, it
17 phases out Perc in co-residential sites. But we have
18 worker protection issues as well, as was brought up by one
19 of the Board members.
20 And the other thing it says is that it allows
21 certain existing sites using I guess secondary control
22 machines which have lower Perc emissions to continue to
23 operate adjacent to residences an businesses. So we have
24 an issue with that as well.
25 So we would again strongly recommend a phase-out
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
83
1 of Perc completely from new and existing sites.
2 Our second concern is we would like the bill to
3 address hydrocarbon and the Green Earth machines more
4 aggressively. It was mentioned in the bill. But our
5 concern is that hydrocarbon of course is a small forming
6 technology. And Green Earth there are some issues that it
7 is a potential -- toxicant. So we do not want to support
8 the migration from one environmental ill to another.
9 And in San Francisco we are guided by the
10 precautionary principle which requires us to make a choice
11 that would cause the least harm to the environment and
12 public health. We ask the question: What is the least
13 harm possible? And in this situation, it seems like there
14 is a technology that is non-smog forming, that is a more
15 environmentally friendly technology. Our options that are
16 available, this is the professional wet cleaning and the
17 CO2 machines. And we would like to see the Board more
18 aggressively promote them.
19 We've also been disappointed with the 998 bill
20 and that it has not caused -- generated a huge amount of
21 interest. So we would like to see more aggressive
22 promotion, or we would like to see the Board just adopt
23 more aggressive mandatory approaches to increase the
24 number of professional wet cleaning sites and CO2 in
25 California. In San francisco we have started a grant
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
84
1 program to increase wet cleaning sites. And we'll be more
2 aggressively promoting these technologies in San
3 Francisco.
4 Thank you for giving me the opportunity to
5 comment.
6 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you very much. I'm
7 sorry. Thank you very much.
8 Are there any questions for this witness?
9 Ms. Berg.
10 BOARD MEMBER BERG: On your wet cleaning grants,
11 how many of the cleaners in San Francisco have taken
12 advantage of that?
13 MS. DHULIPALA: We've just launched a program,
14 it's about a month ago. And we've had one cleaner already
15 interested. We're looking for one more. It's a pilot
16 program. If we see a lot of interest, we'll try to
17 generate more funds to keep it an -- make it an ongoing
18 program.
19 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you.
20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you very much.
21 Mr. Choy, followed by Jack Alquist.
22 MR. CHOY: Good morning. My name is Frank Choy,
23 Director of Environmental Affairs, the National Cleaner
24 Association in New York.
25 The National Cleaner Association has been closely
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
85
1 involved for many years in the development of regulations
2 pertaining to perchloroethylene, and has extensively
3 experience in practical aspect of implementing these
4 rules.
5 Knowing how much time and effort goes into the
6 development of the rule such as this, we would recommend
7 the Board for taking into account the far-reaching effects
8 their proposal has on the quintessential small business
9 people in the dry-cleaning industry, their neighbors and
10 their employees.
11 We would also like to commend you for your recent
12 approach to the limitations posed by other cleaning
13 technologies, their place in the market and available
14 health and environmental data surrounding their use.
15 NCA welcomes this opportunity to share with you
16 some sort gleaned from our experience with other
17 perchlorate -- for your consideration and use.
18 Number 1, co-residential pace out. The ARB
19 proposal prohibited new Perc machines and pace out
20 existing Perc machines in co-residential facilities. Why
21 we understand that the Board concern for involuntary
22 exposure and public health issues. There are other ways
23 to solve this problem other than a ban on these
24 operations.
25 In New York State, the TEC adopted a requirement
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
86
1 mandating the restoration of a fourth generation
2 machinery. This is composed with the primary and the
3 secondary control. With the vapor barriers and enhanced
4 ventilation, our study conducted by New York State
5 Department of Health after the adoption of New York State
6 Part 230 Q, and the use of this technology and the
7 engineering controls were in place showed that the mean
8 labels for indoor air in those apartment where the dry
9 cleaner in the building was operating fourth generation
10 equipment with the paper barriers and ventilations
11 throughout, their sampling period were well below the New
12 York State Department of Health's guidelines.
13 When labels such as these are achievable within
14 the same structure, we believe that adequate protection
15 would be provided California residents by adopting
16 standards similar to those in place in New York.
17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mr. Choy, I'm going to have
18 to ask you to conclude.
19 MR. CHOY: Pardon?
20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Please conclude your
21 remarks.
22 MR. CHOY: Okay. You have no time?
23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: You've used up your three
24 minutes.
25 MR. CHOY: So we'd like to raise a couple
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
87
1 locations here. First one I already mentioned to you.
2 And the other one is location restriction on new
3 facilities.
4 Actually I go back to the -- you know, the first
5 matter, because recently there was study in Nordic
6 countries. And Nordic countries study shows that their
7 Perc did not harm especially depreciate any effect to the
8 human beings by means of carcinogen. So this kind of
9 position is further sustained by the recent decision by
10 Oregon Air Toxic Science, otherwise -- and Ontario
11 Minister of Toxics. There no cancer has risk
12 guidelines -- for perchloroethylene has been adopted.
13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I must ask you to conclude.
14 MR. CHOY: Yeah. And why are going to insist
15 that -- we have other technologies. We can choose like in
16 New York State. Why do we have to ban the Perc use in
17 co-residential buildings? And if we have to ban the Perc
18 on co-residential buildings, how about we delay that one
19 until 2020?
20 That's main point of my comments.
21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much.
22 MR. CHOY: Thank you very much.
23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mr. Alquist. And then it
24 will be Jennifer Douglas, Bobby Smerling and Hans Kim.
25 MR. ALQUIST: My name's Jack Alquist. I own
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
88
1 Guild Cleaners in Lodi, California; Guild Cleaners Wine
2 Country in Lodi, California; Lincoln Village Cleaners in
3 Stockton, California. I'm also the past Director,
4 President and Chairman of the Board of IFI, the
5 International Fabricare Institute. I'm not here
6 representing them. I represent myself and my entities.
7 I was the fifth dry cleaner in the world to go to
8 Green Earth. We did it when there weren't any cleaning
9 machines made. We modified hydrocarbon machines. At the
10 end of the first week I saw the light at the end of the
11 tunnel and I deactivated another dry-cleaning plant I had.
12 I went from four Perc machines to two Green Earth
13 machines, and we operate that today. And I'm shopping for
14 a new one right now.
15 I'm not on Green Earth's payroll. I pay my
16 $3,750 a year licensing fee just like anyone else. I'd
17 rather not pay it, but I'd rather pay it than have Perc.
18 Why not PCE, Perc? I'll tell you why. I got
19 31.2 million reasons. Those were the settlement fees in
20 my two pollution -- groundwater and ground pollution
21 litigation cases. Lincoln Properties versus Higgins, et
22 al.; I was the principal. Lodi versus M&P Investments and
23 Guild Cleaners; I was the principal. One was 24 million,
24 one was 7.2 million. There was $8 million in excess spent
25 defending me. The plaintiffs in both cases generally ran
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
89
1 three times our attorney fees. Therefore I can only guess
2 that they ran a good 24 million. That's a whole lot of
3 money over Perc.
4 The battle was fought then. The war was lost in
5 '93 when I lost that court case. It's not you, folks.
6 It's CERCLA and RCRA. It started in the seventies under
7 Nixon with your parent association, the Federal
8 Environmental Protection Agency. It's got two generations
9 going and it's not quitting.
10 Landlords, leases, $3 a square foot, insurance.
11 Economics are going to run this industry. They're going
12 to make it go.
13 Alternatives. I was literally the first dry
14 cleaner in the world to witness liquid carbon dioxide
15 work, myself, Bill Fisher and David Greenberg, I believe
16 was his name, with Green Peace. We went escorted into
17 Hughes Aircraft somewhere in '96 or '97. And I mean
18 escorted. When I went to the bathroom, I had a guard and
19 the stall stayed open. We witnessed it for a day. I've
20 been excited about CO2 ever since. However, the
21 manufacturers aren't.
22 I am pricing machines right now. A 40 to 60
23 pound basket. They're the same size. It's $145,000. I
24 have a 10 percent rule that I run by in the cleaning
25 industry and it's applicable to all dry cleaners. You
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
90
1 can't go out and spend more than 10 percent of your gross
2 sales for a dry-cleaning machine without pushing the
3 economic envelope. And that's a cleaning machine, taxes
4 freight, in. That's no support. That's no spotting
5 boards, boilers, air compressors. Again, the 10 percent
6 rule.
7 Wet cleaning. I'd do it if you can show me how I
8 can double my prices, because that's what it's going to
9 take to cover my cost, if you can also show me how I can
10 keep my volume so I can stay in business. It's not viable
11 at the moment.
12 Rynex. My only experience with that, when I was
13 with IFI we sent a lady up to Connecticut or New Hampshire
14 for a demo. The garment came back the next day in a bag.
15 When she unleashed it she just about wiped out the
16 executive board of the International Fabricare Institute.
17 And we were all used to fumes. I'm sure they've improved
18 their technology since then, but that's my only
19 experience.
20 Hydrocarbons or VOCs. If that was the answer,
21 you wouldn't watch TV every night and see VOCs with
22 automobiles with a negative impact. That -- the hammer's
23 coming on hydrocarbons. It's just a matter of time.
24 Cleaning machines for Green Earth. Shopping
25 you're going to run about 11 to $1200 a pound. The day of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
91
1 the 150,000 to $200,000 dry cleaner at the end of the
2 mall --
3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Please conclude your
4 remarks.
5 MR. ALQUIST: I'll be right done.
6 -- is over. Economics are going to drive it out.
7 Now, he can have a machine there and supported by other
8 press shops or dry storers, as I do. But you've got to
9 have the volume to make it work.
10 You people aren't going to wipe out this
11 industry. It's economics, it's environmental law, it's
12 CERCLA and it's RCRA. But Perc needs to go away. The
13 dry-cleaning industry needs to move on. Perc is the Darth
14 Vader. It makes the dry-cleaning industry Darth Vader of
15 pollution in the business world. It just needs to go away
16 and the industry needs to move on.
17 Thank you.
18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much.
19 Jennifer Douglas.
20 MS. DOUGLAS: Good morning. I am here as a
21 representative from Prestige Cleaners. We're actually
22 here located in Sacramento.
23 We were the first site in the entire world to use
24 Green Earth. And that was eight years ago when the first
25 machines went in. Since then we've had 28 other
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
92
1 affirmation sites over 16 months that have done extensive
2 testing. And, you know, we use it in the day-to-day
3 operation for the past eight years exclusively. We've had
4 a huge level of success with it. Our customers like it.
5 It makes our clothing brighter. It's odorless, it's
6 softer. It reduces some of our labor on the other side as
7 far as pressing.
8 You know, we haven't experienced any negative
9 sites whatsoever as a dry cleaner.
10 As far as converting from Perc or another
11 technology, it's pretty comparable. We now have over 12
12 manufacturers that manufacturer Green Earth machines, as
13 Jack had mentioned, that are a reasonable cost and
14 comparative cost. We have about three companies that
15 produce silicone. And we also have several -- all the
16 major manufacturers' detergents and spotting agents that
17 provide support for Green Earth as well.
18 We've seen an increase in our sales, as well as
19 the other 150 people in the State of California that use
20 Green Earth. They have experienced increase in sales,
21 with their customers interested in the fact that they are
22 environmentally friendly.
23 So, you know, in conclusion basically across the
24 board we have seen, you know, positive results from us
25 specifically just using Green Earth.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
93
1 And thank you for your comments.
2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much.
3 Hans Kim.
4 Excuse me. It's -- yes, Hans. Bobby Smerling
5 next.
6 Sorry.
7 MR. KIM: Good morning, Board. My name is Hans
8 Kim. I'm the owner of Natures Best Cleaners in southern
9 California. I'm located in Palm Desert, California.
10 I became a wet cleaner about seven years ago.
11 I'm a dedicated wet cleaner, use what you call water and
12 soap.
13 I think the reason I'm here today is because I
14 just want to clarify certain issues of wet cleaning.
15 People have common questions: "Are you going to shrink my
16 clothes? Are you going to damage my clothes? Are you
17 going to make my employee work harder? Are you going to
18 have color losses on my clothes?" This is all untrue.
19 At the beginning when I first started, yes, it
20 was true. Boy, it was very hard to go to the moons. But
21 when I went there, there was nothing to it. I came back
22 to tell about it. Today in southern California I have
23 converted close to 20 locations that now are dedicated wet
24 cleaners. And some of my colleagues are here today, and
25 they would like to also testify.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
94
1 Now, in wet cleaning process, there's nothing to
2 it. Because many of us today living in California, most
3 of us are very fortunate because we have major league
4 machine washable label garments in dry cleaners. So when
5 I looked into these cleaners, when I go there and train,
6 what to teach them, there's not much to teach because they
7 already know how to wash -- machine wash labels.
8 The only thing that I have to show them is
9 remaining maybe 10 percent to 30 percent of the garment
10 that consider a dry-clean-only label garment. It's not a
11 brainer, because soaps and the water makes that water
12 become like a solvent.
13 Now, just to close my comments, have you ever
14 seen the sheeps in the field jumping into solvent to clean
15 themselves? No. They all get wet in water, but they
16 don't shrink their furs.
17 (Laughter.)
18 MR. KIM: Thank you very much.
19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
20 Bobby Smerling.
21 MR. SMERLING: Good morning. I'm Bobby Smerling
22 from Brentwood Royal Cleaners in Santa Monica, California.
23 Air Resources Board, President, Chair, and Board
24 members and staff:
25 I'd like to thank you for allowing me to speak
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
95
1 this morning and having the opportunity to allow me to
2 give you my statement.
3 The last time I spoke in front of this Board CARB
4 was attempting to get rid of Perc completely. Now, we are
5 looking to phase it out. For the last nine and a half
6 years now I've had the privilege of coming to Sacramento
7 and working with CARB staff and Mae Fong, along with
8 others in our industry and distributors of our equipment,
9 inspectors that have come to our plants and other fellow
10 dry cleaners.
11 I'd like to start out by, most of the dry
12 cleaners do not really understand why we are here. I
13 don't work for any equipment or soap manufacturers, nor do
14 I get paid to come to Sacramento. This strictly comes out
15 of mine and my family's pocket and the love and devotion
16 that I have for this industry.
17 I'm a third generation dry cleaner, when my
18 grandfather started in America in the laundry industry
19 back in the fifties, having to leave 15 textile factories
20 that we ran in Czechoslovakia in '48. My parents and I
21 bought one of the laundry accounts back in 1985. And I'm
22 a graduate from the International Fabricare Institute and
23 acknowledged as one of America's best dry cleaners from
24 the Fashion Design Institute in Germany.
25 I'm a past President of the Greater Los Angeles
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
96
1 Dry Cleaning Association. I've sat on the Board of the
2 California Cleaners Association. I'm trade advisory for
3 the penitentiaries of the State of California. Past Board
4 member of the American Lung Association, Los Angeles
5 Chapter.
6 I had the occasion to visit water treatment
7 plants by invitation by the City of Santa Monica Division.
8 The real reason why we're here is the poor operations of
9 most dry cleaners that are working in our industry in
10 California, by illegally discarding Perc and allowing it
11 to come into contact with the ground and air, by
12 discarding the sludge of Perc into our sewer systems, and
13 little time that the water treatment plants have to clean
14 it up.
15 While I had my Perc plant, we never had any
16 problems with contamination in the ground or air. We
17 always were on the cutting edge of new technology.
18 In 1985 we installed our first Lindus closed loop
19 machine in California. And one thing else that we
20 designed was the first containment pan in the dry-cleaning
21 industry.
22 When I was President of the Dry Cleaning
23 Association, I started working in relationship with the
24 California Air Resources Board and together training
25 programs with Kenny Slatten, Bob Blackburn and myself and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
97
1 others educating in the committee of the California
2 Cleaning Association.
3 We knew that the dry cleaners were doing a
4 substandard operation. And this was a way for us to
5 strive to attempt to teach the at-risk operator, and
6 hopefully educate our industry. Unfortunately a
7 percentage of the people who have taken CARB training
8 courses have not -- and have economic influences and
9 difficulties in not understanding what we are trying to
10 teach.
11 I'll try to conclude this for you.
12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Could you conclude please?
13 MR. SMERLING: Yes. Excuse me.
14 As Jack Alquist that was also explaining that he
15 was one of the people that attended Howard Hughes for
16 looking at the CO2 plants, we also had the opportunity --
17 or I also had the opportunity as well. We are taking the
18 dry cleaners from one type of solvent that we could not
19 handle, even more potential dangerous problems without
20 educating the operator and owners. We should have a
21 mandatory and minimum site training for qualified
22 instructors.
23 I also would like to see if this Board can do us
24 a favor by setting up some criteria on languages that is
25 out in our industry, which I would appreciate if they
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
98
1 could do.
2 Some dry cleaners that I've seen have
3 environmentally safe and non-toxic dry cleaners or --
4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: If you could just conclude
5 in your own words, I'd appreciate it very much.
6 MR. SMERLING: I'd like to see that this Board
7 put some wording in that -- if these dry cleaners are
8 putting up signages and are misinforming the industry and
9 consumer, saying that they are eco-friendly and they're
10 not, they're using actually hydrocarbons and all that, we
11 should actually have some wording that defines what is
12 eco-cleaning and what is environmentally cleaning correct.
13 The last three and a half years now I've had my
14 CO2 machine. We've been very successful at it. And we
15 have improved tremendously in our industry. And CO2 is a
16 viable cleaning solution.
17 Thank you very much.
18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much.
19 We're going to take a ten-minute break now to
20 give our court reporter a break.
21 And as soon as we return, it will be Kwon
22 Taekook, Paul Choe and Daniel Jussicha will be speaking.
23 And we'll be back at 20 minutes after 11
24 precisely.
25 (Thereupon a recess was taken.)
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
99
1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Lets resume.
2 I must ask the speakers to abide by our
3 three-minute limit. We have a large number of speakers
4 and multiple agenda items to deal with today.
5 Next is Kwon Taekook.
6 If he is not here, Paul Choe.
7 MR. CHOE: Good morning, Board members.
8 May I hand this to each of you.
9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes.
10 MR. CHOE: Yes, I am Paul Choe from Korean Dry
11 Cleaners Association of Southern California. And I just
12 want to make a short comment to you.
13 That some of the alternative technologies are
14 working better than four years ago. In southern
15 California we are up to that Rule 1420 when they amended.
16 And especially the hydrocarbon and the -- improved very
17 much.
18 But those new technologies are very pricey, very
19 expensive. And some of the small and mom and pop
20 operations will not be -- are able to obtain the new
21 technologies to support their business. So I'm strongly
22 suggest that the AB 998 program and you should add that
23 directly to the existing program -- hydrocarbon machine,
24 not only dedicate the wet clean and machines.
25 And also that hydrocarbon machine should be
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
100
1 include on AB 998.
2 That's my point. Thank you.
3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much.
4 Is Kwon Taekook here?
5 If not, I will take him off the list.
6 Daniel Jussicha. And then it will be Yasuji
7 Hiroi, Lisa Tsan and Lawrence -- that's all I have is
8 Lawrence.
9 MR. JUSSICHA: Good morning, Board. My name is
10 Daniel Jussicha. I'm the owner of Ontario Cleaners in
11 Ontario, California.
12 I just want to testify that I used to be a Perc
13 cleaners. Now I converted to the wet cleaning two years
14 ago. And I'm happy. My employees happy too. And I used
15 to have a -- when my sinuses very bad, then I'm just --
16 I'm free -- happy to enjoy my cleaners. My customer don't
17 complain about dingy again from the garment when the
18 collar, they came out bright. And just very good.
19 Thank you.
20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much.
21 Yasuji Hiroi.
22 MR. HIROI: Yes, my name is Yasuji Hiroi, Natures
23 Best Cleaners, Fountain Valley, owner.
24 I was born in Nada, Japan. I came U.S.A. in 1988
25 as a mechanical engineer of the building, not the dry
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
101
1 cleaner.
2 My store opened August 2003, professional wet
3 cleaning facility, located in Fountain Valley, California,
4 and near Huntington Beach.
5 And training process is -- because I'm not -- I'm
6 no experience in dry cleaners. One of the -- Mr. Spot
7 train me 14 days over the two months period.
8 After that phone support asking what to do.
9 There about three months. Then after the training months
10 last December 2005. Sales about 10,000. We call
11 operational evil.
12 Still growing, about 30 percent to 40 percent of
13 the previous year.
14 Why I do wet cleaner. I saw it the first time
15 around five years ago in the Hans Kim before he spoke
16 about. Then I saw the garment so different from the
17 dry-cleaning garment. And I think everybody can see the
18 difference. Then maybe I can help business opportunity.
19 Then I started. Right now I have comment from my
20 customers, many of them said, my customer, It's so clean
21 and came from original color, especially silk. Wool rag.
22 And that feeling the difference and smells so good, my
23 clothes -- working clothes.
24 Thank you very much.
25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
102
1 We'll go back to Kwon Taekook.
2 MR. TAEKOOK: Good afternoon. I'm the owner of
3 the Fashion Cleaners in Sacramento, Kwon Taekook.
4 We're having our hearing regarding the ARB
5 staff's proposed amendment. I found a few problematic
6 arguments here, issues. I'd like to ask a few questions
7 to those staff who proposed those amendments.
8 I do not know anything about the chemical number.
9 I do not have any professional knowledges. Although in
10 the last 20 years I've been working in a dry-cleaning
11 business. I based on my 20 years experience. As I have a
12 good interest and either consume my business therefore. I
13 wish you understand and hear me out.
14 The problem is, first problem. Amendment 93209
15 proposed rules Regulation 1421. This relationship should
16 be defined. If the current amendment passed the law in
17 2002, it would become a law in state law under the
18 consent. Currently the Rule 1421 is -- will continue the
19 legal effect. And with that, Rule 1421 will continue to
20 be in effect or either automatically dismissed.
21 And if you see the amendment material, ES-2, also
22 ES page 10, according to their preparation on the paper,
23 South Coast AQMD's facilities, does that have an impact or
24 not? It's very ambiguous.
25 If this association does not correct that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
103
1 amendment there will be no impact on the business. If the
2 association adopt that amendment, it will impact on the
3 business, which mean by adopting the amendment. I would
4 ask about that with all other -- after I talk about all
5 the problems. I hope you apply the exact nature of the
6 statistic. If you see the primary cause of the amendment,
7 you mentioned many statistical materials, you are using
8 that as the legislative law. Many documents couldn't
9 understand. The main example is if you look at the ES
10 page 7 --
11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Would you ask Mr. Taekook to
12 summarize now.
13 MR. TAEKOOK: It is very important.
14 (Laughter.)
15 MR. TAEKOOK: If I mention the example here, the
16 Perc emission, it all depends on the machine -- types of
17 machine. In my business an average typical first primary
18 control machine dry cleans the 50,000 pounds per year, 40
19 percent of which would be 20,000 pounds is done by
20 dry-cleaning, and the remainder 60 percent, which is
21 30,000 pounds, is done by water dry-cleaning.
22 And based on 2005, Perc was used for 50 gallon in
23 a year. According to the amendments material this kind of
24 machine emitted 800 pounds of Perc in year by this
25 machine. I'm afraid that this is not accurate, a little
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
104
1 bit over exaggerated.
2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I'm sorry but I must ask Mr.
3 Taekook to --
4 MR. TAEKOOK: However, I think I have the most
5 important issues than any other people. Give me five more
6 minutes. This is the most important issues.
7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I appreciate the importance.
8 But we must conclude because we have other people that
9 would like to speak as well.
10 And to our translator, would you explain the time
11 limit. And what we're doing is doubling the time for
12 future speakers. And I realize that the non-English
13 speaking speakers probably do not understand. So when you
14 have other people you're translating for, would you
15 explain the rules to them.
16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Dr. Sawyer, staff
17 also would be happy to speak with this gentleman
18 privately, you know, at a moment where translation's not
19 required, so we can be sure we understand his comments.
20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I think that's a good
21 solution. Our staff will speak to you privately so that
22 your feelings can be presented.
23 Thank you very much.
24 And we are allowing a doubling of the time for
25 those translated who are being translated.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
105
1 BOARD MEMBER BERG: May I just make one comment?
2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes.
3 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I just want to be clear
4 that -- it seems part of the confusion was between the
5 South Coast rule and the CARB rule. And my
6 understanding -- and I just want to make sure that I
7 understand this correctly -- is that the CARB rule will
8 not impact the South Coast Air Quality rule. Their rule
9 will stand as regulated, and this applies to every other
10 district.
11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, there's a
12 nuance. The staff proposal in its present form we deem to
13 be equivalent to the South Coast rule, and so we would not
14 override the South Coast rule provisions. And that's sort
15 of in the aggregate but for some monitoring and record
16 keeping requirements.
17 If the Board amends the proposal today and makes
18 some of its provisions more stringent, it's possible that
19 the statewide rule would affect the South Coast rule. If,
20 for example, you chose to ban hydrocarbon substitution or
21 you chose to phase out Perc on a faster schedule or did
22 something other that was significantly different than the
23 South Coast rule. But in the present form of the staff
24 proposal, we are saying that the South Coast rule remains
25 in tact, unaffected, and that companies in that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
106
1 jurisdiction comply primarily with their rule and
2 companies elsewhere in the state comply with ours unless
3 the local air district adopts a different rule for its
4 jurisdiction.
5 BOARD MEMBER BERG: My understanding on the South
6 Coast rule is that it is more stringent, however, in
7 eliminating Perc by 2020 and that the CARB rule does not
8 eliminate Perc.
