BOARD MEETING STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION AUDITORIUM 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2006 9:00 A.M. TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NUMBER 12277 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii APPEARANCES BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Robert Sawyer, Chairperson Ms. Sandra Berg Ms. Dorene D'Adamo Mr. Henry Gong Mr. Ronald O. Loveridge Ms. Barbara Patrick Mrs. Barbara Riordan Supervisor Ron Roberts STAFF Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Tom Jennings, Chief Counsel Mr. Michael Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Kathleen Quetin, Ombudsman Ms. Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer Ms. Lori Andreoni, Board Secretary Mr. Richard Bode, Chief, Health and Exposure Assessment Branch, RD Mr. Richard Boyd, Manager, Process Evaluation Section, SSD Mr. Bart Croes, Chief, Mr. Robert Fletcher, Chief, Stationary Source Division Mr. Chris Halm, PTSD PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii APPEARANCES CONTINUED STAFF Mr. Norman Kado, Health and Ecosystem Assessment Branch, RD Ms. Michelle Komlenic, Air Pollution Specialist, SSD Ms. Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, PTSD Ms. Cynthia Marvin, Assistant Division Chief, Planning and Technical Support Division Ms. Annmarie Mora, Air Pollution Specialist, RD Ms. Linda Murchison, Chief, Planning and Technical Support Division Ms. Theresa Najita, Air Pollution Specialist, Particulate Matter Analysis Section, PTSD Mr. Dale Shimp, Manager, Environmental Justice Section, PTSD Ms. Peggy Taricco, Chief, Emissions Inventory Branch, PTSD ALSO PRESENT Ms. Diane Bailey, NRDC Mr. Jack Broadbent, South Coast Air Quality Management District Mr. Paul Buttner, California Rice Commission Mr. Frank Caponi, LA County Sanitation District Ms. Stephani Cheng, TriTac Ms. Mary Jane Foley, Southern California Alliance of Publicly Owned Treatment Works Ms. Mary Kay Faryan, DOD PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv APPEARANCES CONTINUED ALSO PRESENT Ms. Bonnie Holmes-Gen, American Lung Association Mr. Tom Jordan, San Joaquin Valley APCD Mr. Curt Josiassen, Sacramento Valley Basinwide Air Pollution Control Council Mr. Karl Lany, SCEC Air Quality Specialist Ms. Sharon Rubalcava, Motion Picture Association of America Mr. Carl Schneebeck, Bluewater Network Mr. Tom Umenhofer, WSPA Mr. Barry Wallerstein, South Coast Air Quality Management District Mr. Jim Wagoner, Butte County Air Quality Management District PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 v INDEX PAGE Pledge of Allegiance 1 Item 6-10-1 Chairperson Sawyer 3 Executive Officer Witherspoon 3 Staff Presentation 4 Q&A 8 Item 6-10-2 Chairperson Sawyer 11 Staff Presentation 11 Q&A 18 Motion 25 Vote 25 Item 6-10-3 Chairperson Sawyer 25 Executive Officer Witherspoon 26 Staff Presentation 27 Q&A 52 Mr. Wallerstein 75 Mr. Broadbent 82 Ms. Holmes-Gen 87 Ms. Bailey 90 Mr. Schneebeck 93 Mr. Dawid 94 Item 6-10-4 Chairperson Sawyer 97 Executive Officer Witherspoon 97 Staff Presentation 98 Ombudsman Quetin 105 Q&A 106 Ms. Faryan 114 Mr. Schneebeck 114 Motion 116 Vote 116 Item 10-6-5 Chairperson Saywer 116 Executive Officer Witherspoon 117 Staff Presentation 118 Ombudsman Quetin 137 Mr. Josiassen 138 Mr. Wagoner 148 Mr. Buttner 152 Mr. Lany 158 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 vi INDEX CONTINUED PAGE Mr. Jordan 160 Ms. Holmes-Gen 161 Motion 165 Vote 165 Item 6-10-6 Chairperson Sawyer 165 Executive Officer Witherspoon 165 Staff Presentation 166 Ombudsman Quetin 180 Q&A 181 Mr. Umenhofer 184 Mr. Faryan 188 Ms. Foley 203 Mr. Caponi 206 Ms. Cheng 209 Ms. Rubalcava 211 Mr. Wallerstein 212 Q&A 215 Ex Parte 229 Motion 230 Vote 233 Item 6-10-7 Chairperson Sawyer 233 Executive Officer Witherspoon 233 Staff Presentation 234 Ombudsman Quetin 237 Q&A 238 Motion 240 Vote 240 Adjournment 241 Reporter's Certificate 242 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: The November 16th, 2006, 3 public meeting of the Air Resources Board will now come to 4 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: Thank you. 10 Will the Clerk of the Board please call the role? 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 Mayor Loveridge? 20 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Here. 21 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Supervisor Patrick? 22 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Here. 23 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Mrs. Riordan? 24 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. 25 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Supervisor Roberts? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 Dr. Sawyer? 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Here. 3 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Mr. Chairman, we have a 4 quorum. 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 6 I have a few opening remarks before we get 7 started today. First, I want to express my appreciation 8 to the Public Utilities Commission for making this hearing 9 room available to us for our two-day hearing, and also for 10 all of the Air Resources Board staff that make these road 11 meetings possible. 12 Second, I would like to note a change to 13 tomorrow's agenda. The staff report on potential changes 14 to the proposed chrome rule has been delayed to our 15 December 7th meeting in Bakersfield. This is to provide 16 more time for the interested stakeholders to review our 17 proposals. So tomorrow we will be considering the 18 consumer product rules only. Today's agenda is as 19 proposed and has several items that will take us until 20 late afternoon to complete. 21 I would now like everyone to note the emergency 22 exits to your left of the hearing room and to the rear 23 through the main entrance. If exiting through the rear of 24 the hearing room, please follow the exit signs to the 25 right. In the event of a fire alarm, we are required to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 evacuate this room immediately. Evacuees will exit 2 outside the building and possibly to a relocation site 3 across the street. When the all-clear signal is given, we 4 will return to the hearing room and resume the hearing. 5 To all the witnesses signing up to speak today, 6 please be aware that the Board will be imposing our usual 7 three-minute time limit so that everyone gets a chance to 8 speak. I would also like to suggest that each speaker put 9 his or her testimony into his or her own words. It is 10 easier for the Board to follow you if you go straight to 11 the main points you want to make. Also, you do not need 12 to read your written testimony to us since it will be 13 entered into the record in its entirety. 14 Agenda Item 6-10-1, Health Update. I would 15 remind anyone in the audience who wishes to testify on 16 today's agenda items to sign up with the Clerk of the 17 Board. If you have a written statement, please provide 30 18 copies when you sign up to testify. 19 The first item on the agenda is our informational 20 health update. Ms. Witherspoon, will you please introduce 21 this item? 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Dr. 23 Sawyer. And good morning, members of the Board. 24 Most of the cancer risk assessments we do focus 25 on ambient risk to the entire population or to a region of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 a risk posed by a particular facility to nearby residents 2 and workers. This study is different. This study looks 3 at the cancer risk from a perspective of a specific 4 population sub-group, inner-city teenagers in New York and 5 Los Angeles, and attempted to determine exactly how much 6 toxic air pollution they were exposed to during their 7 daily activities. Norman Kado from our Health and 8 Ecosystem Assessment Branch will make the staff 9 presentation. Norm. 10 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 11 presented as follows.) 12 MR. KADO: Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon. Good 13 morning, Dr. Sawyer and members of the Board. 14 In today's health update, we will discuss the 15 results of a study that evaluates the exposure to toxic 16 air pollutants and cancer risk in a population of 17 inner-city teenagers. 18 --o0o-- 19 MR. KADO: To provide a little bit of background, 20 we know that toxic air pollutants are known to cause 21 chronic health effects such as cancer, birth detects, and 22 other serious illnesses and conditions. These compounds 23 typically are considered to have no thresholds for cancer 24 risks at low exposures. Therefore, even the lowest 25 concentrations are considered to have a risk in causing PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 cancer. 2 We would like to note that the ARB has 3 established a toxic air contaminant, or TAC, program to 4 identify and control toxic air pollutants. This program 5 currently has listed approximately 200 TAC compounds. 6 --o0o-- 7 MR. KADO: The study for today's health update is 8 from Sacks and colleagues who evaluated data from the 9 study entitled, "Toxic Exposure Assessment from Columbia 10 Harvard Project," or TEACH for short, for their cancer 11 risk assessment. Briefly, inner-city high school 12 students, 41 from Los Angeles and 46 from New York City, 13 were asked to carry portable samplers for 48 hours in two 14 seasons of the year. Stationary indoor and outdoor 15 samplers were also collected during the study period. 16 Personal exposure to 13 toxic volatile organic compounds, 17 or VOCs, such as formaldehyde and benzene, and six 18 particle associated metals such as chromium were measured. 19 --o0o-- 20 MR. KADO: Based on exposures, cancer risks were 21 calculated for each of the measured compounds and some to 22 estimate the lifetime cancer risk. 23 Some of the challenges of the cancer assessment 24 include the following: 25 First, the sampling time was limited to two PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 48-hour samples for each student during two seasons. 2 Samples were taken mid-week only. 3 Second, there were a limited number of students, 4 41 and 46 for L.A. and New York City respectively. 5 Third, the cancer risk was based on the compounds 6 measured and other compounds known to be carcinogenic 7 including diesel PM were not measured for the study. The 8 carcinogenicity of the mixture of compounds assumes that 9 the effects are additive not synergistic or antagonistic. 10 There are uncertainties in the methodologies used to 11 calculate risks. And so the risk values are considered 12 only estimates. 13 --o0o-- 14 MR. KADO: This slide summarizes the results of 15 the study. First, the sum of cancer risk for all the 16 compounds administered for personal exposure was 17 approximately 490 per million for the Los Angeles High 18 School students, and about 75 per million for the New York 19 City students. These risks were approximately four to 20 five times higher than risk based on outdoor ambient 21 measurements for the same set of toxic pollutants 22 conducted at the same time. The investigators also found 23 that exposures to formaldehyde and dichloribenzene 24 measured indoors presented the greatest risk. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 MR. KADO: The following pie chart indicates 2 relative risk from the compounds measured in the personal 3 exposure study in Los Angeles. The majority of estimated 4 risk is from formaldehyde indicated in the orange area, 5 and 1,4 dichloribenzene indicated in the dark blue area. 6 While benzene, perchlorethylene, and carbon tetrachloride, 7 and acetaldehyde contribute less to the overall risk. 8 --o0o-- 9 MR. KADO: In summary, determining personal 10 exposures compared to measuring outdoor levels of air 11 toxics may provide valuable information for better 12 evaluating cancer risks. And so it may be helpful as a 13 tool for assessing the risk to our more vulnerable 14 populations, such as children. 15 This study found that the personal exposure to 16 formaldehyde and dichloribenzene accounted for most of the 17 cancer risks in the two cities. And the overall cancer 18 risk estimates were all compounds measured were about four 19 to five times higher than the risk based on exposure to 20 outdoor concentrations of these compounds. 21 The investigators indicated that indoor products 22 such as bathroom deodorizers and air fresheners were 23 likely sources of dichloribenzene and that press wood 24 products could be possible sources of formaldehyde. 25 Through the consumer products program, the ARB PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 will phase out dichloribenzene in deodorizers and air 2 fresheners by December 31st of this year. And staff is 3 developing a regulation to limit formaldehyde in 4 compressed wood products. We anticipate that this 5 regulation will come before the Board in April of next 6 year. 7 This concludes our health update. We would be 8 happy to address any questions. Thank you very much. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 10 Do Board members have any questions? Yes. 11 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you very much. This is 12 a very fascinating study. On the formaldehyde, is 13 formaldehyde found in the ambient air? 14 MR. KADO: Formaldehyde in the ambient air is a 15 VOC, but it is reactive in the ambient air. 16 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Riordan. 18 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yes. I have a couple of 19 questions. One is there's a difference of what I would 20 call a significant amount between L.A. and New York City. 21 And I'm wondering if you as scientists think that's 22 significant when you look at cancer risk. 23 MR. KADO: I'm sorry. Based on the cancer risk 24 differences between the two cities, these are -- the 25 question was what differences there are in the compounds PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 possibly in the two cities. And for example, New York 2 does have some higher risk from the chloroform component. 3 And that seemed to drive some of that differential between 4 the two cities. 5 Ms. Witherspoon asked where the chloroform was 6 derived. A lot of this is thought to be from hot showers 7 and chlorinated water that is in the indoor environment. 8 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: My next question would be 9 was there any consideration in the study for the type of 10 housing that might be where each of these groups would 11 reside? And is there any significance in that housing? 12 Because my feeling might be not based on any fact, but 13 just feeling, that New York City would have older housing, 14 significantly older housing compared to California's 15 housing. And I'm wondering if that is also a factor. 16 MR. KADO: In the study itself there's 17 considerable detail in terms of the sampling size. And 18 you are correct. There is a major difference in the type 19 of housing in terms of New York and Los Angeles. And in 20 New York, for example, it's primarily apartment type 21 living in older homes. However, in the L.A. area, they're 22 single family or even attached homes in that realm. So 23 there is considerable difference that way. 24 Plus, in terms of the conditions in the square 25 footage in the New York area, it's a lot less square PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 footage they found. And also, you know, a neighbor could 2 in an apartment, as you know, could impact on that 3 sampling or the exposure of these individuals as well. 4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: What about the schools 5 because the schools -- I would judge the schools in 6 California are newer. They're not built up. They're 7 spread out, where New York City's are significantly 8 different in age. 9 MR. KADO: They did indicate the schools. But a 10 lot of the detail was on the home environment in the 11 study. 12 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: To put this in perspective, 14 the risk from diesel-related lung cancer sort of average 15 for a Californian lifetime, what is that value? 16 MR. KADO: The diesel -- this is for diesel. For 17 outdoor for diesel PM is approximately in -- let's say as 18 a comparison in the southern California area runs about 19 700 to 800 per million. 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: So on the same order of 21 magnitude as these numbers? 22 MR. KADO: Yes, it is. 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 24 Are there any other questions? 25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, Dr. Sawyer, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 that's a regional number as opposed to some of the hot 2 spots that are 1500, 2,000. 3 MR. KADO: That's correct. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I have no requests for 5 witnesses on this. Does staff have any further comments? 6 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Nothing further. 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Since this is not a 8 regulatory item, it is not necessary to officially close 9 the record. 10 Agenda Item 6-10-2, Research Proposals. The next 11 item on the agenda deals with eight research proposals for 12 the Board's consideration. 13 I will recuse myself from the consideration and 14 approval of the proposals presented today. 15 Will staff please present the proposals? 16 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 17 presented as follows.) 18 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: Good morning, Dr. 19 Sawyer and members of the Board. 