9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, the bottom
10 line is our rule is more stringent in the near and midterm
11 because of the rate of equipment replacement it requires,
12 theirs is more stringent by phasing out Perc. But when
13 you calculate risks out, which is over a 70-year period,
14 the two rules converge, you know, like around 20, 25 or
15 something. And so that's why we're deeming them roughly
16 equivalent.
17 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you for --
18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: But they are
19 different.
20 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Yeah, but thank you for
21 clarifying that for me.
22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Lisa Tsan.
23 MS. TSAN: Good morning. My name is Lisa Tsan.
24 My company name is Fay Cleaners in Long Beach, California.
25 I have a dry clean two years and machine two years. Now I
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
107
1 have a wet clean machine for four years. I have no
2 problem with wet clean. And I'm very -- like it. And my
3 income is growing. And everyday my customers say, "You're
4 the best cleaner and you do a good job."
5 Thank you.
6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. And
7 congratulations.
8 (Applause.)
9 Lawrence. And then we will have Sung Park, Rudie
10 Smit and Steve Depper.
11 MR. LAWRENCE LEE: Good morning. This is OK
12 Cleaners in Los Angeles. My name is Lawrence Lee.
13 I have seven years in dry clean business and
14 change to wet cleaning one year ago. Before install
15 machine I take six hour to learn how to clean garment in
16 wet clean system. Now I can clean 100 percent garment in
17 my store. And my customers, they don't know any
18 different. And I don't have any problem for wet clean
19 system. So I really like wet clean. I recommend.
20 Thank you.
21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much.
22 Sung Park.
23 MS. PARK: My name is Sung Park. Also I am 100
24 percent dedicated wet cleaning cleaners. My cleaners is
25 Natures Best Cleaners, Rancho Cucamonga, in southern
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
108
1 California.
2 I worked with Perc I think over 12 years. But I
3 changed to wet cleaning 5 years ago because I didn't like
4 Perc for my health and air.
5 One time I had accident where there was Perc --
6 Perc was leaking in my store. I almost fainted because
7 Perc smells is so strong for the health.
8 Today, I want to show you how -- shoe video how
9 to wet clean the dry-cleaning-only garment. Would you
10 please show the video.
11 Okay. That's my store. I'm ready to --
12 dry-clean-only garment is cleaning.
13 I think they already passed the first step.
14 Okay. Right there.
15 You guys can see the brand jacket where name is.
16 Hugo Boss. Everybody knows the brand name jacket. And
17 then I think that's over a thousand dollars suit jacket.
18 I'm going to put it in my wet cleaning machine right now.
19 I have to process, choose number what garment -- what --
20 it is. I'm going to push button for the wet cleaning
21 right now for the inside the machine, Hugo Boss garment.
22 That jacket takes -- all garment takes wet
23 cleaning only about 20 minutes. After finished the 20
24 minutes, take it out, the garment. I put it in the drier,
25 about take you 3 minutes. Depends what met it is. Take a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
109
1 little different time. But most wool, silk only take it 3
2 minutes for the dry.
3 After dry, take it out. I put it in -- machine
4 for the steam and make it more form jacket about couple
5 seconds.
6 After finish the form, I give it to my employee
7 for the presser. And then after presser, it's been ready.
8 I've been cleaning -- wet cleaning long time. I
9 don't have any problem. My all customers are happy. They
10 really like -- they notice right away when they come to my
11 store, smells is fresh, and they know is good for their
12 health.
13 I wish I speak better English. Many, many things
14 to tell you guys good thing about the wet cleaning. I
15 wish you -- I all invite my store. I could show how to do
16 wet cleaning for the taking care of it.
17 Thank you very much.
18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much.
19 Rudie Smit.
20 MR. SMIT: I have a slide presentation.
21 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was
22 Presented as follows.)
23 MR. SMIT: I'm the Business Manager for Wet
24 Cleaning and Commercial Laundry with Miele. I hope to be
25 answering some of the questions that I heard earlier in my
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
110
1 presentation.
2 --o0o--
3 MR. SMIT: What makes professional wet cleaning
4 so attractive? Although I heard that there's a cost
5 implication, in fact it is the most economical process to
6 clean garments in. Nobody would argue that water and soap
7 are still the best cleaning agents. There is no
8 environmental impact in water and soap. The maintenance
9 of the machines is absolutely minimal. We do not create
10 hazardous material. There are no health and safety
11 concerns. And for some cleaners, a very, very good point
12 is there is no record keeping obligation.
13 --o0o--
14 MR. SMIT: Very quick history. 1989 legislation
15 was put in place in Germany that regulated the use of Perc
16 very much along the same lines as we're discussing here
17 today. And in response to that, the two companies decided
18 they're going to work together and design the first
19 professional wet cleaning system. That was launched in
20 Germany in 1991.
21 A few steps further on, in Europe a project was
22 started in the European Union called Aquacarb that would
23 look at designing a care label system that would also
24 encompass wet cleaning.
25 In 2005 -- no, let me take one step back. In
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
111
1 1999 we introduced systems in America.
2 In 2005, ISO introduced a wet cleaning care label
3 in Europe.
4 Now in 2006, we have 1500 Miele systems globally
5 in operation, more than 100 systems in the U.S.A.
6 Thirty-six of these systems are used by dedicated wet
7 cleaners. They do not have any solvent in their facility.
8 --o0o--
9 MR. SMIT: 1989 the Clean Air Act and Water
10 Resources Act in Germany regulated Perc. And more
11 stringently than you will do here, it actually looked at
12 the ppm left in the wheel at the end of the cleaning
13 process. It very clearly regulated the maximum
14 permissible ppm of Perc in adjacent residential and public
15 access buildings, especially where food was processed.
16 --o0o--
17 MR. SMIT: The aim of Miele and Kreussler
18 together was to bring a system in the market that would be
19 able to clean dry-clean-only labeled safely, provide very
20 good cleaning results, and be very economical to run.
21 --o0o--
22 MR. SMIT: This coincided a little bit with the
23 development of the care labels --
24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I must ask you to conclude
25 your remarks please.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
112
1 MR. SMIT: I'll advance quite a bit.
2 This is a look at the care labels as they are now
3 in Europe. At the bottom you'll see the W, the W with one
4 line, the W with two lines. The lines indicate
5 sensitivity of materials.
6 --o0o--
7 MR. SMIT: One of the issues that the FDC found
8 in 2000 was there was no established test methods for care
9 labels. They are now in existence. They are actually
10 recognized ISO processes. So that that would help the FDC
11 to also relook at the care labeling issue.
12 --o0o--
13 MR. SMIT: One of the most important reasons why
14 water is so important in cleaning is that, as you can see
15 in this chart, 50 percent is particles that we clean, 40
16 percent is actually water-based stains, and 10 percent are
17 your greases, your fats, your waxes and your oils. So
18 that's one of the reasons why water cleaning systems are
19 so attractive to wet cleaners.
20 I hope I answered some of your questions.
21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much.
22 MR. SMIT: Thank you very much.
23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Steve Depper. And then
24 we'll have Lawrence Lim, Thomas Son and Sang Cho.
25 MR. DEPPER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
113
1 of the Board.
2 I believe, Member Berg, that you asked a question
3 that I found real interesting. You said the cost of
4 dry-cleaning when you had your slide. And I believe the
5 prices will be decreasing in a fight to maintain market
6 share, primarily because we will be losing the baby boomer
7 generation. Our industry's already done that economic
8 study. We will probably lose about 20 percent of our
9 pieces coming in. So I believe that your financial model
10 of prices going up is probably well overstated. And
11 people are going to fight as they lose volume in order to
12 try and stay in business. That's just what reality will
13 be.
14 But as for myself, I'm Steve Depper from Dutch
15 Girl Dry Cleaners in Walnut Creek. I'm a third generation
16 dry cleaner in California. My grandfather had his first
17 plant in 1904. I've used naphtha, petroleum, Perc, Rynex,
18 Green Earth and wet cleaning. I've seen changes from the
19 dust wheel before you even thought about solvents to what
20 we see today.
21 I believe that there is alternative -- there are
22 alternatives to Perc. The one that I am using is Green
23 Earth. And I think our industry does need to move forward
24 from where we are now. Three years ago I went to Green
25 Earth. It met my criteria. I believe it's safe for my
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
114
1 employees, safe for the environment, safe for my
2 customers.
3 It's been the most tested underarm deodorant base
4 that anyone's ever used. And I've never seen a cancer
5 case from underarms yet.
6 But I also get a very consistent quality of
7 cleaning. It will also -- gives me a wide range of
8 garments. I'm cleaning more garments now with different
9 types of garments than I've ever been able to do in all my
10 years of Perc.
11 It's cost effective for me to buy the unit. And
12 it's allowed me to increase my production of efficiency in
13 producing units, up to 40 to 50 pieces per hour, where if
14 I were using some of the other alternatives, I would not
15 be able to get that. And I do need to get that in order
16 to maintain my business and to stay in business. We have
17 to become efficient.
18 And, lastly, my customers are accepting it. Our
19 business is growing. But, again, in order to grow your
20 business in the future you must start looking at niche
21 markets, and our industry will have to do that.
22 Last year I had visits from cleaners from the
23 United Kingdom. After our visit -- and probably it wasn't
24 just because of my visit -- they purchased 400 Green Earth
25 units.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
115
1 I also had two visits from Japan, from the
2 world's largest dry cleaner, where they sent not only
3 their team but also their CEO. And they also purchased
4 Green Earth units.
5 So the world is moving to alternatives. They are
6 moving to Green Earth in many cases throughout the world.
7 And I'm looking forward to that continuing into that
8 alternative and to other alternatives.
9 Thank you.
10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much.
11 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman?
12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: You have a question?
13 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yes, just a quick
14 question. And forgive me. I think I've missed it.
15 But just describe to me what the Green Earth
16 process is. I mean what are you -- what's the basis?
17 MR. DEPPER: The basis is silicone.
18 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Okay. Thank you.
19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Lawrence Lim.
20 MR. LIM: Good morning, Board members. My name
21 is Lawrence Lim and I'm the President of the Korean Dry
22 Cleaners Association of Northern California.
23 And many of our members wished to attend this
24 hearing, but unfortunately they could not be able to. As
25 you know, we have the mom-and-pop stores. If dry
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
116
1 cleaner's here, and which mean that they not be able to
2 open the store. So they could not be able to come over
3 here. But if you have this kind of hearing in the future,
4 if they like set it up after 2, 3, they could come more.
5 And I'd like to talk about two things: First of
6 all, water and energy conservation. California struggles
7 against the water shortage every year and yet the
8 government is recommending more water usage and waste.
9 Isn't water conservation another ongoing or key effort by
10 different agency under same government? ARB's effort to
11 curb air pollution is an effort tending -- causing water
12 pollution down the road.
13 Is the ARB aware of future consequences if wet
14 cleaning is properly implemented among dry cleaners? Has
15 the ARB discussed with its counterparts that deal with
16 water pollution and conservation on the technical
17 feasibility of wet cleaning machine is ongoing machine
18 maintenance issues? Increase the water waste or usage and
19 potential water pollution issues.
20 One gallon of Perc is capable of the washing 600
21 to 800 pounds of the clothes. In the long run, which is
22 more economical and environmental friendly solution?
23 In order to gain one thing now, reduction of air
24 pollution, will California lose a lot more in the future?
25 And also, secondly, there was talk about the wet
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
117
1 cleaning. And I do have -- I'm using two Perc
2 dry-cleaning machines and three washers, including one wet
3 cleaning machine. And I'm wearing dry-cleaning-only
4 jacket and pants. I don't do the wet cleaning even though
5 I have a wet cleaning machine. Why do we have to take
6 responsibilities? Care label says it's dry clean only.
7 Many of you wear dry-clean-only garments. If you take it
8 to the dry cleaners, would you expect to be happen like a
9 shrinkage problem or, you know, the faded colors? And
10 what would you be responsible? And care label says dry
11 clean only. And would you be asking dry cleaner, "Why did
12 you wash it? It says dry clean only."
13 People, we discuss about the wet cleaning, we
14 have to change the care label. We are just the small
15 guys. And that's not our choice. The garment industry,
16 if they said machine wash or wet clean, we can do that.
17 Even on underwear and socks, I don't do the dry cleaning.
18 It says machine wash. I don't need to do the dry
19 cleaning. So before --
20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I must ask you to conclude.
21 MR. LIM: Yes.
22 Is the wet cleaning, it not an option. And
23 dry-cleaning machine, the Perc, it reduced the emissions.
24 So please consider.
25 Thank you.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
118
1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much.
2 Thomas Son.
3 MR. SON: Hello. Thanks to the Board members.
4 I think it's pretty apparent that the Board or
5 the ARB doesn't really have clear alternatives or
6 recommendation guidelines for which direction contractors
7 should take. So the basic bottom line, what we are asking
8 is it's a lot of money if we do change to anything. So
9 give us some more time, extend the deadline from 2010 to
10 20, say, 14. By then most of the Perc machines will be
11 too old and have to be phased out anyway.
12 If there could be better, more practical
13 financial assistance from the government, that would be
14 also nice too. Ten grand assistance for hundred fifty to
15 quarter million dollar machines by small business owners
16 is little too much.
17 Another thing I think also, you as a consumer
18 also as well, are you willing to pay more for your
19 garments?
20 I think ARB should at least do some sort of press
21 release, let the customers know that, yeah, you're going
22 to bear some of the costs for cleaner air. If you can do
23 that, provide a -- number so you can explain to them why
24 your local dry cleaners are charging two to three bucks
25 more for your suits, I think that's kind of important.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
119
1 So if those two things could be made into this
2 proposed amendment, I think that would be awesome. Some
3 more time for us so that we can at least start saving some
4 money to phase out these machines, buy the new ones; as
5 well as informing the public that, "Hey, you're going to
6 be paying more down the road. So get ready."
7 Thank you very much.
8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
9 Sang Cho. And then it will be Sam Lee, Elaine
10 Chang and Jill Whynot.
11 MR. CHO: How do you do. I'm Cho Sang from San
12 Leandro, California.
13 According to the current regulation I would like
14 to talk about the economical laws, not the problem. ARB's
15 report, half of the California dry cleaners produce less
16 than a hundred thousand dollars a year of income.
17 However, the one dry cleaners machine in order to install
18 that, an average have to spend 70 to $80,000, an average.
19 In order to make a loan, I have to pay for the five years.
20 And in average it will be $1,000 monthly payment for the
21 next five years.
22 Let's say income is $10,000 a month. And the
23 ratio of the payment for new machine would be over 10
24 percent of income. So it would be not economical
25 investment because cost is too high in this case. This
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
120
1 cost will go to the customer, and I think it's unfair.
2 Let's say the monthly income is $10,000.
3 Purchase of equipment, monthly payment is 10 percent of
4 the income. It is abnormal and it is critical to the
5 business owner. It will cost too much. For that, the
6 price of dry cleaning will go up. This cost will turn
7 into a customer's expenses.
8 Replacing all the machines at once, would you
9 please reconsider it because it is impossible.
10 Thank you.
11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much.
12 Sam Lee.
13 MR. SAM LEE: My name is Sam Lee. I'm dry
14 cleaning since 1980. I've been using Perc since.
15 I just wondered, all the Board members, how to
16 decide which cleaning be better than the others. I
17 think -- I believe everybody need everything. Depend on
18 what they choose too.
19 Dry cleaners always need to do wet cleaning. I
20 do the wet cleaning since 20 years ago. The wet cleaning
21 technology wasn't as good as today. But I still do same
22 way and people happy with it.
23 Wet cleaning cannot remove the oil stains as good
24 as water does, no question about it. So we do need all.
25 Even Perc machine emission, I've been using same machine
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
121
1 since 1986. We called the consumption -- a poundage
2 consumption is mine comes up to minus. It depends on how
3 you handle the machine is. Really don't matter how old
4 the machine, I believe. Even if brand new machine you
5 buy, three years later going to have a lot of problems.
6 Won't take too long.
7 Also as long as emission is lower as newer
8 machine, should it leave along the distance, 100 foot, 300
9 foot. I don't think that it's fair to people working so
10 hard to do -- do the good job and has to change the
11 machine because other people. I don't think it's right.
12 CO2 machine I try go down the CO2 machine plant
13 last month. I called it seven times. Every time I called
14 they have a good reason why I cannot come down take a look
15 at their machines.
16 I believe CO2 machine going to be great future, I
17 believe, we have it, better than water does, but we have a
18 lot of technical problems so far: Filter system and
19 distiller systems. I don't think I have time to do, all
20 of those goes over three minutes. But right now too early
21 talking to about the CO2 as are -- solvent.
22 So I like the Board members take a look at it
23 carefully about technology of CO2. That's the solution we
24 have so far, I believe.
25 Thank you so much.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
122
1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much.
2 Elaine Chang.
3 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was
4 Presented as follows.)
5 MS. CHANG: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
6 members of the Board. Thank you for the opportunity to
7 appear before you.
8 For the record, my name's Elaine Chang, Deputy
9 Executive Officer for the South Coast AQMD.
10 The district staff is asking a two-part
11 testimony. I will be focusing our policy recommendations
12 and my colleague, Jill Whynot, will provide you the
13 explanation of our policy recommendations.
14 --o0o--
15 MS. CHANG: Here's our policy recommendations.
16 First, we ask you to deem the South Coast local regulation
17 equivalent to the proposed ATCM to avoid potentially
18 additional compliance costs for our dry cleaners prior to
19 their transitioning to non-Perc alternatives.
20 We strongly recommend you consider phasing out
21 Perc, since the non-Perc alternatives are available and
22 cost effective and the industry needs a clear message what
23 compliance option is the preferred option. At the minimum
24 we will ask you not allow new additional Perc machines to
25 be used.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
123
1 --o0o--
2 MS. CHANG: Your Board has done it before when
3 non-Perc formulation is available. The initial risk prior
4 to the ban of the Perc -- the use of Perc is the ranges of
5 between 30 to 60 million, which is comparable if not lower
6 than the potential residual risk in the South Coast should
7 the proposed ATCM is implemented. The VOC tradeoff again
8 is comparable, if not even higher.
9 --o0o--
10 MS. CHANG: Here is another example of what you
11 have done. We believe the policy decision you reached
12 before were justified because you have non-Perc
13 alternatives. And we don't understand, the similar
14 situation you have today in front of you, why the same
15 policy conclusion isn't reached.
16 --o0o--
17 MS. CHANG: We believe the previous actions were
18 based on the fact that your Board found Perc does not have
19 acceptable risk, or any risk level of the residual risk
20 would ensure threat of adverse health effects. And, in
21 fact, the state law requires ATCM to meet a BACT or more
22 effective control method. And we believe the non-Perc
23 alternative in this case meets this definition.
24 --o0o--
25 MS. CHANG: Lastly, we believe a phaseout
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
124
1 proposal is more health protective. And we request you
2 serious consideration of the phaseout proposal.
3 Thank you.
4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much.
5 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman?
6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes.
7 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Let me ask Elaine.
8 Based on what you heard Ms. Witherspoon say, does
9 that give you comfort for the equivalency?
10 MS. CHANG: Yes. We want public acknowledgement.
11 We really worry about additional costs for the ventilation
12 system.
13 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: No. I'm speaking of just
14 the equivalency of -- the stringency of their 1421 and all
15 our regulation.
16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Right. And we do
17 believe there is equivalency. And with respect to added
18 costs, one of the things we're still curious about is how
19 South Coast intends to impose its 25 in a million risk
20 number and what costs their attributing to that, because
21 it's not clear from their testimony.
22 MS. CHANG: If I may. Based on what -- during
23 our rule development, the industry asked us to treat them
24 the same as everybody else complying with the 25 in a
25 million.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
125
1 The two ways they can do: One is knowing that we
2 have an ultimate phase-up schedule, the industry will
3 consider -- or a particular dry cleaner will consider
4 whether at that point time to phase out, to transitioning
5 to a non-Perc alternative. Or based on what they told us
6 that when they used the latest generation of the integral
7 secondary control equipment, that they can look with much
8 lower super cap, roughly a five gallon a month usage that
9 they would be able with the new machine plus a super cap
10 that complies with 25 in the million. This year to see
11 the staff just recently completed the survey data in the
12 initial screening analysis, we will have a board and group
13 meeting with the stakeholders at the end of this month to
14 go over the implementation of the 1402.
15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: If that's
16 correct, we would not be imposing separate ventilation
17 requirements on the South Coast. But it's our assessment
18 that they're necessary to achieve the risk thresholds
19 we're trying to reach in the statewide rule.
20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Okay. Thank you.
21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: There's a
22 separate point we wanted to address, which is the
23 precedent that Elaine brought up and whether or not we're
24 being consistent. And Mr. Scheible's going to talk to
25 that.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
126
1 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Okay. The
2 slide showed a couple of rules where we were considering
3 VOC reductions as part of our consumer products program.
4 And when we reduced the VOC content of brake cleaners in
5 aerosol cans and other things, we also had to consider
6 what might happen when we did that. And one of the things
7 that might happen was that there would be an increase in
8 Perc if we did not regulate that concurrently. So we
9 wanted to avoid an increase in Perc use. We also had the
10 Board develop a policy that said where there were large
11 market shares of alternative uses, as there were in both
12 those cases, and it did not seem that Perc was a
13 necessity, that we would go there. We were achieving VOC
14 reductions by the basic action. We were preventing a
15 toxic increase and we were preventing additional controls.
16 An additional thing that came into play when the
17 Board took that action was in the case of an aerosol can
18 there's no control alternative other than it has a toxic
19 or it doesn't have a toxic. We don't know where it's
20 going to be used, when it's going to be used or how much
21 it's going to be used and who would get exposed to it.
22 So there's a different case here with Perc where
23 we have very high levels of controls through equipment
24 that can be applied to it. So there's an analogy there
25 between the Board's action then and the current item. But
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
127
1 there's many, many differences and many reasons why I
2 don't think we're changing any policy by today's proposal
3 versus what we've done in the past.
4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Berg.
5 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you very much.
6 I'd like clarification on the district's position
7 on bringing the dry cleaners in on the toxic hot spot and
8 how that's going to either coincide with this -- with your
9 rule or our rule today.
10 MS. CHANG: Our approach is -- the Board set the
11 policy objective ultimately by 2020 the last Perc machine
12 will be out of the air basin. But in the interim, to
13 reduce the risk that the Board impose on the specific, you
14 know, type of machine to be used, and they are subject to
15 the risk action levels through our 1402. So in the
16 interim we regulate Percs with a risk management and
17 ultimately phaseout by 2020.
18 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And that will be an
19 additional cost to the industry?
20 MS. CHANG: In fact it will not. Compared to the
21 proposed ATCM just converting to the integral machine,
22 we're equivalent. I think where we differ is we do not
23 require the industry to put down "install ventilation
24 system," which in our estimate was comparable to the
25 incremental cost between a conventional Perc machine
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
128
1 versus a hydrocarbon machine. So the Board made the
2 decision that we better spend the limited resources the
3 dry cleaners have, you know, with the ventilation system
4 toward the new machine.
5 That's the difference.
6 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: And what Elaine
7 said a moment ago was that if -- the new machines are so
8 much more efficient, they can use less Perc overall and so
9 less will escape to the atmosphere and they'll be below
10 their risk threshold of, depending on the source, 25 in a
11 million or 10 in a million, which I believe takes in '07,
12 is that right, Elaine?
13 MS. CHANG: The '07, right.
14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: So we'll see
15 before '07 what is necessary to accomplish that risk
16 threshold.
17 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you very much.
18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Jill Whynot.
19 MS. WHYNOT: Thank you. And I also have a
20 presentation.
21 And I appreciate the opportunity to address the
22 Board today.
23 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was
24 Presented as follows.)
25 MS. WHYNOT: Basically what I wanted to do was
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
129
1 highlight for you a couple of the key policy
2 considerations. And we're going to use South Coast as an
3 example. Even though this rule does not apply to South
4 Coast, we don't think that these situations are unique.
5 There are a lot of dry cleaners that will be very
6 comparable to dry-cleaning situations that I'll show you
7 some photos of.
8 --o0o--
9 MS. WHYNOT: The first policy issue is that the
10 conclusions of the ATCM are based on averages: Average
11 meteorology, Average Perc usage, average distance to
12 receptors. Those are all very important factors for each
13 situation. And you need to look at those, because you
14 might miss some of the higher dry-cleaning risks.
15 Also, we don't think that the ambient levels are
16 that important. This is about toxics hot spots.
17 Also, this is the first time that an air toxic
18 control measure, that we're aware of, mandates increased
19 ventilation. And we're a little concerned about the
20 policy direction that that sets. Some facilities may do
21 that voluntarily. But to mandate increased ventilation,
22 as Elaine said, is an additional cost, and it doesn't get
23 to the root of the problem.
24 And then the third issue is the environmental
25 tradeoff. Our board made a decision that increasing about
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
130
1 .6 tons per day of VOCs was a good tradeoff in order to
2 reduce hundreds of dry cleaners that had unacceptably high
3 risk to their neighbors and the surrounding community.
4 --o0o--
5 MS. WHYNOT: Just a little bit more about the
6 averages. The meteorology can vary a lot even within a
7 district. If you look at the South Coast, our average to
8 worst case meteorology varies by 30 percent if all of the
9 other parameters are exactly the same.
10 Also, the usage and distance to the receptors can
11 vary significantly. And dry cleaners are located
12 necessarily, for convenience, very close to neighborhoods
13 and other businesses.
14 And then we believe that if the South Coast
15 followed the ATCM instead of our path, we would have much
16 higher residual risks and they would still be too high.
17 --o0o--
18 MS. WHYNOT: This graph is a snapshot. This is
19 actual reported survey data in the light bars on the left
20 from about 1700 of our dry cleaners. And it shows -- for
21 each of these we used their meteorology, their usage and
22 their nearest receptor to calculate where they would be
23 with the risk.
24 The purple bars on the right would be what would
25 happen after the ATCM was implemented if it applied to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
131
1 South Coast.
2 Obviously it reduces the maximum cancer risk, and
3 it does reduce Perc in many situations. So it goes a good
4 step forward.
5 But we would have more than 70 percent of our dry
6 cleaners, over 1100 of them, that would be over our public
7 notification thresholds with this ATCM. We would have
8 more than 25 percent, which would be over 440 dry
9 cleaners, that would be over 25 in a million. And that's
10 our risk reduction threshold.
11 And, in addition, there would be still about 100
12 dry cleaners that would be over 50 in a million and a
13 handful that would be over 100 in a million even after
14 implementing the ATCM.
15 Now, this is a snapshot in 2002. We've already
16 had about one-third of our dry cleaners go to the
17 alternatives. So, you know, the risks are not quite like
18 that today. But for illustration purposes, we don't think
19 that the ATCM goes far enough.
20 --o0o--
21 MS. WHYNOT: I wanted to show just a series of
22 photos. These are illustrations of real situations. We
23 calculated what would the risk be after the ATCM
24 implementation, and a variety of different locations and a
25 variety of different settings.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
132
1 This is Long Beach. There's homes up and down
2 the street, across the street. And the residual risk
3 would be about 45 in a million after the ATCM.
4 --o0o--
5 MS. WHYNOT: This cleaner is down the street from
6 us in Diamond Bar. It's a particularly bad land use. You
7 can see that not only is this Montessori preschool right
8 next to a dry cleaner, but that sign in the background is
9 from the 57 Freeway.
10 This is a picture of the back door. The right
11 inset shows the back door of the cleaner. That's the
12 back-end of the dry-cleaning machine with the fans. And
13 that's blowing.
14 The bigger picture shows -- that gray spot there
15 is the door. The gray gate is the start of the playground
16 where it wraps around the back of the building.
17 And this is from another angle that you can just
18 see that the playground is, you know, next to the building
19 and then behind. So particularly bad example.
20 --o0o--
21 MS. WHYNOT: This cleaner is in Santa Monica. It
22 has both residential and worker exposures. After the ATCM
23 would be implemented in this case, the residential
24 exposure would be 35 in a million and the exposure to
25 workers would be 29.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
133
1 --o0o--
2 MS. WHYNOT: Here's an example in Riverside.
3 After improved ventilation and upgrading equipment workers
4 would be exposed to 45 in a million cancer risk.
5 --o0o--
6 MS. WHYNOT: Here's a home that would have over
7 65 in a million cancer risk.
8 And we're showing these because we think that in
9 other cities throughout the state you're going to see
10 situations like this. And so these are not a hundred feet
11 away. They are, you know, right next door.
12 --o0o--
13 MS. WHYNOT: And in the last picture, this one is
14 kind of an upscale neighborhood in Los Angeles. It's
15 desirable now to put condominiums and apartments, you
16 know, next to businesses. But after the ATCM would be
17 implemented, the residences are going to have about a 35
18 in a million risk and the workers about 30.
19 So we wanted just to highlight some of those
20 examples.
21 --o0o--
22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Could you conclude, Jill,
23 please.
24 MS. WHYNOT: Yes, I sure will.
25 I think Elaine talked enough about this one where
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
134
1 we think that the maximum risk would be reduced.
2 The risk for other industries in the South Coast
3 is a lot lower than the remaining risk would be for dry
4 cleaners after the ATCM.
5 And basically our recommendations are that you
6 strongly consider a Perc phaseout. We think that the
7 environmental tradeoff is justifiable. There are
8 alternatives that are available. And you're going to be
9 reducing localized hot spots in trading off a little bit
10 of VOCs.
11 We also think that in order to continue the grant
12 demonstration program and make that more successful, it
13 would be important to set a market demand through your
14 regulation. So that's why we're asking you to be more
15 health protective and consider a Perc phaseout.
16 Thank you.
17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
18 The next three speakers are Tim Carmichael,
19 Bonnie Holmes-Gen and Betsy Reifsnider.
20 Tim.
21 MR. CARMICHAEL: Good afternoon now. Tim
22 Carmichael with the Coalition for Clean Air.
23 I've been working on dry-cleaning issues since
24 1996. I've been testifying before this Board since 1995.
25 I think this may be the most amazing position
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
135
1 that the staff has ever taken in the time that I've worked
2 on air pollution issues in California. If you take a step
3 back from it, your staff is defending the continued use of
4 a toxic chemical that they acknowledge causes cancer, is a
5 reproductive toxin and a neurotoxin.
6 It's just -- it's mind-boggling. I don't know
7 where to begin with how that could be okay, when you have
8 viable alternatives shown in the staff report to be cost
9 effective in the marketplace. When you as an agency have
10 been a technology forcing agency for years, where you have
11 required industries to produce products that they barely
12 had in the lab for future production, that the staff would
13 today propose that it's okay to continue to use a highly
14 toxic chemical in a small business operation that will
15 impact, as several of you have noted, not just residents
16 but the workers in the dry cleaners, the customers of the
17 dry cleaners, the neighbors -- commercial neighbors of the
18 dry cleaners. It's not defendable. It really isn't.
19 And the staff presentation today was so
20 disappointing, because it contradicts so many of the
21 points made in the staff's own research.
22 You know, the cost arguments about alternatives
23 being more. If you look at the research papers that were
24 done and collected by the staff in February, that's not
25 the finding. They find that several of the alternatives
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
136
1 are more cost effective to operate and use than Perc. I
2 think others will speak to this.
3 You've got health advocates, environmental
4 organizations, environmental justice advocates, worker
5 safety advocates, legal experts, cleaners, leaders from
6 the Legislature and air districts all telling you that
7 your staff proposal is not going to protect public health
8 adequately, and all urging you to phase out the use of
9 this toxic chemical.
10 One of the things that's become clear from some
11 of the Perc dry cleaners that have testified today is I
12 don't think they understand that we're not talking about a
13 ban stopping Perc today or tomorrow or next year. We're
14 talking about a 15-year phaseout. That is a generous
15 useful life for their equipment. And given the toxicity
16 of this chemical, you know, that the ARB would not be
17 seizing the opportunity -- you know, I joked with somebody
18 earlier. It seems to be a serious case of controlitis.
19 The agency is so focused and has been for so long focused
20 on controlling pollution, that when an opportunity lands
21 in your laps to prevent the pollution from being created
22 in the first place so it doesn't need to be controlled --
23 and this is especially important when you're talking about
24 toxic chemicals -- that the agency wouldn't seize it and
25 say, "We're going to lead for the benefit of the health of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
137
1 Californians, and we're going to get a whole bunch of
2 public praise for doing this because we're not banning
3 something, we're phasing it out and we're doing it because
4 it's the right thing to do."
5 I've got one more comment that has to do with the
6 defense, if you will, of the staff proposal in their
7 document, in the packet that you have today. It's page
8 100 or 2-10. In that, they talk about why a phaseout of
9 Perc is not viable. And these are the reasons they give
10 for wet cleaning and CO2 not being viable alternatives.
11 It's not popular in the industry. There's need for more
12 education. There's need for more training. And the cost.
13 And I addressed the cost a few moments ago that that
14 contradicts, you know, findings in other documents that
15 your staff have collected this year.
16 The fact that AB 998 was adopted in 2002 -- or
17 2003, became effective January 2004, almost two and a half
18 years later your agency has failed to do a single
19 demonstration project in the State of California on
20 alternatives, and is now claiming today that the
21 alternatives are not acceptable or, you know, there's more
22 education needed or more training needed, it just doesn't
23 hold water, and it shouldn't be acceptable to this Board.
24 Two and a half years after the Legislature directed this
25 agency to give grants and do a demonstration project --
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
138
1 demonstration projects in the major metropolitan areas of
2 the state, not a single demonstration project has been
3 done. That is outrageous.
4 And to use that as a defense for not advancing
5 cleaner, safer alternatives in the face of how toxic
6 perchloroethylene, or Perc, is is not acceptable and
7 shouldn't be acceptable to this agency. It's totally
8 inconsistent with the way you guys have operated in the
9 past.
10 Thank you for listening.
11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
12 Ms. D'Adamo.
13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I have a question. And I
14 appreciate your testimony, because I have a lot of those
15 same feelings, but at the same time am really struggling
16 because I think that staff does have some legitimate
17 concerns about shifting over to hydrocarbon. So I'd like
18 to see if we could just get a dialogue going.
19 Are you concerned about shifting over to
20 hydrocarbon technology and the VOCs that we can't control
21 to the extent that we can other substances? And then if
22 staff could respond as well.
23 MR. CARMICHAEL: The best case scenario from the
24 health protection angle is that this agency would vote to
25 phase out both Perc and hydrocarbon cleaning. That's the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
139
1 best case scenario. And that's my first choice.
2 But the trend that's existing in the industry
3 today, before this agency takes action, of a shift towards
4 hydrocarbon machines because of landlords primarily not
5 renewing leases because of their fears about water
6 liability, as -- drinking water liability, as was
7 communicated earlier by a cleaner who had a personal
8 experience with that, that trend is happening today.
9 Whether or not ARB takes any action, that trend is
10 happening today. ARB should be regulating hydrocarbon
11 machines. But to say that trend is a reason not to phase
12 out Perc, that's not right. I mean Perc is a highly toxic
13 compound.
14 And I think it was Jill Whynot who presented a
15 slide showing -- if we're talking tradeoffs, we're talking
16 about some increase in smog. And I'm an anti-smog person,
17 a clean air advocate. But we're talking about an increase
18 in smog versus reducing or eliminating the use of a
19 cancer-causing agent. It's not a tradeoff. I mean
20 there's no hesitation. Phase out Perc. Let's develop a
21 plan to deal with the hydrocarbon situation.
22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And just as follow-up
23 though, what if we in a phaseout if we force conversion
24 over to hydrocarbon at a time where maybe if we had more
25 time to deal with the Perc issue, we could eventually see
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
140
1 cleaner technologies on the horizon? In other words, a
2 sooner phaseout or dealing with it now, forcing people
3 into the hydrocarbon technology and then having to deal
4 with the useful life of the machines that people convert
5 over to.
6 MR. CARMICHAEL: The best way for the agency to
7 protect against the trend that's already underway, from
8 Perc to hydrocarbon, is not to delay a phaseout on Perc.
9 The best way to address that is to ramp up your
10 demonstration program of the alternatives, give more
11 grants to the non-toxic, non-smog-forming alternatives,
12 and develop a regulatory strategy for the hydrocarbon.
13 So the industry knows it's coming. And they're
14 going to be much more reluctant to go to smog-forming
15 alternatives and much more, you know, inclined to
16 investigate fully the non-smog-forming, non-toxic
17 alternatives.
18 The South Coast experience -- and unfortunately
19 Elaine and Jill didn't get into this, time limits -- the
20 South Coast experience, we've known for years it was very
21 dependent on the demonstration programs because there was
22 a lot of misinformation out there about the alternatives.
23 The demonstration programs are fundamental. And without
24 those, you're going to continue to have a whole bunch of
25 rumors about works and what doesn't, you know, "Can I keep
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
141
1 my doors open?"
2 You had at least half a dozen dedicated wet
3 cleaners testify today, many of them who have been in
4 business for more than five years, about the success of
5 their business. Are they doing something, you know,
6 miraculous or are they just committed and found that, you
7 know, when they crossed over that doubt barrier, they
8 found that in fact it does work and they're making money
9 and their businesses are thriving?
10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
11 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Just waiting for staff
12 then to comment on the issue as well, on the VOC issue.
13 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Well, I think
14 we agree that there is a large trend to VOC. And that
15 without restrictions on VOC, that 10 or 20 to 1 in terms
16 of new facilities will pick that as their next
17 dry-cleaning agent of choice.
18 After that, it seems like the Green Earth
19 solvent, which has the question mark about the potential
20 health effects, is out there.
21 And then you have the other alternatives, the
22 water cleaning and the CO2 cleaning, that are picked by a
23 small minority of the facilities.
24 So that's largely where we're at. We don't see a
25 clear alternative to controlling Perc as something without
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
142
1 some downside now at the current time.
2 And the South Coast made the decision that in
3 their area to reduce risks -- which are higher than
4 elsewhere. They have a higher population density. They
5 have I think higher than the statewide average in terms of
6 the average Perc throughput. And they have meteorology
7 that's more conducive to keeping the concentrations high.
8 Because we've done the same analysis that they did in
9 terms of usage and the uses patterned around the state,
10 and the risks are quite a bit lower in other areas of the
11 state from the same emissions.
12 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Did you consider a
13 phaseout, perhaps a longer phaseout than what South Coast
14 is looking at and what that might result in in terms of
15 other technologies, development of other technologies?
16 The issue of driving technology.
17 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I think we
18 looked at it. But setting something out there 14 years in
19 the future I don't think drives a whole lot of technology.
20 It kind of says we want to get there eventually, and I
21 think we'd all like to be in that situation. But it's --
22 so we've tried to focus on risk management in the interim
23 and knowing that we could come back and revisit it. And
24 if we find greater alternatives, that we could revisit the
25 rule at that time.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
143
1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
2 Bonnie Holmes-Gen.
3 MR. CARMICHAEL: Bonnie unfortunately had to
4 leave for a legislative appointment.
5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Betsy Reifsnider.
6 MR. CARMICHAEL: Sir, if I could just note for
7 the record, we submitted a letter with about 40
8 organizations from around the state, including the
9 American Lung Association, who Bonnie Holmes-Gen
10 represents. So you have that written record.
11 Thank you.
12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes.
13 And following Betsy Reifsnider we'll have Luis
14 Cabrales, Peter Sinsheimer and Zion Orpaz.
15 MS. REIFSNIDER: Good afternoon. My name is
16 Betsy Reifsnider. And I'm here on behalf of Dr. David
17 Lighthall of the Relational Culture Institute. He was
18 unable to be here today, and so he asked me if I would
19 step in for him.
20 The Relational Culture Institute began its work
21 in 1993, and it works with grass roots leaders in poor and
22 minority communities in the San Joaquin Valley to improve
23 the quality of life for families and neighborhoods
24 throughout the region.
25 I urge the Board to adopt a stronger amendment
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
144
1 than the one proposed by the staff. And I do so for the
2 following reasons:
3 As you so well know, Perc is one of the top ten
4 most toxic air contaminants in California. And it's not
5 only a known cancer causer. But its non-cancer effects
6 are almost as frightening -- the headaches, the vomiting,
7 the building up of fluids in the lung, damage to the
8 central nervous system, reproductive system, kidneys and
9 liver.
10 But Perc is not only contaminating our air. It's
11 also contaminating our water. And in the Central Valley
12 we know that over 280 wells, drinking water wells have
13 already been contaminated by Perc.
14 The proposed amendment is just not strong enough
15 because it allows for the continued use of this product in
16 commercial areas. This creates an occupational health
17 hazard to the workers of these facilities, to their
18 customers, and to nearby local businesses, as members of
19 the South Coast District have already shown us.
20 But this is of grave concern to those of us who
21 live or work in the San Joaquin Valley itself. Valley
22 residents face a greater risk from air pollution than most
23 other Californians. Why? Because the San Joaquin Valley
24 has limited dispersion. And as you know so very well, the
25 valley is a virtual bathtub that traps air pollution for
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
145
1 longer periods and at greater concentrations.
2 As one example, the San Joaquin -- the San
3 Francisco Bay Area emits four times the amount of air
4 pollution per square mile than the San Joaquin Valley.
5 But the valley has 26 times the number of eight-hour ozone
6 violations. So we can imagine the greater exposure, the
7 greater concentration that Perc would exhibit for San
8 Joaquin Valley residents.
9 So for these reasons I urge you to adopt a
10 stronger amendment to protect the health of all
11 Californians, and especially those at greatest risk, the
12 people of the San Joaquin Valley.
13 And I thank you all, Board members and staff, for
14 listening to me today. Thank you.
15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
16 Luis Cabrales.
17 MR. CABRALES: Than you very much, Chairman
18 Sawyer, Board members. I'm Luis Cabrales. I am an
19 associate -- an outreach associate of the Coalition for
20 Clean Air.
21 But today I am representing Residents of Pico
22 Rivera for Environmental Justice. This organization,
23 which I co-founded with my neighbors, was created to
24 encourage our local government to deal effectively in
25 reducing cumulative impacts and to use precautionary
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
146
1 principles when siting small polluting businesses
2 throughout the community.
3 In the past we have experienced that our local
4 government has allowed the growth of housing units and
5 approach -- or actually violate any buffers between
6 residences and industrial zones, to the effect that now we
7 have houses sharing a fence with a fertilizer plant; or
8 homes sharing a fence with a body shop. And there are
9 many cases.
10 One of the pictures I presented to you, the small
11 picture of a dry cleaner, it's -- you can barely see it.
12 But it's a cleaner I used to attend for awhile. At this
13 cleaner I used to see a young woman on her late stages of
14 pregnancy, and later working right next to the Perc
15 machines. Later, after her baby was born, I continued to
16 see her working, with the baby lay asleep inside the dry
17 cleaners.
18 Even if Perc was phased out and hydrocarbon
19 continued to be used, these people, workers, the families
20 next door -- as you can see, there's a residence right
21 there -- would still be exposed to toxics, because in
22 front of these cleaners, in fact where I took the picture,
23 there's a gas station with an auto shop on the other
24 corner. On this intersection -- it's a very, very busy
25 intersection on Beverly Boulevard and Rosemead in the City
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
147
1 of Pico Rivera. Right in this intersection there's two
2 gas stations. Both of them have auto shops. There's a
3 truck rental company. The gas station where I took this
4 picture shares a parking lot with another dry cleaners.
5 Not far away from here, 2, 300 feet, there is a huge body
6 shop located right next to these residences. It's so
7 close that our neighbors can smell and hear the fumes
8 coming out of the body shop from their kitchen.
9 In addition to that, there's also nail salons.
10 And in fact within a one-mile radius there are
11 approximately five body shops.
12 So what I'm getting to is the fact that there are
13 many cumulative impacts surrounding local communities.
14 Often times local governments do not have the knowledge to
15 deal with it, and rely on either legislation, regulation
16 or zoning issues to allow the siting of small businesses
17 that they probably don't even consider to pose any threats
18 to public health.
19 We have seen this often times in this community
20 and we see it throughout the state. I think it is
21 important that the Board makes a good decision today to
22 phase out Perc and to also strongly consider phasing out
23 hydrocarbon as well.
24 In addition to that -- I think I have some more
25 time left.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
148
1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Well, actually not, but --
2 so if you could conclude --
3 MR. CABRALES: Well, I won't take a bunch of the
4 opportunity.
5 I handed out a comparison of professional garment
6 cleaning technologies. I think there's a lot of
7 misinformation against the dry cleaners today. And we
8 really need to work, both legislators, regulators,
9 business, industry and consumers about the importance of
10 phasing out and trying to take advantage of alternative
11 nonpolluting, less expense technologies.
12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
13 MR. CABRALES: Thank you very much.
14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Peter Sinsheimer.
15 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was
16 Presented as follows.)
17 MR. SINSHEIMER: My name is Peter Sinsheimer,
18 Occidental College at the Pollution Prevention Center.
19 --o0o--
20 MR. SINSHEIMER: And we've been working on
21 alternatives to dry-cleaning, especially professional wet
22 cleaning, for the last ten years. We've received seed
23 funding from the Air Resources Board ten years ago to
24 start this project. And we were able to establish the
25 first wet cleaner in California through this funding, the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
149
1 first cleaner to switch from dry cleaning to wet cleaning,
2 developed a large scale demonstration program for wet
3 cleaning in 2000, and 2005 expanded that to the Bay Area
4 and to San Diego.
5 --o0o--
6 MR. SINSHEIMER: The structure of the
7 demonstration programs that we've developed are to provide
8 grant funding to cleaners interested in switching to wet
9 cleaning, having those cleaners become showcases for the
10 technology -- here you see a couple pictures of some
11 workshops that we've held -- and then to provide data for
12 evaluation for...
13 --o0o--
14 MR. SINSHEIMER: We've developed 23 demonstration
15 sites in the State of California. Forty-four dedicated
16 wet cleaners are now -- professional wet cleaners are
17 operating in the State of California. And then there's 45
18 shops that are using advanced wet cleaning along with a
19 solvent-based system.
20 --o0o--
21 MR. SINSHEIMER: The evaluation that we've
22 conducted on the viability of wet cleaning has shown that
23 cleaners who have switched from dry clean to wet cleaning
24 are wet cleaning the full range of garments that they had
25 previously dry cleaned. Their customer retention is over
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
150
1 99 percent. That means they retained the vast majority of
2 the customers that they were previously customers as dry
3 cleaners.
4 The capital equipment costs for the wet cleaning
5 equipment is either comparable or lower. And the
6 operating cost is lower. That means in fact cleaners that
7 switch to wet cleaning could lower their prices if they
8 wish to.
9 And then, finally, in terms of resource use,
10 there's a lower energy -- substantially lower energy use
11 in wet cleaning.
12 --o0o--
13 MR. SINSHEIMER: So in terms of barriers -- we
14 discussed this a little bit before this morning -- the
15 dry-clean-only label is a significant barrier to the
16 diffusion of wet cleaning. That's a problem that's being
17 caused by the Federal Trade Commission. The Federal Trade
18 Commission is considering a wet cleaning care instruction.
19 And we encourage the ARB to support that process.
20 Training is required. That's with lots of
21 different technologies, including wet cleaning.
22 Cleaners must see professional wet cleaning
23 before switching. And that's the whole reason for our
24 demonstration program. And we certainly encourage the
25 expansion of the demonstration programs through the State
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
151
1 of California to provide a greater education on that.
2 --o0o--
3 MR. SINSHEIMER: In terms of conclusions, wet
4 cleaning clearly is a viable non-toxic cost-effective
5 substitute for Perc.
6 This supports this Regulatory Alternative No. 3
7 that you've been provided by staff, which is a phaseout of
8 Perc and a freeze on hydrocarbon. This alternative is the
9 only alternative that provides a net economic savings to
10 both industry and to the regulatory agencies. At the same
11 time that alternative provides the maximum public health
12 and environmental benefit.
13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much.
14 Zion Orpaz. And then we'll have Timothy Malloy,
15 Doug Shinn and Kathy Wolf.
16 MR. ORPAZ: Good afternoon. Zion Orpaz, Golden
17 State Laundry System. We are the Wascomat dealers for wet
18 cleaning equipment. We are located in Los Angeles.
19 I'm personally responsible for removal of quite a
20 bit of Perc machines out of usage in Los Angeles area,
21 Orange County. We also -- I saw that everybody applaud
22 Hans Kim for converting 20 cleaners. How about 80 dry
23 cleaners already converted with a Wascomat wet cleaning
24 system that I personally responsible in that area.
25 I'm extremely disappointed from the Board's
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
152
1 finding or the staff finding here that uses actually wet
2 cleaning as a second class citizen. They absolutely did
3 not put time in searching, because I never received any
4 phone call, and I'm sure Peter didn't receive any phone
5 call either, in order to find out what kind of wet
6 cleaning are we doing today.
7 We have perfected wet cleaning today to look and
8 feel of luxurious dry cleaning. I put in a dry-cleaning
9 garment in my hand. I'll put in the other hand a
10 jacket -- a wet-cleaning jacket, Hugo Boss, Escada,
11 regardless. They will look nice. The wet cleaning will
12 smell beautiful and will look even better than dry
13 cleaning. That's how perfectionist we are today in wet
14 cleaning.
15 All right. So we are sleeping on the job here,
16 because we have the alternative. The alternative, we're
17 talking about cost? We're talking about $10,000 cleaning
18 machine or $12,000 cleaning machine? What are we talking
19 about, $5,000 drier, $10,000 tensioning equipment? This
20 is the cost that everybody's talking about, 70, $80,000?
21 Where'd those numbers come from? Who said that the
22 hydrocarbon was the only alternative?
23 Why won't -- I ran seven hours in Los Angeles.
24 On the 17th of June if you'll send your staff down, I will
25 show them how wet cleaning look like. And then you will
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
153
1 be able to put the finding on papers.
2 So my conclusion is, wet cleaning is a super
3 alternative to anything else in the market today.
4 Thank you.
5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
6 Timothy Malloy.
7 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was
8 Presented as follows.)
9 MR. MALLOY: Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer and Board
10 members. My name is Timothy Malloy. I'm a professor of
11 law at UCLA Law School. And for the last six or seven
12 years I've been researching and writing in the area of
13 pollution prevention and, in particular, in the area of
14 dry cleaning and the dry-cleaning industry.
15 And I should say before I start, what I'm about
16 to say represents my own opinion, and it shouldn't be
17 ascribed to the law school or the faculty or to UCLA in
18 general.
19 --o0o--
20 MR. MALLOY: My point today is that when you
21 consider the legal standards for the selection of an ATCM
22 and when you think about the goals of the statute for
23 these provisions, they lead to only one reasonable
24 outcome. And that would be a phaseout of existing Perc
25 machines and a prohibition on new Perc machines.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
154
1 Now, how do I get there?
2 I'm going to talk about both the standard -- the
3 legal standard and the goal.
4 So the legal standard. The Tanner Act mandates a
5 preference for pollution prevention. When you look at
6 Section 3966(c) -- and it's been referenced before -- it
7 tells us that the ATCM must reduce emissions to the lowest
8 level achievable. And one of the factors that needs to be
9 considered in doing that is to consider the availability,
10 suitability and efficacy of substitute compounds of a less
11 hazardous nature. So what's all that mean?