20 Today, for your approval, we are presenting eight 21 research proposals that will support the Board's 22 regulatory programs and policies. These proposals were 23 concepts in the 2006-2007 research plan approved by the 24 Board last July. 25 The first project will test the utility of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 satellite measurements to map emissions at scales useful 2 for regional and urban air quality modeling. Although raw 3 satellite data have poor spacial resolution, tens of 4 kilometers per pixel, statistical treatment of satellite 5 drift, cloud cover, and other sources of variation allow 6 higher resolution in mapping than is inherent in 7 individual measurements. 8 The contractor will develop satellite data 9 analysis techniques and compare satellite data with ground 10 measurements and models to develop prototypes spacially 11 resolved mean daily emission inventories at air basins and 12 larger scales. 13 If this technology can be brought to a high 14 enough degree of refinement, it can provide a way to 15 significantly expand and improve emission inventory 16 spacial coverage and temporal fidelity as well as 17 providing cross checks on conventional inventory methods. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The next project 20 will develop a low-cost particle monitor. Because of the 21 serious adverse health effects resulted from exposure to 22 PM2.5, there is a need for measurement technology that is 23 portable, inexpensive, and accurate at low concentrations. 24 The objective of this work is to develop a monitor using 25 available smoke alarm technology. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 --o0o-- 2 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: This would take 3 advantage of the economies of scale of mass produced 4 components to keep the price very low. Professor Smith 5 and his group have already adapted off-the-shelf smoke 6 alarm technology to measure high PM concentrations and now 7 will attempt to use more sensitive smoke detection methods 8 in a similar monitor to achieve better sensitivity and 9 accuracy at lower PM2.5 concentrations. This monitor may 10 enable better spacial resolution through greater number of 11 measurements taken at more sites. One application could 12 be air monitoring at the community level, especially in 13 neighborhoods with environmental justice concerns. 14 --o0o-- 15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The next project 16 addresses biogenic precursors to ozone and PM in the 17 central valley. Biogenic volatile organic compound 18 inventories are critical for ozone and PM projections and 19 are important instruments for developing the respective 20 State Implementation Plans. ARB's biogenic VOC simulation 21 platform requires specific plant data, such as species 22 competition and dominance, canopy area, leaf area index, 23 leaf mass density, and taxonomic emission factors. 24 While agriculture in the central valley is 25 expected to be a major source of the biogenic VOCs, much PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 of the existing emission factor data have been developed 2 and tested either in southern California or in the 3 Biologic Forest Research Station in the sierra mountain 4 range. 5 Changes in agricultural practices may have 6 significant emission ramifications which we need to 7 understand. The proposed work will provide input data for 8 the model from selected central valley agricultural 9 operations where very large leaf biomass exists. The 10 project will improve ARB's biogenic VOC emission inventory 11 and will likely result in important modifications of 12 elements of the existing simulation platform. 13 --o0o-- 14 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The next project 15 focuses on updating the solvent cleaning emission 16 inventory. 17 Solvent cleaning is one of the top five 18 non-mobile sources of volatile organic compound emissions 19 in California. The ARB's inventory of VOC emissions from 20 the use of solvent cleaning is based on data that is more 21 than ten years old and does not reflect current technology 22 or the types of solvents that are now being used. 23 The ARB cannot consider the cost effectiveness 24 and feasibility of additional control measures for this 25 source until improved emission estimates are available. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 The objective of this project would be to update 2 the VOC emission inventory for solvent cleaning 3 operations. The survey will include information on the 4 types, quantities, and applications for the solvents that 5 are used. The up-to-date inventory will permit the ARB 6 staff and local air pollution control districts to 7 accurately assess the benefits and feasibility of new 8 regulations to reduce VOC emissions from these operations 9 as well as assess the impact of solvent cleaning on local 10 communities. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The next project 13 will develop a new organic aerosol spectrometer. Aerosols 14 effect human health, visibility, and climate. The most 15 important factors in these effects are particle size, 16 concentration, and chemical composition. Real time 17 measurements of the first two parameters are relatively 18 easily accomplished with off-the-shelf instruments, 19 whereas real time measurement of chemical composition 20 remain a challenge. 21 The proposed work describes a new instrument 22 that's designed to measure organic compounds in a particle 23 size-specific manner. The investigators will test the 24 instrument through the four field studies that will be 25 carried out at the port of L.A. near the 110 freeway in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 Riverside and near LAX. This work should make significant 2 contributions to the understanding of the chemical 3 composition and evolution of aerosols in the South Coast 4 air basin and will assist the Board with the future health 5 studies and understanding air pollutant formation. 6 --o0o-- 7 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The next project 8 will investigate engine lubricating oil as a significant 9 contributor in the formation of mobile source particulate 10 matter emissions. As fuels become cleaner, especially 11 with lower sulfur content, and emission control systems 12 become more effective and durable, the contribution of the 13 lubricant becomes increasingly significant. However, to 14 date, much of the present understanding regarding the 15 impact of lube oil on PM emissions has been anecdotal. 16 The National Renewable Energy Lab, the South Coast Air 17 Quality Management District, and the California Air 18 Resources Board are facilitating a concerted effort to 19 characterize the potential for reformulated lubricants to 20 reduce PM emissions from the in-use vehicle fleet under 21 various operating conditions. 22 The total project amount is $454,000 and our 23 contribution would be 100,000 of that. This proposed 24 study would help the ARB explore the impact of commercial 25 automotive lubricants and alternative lubricant PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 formulations on PM emissions from a variety of vehicles. 2 --o0o-- 3 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The next two 4 projects are related to our climate change efforts for AB 5 32. Life cycle emissions are calculated based on the 6 entire life of a particular product, from production to 7 disposal. The Climate Action Team has proposed many 8 strategies to reduce greenhouse gases. However, their 9 full life cycle emissions have yet to be analyzed. The 10 Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of 11 California Davis will enhance their life cycle emissions 12 model to quantify the life cycle emissions of measures 13 that ARB staff may propose to meet California greenhouse 14 gas reduction targets. 15 This contract will produce a user-friendly model 16 that will allow staff to calculate the aggregate life 17 cycle of greenhouse gas and criteria pollutant emissions 18 of climate change mitigation strategies. Results from 19 this model will facilitate decision making on proposed 20 strategies related to AB 32. 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The last project 23 will look at low-level temperature inversions and their 24 effect on climate change. Meteorology plays a dominant 25 role in the determination of air pollution concentrations PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 in California. Low level atmospheric temperature 2 inversions or temperature increases with height increases 3 the concentrations of pollutants near the ground. Changes 4 in California's climate may effect the frequency and 5 intensity of these inversions. This work is designed to 6 better understand how the frequency and intensity of 7 low-level temperature inversions has varied historically 8 and how these characteristics might vary or change in 9 California in a changing climate. 10 Particulate emphasis will be placed upon the San 11 Joaquin and Los Angeles air basins which tend to have 12 episodes of poor air quality. A better understanding of 13 future changes in the temperature structure and other 14 meteorological parameters is crucial to preparing for 15 regional air quality plans in California over the next 16 several decades. 17 --o0o-- 18 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: That concludes 19 the presentation. We request that you approve these 20 research proposals for funding. Thank you. And I'd be 21 happy to answer any questions. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 23 Do Board members have any questions? Supervisor 24 Patrick. 25 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Thank you. Yes. I have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 just a real brief question about the study that's going to 2 be done in the San Joaquin Valley about biogenic 3 emissions. Are there plants that are grown -- we're 4 primarily talking about agriculture here. Are there 5 plants that are grown that also help to clean the air as 6 opposed to increase the emissions? 7 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: The plants can 8 play a role in removing pollutants from the atmosphere 9 like deposition of ozone and particulate matter, but 10 that's a separate process, and that's being evaluated as a 11 separate project. For instance, we're looking at the 12 impact of rows of trees and how they will reduce air 13 pollution coming from roadways. 14 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Wonderful. I just wanted 15 to make sure we're not looking at one aspect of it and not 16 the other. Thank you very much. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Gong. 18 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Thank you, Dr. Sawyer. 19 I was reviewing the research applications and 20 struck by the fact that there are no health related 21 applications during this cycle. I accept that. I see 22 there are more traditional applications. I accept that. 23 I do notice that at least in my recent memory 24 that climate change is becoming more prominent. At least 25 there's two out of the seven or eight applications that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 are centered on or focused on climate change topics. 2 My question really is one step back in terms of 3 your Research Screening Committee. Do we have the 4 expertise on climate change? Are there experts on that 5 Committee, or do you have consultants that can actually 6 provide the right information, whatever that is, to 7 evaluate these proposals? 8 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: That's a good 9 question. When Assembly Bill 1493 was implemented, we did 10 add that expertise to the Committee. Professor Michael 11 Prather from University of California Irvine who's a very 12 prominent international scientist on climate change has 13 been a member of the RAC since 2004. He's an ad hoc 14 member in that we're limited to have nine official 15 members. And since we didn't have an open slot on the 16 Committee, he participates in all the discussions but does 17 not have full voting rights. 18 Regarding your observation about the health 19 studies. As part of this year's research plan, we 20 actually have quite a few health studies. They just 21 haven't come to the Committee yet. And so I believe in 22 January you'll be seeing those projects. 23 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Berg. 25 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 It does look like we have a great array of 2 information that's going to be coming to us. Research 3 takes time, and it looks like we're going to be asked to 4 make decisions sooner than some of the research is coming 5 in. So I'm a little concerned about that. 6 But specifically on the time on the solvent 7 study, I notice it's going to take 24 months. Does time 8 improve as we do these types of studies? Twenty-four 9 months seems like a long time to pull together information 10 that we should know where the sources are. And since VOC 11 is such an important issue and as it comes up in the SIP, 12 how we can get that information a little quicker? 13 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Twenty-four 14 months is the time from when we initiate the contract to 15 when we have a final report. But you know, we have a long 16 process at the end where it goes through peer review from 17 the Research Screening Committee. And that can take up to 18 six months. But we do get these intermediate products 19 within a year, year and a half. And those will be 20 available to staff to factor into our regulatory programs. 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Ms. Berg, one 22 observation I would make about our Research Program in 23 general is that over the last five to ten years it's 24 become far more focused on applied research needed for 25 rule making. So where it used to be original look way out PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 into the horizon and maybe it would apply, we now spend at 2 least half, if not two-thirds, of the money on direct 3 questions necessary for implementation or sorting out 4 issues in the field. 5 Also almost every regulation we have has a 6 feedback loop in it. So there's opportunities after the 7 initial decisions to amend as we go along. We have 8 multi-year phase-in schedules, for example. So we can 9 always take advantage of new information that challenges 10 the thesis of the original rule or gives us a better 11 strategy for achieving even more reductions. 12 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you very much. 13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Follow up to Supervisor 14 Patrick's questions about the biogenic emissions study. 15 Wondering right now the biogenic emissions are not 16 incorporated into the emissions inventory; correct? 17 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: No. Actually, 18 that is not the case. They are on our web page in the 19 almanac. And of course when we do SIPs, they're in the 20 air quality modeling. 21 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: That's based on previous 22 studies? 23 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Yes. Actually, 24 we have a lot of work that has been done on biogenics. 25 And in fact, some of our technical staff worked on their PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 Ph.D. thesis on this very subject. So we have invested 2 over the years a lot on biogenics. This is just another 3 iteration of refining it. 4 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And then getting back to 5 the carbon sequestration study. When is that one 6 scheduled to be released? I think it was carbon 7 sequestration, the benefits -- in other words the benefits 8 of -- 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: It's the life 10 cycle analysis, not sequestration. So that would be 11 upstream/downstream over the life of the project, 12 everything involved in the strategy you're pursuing what 13 kind of greenhouse gas emissions are increased or 14 decreased from each measure. Everything from moving it 15 around to reforming fuel to growing crops, whatever is 16 involved in the strategy you're pursuing, you look at it 17 cradle to grave and calculate the net effect on greenhouse 18 gases. 19 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Carbon 20 sequestration is a proper topic being researched by the 21 California Energy Commission under their PEIR Program, 22 Public Interest Energy Research. That's something we 23 monitor. And if you're interested in that topic, we can 24 certainly do a briefing of the Board. 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Yes. That would be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 useful. Will we have that information in time on the AB 2 32? 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We scheduled 4 biennial updates to the Board on climate change science, 5 and we'll cover everything that's going on about it at 6 those once every six months. The first one I think is 7 January. 8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: But in terms of the carbon 9 sequestration studies, will we have that information in 10 time? 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: There's projects 12 going on around the world right now. So yes, we will 13 bring you updates about what they're learning about those 14 individual projects. 15 In addition to the Energy Commission in 16 California, the National Department of Energy is investing 17 substantially more dollars in carbon sequestration. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Are there any other 19 questions from the Board? If not, while we may 20 communicate off the record with outside persons regarding 21 Board rulemaking, we must disclose the names of our 22 contacts and the nature of the contents of our 23 communications on the record. This requirement applies 24 specifically to communications which take place after the 25 public agenda of the Board hearing has been published. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 Are there any communications that you need to 2 disclose? None. 3 Have all the Board members reviewed the 4 proposals? And are there any additional concerns or 5 comments? If not, do I have a motion to adopt Resolution 6 Number 06-30 through 06-37? 7 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: So moved. 8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Second. 9 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Second. 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: All those in favor, please 11 indicate by stating aye. 12 (Ayes) 13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Opposed? 14 Since this is not a regulatory item, it is not 15 necessary to officially close the record. 16 Agenda Item 6-10-3. The next agenda item, an 17 Update on Implementation of the Board's Comprehensive 18 Emission Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement. 19 Engines used in goods movement are the dominant 20 source of diesel emissions in California. Cleaning up 21 these engines is one of our highest public health 22 priority. The Board's agenda reflects this priority with 23 rules for fuels and cargo equipment already adopted and a 24 slate of new proposals up for consideration in the next 25 year. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 The voters' approval of Proposition 1B, the 2 Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port 3 Security Bond Act of 2006 adds a powerful tool in our 4 efforts to cut the risks from goods movement operations. 5 The $1 billion to be allocated by the Air Resources Board 6 creates the opportunity to achieve large-scale emissions 7 reductions even from sources like a truck or fishing 8 vessel with a singer owner/operator. 9 With advice from all interested stakeholders, I'm 10 confident that the Air Resources Board can deliver the 11 cost effective results that the Governor, the Legislature, 12 and the California residents expects from us. 13 Ms. Witherspoon, will you introduce the staff 14 presentation? 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes, I will. And 16 thank you, Dr. Sawyer. 17 As the staff will report in just a minute, we've 18 made significant progress in implementing the Goods 19 Movement Emission Reduction Plan approved by the Board in 20 April of this year. Today's report will focus on what 21 we've accomplished thus far and what lies ahead for the 22 coming year. We are very excited about the voter approval 23 of the air quality funds in Bond 1B. And we're gearing up 24 quickly to implement this new charge taking advantage of 25 the lessons learned in the Moyer program over the last PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 eight years. 2 Staff's presentation will describe some examples 3 of how the funds could be used to achieve cost-effective 4 emission reductions consistent with the Board's goods 5 movement strategy. 6 The timing of fund availability is uncertain 7 since the Legislature first needs to establish statutory 8 criteria for the program before the funds can be 9 appropriated. However, we are hopeful that the step will 10 be accomplished quickly so that we can launch the public 11 process to design the program and allocate the funds to 12 reduce emissions. 13 Ms. Cynthia Marvin of the Planning and Technical 14 Support Division will make the staff presentation. 15 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 16 presented as follows.) 17 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Thank you, 18 Ms. Witherspoon. Good morning, Dr. Sawyer and members of 19 the Board. 20 --o0o-- 21 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: What I'd like 22 to do this morning is start out with a brief reminder of 23 the scope of goods movement and why it's so critical a 24 problem for us to address, and then move on and provide an 25 update on the activities across A or B and across PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 California to implement the Emission Reduction Plan that 2 you adopted in April. 3 We've cast a fairly broad net to look at what's 4 happened since then at the State and local levels to 5 reduce emissions and develop technology to meet our goals. 6 I'll also highlight key rulemakings expected to come to 7 this Board and other agencies in the next year. Then I'll 8 touch on major efforts in northern and southern California 9 to address goods movement, both reducing the health 10 impacts and improving the transportation system. I'll 11 also describe where we are on updating the analysis in the 12 plan on the health impacts attributable to goods movement. 13 And of course, I'll cover the new funding mechanisms to 14 support the entire program and conclude with a summary of 15 the next steps. 16 --o0o-- 17 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: On a typical 18 day across California, roughly 30,000 containers are 19 arriving and leaving via ship, plus all of the 20 non-containerized cargo. Over 250,000 big-rig trucks are 21 operating in the state, both those registered here and 22 those coming in from other states and countries. There's 23 also roughly 1200 locomotives operating in California at 24 any one time, both cargo, locomotives and passenger 25 locomotives. And these are, of course, supported by cargo PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 handling equipment and by harbor craft operations. 2 --o0o-- 3 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Goods movement 4 certainly is a key source of community health risk. It 5 contributes to both premature death, hospitalizations due 6 to receptor and cardiac diseases, asthma and bronchitis, 7 as well as increased cancer risk near major goods movement 8 facility. ARB study at the ports of L.A. and Long Beach 9 showed a large footprint with cancer risks above ten in a 10 million reaching several miles from the ports. At the 11 state's biggest rail yard operation in Roseville, the 12 study showed increased cancer risks as well but effecting 13 a much smaller geographic area. 14 --o0o-- 15 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: As we look to 16 the future, we also have projections that international 17 cargo will triple by 2020. 18 --o0o-- 19 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: And 20 California's population will grow by roughly 25 percent, 21 resulting in a projected increase of 50 percent in truck 22 travel and over 100 percent in rail cargo operations. 23 --o0o-- 24 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: To address the 25 existing health risk and future growth, the Board adopted PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 these goals with the Emission Reduction Plan for ports and 2 goods movement. First was to reverse the growth in 3 emissions back to 2001 levels by 2010 or earlier. Next 4 was really to target reductions in the diesel health risk 5 at a community level and to meet a statewide reduction 6 goal of 85 percent by 2020, and of course to retain the 7 federal standards for fine particles and ozone, really a 8 key factor as where we in the midst of SIP development 9 right now. 10 This plan was also an important component of the 11 Administration's Goods Movement Action Plan to address the 12 broad range of infrastructure security and mitigation 13 needs for freight movement throughout the state. 14 --o0o-- 15 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: The Goods 16 Movement Plan described roughly 50 strategies to achieve 17 these goals with 20 already initiated and 30 new 18 approaches laid out in the plan. I'd like to walk you 19 through what's been accomplished so far and what's on tap 20 through the end of 2007 focusing on ARB actions and 21 national and international plans for action. I'll also 22 highlight examples of industry and district activities 23 that help implement the plan. We'll do this review sector 24 by sector starting with ships. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: The Board 2 adopted the rule to require lower sulfur fuel on ship 3 auxiliary engines starting in January 2007 that will help 4 reduce fine particles on shore as well as the incineration 5 ban for cruise ships near shore that went into effect in 6 May of this year. 7 The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach report 8 that compliance has improved from roughly 50 percent to 9 over 70 percent with the vessel speed reduction agreement 10 for waters within 20 nautical miles of the California 11 coast near those ports. Slower vessel speeds reduce NOx 12 emissions, so that's a low cost strategy to achieve some 13 of our NOx goals. There's a demonstration project 14 underway to assess the effectiveness of technology and 15 fuel retrofits on board a ship. An APL container ship 16 that routinely travels from Asia to the port of L.A. and 17 up the coast to the port of Oakland and back to the 18 Pacific Rim has been equipped to run with a variety of 19 diesel water emulsion fuel blends and slide valve 20 technology to reduce NOx and PM emissions from the main 21 engine. 22 ARB is working with the ports, U.S. EPA, and the 23 Bay Area district to conduct this study. Various 24 combinations of fuel and technology changes will be tested 25 over the next few months with results expected in early PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 2007. 2 --o0o-- 3 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Looking ahead, 4 there are multiple efforts planned for the next year to 5 address ship emissions. We begin with the activities that 6 are specific to California. There are three rulemakings 7 on the Board's calendar for 2007 to continue reducing ship 8 emissions. The time frame for Board consideration is 9 shown in parentheses. The rule to establish lower sulfur 10 fuel requirements for the main engines on ships is the 11 most significant opportunity to reduce the remaining SOx 12 emissions under ARB's authority. This measure is a key 13 strategy to cut the sulfates that contribute to fine 14 particles in the South Coast and attain the PM2.5 15 standards. Staff will begin the public process for rule 16 development shortly. 17 Since the release of our feasibility study in 18 April on the use of shore-based electrical power when 19 ships are at dock, staff has been working through the 20 public process to craft a rule to require the use of shore 21 power at ports where it would be cost effective. In our 22 analysis, we concluded that there were six ports where we 23 believe that cold ironing or shore power would be cost 24 effective. These are in Los Angeles, Long Beach, San 25 Diego, and Port Hueneme in southern California, as well as PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 Oakland and San Francisco on the north end of the state. 2 The third regulatory effort is to propose 3 requirements for slower vessel speeds in more areas off 4 California's coast and possibly to extend the current 5 voluntary effort in southern California further out to 6 sea. With the global nature of the shipping industry, 7 actions at the international and national level are also 8 critical to address the problem. 9 --o0o-- 10 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: The big news 11 this week comes out of Oslo where the International 12 Maritime Organizations Working Group on Air Pollution is 13 meeting. The IMO Secretary General has called on the 14 group to consider a proposal by the association 15 INTERTANKO, which is an industry association of the 16 independent tanker owners to completely replace bunker 17 fuel worldwide with cleaner distillate fuels that average 18 a sulfur level of roughly .5 percent today. 19 The Secretary General has cited concerns about 20 air quality and disposal of the waste from burning bunker 21 fuel in his remarks. He mentioned the trend towards 22 different limits being established by individual ports, 23 states, and countries as parts of the impetus to consider 24 international changes. 25 The working group is also discussing tighter NOx PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 standard for new engines, NOx reductions from existing 2 engines, and the need to establish new PM standards. The 3 working group is expected to complete its recommendations 4 in 2007 following major meetings in London in the spring 5 and summer of next year. This would be followed by formal 6 IMO negotiations in 2008. To be effective, any new 7 standards would then need to be ratified by the required 8 number of countries. 9 Continuing to pursue all averages to cut marine 10 sulfur fuel levels, ARB staff is developing a technical 11 analysis to support a SOx emission control area with lower 12 sulfur levels across all of north America. We expect to 13 provide the complete analysis to U.S. EPA in mid-2007. If 14 U.S. EPA carries this request forward to the IMO, it would 15 then need to go through the same ratification process. 16 On the U.S. front, EPA is developing proposals 17 for tighter national standards on U.S. vessels. ARB 18 continues to push for across-the-board application of the 19 aftertreatment technologies being developed to cut PM and 20 NOx emissions from diesel trucks and new equipment. For 21 the large main or propulsion engines on ships, EPA is 22 focused on the international effort and developing a 23 proposal for a new emissions standard sometime next year. 24 In early 2007, EPA's scheduled to propose 25 emissions standards for the smaller marine engines used PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 for auxiliary power on ships and to propel harbor craft 2 with final rulemakings due in 2007. 3 --o0o-- 4 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Based on ARB's 5 rule, harbor craft in the South Coast began using low 6 sulfur diesel fuel meeting the requirements in January of 7 this year with statewide introduction in January of next 8 year. 9 In September, ARB staff released a draft 10 regulation for diesel harbor craft fleets reflecting input 11 from over seven public meetings in the last two years. 12 The proposal distinguishes fishing versus non-fishing 13 craft. And these non-fishing craft would include things 14 like tugs and barges, ferries, and work boats. The focus 15 of the regulation is on the non-fishing vessels replacing 16 the oldest high-use engines with current technology. 17 The proposal would also call for catalyst 18 retrofits or equivalent technology for fishing vessels 19 with recognition of the need for incentive funding. As 20 these regulations are being developed, harbor craft 21 engines are also being replaced through incentive 22 programs. Under the Moyer program, more than 400 harbor 23 craft engines have been replaced with cleaner models. 24 --o0o-- 25 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Over the next PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 year, rulemaking at both the State and the federal level 2 will further reduce harbor craft emissions. The 3 California harbor craft rule and development is scheduled 4 for Board consideration in mid-2007 with national 5 requirements anticipated by the end of next year. 6 --o0o-- 7 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: The Board's 8 adoption of the in-use compliance rule in September of 9 this year increases our confidence that the new model 10 trucks will achieve the low emissions expected under the 11 full range of real world operating conditions. ARB's 12 adopted border trucks rule will implement the requirement 13 of State law that international trucks operating here meet 14 U.S. emissions standards. And as of September 2006, all 15 on-road diesel vehicles fueling in California are using 16 ARB's low-sulfur fuel. Also, this fall, new truck engines 17 meeting the 2007 emission standards were introduced. 18 Finally, we have increased the truck inspections 19 conducted in impacted communities near ports, rail yards, 20 distribution centers, and the California/Mexico border. 21 With additional inspectors on board, ARB focused on trucks 22 at the ports of L.A., Long Beach, and Oakland and the 23 adjacent community, plus the communities of Mira Loma, 24 Pacoima, Barrio Logan, Fresno, and Tulare as well as the 25 Mexican/California border. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 Between January and June of this year, ARB staff 2 inspected over 20,000 trucks and found roughly 2500 3 violations. ARB also ramped up to enforce the Board's 4 truck idling limits monitoring operation of over 1300 5 trucks, finding roughly 35 violations in the first half of 6 the year and focusing on areas with high public 7 complaints, including Mira Loma, West Oakland, and San 8 Jose. 9 --o0o-- 10 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Despite the 11 benefits of new engine standards, trucks already on the 12 road today will dominate the goods movement inventory of 13 diesel PM and NOx emissions for many years to come. The 14 emission reduction plan included two new strategies to 15 decrease their impact on community health risk in regional 16 population. 