12 Well, in the one court case that has analyzed
13 that language, the Coalition for Reasonable Regulation of
14 Naturally Occurring Substances, the Court tells us what
15 that means is that the Air Resources Board must design
16 ATCMs so as to reduce toxics to zero if it is
17 achievable -- and I'm quoting -- it is achievable given
18 the technology and cost of enforcement and the
19 availability of substitute compounds of a less hazardous
20 nature.
21 It's not just a good idea. It's the law.
22 Now, how do we apply that? Well, I would like to
23 just very briefly look at three areas: Commercial
24 availability, cost and emissions.
25 There is no doubt that wet cleaning is an
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
155
1 available viable substitute that cleans the same range of
2 garments, with -- that is comparable success as Perc dry
3 cleaning does. That is demonstrated in studies that
4 appear in my comments that I submitted. But it also
5 appears in the staff report and the technical assessment
6 report. And I refer to the particular sections in my
7 comments.
8 Wet cleaning is less expensive than Perc dry
9 cleaning. Now, that again is demonstrated in studies that
10 have been done. And I also want to reiterate here that
11 that is a conclusion that staff reached in their technical
12 assessment report, in which they determined that the
13 purchase and installation of a typical PCE machine costs
14 between 3400 and $8200 more than the purchase and
15 installation of a comparable wet-cleaning system,
16 including the tensioning and pressing equipment that goes
17 with that equipment. That's in Table 7-2 of the Technical
18 Assessment Report.
19 Table Roman numeral 7-5 of that report concludes
20 that the annual annualized operating cost of a
21 wet-cleaning system is approximately $6400 less than that
22 of a comparable PCE system.
23 Lastly, and in conclusion, I want to point out
24 that wet cleaning results in zero emissions. None.
25 Now you have been told, and this slide
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
156
1 demonstrates, that the outcome under the proposed ATCM
2 will be a reduction in risk of between 10 in a million and
3 25 in a million once full compliance is reached.
4 I find that very difficult to believe, because I
5 think that is a hypothetical number that doesn't take into
6 account the fact that you will never reach full compliance
7 with a measure such as this. Now, why do I say that? I
8 say it because this provision includes very complicated
9 operation and maintenance, monitoring, inspection, record
10 keeping and repair requirements, very similar to the
11 existing ATCM and the existing max standard under the
12 federal law. Compliance audits between 1996 and 2005 in
13 California, New York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania have
14 demonstrated noncompliance at dry-cleaning facilities of
15 those standards at a rate of between 79 percent and 100
16 percent.
17 Frankly, you will never see full compliance, so
18 you will not see these numbers.
19 Now, I ask you to compare that to what's noted at
20 the top of that slide where it says full compliance
21 outside SC, which I assume means South Coast. When we ask
22 ourselves what will full compliance be in the South Coast
23 in 2020, those numbers in each of those columns will be
24 zero, zero and zero.
25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I must ask you to conclude
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
157
1 please.
2 MR. MALLOY: Yes, sir.
3 Zero is what the Tanner Act and the courts
4 mandate, and that is where this ATCM should be headed.
5 Thank you very much.
6 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Dr. Sawyer, a question.
7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. D'Adamo.
8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: A question of Legal staff,
9 if you could please comment or respond to the issue raised
10 regarding the Tanner Act.
11 ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS: Yes, Diane
12 Johnston is going to respond.
13 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JOHNSTON: The statute that
14 Mr. Malloy refers to is Section 39666 of the Health and
15 Welfare -- the Health and Safety Code. And he's correct
16 that the mandate for the Board is to achieve the lowest
17 level achievable for the toxic air contaminant. But the
18 Board is given discretion in the manner in which it
19 achieves that. It can achieve that through the use of
20 best available control technology or a better technology.
21 And then the statute also mandates that the Board consider
22 an assessment of an alternative level of emission
23 reduction.
24 So the Board has discretion in the application to
25 achieve the lowest level of emissions. And it's really a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
158
1 discretionary action on the Board's part to determine what
2 that is.
3 Now, staff has proposed -- the proposal that the
4 Board has in front of it from staff indicates what the
5 factors are that would dictate the BACT that they have
6 recommended, which is the enhanced ventilation and the
7 application of the secondary control to Perc equipment.
8 And I'll leave it to staff to persuade that that is the
9 best available technology and that that is a good
10 alternative for the Board to look at.
11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Doug Shinn.
12 MR. SHINN: Good afternoon. My name is Doug
13 Shinn. And thank you for the opportunity to address the
14 issue today. And I'm serving as an environmental
15 committee for the Korean Dry Cleaners Association of
16 Northern California.
17 According to Air Resources Board staff report,
18 dry-cleaning industry used 1.1 million gallons of Perc in
19 1991. But in 2003, the usage came down to 378,000
20 gallons, to one-third reduction from 1991.
21 Perc emission also so dramatic a decrease, from
22 742,000 gallons in 1991 to 222,000 gallons in 2003. I'm
23 sure there is a lot more reduction in Perc consumption by
24 now.
25 CO2 machine somehow cost about $150,000, and it's
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
159
1 out of range for most dry cleaners. Even Serti equipment
2 manufacturer notes that the business with an annual sales
3 of at least $1 million could afford it. How many dry
4 cleaners in California actually make $1 million a year?
5 An average size of a dry-cleaning plant is about
6 1500 square feet. And CO2 requires at least about 2,000
7 square feet alone. Even if the space were available,
8 entire plant's workflow must be changed to accommodate
9 such a huge machine. Future addition of other laundry
10 press and related equipment is no longer possible without
11 additional space.
12 Now, CO2 machine requires a very high pressure
13 natural gas, which requires a specially trained
14 maintenance person to operate it. How would a small
15 business owner justify additional payroll for an employee
16 whose sole duty is to monitor and operate a machine?
17 And also the wet cleaning, there will be a
18 potential problem with a consumer because of federal --
19 the trade care label law. Dry cleaners would like to see
20 wet cleaning only on the care label before the switch to
21 wet cleaning machine. You know, we don't like to be
22 liable.
23 Most of all, dry cleaners -- and I was in the
24 industry for 22 years. I don't believe the 100 percent
25 wet cleaning. Most dry cleaners now they agree wet
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
160
1 cleanings are working, but not hundred percent. No one
2 like to dry clean a Versace suit in water. Would you let
3 your dry cleaner wet clean your very fine silk tie in the
4 water? I don't believe so. We dry cleaners, have, you
5 know, many years of experience, wouldn't believe that 100
6 percent will work.
7 So we like to see the wet cleaning only on the
8 garment, so that you know we'll have more confidence in
9 cleaning the clothes so we don't have a problem with the
10 consumers.
11 So --
12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I must ask you to conclude
13 now please.
14 MR. SHINN: Sure. So we would like to conclude
15 that -- the Korean Dry Cleaners Association of Northern
16 California asks that the deadline of third generation
17 dry-cleaning machine for complete phaseout to be extended
18 until 2014 from 2010, as currently recommended by Air
19 Resources Board, as long as the machine meets the
20 Government regulations and standards. If the machine does
21 not measure up to Air Resources Board standards, then it
22 is only fair that such machine be phased out and replaced
23 immediately.
24 Thank you.
25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
161
1 Kathy Wolf. And then we will have David Dawson,
2 Sandra Giarde and Steve Risotto.
3 MS. WOLF: Good afternoon. My name is Katie
4 Wolf. I'm Director of the Institute for Research and
5 Technical Assistance.
6 We conducted a technology assessment that was
7 sponsored -- on the alternatives to Perc dry cleaning that
8 was sponsored by the Air Resources Board and U.S. EPA.
9 And I've worked in dry-cleaning industry since 1978.
10 Like other commenters today, I'm going to urge
11 you to phase out Perc entirely. I'm going to cite five
12 major reasons why a phaseout rather than the staff
13 proposal is the right course of action.
14 First, as other people have said, a third of the
15 cleaners in the state right now have adopted alternative
16 technologies. This obviously demonstrates in practice
17 that the alternatives are viable and cost effective.
18 Second, the South Coast Air Quality Management
19 District, as you heard from Jill and Elaine, have adopted
20 a regulation to phase out Perc. Thus, your regulation,
21 which would be less stringent than the South Coast
22 regulation, would only affect half the cleaners in the
23 state.
24 Third -- and this was not brought up by anyone
25 except Tim Carmichael, and I'm surprised -- most cleaners,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
162
1 in fact more than 95 percent, lease their facilities
2 rather than own them. Landlords -- there are no landlords
3 or lenders left who will allow a lease renewal for a dry
4 cleaner if they continue to use Perc. Leases generally
5 are written for a ten-year period with a five-year option
6 to renew. So over the next 15 years, by 2021, there will
7 be a complete phaseout by the private sector of Perc in
8 the dry-cleaning industry. So you should get on board
9 with that.
10 Fourth, I think that the staff-proposed
11 regulation will actually hurt dry cleaners. Allowing the
12 continued use of Perc encourages cleaners to purchase new
13 Perc machines. When they do that, as soon as their lease
14 renewal is up they will have to buy a new machine that can
15 use an alternative even when their machine might be as
16 little as two years old -- two or three years old. This
17 is already starting to happen to cleaners who have bought
18 new Perc machines in the last few years. Cleaners can't
19 afford that, and many of them will go out of business.
20 Finally, fifth -- and this was brought up by
21 several Board members -- the risk -- the toxics risk posed
22 by individual dry-cleaning facilities can be as high as
23 100 in a million. And you can totally eliminate that risk
24 by phasing out Perc rather than reducing it.
25 And I just want to briefly address also this
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
163
1 issue of the tradeoff for converting to hydrocarbon, which
2 is a VOC.
3 The staff report indicates that the incremental
4 increase of VOC emissions if you adopt the staff proposal
5 versus a complete phaseout in the state would be only .8
6 tons per day of VOC. That's very small. And as Jill and
7 Elaine and Tim Carmichael said, that tradeoff is worth it.
8 I don't see how anybody could conclude otherwise.
9 So thank you very much. I appreciate your
10 attention.
11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
12 David Dawson.
13 San Giarde.
14 MS. GIARDE: Thank you for taking the three
15 minutes to hear me today.
16 I'm Sandra Giarde, the Executive Director of the
17 California Cleaners Association. We represent all types
18 of dry cleaners throughout the State of California.
19 We were gladly a participant in the last 13 work
20 group meetings covering a period of almost three years
21 with staff and other stakeholders in the development of
22 this regulation for the air toxics control measure.
23 The point that we'd like to make is, as an
24 industry we're not entirely thrilled. We do have our
25 points that we think could be tweaked to better fit the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
164
1 air toxics control measure and how it impacts cleaners and
2 consumers in California.
3 With that said, the one thing that we need to
4 reiterate, and we need to thank the staff of CARB, is they
5 recognize the general issue here. And that's diversity.
6 California is a very diverse state, geographically,
7 economically, racially. We see that in our business
8 owners throughout the California Cleaners Association.
9 Eighty percent minority-owned small business, mom and
10 pops.
11 Yeah, there are cleaners out there that can do
12 CO2. They can also charge $40 to clean a suit.
13 There are other cleaners that we see here average
14 $250,000 or less annually in receipts, for whom some of
15 the alternatives just aren't economically feasible. The
16 staff report, while achieving their goal of reducing
17 perceived risk, also recognizes the cleaners as business
18 people should be allowed to valuate the alternative
19 technologies that are out there, how they fit into their
20 business model, how they fit into the operation of their
21 communities, and to proceed accordingly.
22 Critics have come up here and they want you to
23 think wet cleaning does everything. Ann Hargrove of the
24 National Cleaners Association would like to tell you
25 differently. Unfortunately she couldn't be here today.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
165
1 She was the first dedicated professional wet cleaner in
2 the entire country. She not only did that. She trained
3 other wet cleaners. She started a coalition for dedicated
4 wet cleaners. She's no longer wet cleaning today. Wet
5 cleaning is a great adjunct. It supplements quite a bit.
6 But it's not a full scale replacement.
7 The International Fabricare Institute did a study
8 on wet cleaning. They said that 30 to 40 percent of
9 garments that come over a dry cleaner's counter can be
10 successfully wet cleaned. If you add additional monies
11 for training, additional monies for higher-end technology
12 and additional expenses, you might be able to get up to 60
13 or 70 percent if you're lucky. The rest, as we saw in the
14 northeast corridor of our nation, get denied at the
15 counter or they go and they go to another dry cleaners to
16 be processed.
17 In closing, I'd like to thank you for the
18 opportunity to comment. I'd like to urge you to support
19 the staff's recommendation and just allow cleaners to
20 explore the alternatives as they work and can fit into
21 their own particular diverse business model.
22 Thank you.
23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
24 Steve Risotto.
25 MR. RISOTTO: Thank you. I want to thank the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
166
1 Board for your patience, for the hearing. I also want to
2 thank the staff for their participatory rule-making
3 process.
4 I'm Executive Director of the Halogenated
5 Solvents Industry Alliance, representing the manufactures
6 of perchloroethylene.
7 HSI strongly supports the staff's conclusion that
8 Perc can continue to be used safely without presenting a
9 significant public health risk through the application of
10 readily available control technology. We support the
11 proposal to require that all Perc dry-cleaning equipment
12 have integral secondary controls, and too that that
13 requirement be phased in over a period of a number of
14 years.
15 HSI on the other hand opposes the proximity
16 restrictions for new Perc facilities and the phaseout of
17 co-residential Perc cleaners.
18 We also oppose the extension of enhanced
19 ventilation requirements to stand-alone buildings. Those
20 are -- stand-alone cleaners. Those are cleaners not
21 co-located with residents or businesses.
22 Now, the reason that we take that position -- and
23 to sort of address some of the previous comments -- is all
24 of this discussion is hypothetical. This is a suspect
25 carcinogen based on animal data. This is all a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
167
1 hypothetical discussion.
2 Many of the risk tables in the staff's report
3 overstate the near-source risk by presenting data from the
4 90th percentile of emissions and at the maximum impact
5 distance. So be careful when you look at those numbers.
6 Those are close to worst case and probably are not
7 relevant for the average cleaner.
8 We also take the position because a recently
9 published epidemiology study by Lynge, et al., which we
10 have provided to the staff, provides strong evidence that
11 the incidence of cancer among dry cleaners in the Nordic
12 countries was not related to Perc exposure. And I
13 encourage you to read that report. The study presents
14 important information directly relevant to ARB's
15 assessment of cancer risk from Perc use in dry cleaning.
16 Now, we outline in our comments a number of
17 reasons why that study is qualitatively and quantitatively
18 better than previous studies. The most important aspect
19 is that we -- the researchers compared it to laundry
20 workers, a very similar and socioeconomic factor, so that
21 they could essentially only look at a difference in Perc
22 exposure and not other lifestyle factors.
23 As sort of my final point, I want to address the
24 discussion of AB 998. The criticism of ARB's
25 implementation of AB 9981, the non-toxic dry-cleaning
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
168
1 incentive program, is misplaced. The implementation
2 problems reflect the flaws in the design of the program
3 outlined in that legislation and the challenges the
4 dry-cleaning industry faces. We believe that those
5 problems are further evidence that in many cases the best
6 alternative is a well controlled Perc facility.
7 Thank you.
8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
9 Yes, Dr. Gong.
10 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I have a question for staff.
11 Comments were made about at least one or three
12 recent articles which he quoted in Scandinavia, small
13 cancer risk in persons working in dry-cleaning. I noticed
14 myself when I just looked at the three articles quickly
15 that they're all three supported by industry in terms of
16 financial support.
17 I was wondering if staff had any comments to make
18 about the conclusions of these one or three articles. And
19 are there any non-industry supported reports out
20 epidemiologically about cancer risk?
21 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: On
22 the reports that were -- that Mr. Risotto mentioned, we
23 have not reviewed those reports. Relative to whether
24 there are other studies that have been done that are not
25 industry supported, I believe the answer to that would be
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
169
1 yes. Melanie Marty is in the audience and may be able to
2 address that better than I can.
3 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Yes, please. I mean on the
4 basis of these three negative reports, then we would have
5 to conclude that maybe we should dunk this chemical from
6 the toxics list. But I'll let Melanie --
7 OEHHA AIR TOXICOLOGY AND EPIDEMIOLOGY SECTION
8 MANAGER MARTY: Hi. Melanie Marty from OEHHA. I have not
9 read the new studies. I can say though that the
10 International Agency for Research on Cancer considers that
11 perchloroethylene is a probable human carcinogen based on
12 sufficient evidence in animals and limited evidence in
13 humans. And there are studies that have actually shown a
14 link between exposure to Perc and cancer in humans. So,
15 you know, it's the old story with epidemiology studies.
16 You never get a hundred percent of them to say the same
17 thing. So it would have to undergo additional review if
18 that's what the Board wanted.
19 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Could I just ask a follow-up
20 question on that?
21 Is there any studies from any industries that
22 were heavy Perc users where the workers had a higher
23 evidence of cancer?
24 OEHHA AIR TOXICOLOGY AND EPIDEMIOLOGY SECTION
25 MANAGER MARTY: Yeah, those are the studies that have been
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
170
1 published previously that were the basis of the
2 determination that there was probably a cancer risk to
3 humans.
4 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you.
5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much.
6 The final four speakers I have on my list are
7 Lynnette Watterson, Bob Blackburn, Bill Mcgavern and Eskil
8 Eriksson.
9 And so we'll have next Lynnette Watterson.
10 MS. WATTERSON: Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer and
11 Board members. My name is Lynnette Watterson. I'm the
12 current President of the California Cleaners Association,
13 which as you know is the organization which supports all
14 dry cleaners in California.
15 Earlier today Ms. D'Adamo asked the question
16 about employee safety. And I would like to share a little
17 bit of information about our business.
18 I'm the owner of Crystal Cleaning Center, a
19 business that my mom started a Perc plant in 1963. We
20 currently have eight employees, and our total years of
21 service is 86 years.
22 My mother passed away last year at the age of 87.
23 And if she had her choice, she'd still be working in there
24 today. She did not die of cancer.
25 We also have a former employee who is now retired
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
171
1 and worked for us for 36 years who recently turned 84 and
2 is in good health.
3 Several of our employees in our time -- in our
4 business have had children who are all healthy and
5 thriving.
6 Over the last many months I have participated in
7 the ARB work group's, the Bay Area Air Quality Work Group
8 meetings, and I attended the hearings for Rule 1421. I
9 wish to commend the thoroughness of the ARB work group as
10 they painstakingly reviewed the volumes of material
11 regarding this ATCM proposal.
12 Their recommendations appear to be rational.
13 They have reviewed the issues from a very well rounded
14 perspective, including the fiscal impact of potential
15 changes to the regulations for our industry. In an
16 industry that is predominantly comprised of small
17 mom-and-pop businesses, the fiscal impact of a mandated
18 ban on Perc would be devastating. I applaud their
19 decision not to call for an outright ban on Perc.
20 The dry-cleaning industry has dramatically
21 reduced Perc consumption. This reduction, coupled with
22 new equipment technologies, make continued use of Perc a
23 viable option.
24 While alternative solvents are being explored,
25 their efficacy, long-range effect on our population and/or
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
172
1 our environment are yet to be determined. The ARB work
2 groups assessment of the alternatives was well thought
3 out. While wet cleaning is a natural adjunct to a
4 dry-cleaning operation, it cannot be construed as a total
5 replacement for dry cleaning. Crucial is the compliance
6 of operators with rules governing business operations,
7 regardless of which solvent or method is being used.
8 I appreciate the opportunity to come before this
9 body to express my endorsement of the recommended changes
10 to the ATCM and wish to state that I am proud to be part
11 of an industry that keeps America beautiful.
12 Thank you for your time.
13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much.
14 (Applause.)
15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Bob Blackburn.
16 MR. BLACKBURN: Thank you for letting me come up
17 here and tell a story.
18 Four years ago I was facing retirement. I was
19 looking for my 65th birthday, my motor home, my wife, we
20 was going to take off and see the country.
21 And my children, bless their hearts, decided that
22 I need to get back into the dry-cleaning industry.
23 I didn't say it was smart.
24 (Laughter.)
25 MR. BLACKBURN: But here I am.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
173
1 I was raised in a Perc plant. My dad owned a
2 Perc plant. And I started -- I got my first paycheck when
3 I was 12. I'm 68 today. I'm an; old Perc man. It's a
4 great cleaner.
5 But when these kids talked me into going into dry
6 cleaning again -- and my son wanted to -- he's -- only one
7 of them really wanted it, and the rest of them kind of
8 tagged along. I told him that I didn't want to get into
9 dry cleaning because I could see where Perc was going.
10 And I didn't really like the cleaning capability and the
11 powers of petroleum solvent. I didn't like the way the
12 Green Earth solvent cleaned clothes.
13 And I had heard about this solvent called Rynex
14 and I'd heard some bad reports. And I went to a trade
15 show and I talked to the man that developed Rynex. And he
16 convinced me to come back to New York and see it in
17 action, the new Rynex.
18 The Rynex stories that you heard earlier were
19 from the old Rynex, Rynex 1 and 2.
20 This Rynex 3, I've been using it now for three
21 years. And I'm here to tell you it is as good a cleaner
22 as Perc is. It cleans clothes with a KB value of 70, way
23 up there next to Perc, instead of the low KB values of the
24 other solvents.
25 It breaks down to CO2 and water. It's 100
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
174
1 percent biodegradable. And even in your own report you
2 can read this. It's just not very well used out here
3 because -- I was the only maverick that wanted to give it
4 another try. But I'm telling you, it's a great solvent.
5 It's a good alternative. And it can be used in a
6 hydrocarbon machine. The new hydrocarbon machines that
7 are on the market today just use it beautifully. I got
8 one of the older models. And we had to do a little
9 conversion to it, but we made it work. And it works
10 beautiful.
11 It's an alternative that hasn't gotten a good
12 review from previous speakers because they were testing
13 the old solvent. This is the Rynex 3. It's a great
14 solvent and it's a great alternative. And so I would
15 recommend that you kind of look into it as an alternative
16 because, like I say, it breaks down to CO2 and water.
17 The industrial waste from it -- from the still
18 can be used as industrial waste, not hazardous waste,
19 because it is not hazardous. You don't use any hazardous
20 spotting agents, you don't have a hazardous waste. It's
21 an industrial waste. So that's -- and it doesn't -- and
22 you don't use any soaps or sizings.
23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I must ask you to conclude
24 please.
25 MR. BLACKBURN: I'm through.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
175
1 (Laughter.)
2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Oh, okay. Perfect.
3 MR. BLACKBURN: Yeah.
4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
5 Bill Magavern.
6 MR. MAGAVERN: Good afternoon, Chairman Sawyer,
7 Board members. My name is Bill Magavern. I represent the
8 200,000 Sierra Club members in California. And I want to
9 thank the staff for coming forward with this proposal that
10 does increase the protections for this air toxic control
11 measure.
12 But we really strongly urge you to go further and
13 to phase out Perc. If we look at the modern history of
14 environmental protections, I really think that we've been
15 most successful when we've taken the step of phasing out a
16 toxin from a product, like the removal of lead from
17 gasoline, like the phaseout of chlorofluorocarbons under
18 the Montreal protocol. The State of California in recent
19 years has banned mercury from a number of products like
20 thermometers and thermostats. And I think in order to
21 fully protect workers, consumers and communities, we need
22 to go ahead and phase out Perc because, as in those other
23 cases, we do have safe alternatives. I think you've heard
24 a lot of eloquent and persuasive testimony today about the
25 availability of those alternatives.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
176
1 And although I respect the testimony of the
2 industry witnesses who want to hang on to Perc, really
3 nobody should be buying a new Perc machine. I agree there
4 should be a phaseout time for those who have invested in
5 machines already. But the state needs to be telling the
6 industry now, "Don't go and invest in new Perc machines."
7 And to help that transition, you do have the incentive
8 fund created by legislation that we supported, and I urge
9 you to make a more robust use of that.
10 Thank you very much.
11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
12 Eskil Eriksson.
13 MR. ERIKSSON: Dear Chairman of the Board and
14 dear members of the Board. My name is Eskil Eriksson.
15 I've had the opportunity to work with development --
16 research and development within the carbon dioxide
17 cleaning industry since the end of 1998, first based in
18 Europe and then starting with extensive traveling here to
19 the U.S.
20 I urge you to rule for a phaseout of Perc and
21 hydrocarbon in favor for two molecules that will never be
22 regulated for toxicity, water and carbon dioxide.
23 We do have technical backup today. So when the
24 market is ready to receive those two products, there will
25 be large companies behind with a long-term viability. And
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
177
1 those companies will be able to supply equipment that will
2 be able to sustain or support this technology.
3 It is time for a change. And we heard the words
4 "breaking the doubt barrier". And we know that these are
5 disruptive technologies. Once you decide to adopt to them
6 and to start using them, you will see advantages that you
7 could not imagine before making your decision to make the
8 move.
9 So I think it is time for a change. And if you
10 can rule for something good with the technical backup
11 available, it is my opinion that you should. So be brave
12 and courageous and phase out Perc and hydrocarbon.
13 Thank you.
14 (Applause.)
15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much.
16 That concludes the public testimony.
17 Ms. Witherspoon, does staff have any further
18 comments?
19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: No, I think we'll
20 wait for questions from the Board.
21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Since all testimony, written
22 submissions and staff comments for this item have been
23 entered into the record and the Board has not granted an
24 extension of the comment period, I'm officially closing
25 the record on this portion of Agenda Item 06-5-2.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
178
1 Written or oral comments received after the
2 comment period is closed will not accepted as part of the
3 official record or agenda item.