17 Next year, staff will bring a major proposal to 18 the Board to address the universe of roughly 300,000 19 privately owned diesel trucks registered in California, 20 plus out-of-state and international trucks that operate 21 here. For the subset of trucks that directly service 22 California's ports, staff is refining the analysis in the 23 March 2006 report on port truck modernization with new 24 information on operations, emissions, and the nature of 25 the port trucking business. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 The ports of L.A. and Long Beach are working 2 through some issues to develop your truck replacement 3 program. As described in the Emission Reduction Plan, we 4 still see a combination of ARB control requirements, 5 incentives to upgrade the existing fleet, and port access 6 conditions to ensure that new trucks joining port service 7 meet the cleaner emission levels. We expect to bring you 8 a complementary rule for these trucks after the private 9 fleets rule. For the small owner/operators of these 10 trucks, the new bond funding and private efforts can help 11 address the economic impact of this much needed conversion 12 to cleaner fleets. 13 --o0o-- 14 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: For 15 locomotives, the Board has already acted to establish 16 requirements for use of low-sulfur diesel fuel for the 17 captive in-state locomotives. And agreements will require 18 that 80 percent of the long haul interstate locomotives 19 are also using the same low-sulfur fuel by January of next 20 year. 21 Consistent with the terms of the 1998 ARB 22 agreement, the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa 23 Fe Railroads are increasing the use of Tier 2 locomotives 24 in California service to meet a fleet average requirement. 25 Many of these locomotives travel through the southeast PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 desert to the San Joaquin Valley en route to the South 2 Coast, bringing benefits to these regions as well. As 3 reported in July, these railroads have installed idle 4 reduction devices on over 230 of their California-based 5 locomotives and representing roughly 53 percent of this 6 interstate fleet. 7 Much cleaner new technology for locomotives is 8 critical to meet the Board's emission reduction goals for 9 goods movement. There are multiple efforts in progress in 10 California to deploy or test such technology. The fleet 11 of aging switcher locomotives operating at California's 12 major rail yards are high priority for replacement to cut 13 the health risk to nearby communities. 14 Technologies are being introduced that reduce NOx 15 and PM emissions by about 90 percent. We estimate that 16 roughly 20 percent of California's captive or in-state 17 locomotive fleet will be replaced with these much cleaner 18 models by the end of 2007. Several technology 19 demonstrations are also underway to assess the 20 effectiveness of retrofit control technology in the South 21 Coast, in Oakland, and in other areas of the state. 22 --o0o-- 23 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Over the coming 24 year, ARB staff will continue work with the railroads and 25 the public on risk assessments for the 16 major rail yards PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 and adjacent communities. To reduce the health risk from 2 locomotives, the new national emission standards expected 3 from U.S. EPA are vital to spur the development, 4 availability, and introduction of the cleaner line haul 5 locomotives with advanced control technology. ARB 6 continues to urge U.S. EPA to establish standards that 7 achieve 90 percent control of both diesel PM and NOx 8 beginning in 2012. These cleaner technology locomotives 9 are essential to support the program outlined in the 10 Emission Reduction Plan to concentrate those cleaner 11 models in California. 12 --o0o-- 13 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: The Board has 14 adopted comprehensive rules for the fleets of diesel cargo 15 equipment at ports and intermodal rail yards as well as 16 gas fueled industrial equipment like forklifts. And ARB 17 low-sulfur diesel fuel is being used statewide in the 18 diesel engines now. 19 --o0o-- 20 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: In addition to 21 the statewide efforts, there's significant activity 22 underway with a more local focus. 23 --o0o-- 24 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: As I mentioned, 25 the development of risk assessments for the 16 major rail PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 yards and adjacent communities is proceeding. One of the 2 new efforts at ARB is a risk assessment looking at the 3 maritime port of Oakland similar to what we did for the 4 ports of L.A. and Long Beach. We're also looking at the 5 risk from diesel trucks and equipment operating at 6 warehouse distribution centers. Specifically, we've 7 constructed some hypothetical facilities at different 8 sites and are looking at the associated health risk from 9 that type of operation with a draft report expected in the 10 next few months. We've also stepped up activity on the 11 Wilmington community project, and I'll talk more about 12 that in just a minute. 13 --o0o-- 14 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Of the 16 total 15 rail yards to be assessed under the 2005 agreement, there 16 are nine rail yards shown here in the first phase for 17 analysis. This work is ongoing. 18 --o0o-- 19 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: The risk 20 assessment for the Port of Oakland is complemented by the 21 Union Pacific rail yard assessment that's been moved up. 22 The schedule has been moved up from the original. And 23 we're also taking an expanded look at what's happening 24 with diesel operations in west Oakland so that we can 25 quantify the risks from each of these different elements PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 and put them all together in order to define what the 2 combined impact is to residents of west Oakland from all 3 of these operations. 4 --o0o-- 5 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: As part of 6 ARB's programs for children's environmental health risk 7 reduction and environmental justice, ARB staff is working 8 with a local advisory group in Wilmington to explore air 9 pollution concerns and develop new modeling tools to 10 assess community health risk. Wilmington is highly 11 impacted by goods movement through the Ports of Los 12 Angeles and by multiple refineries. 13 One of the group's concerns is storage yards for 14 empty cargo containers near residential areas. Meetings 15 of this group have included local government 16 representatives responsible for code enforcement, zoning, 17 and permits to discuss potential solutions. 18 In response to community concerns about air 19 pollution from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, 20 ARB began the Harbor Communities Air Monitoring Study in 21 September and October of this year. Staff conducted pilot 22 testing of new air monitoring techniques to assess 23 community exposure with full scale monitoring scheduled to 24 begin in Wilmington, west Long Beach, San Pedro, and 25 Carson in February of next year. One of these techniques PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 is a mobile platform that uses an electric RAV 4 with 2 instantaneous air monitoring equipment to report pollution 3 levels. We expect to have the results of the testing 4 program in 2008. This study combined with the enhanced 5 monitoring being performed by fixed sites by the South 6 Coast District and the ports will greatly increase the 7 scope of information available to the public about local 8 air quality. 9 --o0o-- 10 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: In southern 11 California, the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach are 12 proceeding with their San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action 13 Plan that you heard about in July. They have revised that 14 plan and will be taking it to a joint meeting of the 15 Harbor Commissioners on Monday. 16 On the infrastructure side of goods movement, 17 major regions are keying off the draft Phase 2 framework 18 document for the administration Goods Movement Action Plan 19 to develop their own list of priorities for funding. 20 The Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation 21 Authority is leading the effort in southern California to 22 develop their version of the goods movement priority list. 23 Local and regional transportation agencies are working 24 with Caltrans to prioritize these projects across all 25 seven of the southern California counties. They'll seek PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 State bond funding and are working with Congressional 2 representatives on federal funding. 3 --o0o-- 4 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Since your 5 briefing in July on the draft San Pedro Bay Ports Plan, 6 the ports have put out a revised version that includes a 7 number of changes that are summarized here. There is 8 additional definition of the port's goals in terms of 9 emission reduction targets and risk reduction targets for 10 new projects. They've introduced additional concepts for 11 establishing the entry standards for trucks and 12 consideration of prevailing wage in structuring an 13 incentive program. 14 They've proposed to develop an MOU with the major 15 railroads to introduce Tier 3 level locomotives on port 16 property and accelerate use of low-sulfur fuel. They have 17 also introduced the possibility of port tariffs on cargo 18 owners or other sources at the port to help raise the 19 funding necessary to implement the measures that are in 20 this plan. 21 --o0o-- 22 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: In northern 23 California, there's new activity underway originating at 24 the Port of Oakland. Oakland is a really important 25 gateway to California's exports, both agricultural PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 products from the San Joaquin Valley and electronics from 2 the Silicon Valley. 3 In September of 2006, the Executive Directors of 4 the Port of Oakland and the Bay Area Air Quality 5 Management District kicked off the new effort to develop a 6 new effort to develop a maritime air quality strategy for 7 the port. Participation in the Steering Committee has 8 expanded to include more community and environmental 9 representatives. A community advocate and a business 10 leader have been added as Co-Chairs of the group, which is 11 currently wrestling with the question about whether the 12 effort should focus solely on the Maritime Port of Oakland 13 or whether it should be expanded to address other ports in 14 the Bay Area as well. The four Co-Chairs will choose a 15 neutral facilitator and define this regional effort. 16 There's also a northern California version of the 17 infrastructure priority list being developed for the Bay 18 Area, the Sacramento region, and the northern part of the 19 San Joaquin Valley. 20 --o0o-- 21 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: One of the 22 follow-up items from the April 2006 Board item were 23 updates to the health analysis. 24 --o0o-- 25 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: The Emission PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 Reduction Plan included our analysis of the health impacts 2 of air pollution from goods movement activities. This 3 analysis included an estimation of the number of premature 4 deaths associated with particulate matter pollution. It 5 was based on an update to the American Cancer Society 6 study published in 2002 by Dr. Arden Pope and colleagues. 7 Our assessment included the effects of primary PM and PM 8 nitrates, but did not include PM sulfates because of a 9 lack of data. 10 In the last few years, several new studies have 11 come out with results that might be relevant to 12 California, including a study in 2005 by Dr. Michael 13 Garrett and colleagues on PM effects in Los Angeles. 14 You directed us to update the methodology we used 15 to estimate premature death. At the same time, you asked 16 us to reassess sulfates and include the health impacts 17 from the contribution of goods movement sulfates to 18 premature deaths. 19 --o0o-- 20 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Staff has begun 21 an open process to update the methodology for estimating 22 the number of premature deaths related to PM exposure. 23 Our health scientists have reviewed all the studies 24 published since 2002 in this field. Based on this review, 25 we decided to revise the factor that relates PM exposure PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 to premature death. 2 This past summer we held a public workshop to 3 discuss our progress and solicit feedback. During this 4 review, we became aware of U.S. EPA's parallel activities 5 to reassess the estimation methodology of premature 6 mortality related to PM exposure which is focused on what 7 they call their expert elicitation for PM. Their 8 elicitation panel consisted of twelve world-class experts 9 and was convened to shed light on the PM death 10 relationship in consideration of all the published 11 literature on the subject. Their opinions were published 12 in a report released by EPA at the end of September. 13 ARB staff is currently using this information to 14 update the factor that we employ to estimate the number of 15 premature deaths due to exposure to ambient PM, including 16 those associated with ports and goods movement. We expect 17 to release a draft report by the end of this month for 18 public review, then submit a revised draft report in 19 January to a panel of independent peer reviewers for a 20 rigorous evaluation of the science used to revise this 21 methodology. 22 In addition to looking at this part of the 23 process, the Board also directed us to quantify the health 24 impacts due to sulfates from goods movement. As 25 previously mentioned, ARB and U.S. EPA are developing PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 technical information for potential SOx emission control 2 areas. The SECA modeling results are due towards the end 3 of this year and ambient measurements to determine the 4 impact of ship emissions that are expected next year. 5 This analysis will provide key information to help us 6 attribute a portion of the monitored PM levels to ships 7 and to estimate the health impacts from goods movement in 8 the later part of 2006. 9 --o0o-- 10 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Now let's look 11 at an update on what's happened with the available 12 funding. 13 --o0o-- 14 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: As Dr. Sawyer 15 and Ms. Witherspoon mentioned, of course the big news, 16 which is the passage of Proposition 1B, which would 17 earmark $1 billion to be allocated by ARB to reduce 18 emissions from freight movement in California's trade 19 corridors with the provision that these reductions are not 20 required by law or regulation. I'll note the same 21 proposition also includes 200 million directed to ARB for 22 cleaner school buses. 23 --o0o-- 24 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: The 25 implementation process really begins with the Legislature, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 and we expect to set conditions and criteria for 2 implementation of this program. The Legislature will also 3 need to appropriate those funds to ARB. And ARB staff can 4 employ a public process to develop our recommendations to 5 you for project design, for program design, and for 6 funding allocation. We expect that would be an iterative 7 process over several years. 8 --o0o-- 9 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: One example of 10 how the $1 billion could be used to speed pollution 11 cleanup and compliment other emission reduction strategies 12 is shown here on this slide. We would expect to seek 13 substantial match funding to cover additional projects as 14 well. 15 The combination of projects shown on this slide 16 could reduce over 130 tons of NOx pollution and 11,000 17 tons of PM2.5 over a ten-year period resulting in a cost 18 effectiveness of roughly $3,000 per ton using the Moyer 19 calculation protocols. This example scenario would 20 include roughly 600 million for port trucks and for older 21 high-emitting trucks using domestic goods and farm 22 produce. 23 --o0o-- 24 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: The Moyer 25 program continues to be a source of funding as well for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 goods movement related projects. District funding has 2 accomplished the cleanup of over 800 engines related to 3 goods movement since 1998. The South Coast District Board 4 has also earmarked 40 percent of its Moyer funding, or $22 5 million, per year for goods movement projects. 6 On November 3rd, the South Coast Board raised its 7 total commitment for funding to replace port trucks with 8 cleaner natural gas and diesel models to $42 million 9 between now and 2011. 10 We're working with the ports to implement a new 11 strategy in the San Pedro Bay Ports Plan to also clean up 12 trucks. That's an ARB, ports, South Coast district, and 13 trucking industry, and large public effort in that part of 14 the process. 15 Under the 10 percent of Moyer funds that are set 16 aside for ARB to grant multi-district projects, there's 17 been roughly $13 million expended over the last couple 18 years to clean up goods movement focused on locomotives 19 with both green goats and idle limiting devices, a big 20 ship retrofit and fuel project and tug boats. 21 --o0o-- 22 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: In terms of 23 other sources of funding, the staff from the Ports of Los 24 Angeles and Long Beach are proposing in the San Pedro Bay 25 Ports Plan to commit over 200 million in the Port of L.A. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 and slightly under 200 million in the Port of Long Beach 2 over the next five years to implement that plan. As I 3 mentioned, they're also discussing possible port tariffs 4 to raise additional funds. 5 Federal funding thus far has been fairly minimal 6 with roughly 0.4 million from U.S. EPA to California 7 through the West Coast Diesel Collaborative for goods 8 movement projects in California. But there's certainly 9 Congressional interest on this issue, and we are hopeful 10 that level will increase substantially. 11 --o0o-- 12 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: To wrap up, 13 we'll conclude with what's coming up next. 14 --o0o-- 15 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Much of the 16 focus right now is on transitioning from the Goods 17 Movement Plan to the new SIPs with the South Coast and the 18 San Joaquin Valley again requiring the greatest level of 19 emission reductions. The goods movement strategies are 20 really core to the emission reductions needed for 21 attainment for the PM2.5 standards where attainment is due 22 by 2014. The strategies to reduce SOx and diesel PM and 23 NOx emissions from ships, trucks, and locomotives will be 24 key to attaining this standard. 25 For ozone, it's really the same combination of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 sources focused on NOx. And as mentioned in some of the 2 SIP workshops, it's possible that both of these areas may 3 need additional regional programs to further reduce NOx 4 from trucks and other diesel sources. 5 --o0o-- 6 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: In conclusion 7 then, this is a summary of our to-do list is to continue 8 developing, bringing to you, and enforcing the adopted 9 rulemakings; to implement the new one billion dollars 10 funding program. We continue to advocate for the needed 11 federal and international standards; to support local 12 initiatives across the state, to conduct the health risk 13 assessments on our plate, and to update the health impacts 14 analysis. That concludes my presentation, and we'd be 15 happy to take any questions. 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 17 I suspect that the Board members have a lot of 18 questions, so let's get started. Mayor Loveridge. 19 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Thank you for the 20 detailed report. I think you identified how important it 21 is for attainment. Just a quick question of context or 22 perspective. Five years ago how many of these activities, 23 rules, progress were in place? I'm asking that to 24 illustrates the difference where we are now and where we 25 were five years ago. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Very little. 2 Nothing of this scale. 3 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: I mean, what we're 4 seeing here is really quite dramatic, as well as being 5 important. 6 A question that I saw -- and it's the word trade 7 corridor, trade route. We increasingly refer to the ports 8 as southern California ports, not simply the ports of L.A. 9 and Long Beach. And if 43 percent, or something like 10 that, of the goods in the country come in through the two 11 ports, they just don't impact the port communities. They 12 impact all those communities along what you call the trade 13 corridors or what I would call the trade routes. 14 That is, in Riverside we have increasingly trains 15 are sort of mobile walls. I got a call last week from a 16 fellow who waited 40 minutes behind three freight trains 17 that went by in succession. The gate never went up. 18 The impact of the trades goods movement is beyond 19 simply the ports. And the only slide that talked about 20 trade corridor was the slide 31. So I just want to 21 emphasize the impact of goods movement both in terms of 22 freight and in terms of air goes beyond the immediate 23 vicinity of the two ports. 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Mayor Loveridge, 25 we know that. And tomorrow in Sacramento is a meeting of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 the Administration's Goods Movement Implementing Committee 2 which is Co-Chaired by Business, Transportation, and 3 Housing Agency and Cal/EPA. And they have organized their 4 thinking around goods movement into major corridors that 5 reach all the way to state borders. And so they have 6 looked at freeway overpasses as a crucial part of 7 relieving that wall you speak of, the wall of trains all 8 the way out to the east. The East Alameda Corridor is 9 what they call that. And they have asked us to help frame 10 our air quality strategies through that same filter. So 11 we both have our normal sort of hot spot isopleth in the 12 way we look at it. And we've also calculated the effect 13 along corridors so that they can be having a completely 14 comprehensive view of what's needed for transportation, 15 mobility, security, air quality improvement. 16 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: That's good. We'll be 17 shortly sending you a letter signed by almost every mayor 18 in the two counties plus the common resolution by the 19 Board of Supervisors from Riverside and San Bernardino 20 emphasizing the impact of goods movement upon the inland 21 area. 22 One thing that you didn't mention, and it's 23 something the Governor vetoed, and it's in --- in some 24 form, it's an area everybody's talked about goods movement 25 that this is good as far as funding. But there needs to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 be more funding if you're going to have effective cleaner 2 air and faster freight. And that's the Lowenthal bill 3 which -- and whether that's the appropriate bill, I'm not 4 sure, or who negotiates the fee. We've often talked about 5 trying to figure out voluntary as done with the Alameda 6 corridor. But I think as you identify funding strategies, 7 that one you jumped over. And it maybe might identify why 8 the Governor vetoed Lowenthal's bill, which came with 9 passage out of both the Assembly and the Senate, and what 10 he called for in his veto message that I think should be a 11 part of the discussions of the goods movement funding. 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The 13 Administration absolutely believes additional funding is 14 going to be required to address mobility and environmental 15 issues at the port. 16 I think -- not having talked to the Governor 17 personally, having read his veto message, having listened 18 to other officials in the Administration, the two concerns 19 were that it was premature and might effect the ballot 20 propositions. So they wanted the bond measures to be 21 considered first and then to consider tariffs and fees 22 later. 23 There's also a profound concern about legalities 24 and whether or not the imposition by mandate of fees 25 rather than some kind of agreement with the industries PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 effected would be tied up in courts forever. But there 2 was certainly a recognition that industry needs to 3 contribute its fair share. And that's reflected in the 4 Joint Port's Plan and their proposals for tariffs and 5 their exploration of fees. And there's a standing 6 expectation. It's not in any bill form yet. It might 7 appear in the authorizing statutes for our billion dollars 8 that we seek match and not release funds until there is 9 complementary funding on the table. 10 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Well, I respect both 11 points, I guess. And mandatory fees may not be the best 12 approach for reasons you identified. But we talked about 13 funding choices for the goods movement. Seems to me that 14 question of some kind of fee, whether it's the form 15 Lowenthal did in his legislation or somewhere negotiated 16 or voluntary fee, needs to be a part of our discussion. 17 It's not here. 18 Without that kind of funding, I think everybody's 19 looked at what you want to see for cleaner air and faster 20 freight in southern California. It's not going to happen 21 without some major additional funding. And it seems to me 22 the only realistic source is some kind of fee. We're not 23 going to get it through custom fees and more exotic 24 proposals. That's the centerpiece of major funding that's 25 going to make -- I'm repeating myself, cleaner air, faster PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 freight. 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Right. And also 3 you'll remember that we estimated the total cost of the 4 Goods Movement Plan at 6 billion. And we have just one 5 billion from the bonds and a few more hundred millions 6 from the various contributions. So there is a large gap 7 there that needs to be made up. 8 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Request in the future 9 that could be identified. 10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We'll certainly 11 talk about what's happening out there. I don't know that 12 the Board will have the authority to impose those fees 13 but -- 14 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: I wasn't arguing. 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We'll report on 16 that too. And Senator Lowenthal will be back with new 17 proposals next year, I'm quite sure. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Supervisor Roberts. 19 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Thank you. 20 I'm not sure if I was hearing right. Let me 21 first of all thank you for the report. And I appreciate 22 with the $1 billion spending there's actually a tug boat 23 in there for San Diego. 24 And maybe I missed it, but it seems -- I'm just 25 sitting here somewhat in shock that you could have this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 discussion without any significant mention of the major 2 land port, the international border crossing, without any 3 analysis and strategy of what's going on or suggestions of 4 what needs to happen there. And I'd be remiss if I didn't 5 point this out. Maybe we're just so far from the border 6 we forget we have a border and we're not understanding 7 what's happening there. And we're not especially 8 understanding the concerns over the air quality impacts 9 that are occurring. So I hope that any future report 10 might address what I think is a glaring oversight right 11 now. And I think it's more than a tugboat that's needed 12 to address these issues. So I'll hold my comments, but 13 I'm going to tell you I'm very disappointed that there's 14 no mention. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Gong. 16 BOARD MEMBER GONG: No. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. D'Adamo. 18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Thank you. 19 On slide 3, there are some figures, here on a 20 typical day, 30,000 containers. How many cargo ships? 21 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: There's 22 probably on the order of several dozen container ships and 23 maybe twice that many total vessels in California port at 24 any one time. 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And then I really PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 appreciated the discussion regarding the IMO on slide 11, 2 but would like a little more information about that 3 process, the ratification process, and just how involved 4 U.S. EPA is in that process. Have they weighed in? Are 5 they in support of some of the ship and fuel standards 6 that are being considered? 7 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Well, U.S. 8 EPA is participating. And we're providing them with 9 material. It's interesting as you read it how often U.S. 10 EPA and other parties are citing things the Board is 11 doing. 12 The process is slow, slow, slow. And the route 13 to ratification is fairly arduous. And right now, the 14 U.S. is handicapped because we haven't approved the basic 15 agreement, hasn't gotten through the Senate yet. So we're 16 not a full party to the latest to the first set of 17 standards that IMO did for ship emissions. So there's a 18 lot of work that needs to be done on that level. 19 But I think that's the place to put the emphasis 20 goes in the mid to long-term. What we need are 21 international standards so that all the ships are built 22 with the best technology. In the interim, we're going to 23 have to do the types of things we can do as for those 24 ships that come regularly to our coast and try to also 25 show some example of what can be done. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Certainly. So we're 2 really talking a long ways off? 3 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Right. They 4 have a long process to set standards, many years. And 5 then a long phase-in process. And then they're only 6 going to affect new shipping. The exception could be if 7 they establish the fuel rule, this could change in a five 8 to ten-year period. So we could see the advantages of 9 that. But it's going to be highly debated and not happen 10 quickly. But that debate needs to happen, and we need to 11 participate as we can. 12 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: When you say five to 13 ten years on the fuel rule, is that based on -- 14 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: That's my 15 guesstimate of after watching the process how long they've 16 taken and the realities of if it's a big switch in fuel 17 internationally. It will take the industry a considerable 18 amount of time to produce the products that would be 19 demanded. 20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And then moving on to, 21 let's see, slide 20, warehouse distribution center 22 assessment study. When do you expect to have that 23 information, and is staff considering rulemaking for 24 distribution centers? 25 PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT DIVISION CHIEF PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 MURCHISON: My understanding is that that report would be 2 out in the next month or so to look at the different sizes 3 of those generic facilities. And then it would be -- we 4 would have the information to determine whether ARB or 5 local districts might want to take future actions. But 6 certainly we know that the major sources at distribution 7 centers are trucks that the Board has already been 8 regulating, both the new and existing, the transport 9 refrigeration units on those trucks and any stationary 10 engines. So many of the Board's actions are already 11 addressing the sources of diesel risk at those facilities. 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: One of the 13 additional factors or some of the additional factors that 14 communities have asked us to look at is the configuration 15 of warehouses, not just how well the trucks are controlled 16 that are coming and going, but the access points, the 17 orientation and proximity to neighborhoods. And so that 18 would be part of the risk assessment analysis. 19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: All right. And then my 20 last question really has to do with the San Joaquin 21 Valley. And on slide 26, I see here the Northern 22 California Trade and Mobility Corridor. But it was only 23 reference to apply to the northern San Joaquin Valley. 24 And I don't know about that plan or anything that's in it. 25 Has there been efforts throughout the entire San Joaquin PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 Valley to participate in this plan? 2 PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT DIVISION CHIEF 3 MURCHISON: My understanding at this point is it's San 4 Joaquin County and Stanislaus County who work with the 5 Sacramento region and the Bay Area on this particulate 6 plan. 7 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'm just wondering if 8 there's anything we can do to get the San Joaquin Valley 9 maybe a little bit more engaged. And I think that 10 ultimately the San Joaquin Valley is going to benefit, 11 especially looking at slide 33, the potential for retrofit 12 and replacement. But I just think it's important to have 13 them engaged as part of these plans as they originate as 14 opposed to receiving the benefits in an indirect fashion. 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I think that is 16 very desirable, and also some of it's going to happen just 17 by the pure attraction of the bond bonanza. 18 Two of the other things that have been going on 19 in the San Joaquin Valley is the attention to Highway 99 20 improvements and that being part of the Goods Movement 21 Plan. And also the rail spur, whether there needs to be 22 an investment in new rail lines to bring agricultural 23 products to the port, an improvement there. And I don't 24 recall how well that one is faring in sort of the state 25 evaluation of the key corridor analyses. But when these PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 bills go through the Legislature and when the 2 transportation projects go through the California 3 Transportation Commission and the NPOs and all the rest of 4 it, all of that's going to come to the surface. 5 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And looking here at 20,000 6 port trucks, what's the definition of a port truck and a 7 short haul truck? 