4 Now is time for our ex parte period.
5 Just a reminder to the Board members our policy
6 concerning ex parte communications. While we may
7 communicate off the record with outside persons regarding
8 Board rule-makings, we must disclose the names of our
9 contacts and the nature of the contents on the record.
10 This requirement applies specifically to communications
11 which take place after the notice of the Board hearing has
12 been published.
13 Are there any communications that you need to
14 disclose?
15 Dr. Gong.
16 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Yes. On May 11th this year I
17 spoke with Jill Whynot and Elaine Chang in my office. And
18 our discussion paralleled certainly what they discussed
19 today in open forum.
20 On May 19th, I spoke with Luis Cabrales and Peter
21 Sinsheimer. And our discussion reflected what they
22 testified today.
23 And that's it.
24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
25 Ms. D'Adamo.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
179
1 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: On May 23rd I had a phone
2 call with South Coast. Participating in the call were
3 Jill Whynot and Elaine Chang. And the discussion mirrored
4 their testimony today.
5 And then also on the 23rd I phone call with Peter
6 Sinsheimer with Occidental College. And his comments at
7 that time mirrored his testimony today.
8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Kennard, I realize that
9 you need to leave before we conclude this discussion and
10 would like to make a statement. And we would indeed like
11 to hear from you.
12 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Thank you, Chairman
13 Sawyer. And I apologize that I'll have to leave early.
14 But I did want to share with the members of the Board and
15 staff and the public my perceptions on this very I think
16 important issue, and also link the testimony on both
17 sides.
18 As I had indicated in my questions early on about
19 my concerns on the economic impact to the very small
20 businesses that this industry comprises, I'm still very
21 concerned that nearly 40 percent of those businesses would
22 be so adversely affected that many of them may go out of
23 business. And I think that's a very bad economic result.
24 Nonetheless, I'm also sensitive to the testimony
25 that we heard that this particular amendment doesn't
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
180
1 necessarily seek a really long-term solution to this
2 problem and that it doesn't dissuade members of the
3 industry from doing such things as purchasing new Perc
4 equipment, nor does it dissuade the industry from seeking
5 alternatives that may be equally or worse than Perc such
6 as hydrocarbon solvents.
7 So given this lack of clarity, I would actually
8 suggest to the Board that they consider a possible
9 postponement of this so that staff could go back and look
10 at some possible alternatives that would be more sensitive
11 to the economic impacts of the industry for, as example,
12 phasing out on a longer period of time and also having
13 some longer term solutions and assisting industry in
14 trying to economically feasibly convert to machines that
15 really solve the problem for the future.
16 Thank you very much.
17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. And I'd assume
18 you had no ex parte communications.
19 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Oh, yes. For the record,
20 I had no ex parte communications.
21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I was contacted on the 22nd
22 of May by conference call from Jill Whynot and Elaine
23 Chang of the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
24 And our discussion reflected what they testified to here
25 today.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
181
1 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I have no ex parte.
2 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I had two phone calls, one
3 with South Coast Air Quality, Elaine Chang and Jill
4 Whynot. And their -- our conversation was consistent with
5 their testimony today. And that phone conversation took
6 place on the 18th of May.
7 The second conversation was on the 22nd of May.
8 And that was with the Coalition For Clean Air, Luis
9 Cabrales, Nidia Bautista; and Hans Kim with Natural Wet
10 Cleaners.
11 Thank you.
12 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Mr. Chairman, on May 22nd
13 I had a phone conversation with Luis Cabrales and Sarah
14 Sharpe from the Coalition for Clean Air; also David
15 Lighthall from the Relational Cultural Institute; Hans Kim
16 from Natures Best Wet cleaning; and Tom Franz who is from
17 Wasco in Kern County. He's with the Association of
18 Irritated Residents. Mr. Franz submitted written
19 testimony, and it's consistent -- my conversation with him
20 is consistent with that.
21 And also all of these individuals have either
22 given testimony today or someone has been here on their
23 behalf representing their organization; and our discussion
24 is consistent with the testimony given today.
25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Supervisor Roberts.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
182
1 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I didn't
2 have any conversations but a member my staff did. And I
3 have a list of those if that's necessary.
4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I assume that if she
5 discussed it with you, you should enter that into the
6 record.
7 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Okay. According to the
8 records, Mr. Gary Roddel on my staff had a phone
9 conversation on May 19th with Elaine Chang and Jill
10 Whynot; and on May 22nd with Luis Cabrales and Peter
11 Sinsheimer; and also with Dick Smith of the San Diego --
12 the Executive director of the San Diego APCD.
13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
14 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Mr. Chairman, I
15 apologize for coming in late. I'm sure I missed a lot of
16 wonderful and exciting testimony.
17 I only have one to report. I had a phone
18 conversation with Tim Carmichael from the Coalition for
19 Clean Air on May 22nd. And what we talked about were his
20 concerns about phasing out of Perc.
21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Fine.
22 We have before us a resolution which would --
23 from the staff, which I assume that you've had a chance to
24 look at, which would provide for 15-day modifications to
25 reflect some of the issues which we heard here today.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
183
1 We've also had Ms. Kennard's suggestion that we
2 delay action. I heard her say that she was concerned
3 not -- about both the financial impact upon the affected
4 community, plus a failure to really deal with the big
5 issue of phasing out Perc completely. And I think that I
6 would like to hear from the rest of you on where you stand
7 on these issues.
8 Ms. D'Adamo.
9 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, first of all I have
10 a question of staff before I make my comments, and that
11 has to do with economic impact. On slide 13, there's a
12 breakdown of the various technologies and the costs
13 compared to Perc. And I'm just wondering where that fits
14 in with another slide -- I don't remember which one it
15 was -- that estimated the costs on a $15 bill between 10
16 cents and 90 cents.
17 Is that an average that would be spread across
18 just depending on what technology is selected or even
19 maintaining the use of Perc?
20 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: Dan
21 Donohoue. I'm going to take the first shot at that.
22 When we were talking about the costs of being
23 between 10 cents and 90 cents, when we were talking about
24 that, that had to do with based on our proposal as is,
25 that you would replace the older generation Perc machines
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
184
1 with existing Perc machines and you install the enhanced
2 ventilation.
3 And depending on whether all you had to put was
4 put in enhanced ventilation, that would result in about a
5 10 cents increase in that; if you had to install the new
6 machine and you lost some of the useful life, that would
7 be the 90 cents on a machine.
8 The costs here on slide 13, the cost comparisons
9 there are based on particularly the information that we
10 gathered during the entire process, particularly some of
11 the work that was done by IRTA, Katie Wolf's group. And
12 basically this represents the cost of the equipment plus
13 the associated labor costs with these -- associated with
14 these products. And so in the end that's what we believe,
15 that if you go to these other technologies, if you ban
16 Perc, we are going to see additional economic -- adverse
17 economic impact beyond what we predicted under staff's
18 proposal.
19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: So, Dan, this is
20 new machine to new machine? That's what that percent cost
21 increase in the second column is?
22 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: Yes,
23 that's correct.
24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: And what you were
25 just -- well, yeah, total cost associated with the new
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
185
1 machine though, as opposed to what you were describing,
2 which was the retrofit costs for the Perc machines that
3 are already out there?
4 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE:
5 Well, actually the 10-cent cost is just associated with
6 installing enhanced ventilation. And means they already
7 have a secondary machine. That 90-cent cost has to do
8 with them replacing an existing converted or primary
9 machine with a secondary Perc machine with the enhanced
10 ventilation. And in the case where they were near
11 receptors, we would only allow them to keep their existing
12 machine ten years, and so they are losing five years of
13 useful life, so we took that cost in too.
14 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. So if I were to,
15 say, choose to go to a hydrocarbon method, it would be 10
16 to 18 percent, not in addition to the other costs that
17 you've just outlined; it would be one or the other?
18 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: This
19 would be 10 to 18 percent above the costs that we've
20 already outlined. I think a good way of looking at it is,
21 based on what we've proposed right now in the overall cost
22 of the regulation, at 17 million or something, you're
23 going to see equipment costs if you go to hydrocarbon
24 increased by about 25 percent over what we had predicted
25 they would -- the costs would be under the proposed
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
186
1 measure.
2 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay.
3 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: So just to be
4 clear, whatever the cost of the rule we propose, we see
5 the other alternatives of having significantly greater
6 impacts on the industry. And since many of them are small
7 businesses and some would struggle with doing the staff
8 proposal, even more would struggle to stay economic with
9 the other approaches.
10 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. All right.
11 In light of that then, it's going to make what I
12 have to say even more challenging for me, but I'm going to
13 go ahead and say it anyway.
14 I have really taken all the comments very
15 seriously, I know we all have and really have struggled
16 with it, especially regarding the economic impact. And I
17 had hoped that those figures wouldn't be in addition to
18 what you've looked at for Perc. But I still feel
19 compelled to pursue the issue of a phaseout, and I think
20 that in large part that's because of the concern about the
21 worker exposure, customers, nearby communities. And it's
22 uncomfortable to be here in a position having to pick --
23 kind of pick your poison. But one really and truly is a
24 poison, Perc. And the hydrocarbon and some of these other
25 alternatives that are costly, that's also placed on the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
187
1 scale.
2 And of course with a shift to hydrocarbon if we
3 had a phaseout of Perc, that produces some other
4 consequences that we'd have to deal with. But I think on
5 balance with the Perc being a known toxic contaminant, I
6 feel that we really should look at a phaseout, but of
7 lengthy period of time so that there would be enough of an
8 opportunity to develop hopefully some more alternatives
9 other than those that are on this list.
10 So, Mr. Chairman, I would favor a phaseout and
11 would be prepared to make a motion for that. But I
12 understand you probably want to hear from some other Board
13 members.
14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Why don't we hear from the
15 Board members. And then we can move from there.
16 Supervisor Roberts.
17 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, this feels
18 somewhat akin to something we went through several years
19 ago. And you kind of go through a period where it appears
20 clear and then it gets a little foggy. And then I think
21 here at the end at least now it seems a little clearer,
22 and I think the public testimony from all viewpoints was
23 very helpful.
24 I think at the end of the day we're dealing with
25 something that needs to be eliminated. As we become
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
188
1 increasingly urbanized, there isn't a healthy way to deal
2 with this. While there are some options now -- and I
3 understand the staff analysis, although I find a lot of
4 questions that I have -- I think that we need to just take
5 a step in the direction of basically putting people in the
6 industry on notice that the Perc has to go.
7 I'm not of the opinion that the hydrocarbons at
8 this time ought to be jettisoned. I think it's probably
9 the SIP or other ways we can deal with that issue. And I
10 think we ought to encourage as many options as we can. To
11 find out that there are some other products out there that
12 only a few people know about is encouraging.
13 But it seems clear to me that we ought to have a
14 phaseout, that phaseout -- I'm not sure what the years
15 are, maybe 15 years, assuming that somebody bought new
16 equipment this year, and give them a chance to amortize
17 that equipment. But I think we need to make the change.
18 If this was one big industry that was doing this,
19 we would do it in an instant. The fact that it's a lot of
20 smaller providers doesn't change the fact that this a
21 toxic, it's a poison, and somebody is going to pay for it.
22 There are -- you know, the landlords know it, and
23 to some extent they're going to help us by making it
24 increasingly difficult to locate these facilities. But I
25 think even with that, that we have an obligation and we
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
189
1 ought to take a stronger step in what's being recommended
2 here today.
3 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4 I agree that this is something that we should
5 move towards phasing out. I would like staff to look at
6 hydrocarbons again as part of their proposal.
7 And one thing that's of great concern to me --
8 and I really appreciate everybody being here today. I
9 think one of the gentlemen that spoke on behalf of the
10 Korean Dry Cleaners of Northern California made a very
11 good point, that there would be a lot more folks in this
12 room, but these are indeed mom-and-pop businesses; and
13 when they're away from the shop, no work is being done.
14 And so I would like staff to explore if there's
15 any opportunity for there to be some financial help for
16 folks, much more than a $10,000 grant, to see if there's,
17 you know, something that can be done to help folks more,
18 tax credits or something like that. Because I think that
19 for the most part we are now dealing with people who, you
20 know, have a whole lot of money to reinvest on a continual
21 basis. Perhaps, you know, the sooner they reinvest, the
22 more they would get towards that or whatever.
23 But I agree, it's a direction that we need to
24 move in. I'm not sure I'm willing to put too fine a point
25 on it. I'd like staff to look at it again and take into
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
190
1 consideration all of the testimony that was given about
2 alternatives.
3 And with that, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Berg.
5 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
6 I'm also in agreement that I think a long-term
7 solution should be spelled out. I think that we need to
8 give a clear direction. I would like to see that we not
9 allow any new Perc machines regardless of where they're
10 placed within a short period of time, because I think
11 we're misleading the industry to allow them to buy Perc
12 machines today and tomorrow, only to ask them to replace
13 them. And I'm not figuratively talking within the next 24
14 to 48 hours, but certainly within the next year or so I
15 think we do need to be very clear on our direction so that
16 the industry does have quite a long time to know how
17 they're going to move and to look at their options.
18 And I too would agree with Ms. Patrick, that I
19 would like staff to come back and absolutely give us a
20 more longer term view so that we could be very clear in
21 our direction.
22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Riordan.
23 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I would
24 certainly agree with the last two speakers. I don't want
25 to see the Board making a decision today that is not based
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
191
1 on some reasoned thought that -- I think staff needs to
2 come back to us with a recommendation, if the majority of
3 the Board wishes to phase out Perc, that it be done in a
4 logical way and not something that we cobble together
5 today, just saying, "Oh, well, we think Is this a good
6 idea." I think it has to be reasoned and there's a
7 process, not only for what is good in terms of the health
8 of California, but good in terms of the economic health of
9 those people who are going to be most affected, and that's
10 the owners of the dry-cleaning operations. So I would
11 really like to see that.
12 I did have one comment, and I guess a bit of a
13 question. I found it interesting -- and I may have missed
14 this. And if I was informed before, I apologize. But
15 this Pollution Prevention Center at Occidental, I think
16 the testimony was that we somehow lent some funds to that
17 operation. Is that correct?
18 Yes or no.
19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I think the
20 statement was from Katie Wolf that we funded the analysis
21 of alternatives.
22 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Okay. But --
23 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: No,
24 we did provide money to Occidental College a number of
25 years ago to help kick off a demonstration or
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
192
1 program in --
2 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: You know, I think it would
3 be very helpful. I'm one of those persons that kind of
4 likes to see things. And when we do things like this, I'm
5 very willing to give my time to see the actual
6 demonstration. Because I'm sitting here and I'm thinking,
7 "Gee, would I have put my" -- say -- "the jacket I'm
8 wearing right now into this water process?" And I'll be
9 honest with you, I wouldn't at this moment. But if I were
10 to have seen the test case, maybe I would be convinced
11 differently. So I'd really like to see perhaps some of
12 the investment that we've made in some of these projects
13 on a personal basis.
14 So with that said, I'm concluding.
15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
16 Dr. Gong.
17 BOARD MEMBER GONG: My turn.
18 I had one question for staff. I think I read in
19 the report -- the hard copy report that this entire issue
20 is not considered an environmental justice issue. And yet
21 I -- both the target and the impact as well as the
22 discussion today conjures up in my mind that it is
23 environmental justice issue related.
24 I was just wondering: Why don't you consider it
25 an environmental justice issue?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
193
1 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE:
2 Actually in the staff report what we indicated
3 was that the action would not result in any new
4 environmental justice issues. We do believe this is an
5 environmental justice issue. Co-residential, near-source
6 risks are all environmental justice issues as well as, you
7 know, just public exposure issues. And the action that we
8 have proposed -- that we proposed does reduce the risk to
9 all Californians, the workers, the customers, the
10 near-source -- the people living near source, and had some
11 overall ambient risk reductions. So that's what we were
12 responding to with respect to our charge under
13 environmental justice.
14 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I see.
15 Well, I thought the fact that you had a Korean
16 translator here actually pointed out the fact that you're
17 targeting that group.
18 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: As
19 you know, we have had a lot of these meetings at night to
20 accommodate that. And actually to be able to respond to
21 the predominant group of dry cleaners, that's been
22 necessary, it's been very helpful, it's been very
23 educational on tone and how you speak and how long your
24 responses are. And this one's too long.
25 Thank you.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
194
1 (Laughter.)
2 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Got three minutes yet.
3 Okay. I get three minutes I guess.
4 Thank you for the explanation. I guess I was
5 misled a little bit by the verbiage in that. But it's a
6 long report.
7 I must say that I've absorbed everything that was
8 provided me in writing and also the discussions both in my
9 office and ex parte and also today. I think it's a very
10 educational thing for me. And I think this process was
11 started long before my time, back in the 1990s. And
12 obviously Perc is classified as a TAC, toxic air
13 contaminant, and that's where it begins for me.
14 As a physician, concerned about public health, as
15 well as personal health, I think that I have to hold that
16 on a high pedestal, a high priority as my reference point.
17 It was not I who put it there. But certainly the wise
18 people before me put it there for a reason. Despite some
19 negative reports that came out recently, it's still there
20 and it's still a classified carcinogen. And that has evil
21 connotations in my mind that we need to consider. And for
22 that reason, I think that since this process was started,
23 I believe that the current recommendations are kind of
24 soft in that sense, and I would certainly at this point in
25 time vote and support a very strong approach to this
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
195
1 process by eliminating Perc, sooner or later, in some
2 logical progression, certainly with what Ms. D'Adamo has
3 proposed, which seems to -- I share with that and support
4 it. And I that that would be to me the wisest, most
5 logical health protective measure we can make with this
6 known carcinogen.
7 And I think I'll stop at that point.
8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Supervisor DeSaulnier.
9 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Thank you, Mr.
10 Chairman.
11 Again, I want to apologize for not being able to
12 be here for all the testimony. But having said that, I
13 have read through all the material, I've read the
14 correspondence and I've had to consider this as a board
15 member at the Bay Area Quality Management District when
16 we've taken it up in the past. And I think a lot of us up
17 here have experience as business owners and small business
18 people, and I'm sure that all of us have concern for the
19 struggle that you go through as small business people.
20 I've been a restaurant owner for 30 years, and I know how
21 difficult it is to run a small businesses, and it's
22 getting harder.
23 Having said that, I want to associate myself with
24 Dr. Gong's comments and all of the comments really that
25 Perc's bad for all of us and it's particularly bad for
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
196
1 you, and I would support a motion that would aggressively
2 act upon phasing out Perc.
3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Well, let me go on the
4 record as being in the phaseout group as well. And if
5 staff has suggestions on how they would like us to
6 instruct them to move in that direction.
7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, given a
8 clear sentiment of the Board, we would recommend that you
9 not vote on the regulation before you today. We
10 understand your sentiment. We do need to rework the
11 regulation significantly and figure out the appropriate
12 schedule and figure out to what degree any retrofitting
13 needs to go on for machines that will be around awhile
14 before they switch out to another technology.
15 I'm not sure I got, you know, a completely crisp
16 direction on hydrocarbon substitution or Green Earth
17 substitution, but we will explore those issues as part of
18 working through. I heard different views: Don't get rid
19 of hydrocarbons. Do close that door. And we'll try and
20 bring back some, you know, more detailed suggestions for
21 you on those topics when we come back around.
22 And then also it will probably take us about
23 six -- six to eight months is what staff --
24 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Yes, I
25 think -- we can't do this real fast. We need to go work
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
197
1 with the industry. Because the economic impacts of what
2 we bring you back with a ban at the end, although they may
3 in the long term be far better on the industry because the
4 switch-over needs to happen and is inevitable, will be
5 substantial in the short term. So we need to figure out
6 how to do that in a way that minimizes that.
7 And I heard the Board's hope that we can get
8 funding. Quite frankly, the current program that charges
9 Perc is not going to have enough funding in it to do this
10 type of massive turnover. And I don't know whether or not
11 we'll be successful in that. But we'll bring you back an
12 assessment that says here's how it can be done, here's
13 what the impacts will be and here are the remaining
14 difficult choices; because I don't think all the difficult
15 choices are going to go away. We'll, just have a
16 different target at the end.
17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: And, likewise, we
18 heard testimony from the industry that the Perc funding
19 program needs amendment so that it allows subsidies for
20 hydrocarbon substitution as one example. And if the Board
21 is tolerant of hydrocarbon substitution, I think that's
22 warranted and we should seek legislative amendment to have
23 that opportunity. Though, as Mr. Scheible indicated,
24 there will not be enough money in that pot, and so we also
25 need to look at the tax credit possibilities and other
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
198
1 options.
2 So we will come back to you with a revamped and
3 a revised regulation and some new decision points to
4 implement that as quickly as we can, but probably in a
5 little more than six months.
6 Is that satisfactory?
7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: So would it be best for us
8 to have a motion instructing the staff to develop a plan
9 for phaseout, with consideration of the economic impact
10 and how to minimize that?
11 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'd be prepared to make a
12 motion, just -- using the words you just gave so
13 eloquently.
14 But just a question though on hydrocarbons.
15 Because the reason I asked the question about economic
16 impact is -- and I know many Board members spoke to that
17 concern as well -- I'm not prepared to do away with that
18 as an option. I think we need to keep it on the table,
19 but with annual or periodic reviews to see what can be
20 done on the hydrocarbon portion of this.
21 But I think we all feel strongly about the
22 phaseout. I just don't know that we all agree on the
23 approach that I just gave on hydrocarbons.
24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay.
25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Everyone's nodding their
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
199
1 heads?
2 Okay. So no direction on hydrocarbons, just on
3 the Perc phaseout.
4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay.
5 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And over a long -- I mean
6 considering the useful life and the economic impact, I'm
7 hearing this can't be done overnight.
8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: No, it cannot.
9 But I also heard you say you'd like new
10 machines -- many of you would like new machines not to
11 come in and be Perc powered. So it's both a combination
12 of an ultimate phaseout and, you know, a fairly aggressive
13 signal early on.
14 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Yes.
15 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And we'll
16 look at the South Coast rule. But what they did may
17 not -- we'll have to work with the districts also, because
18 they have a rule that looks at each source and does a risk
19 assessment. That may not be feasible for many of the
20 other districts. So we'll have to figure our way through
21 this to get to the final goal.
22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Do I have a second to Ms.
23 D'Adamo's --
24 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Second.
25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Are we ready for a vote?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
200
1 All those in favor signify by saying aye.
2 (Ayes.)
3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Opposed?
4 Okay. You have your marching orders.
5 Thank you very much, staff, for all the hard work
6 you've done and for the work that you're going to be
7 doing.
8 (Applause.)
9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: We are going to -- those of
10 you who are staying for the rest of the agenda, we're
11 going to change the order of the third an fourth items.
12 We'll be taking up the forklift issue next.
13 We're going to be taking a 15-minute break
14 consideration out of consideration to our court reporter
15 so that he can have a bit to eat. So we will resume at
16 one minute after -- or five minutes after two.
17 (Thereupon a lunch break was taken.)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
201
1 AFTERNOON SESSION
2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: The next agenda item for
3 today is 06-5-4. Note that we've changed the order of the
4 last two items, as was previously announced.
5 This deals with new emission standards, fleet
6 requirements and test procedures for forklifts and other
7 industrial equipment.
8 This item was originally presented to the Board
9 in June of 2005 as an informational update on the status
10 of rule development. The Board did not take action at
11 that time, but rather directed that staff come back to the
12 Board after completing more work on the fleet average
13 portion of the proposed rule.
14 Since then much progress has been made on the
15 in-use equipment side, resolving most, if not all, of the
16 issues the Board heard about last year.
17 However, we seem to have attracted some new
18 issues on the new engine side related to durability, test
19 protocols, and the possible need for more lead time. The
20 Board will be hearing about these issues for the first
21 time today, since they were not on the table at the June
22 2005 meeting.
23 Ms. Witherspoon, would you begin the staff
24 presentation please.
25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Dr.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
202
1 Sawyer.
2 As the Board will recall, last year at the June
3 meeting in Fresno, staff presented a comprehensive
4 proposal for have proposal for forklifts and related
5 industrial equipment for your consideration. The proposal
6 had then and still has four main elements, including new
7 emission standards for 2007 and beyond, test procedures,
8 verification procedures for retrofit systems, and an
9 in-use fleet average requirement.
10 The most controversial aspect of the proposed
11 rule last year was the fleet average requirement for
12 existing forklifts. Both the agricultural industry and
13 dealers of used equipment had considerable concerns about
14 the cost of retiring older forklifts that were not
15 amenable to low cost retrofits. In response, the Board
16 asked us to work with stakeholders to explore potential
17 ways of addressing this problem including the possibility
18 of compliance assistance funding.
19 Since then staff has met with stakeholders
20 several times to work on this issue. We were not able to
21 secure any sources of new funding. Consequently we
22 focused on the rule itself and how we could make it less
23 burdensome while still preserving as many emission
24 benefits as possible.
25 The proposal before you today contains several
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
203
1 modifications based on these meetings. Staff believes
2 these changes largely resolve the issues you heard about
3 last year and provide an appropriate balance of
4 reasonable, feasible and cost-effective requirements.
5 I would like to emphasize to the Board that staff
6 has worked very hard with industry to reduce the economic
7 impact of our proposal. However, we don't have consensus
8 on every point. If you were to further reduce fleet
9 requirements from staff's current proposal, there'd likely
10 be no emissions benefit at all for that element of the
11 rule. So we will be recommending against further changes
12 should they come up today.