8 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: We don't have 9 a definition of the port truck yet. That's part of what 10 we're doing in the measure development. But it's a truck 11 whose principle business is moving goods to and from one 12 of the ports in California. And so it would typically be 13 a truck that's making ten or more trips a week to the 14 ports. 15 A short haul truck is simply to say that's in 16 local service. That's moving goods inside of California. 17 And mostly would be inside an L.A. basin or from the 18 valley to the Bay Area, something like that, to 19 distinguish it from the intestate long-haul trucks that 20 are moving goods across the country. 21 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And then what percentage 22 of this -- if we add the two together, 40,000 trucks, what 23 percentage of the private fleet is that in California? 24 Just to get an idea. 25 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Roughly 10 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 percent. Just doing the math in my head, it's something 2 like that. 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: And on that 4 point, Ms. D'Adamo, one of the other things we're 5 considering since we're engaging in rulemaking for all the 6 trucks and this development of the subsidy program at the 7 same time, one of the things we're working through is a 8 means test of -- and what we have in mind with the 9 short-haul trucks and drayage trucks is they tend to be in 10 the hands of the second or third owner. They're old. 11 They're dirty. They're not in an economic position to get 12 a loan, to have the capital, to make the retrofits or 13 replacement that we would like to see happen. 14 So we are going to have to bring to you proposals 15 of where to draw the line. And you will have to wrestle 16 with those equity questions of which trucking interest 17 shall bear the cost of regulation and which trucking shall 18 be subsizided via the bond and Carl Moyer and other 19 avenues. 20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Thank you. 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Gong. 22 BOARD MEMBER GONG: It was a great presentation. 23 Very positive. Showing many accomplishments. And I think 24 it's a great example of how you presented it sets the tone 25 for your presentation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 I must admit I was a bit overwhelmed by all the 2 positive accomplishments. But being a little cynical, I 3 have to ask have there been any disappointments or 4 realizations that there's some areas not proceeding 5 according to plan, whatever that plan is? Obviously, not 6 everything goes according to plan. And I think you've 7 noted all the positives. Have you noticed any 8 semi-negatives in this thing? I think that a lot of these 9 have actually been mentioned a little bit. And I'm not 10 trying to take away any of the positive accomplishments. 11 I think they've been tremendous compared to a year ago, 12 compared to five years ago. But would staff or anybody 13 like to comment on that? Any surprises? 14 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: There's 15 always surprises. I think we have to be optimistic, 16 otherwise, you know, we just wouldn't do it or try it. 17 Some very big positives are, for example, so far 18 no one has told us they're going to sue us over the 19 auxiliary engine rule and fuel for ships. And a number of 20 firms have complied earlier and announced their intention 21 to comply. So our past successes seem to be holding. 22 We're disappointed for example with federal 23 standards for locomotives and marine. They're not 24 proceeding as fast. Our indication is it's going to take 25 them longer to get to the level of control that we need PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 than we had hoped. And I think there's some good reasons 2 why they feel that way. The international effort and the 3 effort on the sulfur emission control area is going slower 4 because we are limited by the fact the Congress hasn't 5 approved a treaty. The port truck area and the economic 6 situation faced by the truckers makes that a very daunting 7 task. We know how to clean up a truck, and we seem to 8 have funds to buy it. Now how do we interact with the 9 owner/operators and their economic situations to develop a 10 successful program. That's going to be a very big 11 challenge. 12 So it's not going to be easy, and we're not going 13 to deliver everything on the schedule we promised. We 14 presume the Board would rather have us put an optimistic 15 aggressive schedule out there and get as much as we can 16 and keep working on those that don't come as fast. There 17 will be lots of work as well after I'm gone. 18 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Well, I appreciate your 19 strategy of being optimistic. And I think there's still a 20 great deal to be done. It's very complicated, as I am 21 sure you all know. 22 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: You'll 23 probably hear from others we're not moving as fast as we 24 ought to be. I can guarantee you we're moving as fast as 25 we know how. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I guess -- well, I'll hold it 2 at that. But two other questions. One is regarding the 3 PM premature death relationship. The evaluation is 4 ongoing. And I understand we have this new value out for 5 the death risk assessment. But we're going to wait for 6 the EPA group to come to grips with that first and then 7 how do you see that? Could you clarify that? 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I'd be happy to. 9 We do not have a new value out yet. We're proposing to 10 circulate a new value that relies in part on the work that 11 EPA has been doing, plus Dr. Garrett, plus many other 12 scientists in the field. And we will brief you before we 13 put that out so you don't read about it in the newspaper. 14 And then we will go into full public review and 15 expert scientific review of the value before it becomes 16 the operative multiplier for future policy deliberations, 17 future rulemakings. But we do not have it on the street 18 yet. We have an idea of what it's going to look like. 19 But we'll talk to you about that -- 20 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Is Dr. Garrett on that EPA 21 Committee, do you know, the panel? 22 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 23 No. 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: No, he's not, but 25 we're talking to him. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 BOARD MEMBER GONG: And the last quick question 2 is really about the risk assessments for the rail yards. 3 You had a list of about nine of them. Do you know when 4 they'll be finished as well? 5 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: We expect 6 that the risk assessments will be out in draft early next 7 year. The railroads have given us draft emission 8 inventories, and we are doing the work. But we're 9 probably a couple months behind our hoped-for schedule, 10 which would have been by the end of this year for the 11 first group. We actually accelerated that over the 12 schedule, which we agreed in the MOU. So we're well ahead 13 of the required schedule. 14 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Thank you. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I'd like to explore further 16 the mechanism of expending the bond funds. I take it that 17 we did not have previous experience in this area, or do 18 we? 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We've received 20 bond funds before for Carl Moyer programs, for school bus 21 cleanup. And we're not experienced in the issuance of 22 bonds themselves. We're learning about that. And this is 23 such a large magnitude of bonds in their entirety that 24 California as a state has to prioritize the rate at which 25 they can be floated. There are meetings going on with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 Wall Street to talk about how quickly the market can 2 absorb all these offerings from the State of California. 3 And then once those parameters are established, there will 4 be a prioritization process of which expenditures go 5 first. And then there's a separate thing that goes on 6 within the state budget of once revenues are guaranteed, 7 loans are advanced from the funds if they're liquid enough 8 so we don't have to have the bonds sold before we receive 9 the funds in all instances. And then there are statutory 10 bills that go alongside to establish criteria and other 11 requirements for how we expend the bonds. And it's a 12 cumbersome process. Lots of documents that we're not 13 familiar with. But we'll learn by doing. 14 And the difference here is we have never before 15 been given a bond of this magnitude and appropriation of 16 this magnitude. And one of the issues for us as a staff 17 is how much of the money could we move and in what time 18 period. So were it up to us, what would our 19 recommendations be? We have suggested as a general policy 20 recommendation that the air quality money be spent early, 21 not later, that it will facilitate the transportation 22 infrastructure investments, will relieve the pressure, 23 relieve the opposition to those projects if there is 24 improvement in people's lives, improvement on the ground. 25 And we need them also relatively promptly to meet our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 federal deadlines for attainment, the 2015 deadline on 2 particulate, and getting a head start on the ozone 3 deadline, which is in 2020, 2024. 4 But it's not entirely up to us. We'll be 5 advising the Governor, the Treasurer, the leadership in 6 the Legislature and hanging onto our hats during the bill 7 negotiations session. We've drafted a place holder bill 8 that essentially gives you, the Board, maximum discretion 9 for the distribution of funds. But we don't expect it to 10 pass the Legislature in that form. Many others will opine 11 along the way about what you, the Board, should do with 12 those moneys. 13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Previous experience in other 14 areas such as water bonds -- or has the Legislature been 15 very prescriptive in how this money is to be spent 16 geographically or by project? 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes. They're 18 very prescriptive. And they are also very concerned about 19 money going awry. So we expect audit requirements to go 20 up beyond those we've already experienced on the Carl 21 Moyer Program. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And I assume we'll be 23 providing information on priorities in terms of public 24 health protection on where the money would be best spent. 25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes, we will. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 And Secretary Adams has instructed us to be as proactive 2 as we can to make sure all the parties engaged in these 3 discussions understand the consequence of using the bonds 4 one way or another and that health receive a high 5 priority, that emission reduction return on the investment 6 receive a high priority. What I expect to happen is that 7 geographical equity will enter into the discussions as 8 opposed to emissions density won't drive it so much. 9 There will be those kinds of discussions. 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Supervisor Patrick. 11 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Thank you. Just a quick 12 comment of congratulations. This is a terrific report. 13 Very, very comprehensive. 14 I do have a question though about the effective 15 goods movement, especially from the ports on the San 16 Joaquin Valley. Do we have an idea of what the percentage 17 of these containers are being moved through the San 18 Joaquin Valley both from the north and the south? 19 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: We have an 20 idea and did that calculation when we did the original 21 plan. Unfortunately, we had to create it on our own 22 because there was no explicit database that said here's 23 exactly where all the traffic goes. But sizable traffic 24 volume moves from the ports of L.A. into the southern 25 valley where it then moves into warehouses. And obviously PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 it's a big trade corridor from the whole alley out through 2 the port of Oakland. 3 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Absolutely. And I think 4 of both 99 and I-5 going through Kern County. And after 5 you go over the grapevine from southern California, you 6 know, you have two major transportation corridors that are 7 through the valley. So we're certainly 100 percent in 8 favor of this. 9 We understand that the impact is not as direct as 10 it is on your port communities. But, you know, urge 11 people to remember that this is travelling through the San 12 Joaquin Valley. And hopefully that air district is 13 playing a leadership role in all of the discussions that 14 you're having both with southern California neighbors as 15 well as northern California neighbors. 16 And then as a local elected official, I'd really 17 like to compliment you on working with this warehouse 18 issue. Because almost all of them are going to require 19 special land use permission from the local authorities. 20 And so to have you develop some kind of siting criteria 21 or, you know, as Catherine was saying, you know, how do we 22 configure these access points, so on, so forth. This is 23 really important to local folks. 24 Now, we know that we cannot -- that ARB cannot 25 impose upon local jurisdictions, you know, land use PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 authority. And we understand that. But nonetheless, it's 2 up to the local folks. If you have developed criteria, 3 it's up to the local folks to make sure that these are 4 implemented as these different warehouse distribution 5 centers are approved. So I think that is a great idea to 6 give more information to the local folks about the 7 criteria that we should demand as these are approved in 8 our local communities. 9 So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Another question. Do we 11 have a good quantitative understanding of the implications 12 of rail versus road transport of goods, that is tons of 13 emissions per ton miles moved currently and projected into 14 the future that might impact the rail highway modal shift? 15 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: We have an 16 estimate of that. We're interested in getting it refined 17 and looking towards the future and seeing how as trucking 18 cleans up and as rail cleans up, whether that changes. 19 Right now, it's probably a two to four times benefit in 20 terms of criteria air pollution in terms of the emissions 21 per ton mile of freight shipped. For global warming and 22 fuel use, it's probably three or four times benefit. 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: That's rail over road? 24 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: That's rail. 25 It's just more efficient to move goods. But rail is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 currently only practical for long term, long distance 2 shipments because of the inefficiency of getting it from 3 the rail terminal to wherever it's going. So we need to 4 look at that explicit strategy that we are looking at 5 under the Climate Action Team mandate was what's the role 6 of trying to get more of the goods movement on to more 7 efficient mechanisms. So rail would be part of that. 8 There are also proposals for short sea shipping that we 9 need to look at is that a possibility in California or 10 does our geography not make it very feasible. So all 11 those areas. We need to get better, especially as we look 12 at it from a measure that we might support either with 13 incentive funds or we could do via regulations. 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I would just add 15 that the Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency is 16 extremely interested in rail for congestion relief as 17 well. So our desires align. And they are looking and 18 remain very supportive of near-dock on-dock rail expansion 19 so that they can get more freight off of California 20 roadways. 21 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And the bond 22 funding includes money that could go to rail system 23 improvement. And it includes money that's vitally needed 24 to address the issue of you get more on rail. You may 25 unjam the freeway somewhat. But where Mayor Loveridge PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 lives, you may create a new wall, unless you separate the 2 rail crossings and you make sure the rail operations are 3 done in a way that's sensitive to the neighborhoods. 4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. 5 But when we talk about moving on rail, the grade 6 separations are really critical to that and could be very 7 helpful because they are also a safely issue as well. So 8 you kind of get a lot of bang for your bucks there 9 hopefully. 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Are there any other 11 questions from Board members at this point? 12 If not, I will now call witnesses who have signed 13 up to speak on this item. The first three speakers are 14 Barry Wallerstein, Jack Broadbent, and Bonnie Holmes-Gen. 15 Dr. Wallerstein. 16 MR. WALLERSTEIN: Good morning, Chairman Sawyer, 17 members of the Board. It's a pleasure to be here this 18 morning. 