13 As Dr. Sawyer indicated, a relatively new issue
14 has emerged related to new engine standards and the
15 proposed rule. We did receive comments on this as long as
16 a year ago. But it's emerged as the most controversial
17 issue remaining in the rule.
18 And engine manufacturers will likely testify
19 today that the proposed standards are too stringent and
20 apply too soon given their experiences in working on the
21 federal '07 standard, which is just around the corner.
22 We think these concerns have some merit and are
23 investigating them further. However, we aren't convinced
24 yet that any changes to the proposed 2010 standards or
25 test procedures are needed. Staff will talk about that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
204
1 issue more during the presentation and how we intend to
2 address it going forward should you approve the proposed
3 regulation before you today.
4 I'd now like to turn the presentation over to Mr.
5 Mark Williams from the Mobile Source Control Division.
6 Mark.
7 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was
8 Presented as follows.)
9 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon,
10 Chairman Sawyer and members of the Board.
11 As Ms. Witherspoon discussed earlier, we are
12 before you today to propose a controlled measure to reduce
13 emissions of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen from new
14 and in-use off-road large spark ignition engines. ARB
15 staff presented the basic elements of this proposal to the
16 Board last June. During that public hearing the Board
17 directed staff to research funding sources available to
18 help agricultural businesses comply with the proposal.
19 The Board also directed staff to investigate the
20 incremental economic impact of the proposal on equipment
21 dealers who had not fully -- who had not been fully
22 engaged in our regulatory development process.
23 --o0o--
24 MR. WILLIAMS: As I go through today's proposal,
25 I will discuss the originally proposed elements,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
205
1 stakeholder concerns and the modifications we have made to
2 address those concerns.
3 I will begin the presentation with a brief
4 background on large spark ignition, or LSI engines, the
5 type of equipment they're used in, and the history of
6 control.
7 LSI engines are usually fueled by gasoline or
8 liquefied petroleum gas. They are typically simpler
9 versions of current or past automobile engines, with less
10 sophisticated fuel and emission control systems. They
11 have greater than 25 horsepower and typical lifetimes on
12 average of 7 to 11 years. This rule-making only addresses
13 LSI engines with a displacement of more than one liter.
14 Staff plans to present the Board with a separate proposal
15 to reduce emissions from LSI engines with a displacement
16 of less than or equal to one liter at a later date.
17 Almost half of all LSI engines are used in
18 forklifts. Other industrial applications include airport
19 ground support equipment, or GSE, sweepers and scrubbers,
20 industrial tow tractors, portable generators, large turf
21 care equipment and a wide array of other agricultural,
22 construction and general industrial equipment.
23 New equipment used primarily in farm and
24 construction activities with engines of less than 175
25 horsepower is preempted from California's authority to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
206
1 regulate. Examples of preempted equipment include utility
2 tractors, loaders, backhoes, compressors and diesel
3 forklifts.
4 LSI engines emit hydrocarbons, or HC, and oxides
5 of nitrogen, or NOx. In 2004 the almost 90,000 LSI
6 engines in California's emission inventory accounted for
7 about 5 percent of off-road HC plus NOx emissions, about
8 70 tons per day.
9 As cars and trucks meet more stringent emission
10 standards, the relative emissions contribution from LSI
11 equipment will continue to increase.
12 --o0o--
13 MR. WILLIAMS: Several actions have been taken to
14 address these emissions. In 1998 the ARB adopted the
15 first LSI regulation in the country. The regulation
16 phased in in 25 percent increments between 2001 and 2004
17 established a 3-gram per brake/horsepower/hour,
18 hydrocarbon plus NOx certification standards.
19 In 2002, based on the results of combined ARB and
20 U.S. EPA supported research into LSI emission controls,
21 the U.S. EPA adopted its own LSI regulation. EPA
22 regulation established a 3-gram standard beginning in 2004
23 in harmony with the ARB and a more stringent 2-gram
24 standard beginning in 2007.
25 --o0o--
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
207
1 MR. WILLIAMS: While the existing regulations
2 are a good start, staff believes that we have an
3 opportunity to further reduce emissions from LSI
4 equipment. To illustrate this point we've developed a
5 chart that compares the normalized emissions certification
6 levels of heavy-duty trucks, LSI equipment and passenger
7 cars. It is clear from the standpoint of the amount of
8 emissions per unit of work done that forklifts are dirtier
9 than the trucks they're loading and the emission disparity
10 is going to become more pronounced over time.
11 It is also clear that emissions from forklift
12 engines are significantly higher than those from car
13 engines even though they are similar in size, run on
14 cleaner fuels, and can incorporate off-the-shelf
15 automotive emission control technologies.
16 Given that many of the companies that make LSI
17 engines make those car engines too, we believe there
18 should be some technology transfer opportunities.
19 --o0o--
20 MR. WILLIAMS: These opportunities for further
21 reductions were addressed in California's 2003 State
22 Implementation Plan, or SIP. The SIP identifies new
23 stationary and mobile source measures that the state has
24 committed to to reduce criteria pollutant emissions and
25 move towards compliance with the current federal
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
208
1 health-based air quality standards by 2010.
2 Two of the mobile source measures addressed LSI
3 engines.
4 The first measure proposed that California
5 harmonize with the 2007 U.S. EPA standards.
6 The second measure proposed that emissions from
7 in-use LSI engines be reduced by 80 percent through
8 retrofit. It also proposed developing requirements to
9 increase the use of zero and near-zero emission
10 technologies.
11 Combined these two measures commit the ARB to
12 reduce statewide HC plus NOx emissions by approximately 6
13 to 13 tons per day in 2010. That brings me to our
14 proposal.
15 --o0o--
16 MR. WILLIAMS: This rule-making has four distinct
17 and significant elements. Each of these elements could
18 have stood alone, but it made sense to group them together
19 in an omnibus rule-making because of their interaction
20 with one another. Two of these, the new engine standards
21 and the retrofit verification procedures, are essentially
22 unchanged from the proposal in June. Staff has modified
23 the other two to address stakeholder concerns.
24 The first element of our proposal is new engine
25 standards. This element applies to manufacturers of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
209
1 non-federally preempted LSI engines with a displacement of
2 more than one liter.
3 --o0o--
4 MR. WILLIAMS: The current HC plus NOx standard
5 is three grams. We are proposing to lower the standard to
6 two grams in 2007 in alignment with the U.S. EPA. That
7 alignment includes requirements for evaporative emission
8 controls, on-board diagnostic systems, and use of a
9 transient test cycle.
10 We are further proposing to lower the standard to
11 0.6 grams in 2010.
12 The following slide illustrates the opportunities
13 that exist for improving LSI emission control systems by
14 drawing upon automotive emission control technologies.
15 --o0o--
16 MR. WILLIAMS: Last year staff compared typical
17 2004 LSI technology to automotive emission control
18 technology and expected 2010 LSI technology. Staff found
19 that LSI engines are similar to automobile engines, but
20 use less robust and less refined emission control systems.
21 The catalytic converters are undersized under-catalyzed
22 when compared with automotive systems or the best
23 available LSI systems. As a result, emissions from the
24 2004 forklift are significantly greater than those from
25 the 2004 car, as seen in the last row of this table. This
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
210
1 comparison leads staff to conclude that there's
2 significant room for LSI emission control technology to
3 improve.
4 --o0o--
5 MR. WILLIAMS: In addition to the proposed new
6 engine standards, staff is proposing that manufacturers be
7 allowed to certify model year 2007 and later engines to
8 the optional tiered lower emission standards shown on this
9 slide. By allowing manufacturers of the cleanest LSI
10 equipment to offer it at emission levels significantly
11 below current and pending standards, we will be able to
12 help fleet operators to comply with the fleet average
13 requirements discussed later in this presentation.
14 Manufacturers who optionally certify to these
15 very low emission levels will be allowed to accrue credits
16 for their clean engines that they can either bank or
17 trade.
18 --o0o--
19 MR. WILLIAMS: Accompanying the new engine
20 standards is the second element of our proposal: New
21 engine test procedures.
22 At the time of the June hearing the U.S. EPA was
23 undergoing some clarifications to their test procedures
24 that we had not yet had the opportunity to incorporate
25 into our proposal. Those modifications have been
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
211
1 completed. So the current proposal reflects greater
2 alignment with the federal test procedure.
3 --o0o--
4 MR. WILLIAMS: In 2002, the U.S. EPA adopted new
5 engine test -- correction -- now test procedures and
6 general compliance provisions as part of their regulations
7 for LSI engines. In 2007, some elements of the EPA test
8 procedures, like the transient test cycle, become more
9 rigorous than their ARB counterparts. There is a limited
10 amount of time between now and 2007, and manufacturers
11 have begun to certify their 2007 engines. Therefore, we
12 are proposing almost complete alignment with EPA's 2007
13 test procedures for the 2007 through 2009 model years.
14 But some elements of the ARB certification
15 program are either more stringent or more protective than
16 those of the EPA. We are proposing to reinstate these
17 elements beginning in 2010. Examples include ARB's
18 existing in-use compliance and warranty provisions.
19 --o0o--
20 MR. WILLIAMS: That brings me to the third
21 element of the proposal: The operator fleet average.
22 --o0o--
23 MR. WILLIAMS: As controlled equipment gradually
24 enters the fleet, emissions decrease proportionately.
25 However, some fleets are slow to introduce new equipment
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
212
1 to their fleets. The fleet average concept highlights
2 emissions from older in-use engines with no emission
3 controls. All model year 2000 and older and roughly half
4 of model year 2001 through 2003 engines are uncontrolled
5 engines. And emissions from uncontrolled engines are
6 substantial. As a comparison, a single uncontrolled
7 forklift produces approximately the same emissions during
8 three 8-hour shifts as a new car certified to California's
9 lowest emission level would emit over its entire life.
10 The fleet average concept ensures turnover and
11 promotes the control or replacement of uncontrolled
12 engines.
13 --o0o--
14 MR. WILLIAMS: The fleet average proposal
15 establishes progressively more stringent near and midterm
16 fleet average emission levels based on retrofit
17 verification levels, new engine certification standards,
18 zero emission equipment, and default emission rates for
19 uncontrolled engines to promote the incorporation of low
20 emission and electric equipment into fleets. The proposal
21 applies to operators of forklifts, sweeper/scrubbers, tow
22 tractors and airport ground support equipment. They are
23 limited to these four categories of equipment because they
24 comprise the vast majority of LSI emissions and are most
25 amenable to a fleet average requirement.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
213
1 Owned equipment and equipment leased or rented
2 for a period exceeding one year are included in the fleet
3 average. Equipment that meets new standards and is leased
4 or rented for a period of one year or less is exempt from
5 the fleet average calculations.
6 The table on the next slide presents the fleet
7 average emission level standards.
8 --o0o--
9 MR. WILLIAMS: The fleet average applies tighter
10 standards to forklifts and to large fleets because they
11 have greater flexibility to incorporate zero and near-zero
12 emission equipment.
13 --o0o--
14 MR. WILLIAMS: One of the most effective tools
15 for reducing a fleet's average emission level is the
16 control or retirement of uncontrolled equipment. Within
17 the last ten years, in response to regulatory and market
18 influences, a number of companies have been marketing
19 retrofit emission control systems that can significantly
20 reduce overall emissions through the use of engine
21 management systems, electronic fuel injection, and
22 application of three-way catalysts. ARB staff has
23 verified two of these systems for off-road LSI
24 applications.
25 The first achieved a verification level one-third
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
214
1 that of the current standard. The second, one-half that
2 of the current standard. Each represents an approximately
3 90 percent reduction from an uncontrolled level.
4 These systems are expected to be applicable to
5 most of the forklift and other industrial equipment
6 engines produced in 1990 or later. We expect that the
7 average cost to the end user to be around $3500. However,
8 improved fuel consumption and engine life can greatly
9 offset these costs.
10 Another effective tool is procurement of very
11 clean LSI equipment. Staff believes that LSI
12 manufacturers can offer forklifts certified to optional
13 new engine standards using readily available and cost
14 effective emission control technologies.
15 This lower emission equipment would provide end
16 users significant flexibility in meeting the proposed
17 fleet average emission levels.
18 --o0o--
19 MR. WILLIAMS: Procurement of electric equipment,
20 primarily electric forklifts, is another effective way to
21 reduce a fleet's average emission level. Electric
22 forklifts comprise approximately 40 percent of the
23 forklift market and dominate in industrial applications
24 such as cold storage. They have no exhaust emissions and
25 extremely low upstream or powerplant emissions.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
215
1 Recent technological advancements, such as
2 alternating current motors, make electric forklifts more
3 capable than ever before. An electric forklift may cost a
4 few thousand dollars more than a comparable LSI forklift,
5 but generally will have lower life cycle costs.
6 Since we briefed the Board last June, the first
7 fuel cell-powered electric forklifts have entered user
8 fleets. And several manufacturers expect to make their
9 equipment commercially available in some applications in
10 three to five years. These forklifts provide the emission
11 benefits of an electric forklift without the limitations
12 of batteries.
13 I will now address the modifications we have made
14 to the fleet average proposal to address the unique
15 concerns of some of our stakeholders.
16 --o0o--
17 MR. WILLIAMS: During the June 2005 hearing the
18 Board expressed concerns with the economic impact of the
19 in-use fleet average element of the proposal on dealers
20 and on agricultural related businesses such as packing
21 houses.
22 The Board directed the staff to work with the
23 industry to find funding to assist with compliance.
24 However, neither industry nor the ARB was able to secure
25 funding. Consequently, staff has worked with stakeholders
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
216
1 to modify the proposal. Staff attempted to pursue
2 proposals that provided the greatest economic relief with
3 the smallest loss in emissions benefit. We identified
4 modifications that benefit both dealers and agricultural
5 businesses. These modifications significantly reduce
6 compliance costs. However they also result in fewer
7 emission reductions.
8 Staff believes the current proposal provides a
9 reasonable balance consistent with the Board's direction.
10 The following slides look at the modifications made to the
11 dealer and agricultural business proposals.
12 --o0o--
13 MR. WILLIAMS: Since June of last year, staff has
14 made modifications to the staff proposal to address
15 concerns from forklift dealers, agricultural businesses,
16 and airlines. Staff has also revised the proposal related
17 to engines of less than one liter. The following slides
18 present those modifications.
19 --o0o--
20 MR. WILLIAMS: At the June 2005 hearing, forklift
21 dealers testified they had not been adequately engaged in
22 the regulatory development process and that their cost of
23 compliance was very high. In particular, dealers
24 purchased recent model forklifts not yet equipped with
25 emissions controls, leased them, and now expect they will
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
217
1 be required to retrofit them at the end of the lease.
2 Because forklift leasing and sale is a large portion of
3 their business, the costs are high and were not
4 incorporated into their long-term leases.
5 Staff worked with the dealers to develop a
6 revised proposal. We determined that used lifts coming
7 off of lease are most often sold to small fleets, usually
8 owning three or fewer forklifts.
9 Our revised proposal exempts small fleets from
10 the regulation, thereby providing sales outlet to the
11 dealer for their used uncontrolled forklifts coming off
12 lease.
13 A side benefit is that about 60 percent of the
14 fleets that were subject to the rule will now be exempt.
15 This reduces administrative burden on both the small
16 fleets and ARB. These fleets own only 20 percent of the
17 lifts.
18 Staff is also proposing a one-year delay for
19 dealer rental forklifts. On average, we expect the
20 compliance costs of dealers will be reduced by 85 percent.
21 The emission reductions of the proposal are reduced by one
22 ton per day due to this modification.
23 --o0o--
24 MR. WILLIAMS: Our original proposal provided
25 agricultural operators with a less stringent in-use fleet
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
218
1 standard and an extended compliance period that would
2 spread costs out over ten years. Agricultural operators
3 testified the compliance costs were still too high,
4 especially given that they own many old forklifts that
5 would have to be replaced because no retrofit kits for
6 older models are available.
7 The staff's revised proposal exempts the older
8 pre-1990 forklifts from the regulations and requires
9 retrofit of only those newer forklifts that have kits
10 available. No replacement of older lifts with newer lifts
11 would be required.
12 We also propose to delay final compliance for
13 agricultural operators by three years in order to provide
14 a better chance for operators to compete for Carl Moyer
15 funding.
16 The revised proposal reduces costs by at least 90
17 percent and by as much as 98 percent if Moyer funding is
18 successfully acquired.
19 The benefits of the regulation are reduced by
20 four-tenths of a ton per day in 2010.
21 --o0o--
22 MR. WILLIAMS: Our proposal issued in March
23 included a zero-emission mandate for 17 airlines operating
24 at Los Angeles airports. We added this requirement when
25 the airlines chose to terminate an MOU with ARB that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
219
1 contained a similar requirement. Since the proposal was
2 published the airlines have provided data showing that as
3 a result of the MOU they have met or exceeded the
4 zero-emission requirement and plan even more zero emission
5 purchases in the future. As a result, we are proposing to
6 delete the zero-emission requirement from the proposed
7 rule.
8 --o0o--
9 MR. WILLIAMS: Smaller LSI engines, those under
10 one liter engine size, are not subject to the proposed
11 more stringent new engine standards, nor are they included
12 in the proposed in-use fleet average standard.
13 Engine manufacturers requested a regulation
14 change that would give the engine manufacturer the option
15 to test these smaller engines using the simpler, steady
16 state test procedure used for lawn and garden equipment.
17 As part of a new staff review of opportunities to achieve
18 further emission reductions, we have identified these
19 smaller LSI engines and other off-road engines for
20 potential tightening of emission standards. As a result,
21 we are proposing to withdraw the option to certify small
22 LSI engines using the less rigorous lawn and garden test
23 procedure until this review is complete. This will allow
24 us to determine the most effective way to achieve low
25 emissions from these engines. If a regulation change is
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
220
1 warranted, we will return to the Board.
2 --o0o--
3 MR. WILLIAMS: And I'd like to comment that at
4 the back of the room we have 15-day proposed staff changes
5 that include the regulatory language for the modifications
6 that we've just discussed.
7 The final element of today's proposal is the
8 retrofit verification protocol.
9 --o0o--
10 MR. WILLIAMS: The protocol requires
11 manufacturers of LSI retrofit kits to verify their
12 emission reductions on the basis of a percentage reduction
13 or to an absolute emission level ranging from one-half to
14 three grams per brake/horsepower/hour. It also requires
15 them to conduct a field demonstration and in-use
16 compliance testing, warrant installation and performance,
17 and place a label on the equipment specifying the level to
18 which it is controlled. To date, two systems have been
19 verified under our interim verification procedure; one at
20 a one gram level and the other at a one and a half gram
21 level.
22 --o0o--
23 MR. WILLIAMS: That brings me to the benefits and
24 cost effectiveness of the proposal.
25 --o0o--
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
221
1 MR. WILLIAMS: The modified staff proposal
2 provides an HC plus NOx reduction of about six tons per
3 day. The proposed modifications addressing dealer and
4 agricultural concerns reduce the benefit by 1.6 tons per
5 day in 2010 and 0.4 tons per day in 2020 compared with
6 last June's proposal.
7 The modified proposal falls just short of the
8 2010 SIP commitment and meets the 2020 SIP commitment.
9 --o0o--
10 MR. WILLIAMS: Cost effectiveness for the various
11 compliance options range up to a dollar forty per pound.
12 The retrofit and zero-emission options show a lower range
13 of zero dollars based on the life cycle cost savings
14 associated with fuel and operation and maintenance costs.
15 The cost effectiveness of the LSI proposal
16 compares favorably with other mobile source criteria
17 pollutant regulations that are typically in the range of
18 $5 per pound.
19 --o0o--
20 MR. WILLIAMS: While we have made significant
21 modifications to the proposal to address stakeholder
22 concerns, there are still two issues outstanding. Those
23 are the feasibility of the lower engine standards in 2010
24 and the impact of LBG fuel quality on engine performance.
25 Some engine manufacturers have expressed concern
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
222
1 about their ability to meet the 2010 new engine HC plus
2 NOx standard. They state that recent testing using the
3 new EPA transient test procedures results in higher
4 emissions, and thus reaching the 2010 standard for new
5 engines will be harder.
6 Staff believes the 2010 standard can be met.
7 Current engines do not use the best available fuel
8 metering and catalyst systems. One engine has been
9 recently certified to 0.7 grams per brake/horsepower/hour,
10 just one-tenth of a gram above the 2010 standard.
11 And, finally, modern cars emit at roughly
12 one-fourth the 2010 standard, demonstrating the potential
13 for achieving the low emissions.
14 We will monitor progress carefully and report
15 back to the board if problems arise.
16 --o0o--
17 MR. WILLIAMS: Manufacturers have made it clear
18 that the advanced emission control technologies require
19 precise fuel metering, that is, fuel injection. However,
20 state of the art injectors can perform poorly when subject
21 to poor quality LBG fuel. ARB is committed to working
22 with fuel providers and distributors as well -- I'm
23 sorry -- and distributors, as well as reviewing the
24 adequacy of existing fuel quality standards. ARB staff
25 has begun a research program to evaluate propane fuel
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
223
1 quality throughout the state and will report back to the
2 Board as necessary.
3 --o0o--
4 MR. WILLIAMS: In conclusion, the proposal
5 provides significant emission reductions and is very cost
6 effective. The key revisions to last year's proposal
7 reduce costs while slightly impacting the benefits of the
8 proposal. The standards are obtainable with existing
9 technologies.
10 Staff recommends that the Board adopt the
11 proposal with the proposed modifications.
12 This concludes my presentation. We'd be happy to
13 answer any questions.
14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ombudsman, would you provide
15 us with your statement please.
16 OMBUDSMAN TSCHOGL: Thank you.
17 Dr. Sawyer and members of the Board. This
18 regulation has been developed with input from the
19 Industrial Truck Association, American Trucking
20 Association, California Trucking Association, Airport
21 Transport Association, Engine Manufacturers Association,
22 Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, Far West Equipment
23 Dealers Association, National Propane Gas Association,
24 Western Propane Gas Association, Federal EPA, Railroad
25 Commission of Texas, various truckload and LTL, or less
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
224
1 than truckload, service providers.
2 Staff initiated the regulatory process to develop
3 this rule in late 2003. And in 2004 they formed the LSI
4 work group. To date, staff has held five workshops; had
5 49 teleconferences with the LSI group; 17 teleconferences
6 with the Retrofit Subcommittee; 32 individual meetings
7 with manufacturers and rental equipment owners; 24
8 individual meetings with associations, EPA consultants and
9 government agencies; and they toured 15 facilities.
10 In addition, as previously mentioned, they
11 present this rule to the Board in June 2005.
12 The staff report was available to the public and
13 posted on ARB's website on March 3rd, 2006. More than 700
14 stakeholders were mailed copies of the report and nearly
15 3800 stakeholders received notification of the report via
16 the list serve.
17 This concludes my comments. I have no further
18 one.
19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
20 Do any Board members have questions at this time?
21 If not, we will begin with the public.
22 Thank you.
23 The first three speakers will be Roger Gault,
24 Gary Cross and Karen Hay.
25 Roger Gault please.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
225
1 MR. GAULT: Good afternoon. I'm Roger Gault with
2 the Engine Manufacturers Association. And our comments
3 today are really specifically aimed directly at the
4 product category or sub-category that staff has more or
5 less written out in the latest revision of the less or
6 equal to one liter engines.
7 We appreciate the work that the staff has done on
8 this rule, and we've had a lot of interaction with them on
9 this. However, in the case of engines less than or equal
10 to one liter, currently in the EPA LSI rule-making,
11 manufacturers have the option to select certification for
12 that product into the small SI rule-making -- or rule
13 activities. In the EPA side that's covered by 40 CFR Part
14 90. In ARB speak it's Chapter 9 for exhaust, Chapter 15
15 for evap, of Title 13.
16 We'd like to see those provisions carried forward
17 as part of this LSI rule-making because there are a lot of
18 manufacturers that produce engines that are greater than
19 25 horsepower but less than one liter that are derived
20 from small SI engines. All of their test equipment, all
21 of their history is small SI-based. They're just growing
22 and crossing the 25 horsepower threshold as a result of
23 demand from customers for larger engines.
24 So they're not automotive derivatives. They're
25 twin cylinder air-cooled, carbureted, you know, et cetera.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
226
1 So they're not automotive like.
2 We think that the way this staff proposal was
3 originally, well, written for this particular Board action
4 included the option for manufacturers to certify to the
5 small SI provisions, both exhaust and evap, providing
6 environmental benefits to California, as those exhaust
7 standards are more stringent than the exhaust standards
8 currently left in the proposal for less or equal to one
9 liter, and the evap provisions are more expansive than the
10 evap provisions in the LSI rule.
11 The only thing that we hesitate about jumping on
12 that full boat is lead time issue, because the Tier 3
13 regulation for small SI that would apply begins in 2008
14 model year, which is -- it's right around the corner. And
15 we'd like a little bit more lead time. We're more than
16 willing to work with the staff in a 15-day notice package
17 to make this happen. We think it's a lot more effective
18 for the breathers in California and, quite honestly, for
19 the ARB in terms of staff time, et cetera, than generating
20 a new rule-making to address this very narrow segment of
21 the industry.
22 Thank you.
23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
24 Gary Cross.
25 MR. CROSS: Thank you.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
227
1 Good afternoon. I'm Gary Cross from the Law Firm
2 of Dunaway & Cross. And we are the general counsel to the
3 Industrial Truck Association. And that's the trade
4 association for manufacturers of forklifts and also
5 companies that manufacture components for forklifts,
6 including emission control components.
7 We represent greater than 90 percent of the
8 forklift market in this country.
9 I would like to address briefly the two issues
10 that the staff report identified as open issues, which
11 would be the 2010 standards and fuel quality. To us,
12 those are closely related issues and they're very
13 important issues.