19 My primary purpose in being here this morning is 20 to thank the Board and the staff for your work in this 21 area. It is vitally critical to our ability to achieve 22 the PM2.5 standards with the first attainment deadline 23 being just seven short years away. And quite honestly, 24 without an accelerated effort in this area, we probably 25 won't be able to reach the federal standards. So this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 work is sorely needed as well as the efforts that are 2 occurring at the local level. 3 I'd like to emphasize one of the future 4 rulemakings that the staff mentioned in its presentation. 5 And that is low-sulfur fuel for the main engines of the 6 vessels. That is our largest source of sulfur oxides in 7 South Coast. And our preliminary draft 2007 Air Quality 8 Management Plan indicates that we have to reduce that 9 pollutant by about 70 percent as part of our PM2.5 10 strategy. And the preliminary modeling for our AQMP 11 indicates that a pound of SOx reduced is equivalent to 12 reducing about ten pounds of nitrogen oxides. So as that 13 item moves forward and comes to this Board, we want the 14 Board to be aware that is single most important rulemaking 15 you will consider on goods movement relative to our PM2.5 16 air quality. 17 I'd like to talk about a couple other points that 18 the Board has been discussing with staff. And the first 19 is the bond money and the need to have matching, much like 20 we have done at the Moyer program, for the billion dollars 21 that will flow through your agency. 22 But I'd also like to highlight that the other 23 bond moneys that are about to be spent on the 24 infrastructure side should have some strings attached to 25 them for air quality purposes. And when you consider the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 amount of money and the power of that money and the 2 ability, for example, to ask a construction firm that's 3 going to build a new segment of freeway to use 4 low-polluting engines at an expedited rate or to retrofit 5 them at an expedited rate could make quite significant 6 improvement in our air quality. 7 Another example is rail yards, rail track, and 8 overpasses, grade separations. There are billions of 9 dollars contained in the bond priority list coming through 10 Transportation, Housing, and the working group that 11 Cal/EPA serves on. That money should also be used for the 12 power of clean air. And I think your Board especially 13 working through the working group that's meeting tomorrow 14 through Secretary Adams with Secretary McPeak could make a 15 very valuable contribution to expediting the emissions 16 reductions. 17 My time is up, which is quite clear from the 18 beeping. 19 The last thing is things have changed on the 20 container fee. We now have our draft Air Quality 21 Management Plans that clearly document the need for 22 additional funding, whether it's a mandatory, voluntary, 23 or some other form. We're not going to get to cleaner air 24 without funding. Thank you. 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Perhaps you could stay for a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 moment and answer some questions. We have a new time 2 signaling system obviously in operation today. And I 3 apologize if it's startling to our speakers during the 4 day. 5 MR. WALLERSTEIN: Actually, we may want to 6 duplicate that in our auditorium. 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Do you anticipate that the 8 ports themselves may institute container fees? 9 MR. WALLERSTEIN: As was mentioned by your staff, 10 the draft plan, which we all believe will be approved next 11 Monday, contains a provision for them to do a little bit 12 more legal research. But they understand that they have 13 to have additional funding. For example, they're 14 estimating for just the twin ports about $1.2 billion 15 needed to clean up the truck fleet to modernize it. So 16 the one billion statewide will provide some help, but they 17 know that they need substantial additional funding for 18 that and other measures. 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. D'Adamo. 20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: In follow up to that, 21 what's envisioned, a fee on the cargo or a fee on trucks? 22 MR. WALLERSTEIN: I believe that the primary 23 approach would be a fee on something like the containers. 24 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. And then the 25 staff's presentation slide 33, have you had an opportunity PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 to look at the example project mix? And if so, do you 2 have any comments? The slide, the 20,000 port trucks, 3 20,000 short haul, et cetera. 4 MR. WALLERSTEIN: I saw that for the first time 5 today. I think as the staff go through its deliberative 6 process there will be a lot of input and hopefully some 7 give and take. And we look forward to discussing that 8 when the item comes before the Board. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mayor Loveridge. 10 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Could staff comment on 11 trying to connect on bond expenditures and air quality 12 improvement? It seems to me I've not heard that framed 13 that way. 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We absolutely 15 looked at tonnage return for dollars invested. Some of 16 the issues that have come up since then is whether or not 17 well-funded industry should bear the full cost, the full 18 freight, and if it's appropriate for us, for example, to 19 put money on the table for switcher locomotive replacement 20 or simply demand it of the railroads and have the money go 21 again towards parties who are less economically equipped 22 to comply, you know, or maybe require a higher match in 23 those instances. So there's multiple policy questions to 24 consider. Tonnage is always in our calculations. 25 MR. WALLERSTEIN: If I could, if you look at the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 priority list, there are rail yards on there that will 2 need their tens of millions of dollars in funding. And 3 just for two in South Coast, they identify about $150 4 million of funding. And while I don't think it's expected 5 that government would pick up the full tab, if government 6 is going to pick up a large piece of that cost, then maybe 7 you don't need to invest your billion dollars on 8 switchers. The railroads would commit to do that 9 themselves. And that would free you up to invest those 10 moneys on other source categories. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Since the bonds primarily 12 will go for construction of new infrastructure, it seems 13 like there's an opportunity or perhaps a responsibility to 14 require that the construction contracts involve equipment 15 that is truly clean. Does the South Coast have any 16 experience in that area on conditioning contracts upon 17 using clean construction equipment? 18 MR. WALLERSTEIN: We have recommended that as 19 part of the CEQA process. And that has, in fact, been 20 incorporated in many projects that have moved forward. 21 The second thing we've done that's somewhat 22 analogous is in our issuance of requests for proposals, we 23 actually give additional credit to providers of services 24 that use low-emission vehicles in providing the services 25 or the deliveries to the AQMD or do the deliveries off PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 peak hours. The County of Los Angeles does something 2 similar. 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: There has been 4 consistent testimony at the Goods Movement Integrating 5 Committee co-chaired by BT&H and CalEPA that that's 6 exactly what should happen. What there has not been yet 7 is a signal back from the Administration, okay, we agree 8 and we'll do that. And some democrats in the Legislature 9 have already signaled they will demand it. Environmental 10 groups have indicated they will submit bills requiring it. 11 So it's definitely going to be part of the debate as the 12 implementing statutes are put together. 13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. D'Adamo. 14 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Can I follow up that 15 question? Does the Board make a recommendation that be 16 the case? 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: You can, but it's 18 up to the Governor. You work for him. 19 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Or we can endorse a 20 position. 21 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, along those lines, 22 what I was going to say was I fully support what you're 23 suggesting, Dr. Wallerstein. But I think the challenge is 24 going to be how can we do this without raising the costs 25 of these individual projects by giving a priority to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 construction companies that may already have the 2 equipment. That's not going to have much of an impact on 3 cost. But if it's going to require the companies to go 4 out and purchase the clean equipment, it's going to raise 5 the overall cost of the project. There's no such thing as 6 a free lunch. So I think we have to be realistic, but 7 push it as much as possible. 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Something else 9 that's going on is we are bringing to you in the spring in 10 addition to the truck rule next year, we are bringing you 11 a rule for-off road diesel engines, including all manner 12 of construction equipment. And you will be determining 13 the rate of retirement and retrofit of those pieces of 14 equipment as well, you know, over a seven- to ten-year 15 period. And so that has to be considered as well in terms 16 of the phasing. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much, Dr. 18 Wallerstein. 19 Mr. Broadbent. 20 MR. BROADBENT: Good morning, Chairman Sawyer and 21 members of the Board. My name is Jack Broadbent, 22 Executive Officer for the Bay Area Air Quality Management 23 District. And I wanted to welcome you here to the Bay 24 Area. Also express our appreciation for holding your 25 meeting here in the Bay Area. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 On behalf of the Bay Area District, I want to 2 express our strong support for the expeditious 3 implementation of the Emission Reduction Plan for the 4 goods movement here in the Bay Area. In the Bay Area, 5 we've identified the ports of Oakland, Richmond. And 6 indeed, we actually have seven ports. Of course, many are 7 much smaller than the port of Oakland. But we have 8 identified these ports as being where we see the highest 9 concentration of diesel particulate, which is I'm sure no 10 surprise to anyone here on the Board. It's particularly a 11 pervasive problem over in Oakland where we see the 12 relative proximity of the residents being exposed to 13 relatively high levels of diesel particulate. It's not 14 uncommon that you see trucks idling and indeed moving in 15 and around the community as they cue up to get into the 16 ports. And some steps have been taken, but clearly much 17 more needs to be done. 18 As Ms. Marvin indicated, we have initiated a port 19 mitigation plan with the port of Oakland. That effort is 20 just getting off the ground. We remain concerned, 21 however, that that effort is not going to move quick 22 enough, nor is that effort going to result in efforts that 23 will ensure the reductions take place. So we're right now 24 in the effort to try to make sure we move forward. We 25 think the port of Oakland needs to take a cue from both PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 the port of Los Angeles and Long Beach in the investments 2 and the commitments they are making in order to be able to 3 move quickly to address what we see is a significant issue 4 in and around the port of Oakland. 5 There was a little bit of a discussion earlier 6 about possibly bad examples, I'll put it that way. We 7 have somewhat of an issue in the port of Oakland where we 8 did issue or provide a Moyer funding for a truck 9 replacement program. That program was designed to be able 10 to get at the independent truckers that operate in and 11 around the port. It did not, however, get off the ground. 12 There was a whole host of issues associated with that and 13 I know your staff is very well aware of. Indeed, we had 14 to take that money back, reprogram the Carl Moyer monies, 15 and used it for a variety of other projects here in the 16 Bay Area. So I mention that only because the truck 17 replacement program in and around the port of Oakland is 18 going to be a high priority. It's going to take a lot of 19 thinking. And I know the ARB staff is going to be 20 instrumental in helping us and indeed making that work. 21 I wanted to highlight one area that I know that 22 is going to be very useful for us here. I'll be very 23 quick. And that is the health risk assessment that's 24 currently being prepared by your staff in and around the 25 port of Oakland and that was mentioned earlier by PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 Ms. Marvin. We think that's going to help in terms of 2 spurring the port and the effort to move as quickly as 3 possible. We stand ready to work with your staff, not 4 only on the HRA, but of course in implementing the 5 Emission Reduction Plan. 6 I want to particularly thank and recognize 7 Ms. Marvin for all of her efforts, as well as Dan Donohoue 8 of your staff. They've just been great to work with, and 9 we stand ready to move forward as well. So thank you very 10 much, Mr. Sawyer. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 12 Ms. D'Adamo. 13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: If you had to distribute 14 the Carl Moyer dollars all over again to convert the truck 15 fleet, what would you change? 16 MR. BROADBENT: I think, of course, what I would 17 have done is tried to not necessarily be so restrictive in 18 the years that it had to be spent. We ran up against some 19 deadlines to get those moneys spent. And we were somewhat 20 naive in terms of moving ahead. We're talking about a 21 culture, an industry that is basically -- they're 22 immigrant workers that don't want to give up their trucks. 23 They are old. I know you've heard about this. But we 24 think that we need to approach it a little bit differently 25 and frankly talk about a complete truck replacement PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 program rather than a truck retrofit program. That was 2 one of the issues we ran across working with the port. 3 But I think we are now going to be engaged with 4 the port to undertake a very similar effort but indeed 5 with more resources. And I know the CARB staff is going 6 to be helping with us that effort as well. So it's not 7 that -- we've only had a little bit of a setback. It's 8 not that we're not going to meet the challenge. We stand 9 ready and we'll be able to brief you in the future on that 10 effort. 11 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Could I just ask a follow-up 12 question on that? Is part of the truckers' concern is 13 that they know how to maintain those older trucks, where 14 the newer trucks with the computerized engines and things 15 like that are a little bit foreign to them? Is there a 16 maintenance issue as well? 17 MR. BROADBENT: I think -- this is just my own 18 personal opinion. I think it's a cost issue. You can 19 purchase an older vehicle much more easily. 20 I think the CHP will tell you they hear horror 21 stories about those trucks on the road. And they ought to 22 be taken off quicker than they are. But it is basically 23 the nature of the industry that you have essentially a 24 number of relative new-comers to our country that can with 25 a small amount of capital invest in a vehicle and make a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 living, albeit one that is very difficult if you will. 2 But it is something they can operate and maintain with a 3 small amount of money, small amount of capital investment. 4 And I think that has a serious consequence for us in the 5 port of Oakland. And we need to approach it from the 6 standpoint of understanding that being the culture and the 7 way things are and design the program along those lines 8 that would basically get them out of the truck and get 9 them a whole new truck. I know that's how the CARB staff 10 I think sees it. 11 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you. 12 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Our 13 assessment was that even if you did an exchange of a new 14 truck, the truck would be a nicer truck. It would run 15 better. But it's also more expensive to own and operate. 16 The insurance is higher. The maintenance is probably 17 higher. The taxes are higher. And unless you do 18 something to address those issues, the owner isn't 19 voluntarily going to enter into that program because if 20 the income isn't higher to cover those expenses, then it 21 doesn't work out. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 23 Bonnie Holmes-Gen, and then we will have Diane 24 Bailey, Carl Schneebeck, and Irvin Dawid. 25 MS. HOLMES-GEN: Thank you, Chairman Sawyer, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 members of the Board. Bonnie Holmes-Gen with the American 2 Lung Association of California. 3 And the American Lung Association is of course 4 extremely aware of the public and concerned about the 5 public health toll of goods movement, which is staggering. 