14 We remain concerned that there is not adequate
15 data to support those 2010 standards at this point. I
16 guess it's a question of half full or half empty. The
17 staff recognizes that the situation needs to be monitored,
18 that there's some recent data suggesting some serious
19 concerns. Our view is that circumstances like that really
20 should lead the Board to hold off and not to promulgate a
21 significantly lower standard until those issues are
22 resolved.
23 The key to us is the transient test procedure,
24 which goes into effect in 2007. When you apply that
25 transient test procedure to the 2010 emissions limits,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
228
1 which are 70 percent lower than the 2007 limits, you run
2 into some serious concerns. We have tried to determine
3 what the so-called penalty is going from the old test
4 procedure, which was steady state, to the new test
5 procedure, which is transient. And I have been unable to
6 determine anything other than that it seems to be really
7 high and it seems to be really variable.
8 Now, the staff report estimates that that
9 penalty, if you will, is only 15 percent. And we've read
10 their analysis as to how they come to that conclusion and
11 the kind of sub-conclusions that lead to it.
12 We have gone back to the staff and asked them to
13 provide us with the data that leads to that conclusion.
14 And in some cases they simply don't have it. They're
15 unable to tell us what lies at the heart of that
16 conclusion. In other cases we disagree pretty seriously
17 with the way they've interpreted that data.
18 So your official position as an agency is that
19 the test procedure penalty is 15 percent. However, the
20 analysis and data that underlie that are either faulty or
21 simply missing.
22 The real world experience that some of our
23 members are seeing, and also some of the testing that EPA
24 has done, it's more like 2 or 300 percent or even more.
25 So to us, with that kind of difference, you've
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
229
1 just got too big a gap in the data and the reasoning to
2 justify going to a significantly lower standard at this
3 point. And rather than some sort of loose monitoring
4 situation, we think the appropriate path for the Board to
5 take is simply at this point to harmonize with EPA and to
6 let the staff complete the work with the benefit of a lot
7 of test data that's now coming on board from industry to
8 fully justify that .6, if it can be justified.
9 Let me tie that into the other big concern we
10 have, which is fuel quality. There is a specification for
11 a motor vehicle propane. But I think everybody that's
12 looked at this would agree that it is routinely ignored.
13 So as a matter of practical fact, there is no consistent
14 propane out there to run these new engine systems on.
15 And I think the staff would also have to agree
16 that as you get more sophisticated and precise in your
17 fuel control systems, it's all the more important that you
18 have consistent fuel. If you don't have consistent
19 fuel -- and the staff report essentially says this -- you
20 cannot expect manufacturers to meet the lower limits.
21 Now, the staff's approach is again mostly
22 monitoring. In our view, the question is: Is it
23 realistic to think that by 2010 we will in fact have
24 consistent, dependable, quality propane to run in these
25 off-road forklifts? We think the answer is probably not.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
230
1 It takes longer than that. There are too many different
2 players in the market whose behavior is going to need to
3 be changed significantly to really expect that to be the
4 case.
5 So the mere fact that there is a law on the books
6 or that there is a specification for motor vehicle propane
7 is really just the very beginning of it. We don't think
8 that, unless we can get some real assurance that in the
9 real world we will have consistent fuel quality by 2010,
10 that it's fair or appropriate to impose those lower
11 standards.
12 So for those two reasons it would be our
13 recommendation that the Board simply harmonize with EPA
14 and adopt the 2007 standards, but hold off pending further
15 staff work before they adopt the much more stringent .6
16 standard for 2010.
17 Thank you very much.
18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
19 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman?
20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes.
21 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: May I just ask staff if
22 they want to respond now, or do you want to respond at the
23 end of the speaker list that -- I think it's nine
24 speakers. What do you prefer?
25 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: It's up
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
231
1 to you. I mean we can address the issues that were just
2 raised, if you like.
3 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: That would help me.
4 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Okay.
5 Well, I think -- you know, this is a matter of how
6 aggressively and how technology forcing these regulations
7 are. History of course is pretty strong technology
8 forcing. We're facing new SIPs here, and I think it's
9 reminded us about the large emission reductions that are
10 going to be required for trying to demonstrate attainment
11 in some of the areas, San Joaquin Valley and the Los
12 Angeles area in particular. So we're, you know, actively
13 looking for emission reductions, and we feel like we have
14 to -- we will be making more proposals like this in the
15 very near future.
16 Regarding the first comment about the small
17 engines, the reason we pulled that provision back is that
18 in doing this -- and another rule that's going to come to
19 you in July -- we're sort of looking and seeing that
20 there's sort of holes. We've got small groups of engines,
21 not real important, but all together they look like
22 they're well under control. Then there may be a
23 substantial emission reduction potential. And so rather
24 than jump into a regulatory approach that would give a
25 signal on how those engines should be -- a small engine
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
232
1 should be treated, we thought we ought to pull back and
2 make sure we put a comprehensive look together that we can
3 put into the SIP and bring to you. So on that issue,
4 that's why we did that.
5 Regarding Mr. Cross's points. You know, we think
6 there's adequate data to support the standard. We haven't
7 built a forklift that meets a .6. We haven't done all the
8 work. I mean that's traditionally what the industry does.
9 And they're given adequate lead time to do that. But I
10 point out what was in the slide presentation, is there's
11 already one forklift certified at .7 and the standard is
12 .6. And this is three years, four years almost ahead of
13 the compliance date. So I think that's evidence that it's
14 a doable project -- or doable standard.
15 Second thing is these are gasoline car engines,
16 just not as sophisticated and as well developed as current
17 ones. And we know that a gasoline engine on this kind of
18 standard, using these kind of units of measure would be
19 something like .15. So four times below the standard. So
20 that shows the potential that's there. We think that's
21 strong enough argument as to why, with adequate time for
22 development, that they should be able to meet the
23 standard.
24 And, you know, the other option -- what he's
25 suggesting is in line with EPA and wait and let's see, you
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
233
1 know, kind of what happens. But we think the better
2 approach is to put their nose to the grindstone and see
3 what they can do. And if at the end there's a problem, if
4 the fuel spec issue becomes larger, if the transient
5 emission data says it's a much harder problem than we
6 thought, it would be -- then we could come back to you and
7 make an appropriate adjustment.
8 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you.
9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Karen Hay. And then we will
10 have Roger Isom, Tim Pohle and Robert Schlingman.
11 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was
12 Presented as follows.)
13 MS. HAY: Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer, members of
14 the Board. My name is Karen Hay. I'm with IMPCO
15 Technologies. And I have a brief presentation that I'd
16 like to go through with you now.
17 For almost 50 years IMPCO's developed engine fuel
18 systems that allow automotive, stationary and industrial
19 engines to operate on gaseous fuels such as natural gas
20 and propane.
21 Since model year 2001 through 2007 IMPCO's
22 invested $7 million to develop and certify over 25 LSI
23 engine families to both ARB and EPA emission standards.
24 IMPCO then sells these certified engines to over 20
25 different forklift manufacturers, who then install these
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
234
1 certified engines into their forklifts.
2 --o0o--
3 MS. HAY: In 2007 a projected 45 percent of all
4 new emission certified LSI forklift engines introduced
5 into the United States will use IMPCO certified components
6 or IMPCO -- I'm sorry -- IMPCO certified engines or IMPCO
7 components.
8 IMPCO's been extremely involved with this entire
9 LSI rule-making process it has attended every workshop and
10 been involved with every conference call since the start
11 of the rule-making process.
12 --o0o--
13 MS. HAY: As you all know, ARB has proposed a
14 2010 .6 hydrocarbon plus NOx standard. This is a
15 70-percent reduction over the existing 2007 standard. ARB
16 has stated many times that this new standard can be met
17 through minor calibration changes an minor catalyst
18 changes alone. However, IMPCO will still incur a
19 tremendous cost to recertify these engines even if only
20 minor calibration and catalyst changes are made.
21 --o0o--
22 MS. HAY: To give you a little background on
23 certification. To certify an LSI engine, a manufacturer
24 such as IMPCO must demonstrate 5,000 hours of engine, fuel
25 system and catalyst durability. This is achieved by
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
235
1 accumulating hours on the engine and periodically
2 performing emissions tests to demonstrate compliance with
3 the standards. Durability programs typically run 24 hours
4 a day, 7 days a week, and cost in the area of half a
5 million dollars per engine.
6 Any time that there's a change in the engine fuel
7 system or catalyst, ARB generally requires that the
8 manufacturer perform a new durability demonstration
9 program. Assuming that the .6 standard can be met through
10 the minor calibration and catalyst changes alone, as
11 previously stated by ARB, under the current regulation
12 IMPCO would still be required to perform four additional
13 durability demonstration programs, which would cost an
14 additional $2 million with no real benefit to Californians
15 or to clean air.
16 --o0o--
17 MS. HAY: In addition, this $2 million is purely
18 for engines to be imported into the State of California.
19 The existing 2,007 two-gram standard engines can still be
20 sold throughout the rest of the 49 states. So while
21 there's still an incremental cost per engine for the
22 catalyst and calibration change, the cost of the four
23 durability programs is really the issue here.
24 --o0o--
25 MS. HAY: So what I'd like to propose is that ARB
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
236
1 allow manufacturers to consolidate their durability
2 programs to meet the 2010 .6 standards. For example, in
3 2007, IMPCO performs four durability programs. To meet
4 the new standard in 2010, assuming that hardware is
5 similar to that of 2007, but upgrades are made to the
6 calibration and catalyst, as a result IMPCO proposes to
7 perform a maximum of one durability program on the
8 expected worst case engine to fulfill this durability
9 demonstration requirement for these 2010 engines rather
10 than performing four separate durability demonstration
11 program.
12 --o0o--
13 MS. HAY: In addition, I have to reflect the same
14 concerns that were expressed previously regarding propane
15 fuel quality and its effect on emissions, its effect on
16 newer technologies and the relative sensitivity of these
17 technologies to fuel impurities.
18 LBG specifications have been on the books for
19 quite a while. However, they've never been enforced. And
20 so that is one of the items that we would like to see.
21 And before these new emission standards are implemented
22 we'd like to see an enforcement plan in place to make sure
23 that the ARB does indeed enforce these fuel quality
24 standards.
25 --o0o--
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
237
1 MS. HAY: So in summary, number 1 is to allow us
2 to consolidate our durability programs -- or durability
3 demonstration programs for 2010; and also to request that
4 ARB enforce the fuel quality standards before implementing
5 the new standards.
6 Thank you.
7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
8 Would staff like to comment upon the
9 consolidation of durability proposal?
10 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yeah, I
11 think there's two comments. One, I can't not address that
12 durability demonstrations have no benefit to California or
13 clean air. I mean our whole programs are based upon
14 people demonstrating that these products will not be clean
15 just when they're sold new, but when they last the
16 lifetime that the user will use them for. And they are I
17 think a really key part of it.
18 Given that, you know, the volumes are small here
19 and that we do have a relatively short lead time, I think
20 that's a fair proposal to go back and look and see if we
21 can't consolidate, maybe share some of the risk on
22 durability. And that would save some money definitely in
23 this case. And if we find problems, then we'll have to,
24 you know, expand it again. But at least I don't think
25 that's not a reasonable request and we'll try to work with
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
238
1 them on that.
2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
3 Roger Isom.
4 MR. ISOM: Good afternoon. For the record, my
5 name is Roger Isom with California Cotton Ginners and
6 Growers Associations. And in the essence of time I'll
7 also be representing the Nisei Farmers League, California
8 Citrus Mutual and California Grape and Tree Fruit League,
9 all of which these ag organizations have been working on
10 this rule for well over a year.
11 While we are not completely satisfied with this
12 version of the rule, we are choosing not to oppose this
13 regulation today. However, we are going to take this
14 opportunity to point out -- or make one comment, and
15 that's to strongly encourage this Board and the staff to
16 go back and revisit the one issue that has been left off
17 the table, and that's replacements of this older
18 equipment. We would strongly encourage the ARB to revisit
19 Carl Moyer, look at that and address the emissions from
20 those engines and the opportunity that we have to do
21 together.
22 As Supervisor Patrick can attest, last week we
23 heard in the San Joaquin Valley that to achieve the new
24 air quality standards that are out there, we're going to
25 have to reduce emissions in the San Joaquin Valley an
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
239
1 additional 60 percent above and beyond what we've already
2 done, which has been huge. So without replacements
3 funding through Carl Moyer, you will never achieve that.
4 Thank you.
5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
6 Tim Pohle.
7 MR. POHLE: Good afternoon.
8 My name's Tim Pohle. I'm the Assistant General
9 Counsel at the Air Transport Association for Environmental
10 Affairs.
11 ATA is the principle trade and service
12 organization in the U.S. scheduled airline industry. We
13 appreciate this opportunity to testify on the LSI rule
14 today, supplementing the comments that we had submitted
15 earlier this week.
16 ATA has a long history of working with ARB staff
17 as it seeks reasonable approaches for reducing emissions
18 from airport ground support equipment. And that's spared
19 ATA work for many months as part of a transparent
20 arms-length exchange with ARB as it developed information
21 in support of the LSI rule.
22 I would like to thank ARB staff for all the time
23 and effort that they've put into this effort -- or into
24 this process. We really appreciate them taking into
25 account our perspective and listening to us throughout the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
240
1 process.
2 I'd like to make three brief points that are
3 amplified in our written comments.
4 First, ATA is pleased that ARB staff has
5 recommended the removal of the proposed electrification
6 mandate from the rule and urges the Board in the strongest
7 possible terms to accept that recommendation. As staff
8 pointed out, airlines in the aggregate already meet the
9 proposed electrification target today. And record-keeping
10 requirements provide staff ample ability to monitor
11 airline electrification levels going forward, rendering
12 the mandate unnecessary.
13 In addition, because the mandate would not change
14 overall emission reduction requirements of the rule, there
15 would be no environmental or human health benefit that
16 could flow directly from the mandate.
17 Again, we strongly urge the Board to accept
18 staff's recommendation and remove the provision from the
19 LSI rule.
20 Second, ATA understands staff has developed
21 language explicitly referencing emissions factors to be
22 applied for off-road equivalents, which ATA and staff
23 agree are technically sound and reasonable. ATA also
24 strongly supports incorporating that into the rule.
25 Third, ATA had also sought to extend the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
241
1 applicability of the so-called off-ramp provision beyond
2 2013, authorizing the Executive Director to grant airlines
3 compliance extensions in the event that, for reasons
4 beyond their reasonable control, airlines are unable to
5 meet emissions targets. ATA understands staff believes
6 that it's more consistent with Board policy and practice
7 to limit the time period in which the regulatory relief
8 may be granted by the Executive Director without returning
9 to the Board. While ATA would prefer the off-ramp
10 provisions to extend beyond 2013, we trust the Board will
11 approve such an extension should future circumstances
12 support that.
13 Again, we appreciate the opportunity to testify.
14 Thanks.
15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
16 Robert Schlingman. And then we will have Randy
17 Friedman, Joseph Kubsh and Kevin Brown.
18 MR. SCHLINGMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members
19 of the Board. My name is Robert Schlingman and I'm
20 employed by United Airlines as an air compliance manager
21 for California. And I appear today before the Board on
22 behalf of United Airlines.
23 United has previously submitted written comments
24 to the rule, so I will keep my comments brief today.
25 As one of the major airlines operating in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
242
1 California, with among the largest fleets of airport
2 ground support equipment, United has a significant
3 interest in the proposed rule. United also has many years
4 experience that give us critical insight into how the
5 proposed rule would affect airport ground support
6 equipment.
7 United has two comments that it would like to
8 bring to the Board's attention.
9 First, United strongly supports the fleet average
10 compliance approach. As anyone who has sat in an airplane
11 and watched the ground crew prepare for a flight probably
12 knows, airport ground support equipment are often atypical
13 vehicles. Ground support equipment, or GSE, are highly
14 specialized, built for durability and operated to ensure
15 safe and on-time commercial air travel. A fleet average
16 approach provides GSE operators with the operational
17 flexibility to select the most appropriate and
18 technologically feasible control option for each unit.
19 And, second, United is pleased to learn that ARB
20 staff have recommended the removal of the electrification
21 mandate from the rule. The electrification mandate is
22 unnecessary, as the environmental benefits from the rule
23 are already captured by the fleet average emission
24 requirements. In addition, the mandate unfairly targets
25 most, but not all, domestic air carriers and creates a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
243
1 competitive advantage for foreign airlines that would not
2 be impacted by it.
3 United urges the Board to accept the staff's
4 recommendation. And thank you for your time.
5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
6 Randy Friedman.
7 MR. FRIEDMAN: Mr. Chairman, Board members. I'm
8 Randy Friedman representing the United States Navy and
9 today all the Military Services in California.
10 Our concern with this rule is in the fleet
11 definition. And we feel that this as defined it would
12 conceivably lump as one fleet the entire Department of
13 Defense in California and certainly by each branches of
14 the Services. I did testify about this back in Fresno at
15 the first hearing. It still remains a concern with us.
16 We understand what you're trying to do with this
17 rule in terms of private businesses or warehouse stores
18 that basically all do -- are cookie cutters of one another
19 and all have very common management. But we'd ask you to
20 consider something like Naval Station in San Diego, which
21 is really a city unto itself, with a daytime population of
22 50,000 people, with a span of activities from ship
23 loading, ship maintenance, warehousing, even a major
24 recycling facility.
25 It's a challenge -- it will be a challenge to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
244
1 implement this rule just within one Naval station of that
2 span of activity, let alone try to coordinate that with
3 something like China Lake in the high desert or facilities
4 in Lemoore or in Ventura County.
5 To use the Air Force as an example of this issue,
6 consider something like Travis Air Force Base down the
7 road and Edwards Air Force Base in southern California,
8 that don't even work for the same major commands.
9 We would like to see on the fleet definition each
10 time it appears in the regulation to allow us to define
11 the fleet as an individual military installation and not
12 run the risk of having them defined as the entire military
13 establishment in California.
14 We also had one minor change to the definition of
15 tactical support equipment. And, again, we would like to
16 thank the staff for recognizing the unique needs of our
17 tactical support equipment in the state.
18 Thank you.
19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
20 Would staff comment on especially the fleet
21 issue.
22 ON-ROADS CONTROLS BRANCH CHIEF KITOWSKI: Yes,
23 definitely.
24 As was stated, this issue did come up in June,
25 and we do appreciate it. We took it to heart and we went
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
245
1 back and modified the definition. Unfortunately we had
2 not had conversations with them about this. But the
3 definition is now located in a part called "Aggregated
4 Operations". And we'll point that out. We believe it
5 addresses his concern. A military base would now be
6 considered an entity unto itself. They would not be
7 aggregated.
8 So we do agree with his comment and we believe
9 we've incorporated it.
10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
11 Joseph Kubsh.
12 MR. KUBSH: Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer, members
13 of the Board. My name is Joe Kubsh. I'm the Executive
14 Director of the Manufacturers of Emission Controls
15 Association.
16 And I'm here today to add MECA's strong support
17 of the proposal that's before you on lower emission
18 standards for LSI engines and, as well, all the other
19 aspects of the proposal that staff has reviewed for you.
20 I'd like to use my time to speak specifically to
21 the proposed emission standards for 2010 that have been
22 the subject of some discussion already.
23 MECA agrees with the staff assessment and Mr.
24 Cackette's remarks that the proposal for 2010 exhaust
25 emission standards for these LSI engines are indeed
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
246
1 technically feasible. As you've -- as has been detailed
2 by the staff presentation and by Mr. Cackette's remarks,
3 and as believed by our industry, significant improvements
4 in three-way catalyst system's performance can be readily
5 achieved by available catalyst design changes and system
6 optimizations that more closely approach the kinds of
7 technologies that are available on automotive systems.
8 Some of the kinds of catalyst design parameters
9 that are available to achieve these low emission standards
10 for LSI engines include the use of more sophisticated
11 catalyst formulations, larger catalyst volumes, higher
12 cell density substrates, coupled with more sophisticated
13 air fuel control systems to deal with the transient test
14 cycle that begins with the 2007 standards.
15 I wanted to indicate that already in Europe
16 motorcycle manufacturers are having to put on more
17 sophisticated air fuel control algorithms to deal with the
18 Euro 3 standards that come into effect this year that also
19 utilize a transient emission cycle.
20 So this technology is out there and available and
21 should be readily transferable to the LSI category that
22 we're talking about here today.
23 You'll hear in testimony from Mr. Brown, who
24 follows me, that even in the case of a retrofit system
25 that's been verified here in California at the one gram
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
247
1 per brake/horsepower/hour hydrocarbon plus NOx level, that
2 system is capable of that performance on both the steady
3 state and the transient test cycle because it utilizes a
4 sophisticated air fuel control strategy that has been
5 around for almost ten years.
6 So this is -- these kinds of air fuel control
7 algorithms, coupled with advance catalyst technology, is
8 more than capable of delivering 0.6 grams per
9 brake/horsepower/hour hydrocarbon plus NOx emission
10 standards on these LSI engines.
11 I also just wanted to indicate our strong support
12 for the proposed verification protocols for retrofit
13 equipment that's a part of this proposal before you today.
14 As you can see, two manufacturers have already stepped up
15 to the plate and gone through those protocols and have
16 verified technology available for retrofitting older
17 forklift equipment. We believe additional manufacturers
18 will step up to the plate and verify proven durable
19 retrofit kits to help clean up these uncontrolled systems.
20 And, lastly, I'd just like to thank staff for
21 their efforts in bringing this proposal together and
22 working with stakeholders over the last almost 12 months
23 again to get it in the state that it is today. And I
24 would urge the Board to adopt the proposal that's before
25 you.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
248
1 Thank you.
2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much.
3 Kevin Brown.
4 MR. BROWN: Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer, members
5 of the Board. My name is Kevin Brown. I'm the Regulatory
6 Affairs Manager for Engine Control Systems.
7 It's always a unique honor to get to go last.
8 Almost -- a lot of things I've said, I can keep my
9 comments short because they've been covered by people
10 before me.
11 In my own words, I would tell you that I think
12 staff have got this one right. I think they've addressed
13 most of what can be addressed and they're going to
14 continue to focus on the remaining issues that are left to
15 be addressed.
16 I share their concerns about engines less than
17 one liter. I've noticed an increasing number of them
18 coming in less than one liter with higher and higher power
19 ratings. And it needs further consideration as to what
20 emission standards and test cycles should apply to those
21 engines.
22 In regards to my company's support, Engine
23 Control Systems remains committed to verifying systems for
24 an on-road applications for the different programs in the
25 State of California.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
249
1 Joe mentioned that the product we verified is not
2 a new technology. We have been selling it in the market
3 for over ten years on different lift trucks and other
4 propane fueled engine applications. Quite varied
5 applications I would mention, such as scissor lifts, skid
6 steer loaders, concrete finishing equipment, industrial
7 floor sweepers and even steam cleaners.
8 So this is a technology that is not new, and it
9 is -- it was verified using data both under transient and
10 steady state cycles with catalyst and systems agings
11 outwards of 5,000 hours.
12 So we are going to -- we are committed to this
13 regulation. When I came in this morning, I thought we
14 were the only verified company. I was going to say, I'm
15 sure others are going to follow. And I see a second
16 already has followed. And I can assure you that I think
17 others will follow as well.
18 We are currently working to extend our
19 verification to larger propane-fueled engines, and will
20 also be looking at further improving and updating the
21 system to even attain lower emission standards.
22 I do think it is important just to stress once
23 more that the transient test cycle -- we've always been a
24 big advocate of transient test cycles. We think they are
25 needed to more accurately address the emissions
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
250
1 characteristics of engines.
2 And, lastly, I'd like to say that I think there
3 are some specific concerns in the agricultural community
4 that I'm sure staff can work with that industry further.
5 A lot of agricultural LSI engines will run at peak periods
6 of the year, peak periods that will correlate with poor
7 air quality. And although they may not do a huge number
8 of years to, quote, be cost effective under Moyer, I think
9 if one took a look at their operational periods at peak
10 times of the year, you'd find out that further considering
11 grants or incentives to retrofit those equipment would not
12 only give you reductions at severe air quality periods,
13 but it'd also really go a long way to protect the health
14 of people working in the industry with that equipment.
15 And, lastly, I'll just comment that we believe
16 the 2010 standards really are attainable. I think it's an
17 incredible opportunity with those manufacturers of LSI
18 engines. I would point out that non-road emission
19 standards in 2011, 2014 -- if I was in that industry I
20 would be looking how I could increase my market share by
21 offering an even cleaner alternative to other diesel
22 engines. I think the LSI engine's going to offer some
23 packaging advantages and cost advantages after 2010. So I
24 would be looking at ensuring I had the lowest emission
25 standards going. And I think those standards are
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
251
1 attainable.
2 I thank you very much.
3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
4 Ms. Witherspoon, does staff have any additional
5 comments?
6 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Not at this time.
7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I will now close the record
8 on this agenda item. However, the record will be reopened
9 when the 15-day notice of public availability is issued.
10 Written or oral comments received after this
11 hearing date but before the 15-day notice is issued will
12 not be accepted as part of the official record on this
13 agenda item.
14 When the record is reopened for a 15-day comment
15 period, the public may submit written comments on the
16 proposed changes, which will be considered and responded
17 to in the final statement of reasons for the regulation.
18 It's now time for our ex parte statement, Board.
19 And I have none.
20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I have none.
21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: No ex parte statements.
22 You have before you the proposed resolution,
23 which perhaps we should take a few moments to refresh our
24 memories on it.
25 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, if I might.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
252
1 We have that resolution as well as the
2 modifications that are before us. So I'm looking at both
3 documents when I make my comments.
4 Mr. Jennings, did you --
5 ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS: That's correct.
6 There's the resolution and the proposed 15-day changes.
7 And I think that Mr. Cackette identified one additional
8 modification, which would be to address the issue of
9 consolidated durability demonstrations to the extent
10 feasible.
11 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Okay.
12 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yeah, I
13 don't think we need to do that by regulation, but --
14 because that's a --
15 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: We'll just note that as a
16 direction to staff or something.
17 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I think
18 that's a call that the certification people can make.
19 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Okay.
20 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: But If
21 I'm wrong, we'll -- I think you've given us the
22 opportunity to put it in there.
23 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Well, we'll just give that
24 as a direction to staff.
25 Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me just thank the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
253
1 staff, because I know they've spent a lot of time. It's
2 been almost a year to work on this. And I think you've
3 obviously addressed a number of issues that were presented
4 to you at our first hearing.
5 And I thank those who have been affected for
6 their continued participation.
7 And with that I'd like to move approval of the
8 Resolution 06-11 along with the noted modifications to the
9 original proposal, the second document; and then with
10 staff direction to work on the verification issue that
11 was -- I don't know if verification is the exact word I
12 want --
13 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE:
14 Durability.
15 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Durability. Thank you
16 very much.
17 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I'll second
18 that. I'm doing that based on the staff's answer that the
19 issue that was raised relative to the military bases is
20 satisfactorily defined and dealt with.
21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Good.
22 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: And if I could just make a
23 comment.
24 I agree with Mr. Isom's comments that there's a
25 lot of incentive money or whatever that's going to be
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
254
1 needed in order to accomplish these -- changing out these
2 19 -- pre-1990 forklifts. And that'll be something that
3 we're going to have to be working on together to make sure
4 that there is funding, these will qualify for that,
5 because his point is well taken. You know, in the
6 agricultural sector there are often times when something
7 isn't used all that often. And so they last for decades.
8 So that will be something we can work on together.
9 But I remember what a firestorm there was when we
10 first brought this to the Board. And I mean it's almost
11 everybody holding hands and humming Koombayah this time.
12 (Laughter.)
13 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Of course Manny Cuhna's
14 not here either, so we have to be grateful for that.
15 (Laughter.)
16 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: But I do want to thank
17 everybody. I know that you've worked long and hard over
18 this, and compromises have been made on both sides in
19 order to come up with something that was reasonable for
20 everybody. So I appreciate that.
21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Fine.
22 Are we ready to vote on this issue?
23 All those in favor please signify by saying aye.
24 (Ayes.)
25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Opposed?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
255
1 All right. Hearing none opposed, it's adopted.
2 And I too want to thank the staff for the past
3 year. I wasn't here for the entire time, but I had been
4 party to some of the negotiations. And we really
5 appreciate your working these issues out.
6 The next item is 06-5-3, proposed amendments to
7 the Enhanced Vapor Recovery, or EVR, program.
8 In March 2000 this Board approved the EVR
9 program, which made major changes to certification
10 standards for vapor recovery systems at retail gasoline
11 stations. Today's staff is proposing minor changes to
12 simplify administration and improve coordination with the
13 State Water Resources Control Board.
14 Ms. Weatherspoon, would you please begin the
15 staff presentation.
16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Dr.
17 Sawyer.
18 Our experience implementing the EVR regulations
19 the Board adopted in 2000 has identified opportunities to
20 improve those rules. Today we are proposing revisions to
21 amend specifications for pressure/vent valves, clarify the
22 certification process, and align the implementation
23 schedule with some administrative changes already made.
24 Kevin Mongar of the Monitoring and Lab Division
25 will give the staff presentation.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
256
1 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was
2 Presented as follows.)
3 MR. MONGAR: Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon.
4 Good afternoon, Chairman Sawyer and members of
5 the Board.
6 Today I will present staff's proposed revisions
7 to the regulations for certification of vapor recovery
8 systems at gasoline dispensing facilities.
9 --o0o--
10 MR. MONGAR: This presentation will provide a
11 brief introduction of the vapor recovery program at
12 gasoline dispensing facilities, or GDFs, the proposed
13 amendments to the certification and test procedures, a
14 proposed new test procedure, the economic and
15 environmental impacts, the participating stakeholders, and
16 staff's recommendations.
17 --o0o--
18 MR. MONGAR: The vapor recovery regulations
19 affect two types of gasoline transfers at GDFs which are
20 characterized as Phase 1 and Phase 2.
21 As shown by this video, Phase 1 vapor recovery
22 returns vapors, shown in pink, from the service station
23 underground storage tank to the cargo tank truck, and
24 eventually to the terminal for processing.
25 Phase 2 vapor recovery routes the vapors
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
257
1 displaced from fueling vehicles back into the underground
2 storage tank.
3 ARB certifies the Phase 1 and Phase 2 equipment
4 to meet the emission and performance standards specified
5 in the vapor recovery regulations.
6 --o0o--
7 MR. MONGAR: Since 1975 the vapor recovery
8 program for gasoline dispensing facilities has been an
9 important part of the State Implementation Plan.
10 Reduction of reactive organic gases and Benzene is
11 estimated to be 372 tons per day and 151 pounds per day,
12 respectively, statewide estimated for the year 2010. In
13 addition to the ambient emissions reductions, vapor
14 recovery at GDFs also significantly reduces direct public
15 exposure to hydrocarbons and Benzene during refueling of
16 vehicles.
17 --o0o--
18 MR. MONGAR: The ARB develops the vapor recovery
19 regulations and certifies Phase 1 and Phase 2 vapor
20 recovery systems.
21 The documents that provide the regulatory
22 framework for certification of vapor recovery systems at
23 GDFs are CP-201, the certification procedure for vapor
24 recovery systems at gasoline dispensing facilities, and
25 D-200, the definitions for vapor recovery procedures. And
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
258
1 there are 26 adopted test procedures used to verify that
2 performance requirements are met during the certification
3 process.
4 Staff occasionally proposes amendments to these
5 procedures to incorporate needed updates, improvements and
6 clarifications,
7 --o0o--
8 MR. MONGAR: Today we are proposing amendments to
9 the certification procedure and definitions and to two
10 test procedures. We are also proposing the adoption of a
11 new test procedure.
12 --o0o--
13 MR. MONGAR: The modifications staff is proposing
14 today are primarily to the certification procedure CP-201.
15 As directed by Assembly Bill 2955, staff proposes to add
16 the State Water Resources Control Board to the list of
17 agencies with which ARB coordinates vapor recovery system
18 certifications.
19 Staff proposes to update the vapor recovery
20 implementation schedule to reflect changes to the
21 effective and operative dates that have been made through
22 executive officer action.
23 Staff proposes to expand the conditions for
24 determining commercial availability of vapor recovery
25 systems and replacement parts.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
259
1 Staff proposes to modify two performance
2 specifications for pressure vacuum vent valves to better
3 reflect performance needs under field conditions.
4 --o0o--
5 MR. MONGAR: Staff proposes to improve the
6 process for determining that Phase 2 systems are
7 compatible with Phase 1 systems.
8 Staff proposes to expand and clarify the
9 processes for renewing and amending the executive orders
10 that are issued for certification of specific vapor
11 recovery systems.
12 And, finally, staff propose a number of changes
13 to better organize, clarify and correct CP-201.
14 --o0o--
15 MR. MONGAR: Staff is proposing minor amendments
16 to two test procedures. TP-201.2G is the procedure used
17 to test the rigidity of vapor recovery piping. Staff
18 proposes to change the reference for the bend radius
19 performance requirement from D-200 to CP-201.
20 TP-201.2I is the procedure used to test the
21 performance of in-station diagnostic systems. Staff
22 proposes to delete a section that referred to a
23 requirement that was removed from CP-201 in a previous
24 rule-making.
25 --o0o--
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
260
1 MR. MONGAR: Testing of Phase 1 equipment
2 includes tests of the pressure/vacuum vent valves, or PV
3 valves. TP-201.1E is a currently adopted test procedure
4 for determining the leak rate and cracking pressures of
5 pressure/vacuum vent valves.
6 In response to improvements suggested by
7 stakeholders, staff is recommending the adoption of a new
8 test procedure, TP-201.1E CERT, which would be used only
9 during the vapor recovery system's certification process.
10 The existing adopted test procedure, TP-201.1E,
11 will remain as an in-use compliance test procedure used by
12 districts at their discretion.
13 --o0o--
14 MR. MONGAR: I will now briefly discuss the
15 economic and environmental impacts, participating
16 stakeholders, and close with staff's recommendations.
17 --o0o--
18 MR. MONGAR: There are no negative economic or
19 emissions impacts associated with the proposed amendments.
20 However, the proposed amendments may provide savings to
21 vapor recovery equipment manufacturers by clarifying
22 existing procedures.
23 The changes in pressure/vacuum vent valve
24 performance specifications may reduce compliance test
25 failures and may result in cost savings to service station
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
261
1 operators.
2 --o0o--
3 MR. MONGAR: Stakeholders who have participated
4 in the development of the proposed amendments are shown in
5 this slide. Following staff's presentation, the ombudsman
6 will discuss the public outreach effort for this Board
7 item.
8 --o0o--
9 MR. MONGAR: At this time staff recommends that
10 the Board adopt staff's proposed amendments.
11 This concludes staff's presentation.
12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much.
13 Madam Ombudsman, could we have your statement
14 please.
15 OMBUDSMAN TSCHOGL: Yes, thank you.
16 Dr. Sawyer and members of the Board. To develop
17 the proposed amendments before you staff has indeed worked
18 with many stakeholders and interested parties for nearly a
19 year and a half.
20 The following stakeholders provided input to this
21 regulation: The American Petroleum Institute, CAPCOA, as
22 well as CAPCOA's Vapor Recovery Committee; the Independent
23 Oil Marketers Association; EBW; Fiberglass Tank and Pipe
24 Institute; Franklin Fueling Systems; Haslet Engineering;
25 Husky; J.B. Duar, Incorporated; OPW; Remote Sensing Air,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
262
1 Incorporated; RSSE, Incorporated; SKS, Incorporated; Steel
2 Tank Institute; Vapor Systems Technologies; and Western
3 States Petroleum Association.
4 Staff held two workshops, one in October -- on
5 October 18th in 2005 and the other on February 16th, 2006.
6 Both were in Sacramento and included teleconferencing.
7 There were approximately 50 attendees at each of the
8 workshops.
9 A meeting was held with the Bay Area Air Quality
10 Management District on September 13th, 2005, in Richmond.
11 There was a call. There was also a conference call with
12 the CAPCOA's Vapor Recovery Committee Chairperson on
13 January 3rd, 2006.
14 Staff presented updates to the CAPCOA Vapor
15 Recovery Committee at their quarterly meetings, April
16 22nd, 2005; June 29th, 2005; October 20th, 2005; January
17 10th, 2006; and April 6th, 2006.
18 In addition, they had numerous discussions with
19 other industry stakeholders regarding the proposed
20 amendments and comments.
21 The staff report was released for public comment
22 on April 7th, 2006. More than 300 stakeholders received
23 the report via the mail and nearly 1500 stakeholders
24 received the notice via the list serve.
25 This concludes my comments. Thank you.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
263
1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much.
2 Thank you, Mr. Mongar and the entire staff for
3 putting this together.
4 This would appear to be a very routine detailed
5 correction to process. But I'd like to know a little bit
6 more about the Vapor Recovery Program in general. I know
7 it's been around for a number of years. And I assumed in
8 its present state that it's working well, but I'd like to
9 hear that. And especially the implementation of the ISD
10 program, is that complete and is that working and what are
11 we learning from it?
12 Just kind of a little bit of background.
13 MONITORING AND LABORATORY DIVISION CHIEF
14 LOSCUTOFF: In March of -- Oh, my name is Bill Loscutoff.
15 Back in March of 2000 we adopted a comprehensive
16 remake of the Vapor Recovery Program, which we called the
17 Enhanced Vapor Recovery Program. And that had a number of
18 implementation, various parts of it. Phase 1 was fully
19 implemented roughly two years ago. And we're in the
20 process of implementing Phase 2, which has a final date of
21 I believe September 1 of 2009.
22 The specific question regarding ISD, that is part
23 of Phase 2. ISD system was certified in August 31st of
24 2005. We have a couple of 18-month studies that are just
25 now -- one is in process. That's a cost study of actual
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
264
1 in-use systems. There are roughly twenty systems out
2 there already. And we're going to be looking at what it'd
3 really cost compared to what we put in our staff report
4 and based the regulation on.
5 In addition to that, starting shortly, by July
6 1st, we have an 18-month ISD effectiveness study where
7 we'll be identifying five stations across the state that
8 have ISD. And we'll be looking at them over an 18-month
9 period as to exactly how effective are they, what does the
10 output look like, what does it mean and what can we -- are
11 we indeed going to be achieving the goals that we set out
12 for when we adopted the original regulations?
13 That's it in a nutshell. We've had quite a bit
14 of data coming back to us on the Phase 1 system, which has
15 been implemented now for a while. And it does appear that
16 a lot of our targets have been reached. The performance
17 of the equipment seems to be substantially better than
18 what we had before. And it seems to be working pretty
19 much the way we hoped to. And we're confident that the
20 Phase 2 systems will also perform as advertised.
21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: For any Board
22 members that don't remember all the acronyms, ISD is
23 In-Station Diagnostics. And it's computer systems that
24 help manage the Vapor Recovery Control System and tell the
25 operator when there's a problem so they can be remedied.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
265
1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Is the full installation of
2 the ISD systems awaiting the outcome of the evaluations?
3 MONITORING AND LABORATORY DIVISION CHIEF
4 LOSCUTOFF: The ISC systems are being implemented. The
5 new stations are coming in to service, or major
6 modifications, must have the ISD system as of right now.
7 Pardon?
8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: All other
9 stations --
10 MONITORING AND LABORATORY DIVISION CHIEF
11 LOSCUTOFF: The retrofits on major modifications.
12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And when will it be a
13 hundred percent implemented? Or is that planned --
14 MONITORING AND LABORATORY DIVISION CHIEF
15 LOSCUTOFF: September 1st, 2009.
16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Are there any
17 questions from other Board members?
18 I would like to call the first of two witnesses
19 who have signed up to speak, a Steven Arita, and then Jay
20 McKeeman.
21 MR. ARITA: Good afternoon, Chairman Sawyer,
22 members of the Board. For the record, my name is Steven
23 Arita with the Western States Petroleum Association.
24 I'd just like to start off by saying I would like
25 to express our appreciation and certainly our thanks to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
266
1 Mr. Loscutoff and his staff for working with us on the
2 proposed amendments that are before you today. We have
3 had many discussions, and there are a lot of issues that
4 we've had concerns with. And having said all that, we
5 have reviewed all of the staff's proposed amendments to
6 the EVR regulations and we do support all of the proposed
7 recommendation changes.
8 I would like to also add real quickly, if I may,
9 that certainly the EVR program has been a very complex and
10 technically challenging program, to say the least, to
11 implement. There are many issues and many modules that
12 we've had to go through and a lot of issues and
13 discussions that even today continue on, and discussions
14 that we're having with staff.
15 And in particular one issue is the ISD program.
16 We have had many discussions with staff and we will
17 continue to have many discussions. There are a lot of
18 issues and questions that we have surrounding the data
19 that was generated during the certification testing that
20 was done last year. And in particular we are very
21 concerned in terms of what the data means, how accurate
22 and precise it is, how will it be applied to gas station
23 operators, and what does it mean in terms of, you know,
24 how -- what it means ultimately from a compliance
25 standpoint? So these are many issues out there that we
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
267
1 are going to have to be dealing with.
2 And, again, I would just like to preface the fact
3 that we are working closely with staff. And it is our
4 hope that we can resolve many of these issues as we move
5 forward implementing the EVR program.
6 I would just also like to note real quickly,
7 there are other issues that we are working, one of which
8 is dealing with -- and we are working with staff on -- in
9 being able to allow using existing dispensers to be used
10 when complying with the EVR Phase 2 certification upgrade
11 requirements. And we are working with staff on trying to
12 address many of those issues.
13 And just, lastly, I would just like to comment
14 that, as we move forward, I cannot emphasize enough the
15 importance, and urge staff to do what they can to
16 facilitate getting additional Phase 2 EVR certified
17 systems out there. The members that I represent, and
18 certainly the regulated industry, want the ability to have
19 more choice and options out there in order to comply with
20 the pending Phase 2 EVR requirement.
21 So with that, thank you very much. And I'd be
22 happy to answer any questions.
23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you.
24 Do any -- excuse me.
25 Does staff have any further comments, Ms.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
268
1 Witherspoon?
2 Oh, excuse me. I'm sorry.
3 Jay McKeeman.
4 MR. McKEEMAN: Jay McKeeman.
5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Excuse me.
6 MR. McKEEMAN: That's all right. It's been a
7 long day.
8 My name is Jay McKeeman and I'm representing the
9 California Independent Oil Marketers Association.
10 We too are supporting the regulations before you
11 today. There are a couple of issues that we'd like to
12 bring up and hope we can get those resolved.
13 But the Independent Oil Marketers, if you're not
14 familiar, we're the dry cleaner segment of the petroleum
15 industry. Our members are small family-owned businesses,
16 struggling in a very competitive environment. And it's a
17 challenge, but it's a challenge that we accept because our
18 members are parents and long-time citizens of the state
19 and understand the need for making progress on our
20 environmental quality.
21 One particular area that we would like to commend
22 staff for including in the regulations is the
23 cross-certification requirement with the Water Board on
24 Air Board service station device certification. We were
25 the sponsors of AB 2955, and we -- our members ran into a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
269
1 problem where the Water Board and the Air Board were not
2 coming to agreement over different requirements that they
3 have. Basically the Water Board has testing requirements
4 for underground storage tanks. The Air Board has
5 authority over vapor recovery systems. But some of those
6 components, like the Phase 1 components, are both vapor
7 recovery and underground storage tank devices. And there
8 was concern about the ability for the Phase 1 equipment to
9 be applied or installed with the ARB standards and at the
10 same time meeting the underground storage tank testing
11 requirements of the Water Board.
12 So the legislation we sponsored basically
13 mandated that the Air Board and the Water Board cooperate
14 and communicate frequently on their respective
15 responsibilities to try to get the owner-operator out of
16 the middle of dueling agencies. And we appreciate the Air
17 Board understanding the intent of that legislation and are
18 appropriately encoding it into the state regulations.
19 The next issue is an issue that deals with the
20 ability of the Executive Officer to make changes in the
21 ISD timelines. And specifically a problem that we've run
22 into in the past is that the Executive Officer is willing
23 to make changes on the front end of requirements but is
24 unwilling to make changes on the back end.
25 And what we would like to see is that when
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
270
1 changes are made on the front end, that the back end
2 equally be changed to provide the amount of time that our
3 businesses need to install the equipment.
4 There is an issue that is currently in play that
5 is -- Steve briefly mentioned it -- and that's the fact
6 that over half of the service stations in the state -- or
7 the GDFs or service station pumps are balance systems.
8 And those currently do not have a path to compliance other
9 than changing over to the one certified system, which is a
10 vacuum assist. So we could see at some point in the
11 future that maybe the vac assist systems are going to need
12 to slide a little bit in the regulatory process in terms
13 of their implementation capabilities.
14 So we would like to see the Executive Officer
15 either be given the authority or exercise the authority to
16 move the back end of deadlines as well as the front ends.
17 Another concern that we have is the definition of
18 "commercial availability." And that's particularly
19 important to our members. As they move into the
20 compliance with regulations, there's an issue about when
21 equipment will be available. Our members are usually
22 independent businesses. We do not have the bulk buying
23 capability that the major oil companies have, so that puts
24 us lower in the queue for getting equipment. Also puts us
25 lower in the queue for being able to take care of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
271
1 services.
2 A specific problem that we see, especially with
3 the ISD requirement, is that when the ISD system goes off
4 the second time, it sets -- it shuts down the pump for the
5 station. And if our members -- in the staff report it's
6 recommending that when there's a three-week delay of
7 replacement parts, that that would constitute a problem in
8 getting replacement parts. But for a service station
9 operator, that might mean that his station or his pumps
10 will be shut down for three weeks. So we would like to
11 see the commercial availability for replacement parts be
12 down to one week. If there's more than a one-week time
13 period problem, then we believe that that's a commercial
14 availability issue and the Air Board can take appropriate
15 action.
16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Can I ask you to conclude
17 please.
18 MR. McKEEMAN: To speed it up?
19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Please wrap it up.
20 MR. McKEEMAN: All right. A couple of very
21 brief -- issues, but I'll address them briefly.
22 One is an enforcement issue. And the enforcement
23 issue is how ISD data is going to be used in service
24 stations. CAPCOA is the enforcement agency for these
25 requirements. We do not believe it is appropriate for the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
272
1 local agencies to use the data generated by these ISD
2 systems as enforcement, basically taking a printout and
3 starting to write tickets based upon every time you have
4 avoid -- not avoided -- any time you have exceeded your
5 requirements. We think these are management tools and
6 they should be used as management tools and should not
7 be -- should not have the mantle of punitive problems with
8 it, their use.
9 So we've been working with CAPCOA. Short story
10 is that they still owe us a draft letter, and we are
11 anxiously awaiting that. And anything that the Board can
12 do to urge CAPCOA to get us that letter, we would
13 appreciate it.
14 And, finally, as a general comment, and that's
15 the complexity of the ISD regulation -- or the whole EVR
16 regulations. Basically we're getting to a point where
17 we're having to hire consultants to understand the density
18 and the intricacy of these requirements. And we've got
19 people that have owned and operated service stations for
20 all of their lives, and in some cases not able to
21 understand these regulations because they're getting so
22 complex and so dense that there's -- you know, there's
23 just a human factor involved in being able to fully
24 understand these regulations.
25 I know this is a general issue. But it is
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
273
1 something that I think is worthy to note, in that the
2 regulated community is losing the ability to grasp what's
3 going on and the ability to manage the equipment
4 effectively. So anything that you can do to help us
5 better understand these issues -- and, believe me, staff
6 has done a good job. But there is a problem here and we'd
7 like to see it addressed over the long haul.
8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much.
9 MR. McKEEMAN: You bet.
10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Are there any questions from
11 the Board?
12 Since all testimony, written submissions and
13 staff comments for this item have been entered into the
14 record and the Board has not granted an extension of the
15 comment period, I'm officially closing the record on this
16 portion of Agenda Item 06-5-3. Written or oral comments
17 received after the comment period has closed will not be
18 accepted as part of the official record of this agenda
19 item.
20 Do we have any ex parte disclosures?
21 I have none.
22 We have none.
23 We have a resolution before us, No. 617, which
24 contains the recommendations from the staff on this item.
25 Have you had an opportunity to review that?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
274
1 Do I have a motion to approve?
2 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: So Move.
3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And seconded?
4 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Second.
5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: All in favor please indicate
6 by saying aye.
7 (Ayes.)
8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And opposed?
9 Hearing no noes, the resolution is approved.
10 We have two more items on the agenda.
11 First is the opportunity for members of the Board
12 to comment on any matters of interest.
13 Do I have any such requests to make comments?
14 I hear none.
15 And we also have an open comment period for the
16 public. And we do have a request from Randall Friedman to
17 make a comment.
18 MR. FRIEDMAN: Chairman Sawyer, Board members.
19 Again, Randall Friedman representing the United States
20 Navy.
21 As you know, I've been coming before you the last
22 couple years talking about biodiesel, been working with
23 your staff, with the Legislature. I just wanted to be the
24 first to publicly thank and acknowledge the work that your
25 staff has done in the release of their proposed biodiesel
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
275
1 policy. We are in full support of it. We think that the
2 staff has done a tremendous job balancing the benefits of
3 biodiesel, whether it's greenhouse gas reductions and
4 energy independence, while preserving the future
5 investigations of any potential NOx increases and keeping
6 the door open for the State of California to continue work
7 with the biodiesel industry to improve the fuel if that is
8 necessary.
9 Again, I just wanted to be the first to
10 acknowledge the work that you have done as the Board and
11 the staff has done and pledge our support to keep working
12 with the State of California as the largest user of
13 biodiesel in the state, in terms of the implementation of
14 that, and working together to make California a leader in
15 the world for the use of biodiesel.
16 And, again, thank you very much.
17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you, Mr. Friedman.
18 I would like to specifically to thank you and the
19 U.S. Navy for cooperating on this program. And really
20 you're out in front with the introduction of B-20 diesel
21 fuel in the State of California. We're delighted to have
22 you promoting that program and providing information to
23 us.
24 Thank you.
25 MR. FRIEDMAN: You're welcome. And we would
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
276
1 certainly urge your prompt adoption of the fine policy
2 that your staff came up with.
3 Thank you.
4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: At this time I would like to
5 adjourn the meeting.
6 Do we have a motion for adjournment?
7 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: So moved.
8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: All in favor?
9 (Ayes.)
10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: We are adjourned.
11 Thank you very much.
12 (Thereupon the California Air Resources
13 Board meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
277
1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2 I, JAMES F. PETERS, a Certified Shorthand
3 Reporter of the State of California, and Registered
4 Professional Reporter, do hereby certify:
5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the
6 foregoing California Air Resources Board meeting was
7 reported in shorthand by me, James F. Peters, a Certified
8 Shorthand Reporter of the State of California, and
9 thereafter transcribed into typewriting.
10 I further certify that I am not of counsel or
11 attorney for any of the parties to said meeting nor in any
12 way interested in the outcome of said meeting.
13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
14 this 8th day of June, 2005.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR
23 Certified Shorthand Reporter
24 License No. 10063
25
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345