6 The increased asthma rates in communities around the 7 ports, the cancer rates, the respiratory illnesses that 8 are experienced by these communities is truly 9 heartbreaking. And there's a tremendous need for 10 increased control measures, increased funding going into 11 air quality mitigation, and increased health services to 12 help these communities. 13 We, of course, are urging you to move forward as 14 quickly as possible to adopt regulations and raise funds 15 necessary to help clean up diesel engines, replace diesel 16 engines with cleaner technologies. We do believe that 17 ARB -- that you should put on your to-do list the need to 18 the develop private funding sources. We're extremely 19 pleased with the billion dollars that's provided by the 20 bond funding. And we of course want to work with you to 21 make sure that that money is spent to get the biggest bang 22 for the buck and to address the greatest public health 23 needs. 24 But that is a significant investment of public 25 funds, and now we need the private sector. We need those PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 that are profiting from port operations to step up to the 2 plate and also pay their fair share to reduce emissions to 3 clean up communities and to address the health needs of 4 these communities. So we know you can't necessarily at 5 this point adopt a fee. But you can be a leader in the 6 state. You can be pushing at the Legislature, through the 7 Administration, and you can be pushing through the local 8 port plans to make this happen. And we would urge and 9 encourage and want to do everything possible to urge you 10 to take that leadership position. 11 We also want to remind you of something that we 12 brought up when the Goods Movement Emission Reduction Plan 13 was adopted last spring. When you adopted the plan, we 14 urged you, along with other groups, along with the goals 15 that are set for statewide reduction in diesel risk to set 16 localized goals for reduction in diesel risk for the 17 communities specifically around the ports suffering the 18 worst impacts. And we wanted to bring that back to you 19 and encourage you to do that. I think that the risk 20 assessments you're doing are a tremendous step toward that 21 in collecting more information, but we know the risks are 22 tremendous. We know that there's a tremendous investment, 23 a tremendous urgent action needed to get the risk in the 24 local communities down also to the 85 percent reduction 25 level. So we would encourage you to incorporate that into PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 the plan as you move forward. 2 We also wanted to urge you to fight on this issue 3 of cleaner construction equipment. I know this was just 4 mentioned by previous speakers, but we also are going to 5 be urging in the Legislature that all the bond funding 6 that is spent for infrastructure should be directed to the 7 cleanest construction equipment so we're not exacerbating 8 the problem. 9 We want to work with you closely on this issue of 10 goods movement both at the local level and at the State 11 level. We appreciate all the work that you're doing. And 12 I know that it seems like there's more than you can do, 13 but we are also -- we do think we need to move faster, 14 especially on port electrification and cleaning up of 15 trucks at the ports. 16 I'll conclude for now. Thank you for your time. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 18 Ms. Bailey. 19 MS. BAILEY: Good morning, Chairman Sawyer, 20 members of the Board, and staff. Thank you for the 21 opportunity to comment here. 22 My name is Diane Bailey. I'm a scientist with 23 the Natural Resources Defense Council. And I'm here today 24 to urge you to move forward with the Goods Movement 25 Emission Reduction Plan as quickly as possible. And I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 know that you are already moving forward quickly. And I 2 just want to further that case. Very pleased to announce 3 the recent release of our joint report with the Pacific 4 Institute and the ditching dirty diesel collaborative. 5 It's called, "Paying with Our Health, the True Costs of 6 Freight Transport." And you should have a copy now. And 7 I urge you to read that. 8 This report documents what it's like for people 9 who live near freight transport hubs from west Oakland to 10 Wilmington and throughout the state. And we drew heavily 11 on the Emission Reduction Plan from this agency. And we 12 really appreciate all of the efforts that you've made to 13 articulate the health impacts and what exactly the health 14 is from the freight transport industry. 15 So now that we know the staggering death tole, 16 the 2400 premature deaths, the 2800 hospitalizations, over 17 60,000 respiratory problems, such as asthma, 360,000 18 missed work days, and over a million missed school days 19 virtually every year starting in 2005, the year the 20 analysis started. 21 It's so imperative to move forward as quickly as 22 possible with this Emission Reduction Plan. And I hope 23 that you can feel a real sense of urgency to do that. For 24 every month that nothing is done, you will literally see 25 hundreds of preventable deaths and hundreds of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 hospitalizations. And the list of impacts goes on. These 2 impacts cannot be undone. And the Californians most 3 likely to paid this price are those living in communities 4 of color and low income and least able to deal with these 5 impacts. 6 I also want to echo some of the comments we heard 7 from Dr. Wallerstein and also my colleague Bonnie 8 Holmes-Gen. It's imperative to attach clean construction 9 standards to all of the new infrastructure projects 10 stemming from the bond. We want to make sure that these 11 construction equipment that's on these projects is as 12 clean as possible, and I want to echo the need for these 13 measures in terms of meeting the SIP requirements. On a 14 regional basis, reducing pollution from freight transport 15 is really key to meeting the attainment goals, not only in 16 the South Coast, but in the San Joaquin Valley as well. 17 And the ports are the largest source in the South Coast 18 area. 19 We need strong mandatory measures to reduce this 20 growing pollution. And I also want to point out that 21 pollution credit trading programs, which have been much 22 discussed in the past, are really not going to cut it. We 23 need mandatory programs. Voluntary measures and training 24 programs we have seen in the past just won't cut it. They 25 just don't work. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 And one more comment. In addition to moving 2 forward with this plan as quickly as possible, I want to 3 point out that we will still see health impacts and 4 significant air quality problems even with all of the 5 measures in this plan. So I really want to work with the 6 Board and the staff of this agency to find new measures 7 and address each and every health impact and prevent each 8 and every premature death. Thank you so much, and I look 9 forward to working with you. 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 11 Mr. Schneebeck. 12 MR. SCHNEEBECK: Schneebeck. You're close. Good 13 morning, Chairman Sawyer and members of the Board. My 14 name is Carl Schneebeck. I am here as a representative of 15 Bluewater Network, which is a division of the national 16 environmental group Friends of the Earth. I'm here on 17 behalf of Teri Shore, who is actually in Oslo as we speak 18 attending IMO meetings there. 19 I just wanted to briefly commend the staff and 20 the Board for the implementation of this plan to date and 21 just kind of echo some of my colleagues here on a sense of 22 urgency to continue implementation of the plan to reduce 23 the serious health risks that result from the emissions 24 from ports and the goods movement in California. 25 I also want to especially urge the implementation PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 of harbor craft regulations as quickly as possible as 2 noted on the report. That's really all I have to say. 3 Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 5 Irvin Dawid. 6 MR. DAWID: Thank you, Chairman Sawyer and 7 members of the Board. My name is Irvin Dawid. I'm a 8 volunteer with the Sierra Club. I co-chair the Air 9 Quality Committee for Sierra Club California. 10 I just would like to identify with all the 11 comments previously made by Dr. Wallerstein, Jack 12 Broadbent, Bonnie Homes-Gen, Dr. Bailey, and Mr. 13 Schneebeck. 14 And I also want to thank Ms. Marvin for her 15 recent appearance before the California Clean Air Dialogue 16 of the California Environmental Dialogue where we heard a 17 very good presentation by her. And I also got to see my 18 first -- it was just then that I saw my first -- got my 19 first introduction to the Northern California trade and 20 mobility corridor. I just want to address my comments to 21 the trade and mobility corridor and the Lowenthal bill. 22 The former -- I think it's very important to 23 recognize that the northern California trade and mobility 24 corridor, the mobility also deals with passengers. And 25 that's really, really important to recognize, because PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 there has been so much movement to the central valley. 2 And all those movements -- because frankly the housing 3 here in the Bay Area simply hasn't kept up with the need. 4 So we're seeing more movement and consequently it was very 5 good to see a group like the Altemont Commuter Express, 6 one of the best run commuter railroads in the state, be a 7 member of that organization. So please keep that in mind. 8 Regarding the Lowenthal bill, I do want to 9 identify with the comments made by Mayor Loveridge. And 10 we are very -- the Sierra Club is very much looking to the 11 return of the Lowenthal bill. Clearly, a pay-as-you-go as 12 opposed to a one-time pay from a general obligation bond 13 is far preferable. 14 For many comments made in regards of course to 15 Prop. 1B and the $1 billion, the Sierra Club was neutral 16 on Prop. 1B. We felt the entire $20 billion, or certainly 17 the most of it, should have also been a pay as you go. In 18 1989, we had Prop. 111, which did something that was very 19 similar. We doubled the gas tax then. And Sierra Club 20 strongly believes in that process. 21 We were disappointed that the recent 2.7 public 22 goods charge that the Climate Action Team had recommended 23 was not proposed. And now with the passage of AB 32, we 24 strongly look forward to the ARB working with California 25 EPA in recommending that you return that charge. As you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 know, 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions here in 2 California come from transportation. And I learned at the 3 Climate Protection Summit that in the Bay Area 50 percent, 4 a full 50 percent, comes from transportation. 5 Just one other item in regards to Proposition 1B, 6 because there is so much talk about the one billion. I 7 want you to also just keep in mind that the massive amount 8 that's going to roads, that really -- so much of that the 9 Sierra Club feels flies in the face of the intent of AB 10 32. And we wish that this body would look at all those 11 expenditures and keep in mind the nexus of increased 12 spending on transportation and how it reflects greenhouse 13 gas emissions. 14 Thank you so much for your time. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 16 Does staff have any further comments? 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: There was a lot 18 in that set of comments, really big issues. On the 19 climate related items, we are seeing a lot more interest 20 in adding greenhouse gas emissions to the CEQA analyses. 21 The Bay Area AQMD is a leader in that respect. I think 22 just like we've been talking about construction equipment 23 this morning that greenhouse gases are going to quickly 24 enter into the debate and whether or not they need to be 25 mitigated as well in the expenditure of bond funds in the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 development of transportation projects in land form 2 decisions. And so, you know, the possible future 3 supplements to our land use guidance keep multiplying. 4 But more on that later I guess is my comment in general. 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 6 Since this is not a regulatory item, it is not 7 necessary to officially close the record. 8 At this time, we'll take a break for our court 9 reporter of ten minutes. Let's resume at -- make it 10 11:30. 11 (Thereupon a recess was taken.) 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: The next agenda item is 13 6-10-4, the Proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure 14 Limiting Incineration on Oceangoing Ships. These proposed 15 amendments implement Senate Bill 771 which prohibits 16 oceangoing ships from incinerating trash within three 17 miles of the California coast. Last year, the Board 18 adopted a similar rule for cruise ships. 19 Ms. Witherspoon, would you please to introduce 20 this item? 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Mr. 22 Sawyer. 23 And I think I'm going to be a little repetative. 24 Last year, you adopted a rule that prohibits cruise ships 25 from incinerating trash. Yeah, okay. The presentation PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 this morning is going to be made by Michelle Komlemic of 2 the Stationary Source Division. 3 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 4 presented as follows.) 5 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KOMLENIC: Thank you, 6 Ms. Witherspoon. Good morning, Chairman Sawyer and 7 members of the Board. Today, I will be presenting staff's 8 proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure amendments 9 limiting onboard incineration on cruise ships and 10 oceangoing ships. These amendments are being proposed to 11 implement Senate Bill 771 which prohibits oceangoing ships 12 from incinerating waste and other materials within three 13 miles of the California coast. 14 --o0o-- 15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KOMLENIC: Shown here 16 are the items that I'll be discussing today. I will begin 17 with the background of today's proposal, discuss the 18 proposed amended ATCM, its key elements and impacts, and 19 the proposed 15-day modifications. I will conclude with a 20 brief summary and recommendation. 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KOMLENIC: First, I will 23 discuss background information used in the development of 24 the proposed amended ATCM. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KOMLENIC: As a result 2 of the Legislature's concerns over emissions from cruise 3 ships, Assembly Bill 471 was enacted. 4 Beginning January 1, 2005, cruise ships were 5 prohibited from conducting onboard incineration within 6 three nautical miles of the California coast. 7 Subsequently, in November of 2005, the Board approved the 8 ATCM for cruise ship onboard incineration. 9 In October 2005, the Governor signed Senate Bill 10 771. This legislation, which became effective January 11 1st, 2006, adds oceangoing ships into the three-mile 12 incineration prohibition. Therefore, staff is proposing 13 amendments to the cruise ship ATCM to incorporate 14 oceangoing ships into the regulation and include several 15 other changes for consistency between the requirements for 16 oceangoing ships and cruise ships. 17 --o0o-- 18 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KOMLENIC: We are 19 concerned with onboard incineration because oceangoing 20 ship incineration is a source of toxic air contaminants, 21 such as dioxins, furans, PAHs, hydrochloric acid, and 22 toxic metals. Onboard incineration is also a source of 23 particulate matter. 24 In 2005, there were approximately 1,900 25 oceangoing ships which accounted for about 10,000 port PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 calls statewide. Fortunately, the large majority of these 2 ships voluntarily choose not to incinerate near land. 3 However, at many California ports, residents and workers 4 are in close proximity to oceangoing docking berths. 5 Oceangoing ships can stay at port for many hours. At 6 L.A./Long Beach ports, for example, container ships can 7 stay at port from anywhere from 25 to 150 hours per visit. 8 If oceangoing ships were permitted to incinerate while at 9 port, exposure to emissions of toxic air contaminants 10 could potentially occur to nearby residents and workers at 11 the port and at other work sites. 12 --o0o-- 13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KOMLENIC: Next I will 14 discuss the proposed amended ATCM including key changes, 15 enforcement, and military issues. 16 --o0o-- 17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KOMLENIC: The proposed 18 regulation was developed in a public process. ARB staff 19 held two work group meetings and conducted one public 20 workshop. 21 In 2006, staff sent out the oceangoing ship 22 onboard incinerator survey. The survey provided 23 information on the type and amount of garbage burned 24 annually, the days and hours of operation for the 25 incinerators, air pollution control equipment, and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 alternative waste treatment. 2 --o0o-- 3 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KOMLENIC: This slide 4 shows the key changes between the ATCM for cruise ship 5 onboard incineration and the proposed amended regulation 6 before you today. As specified in Senate Bill 771, 7 oceangoing vessels have been incorporated into the 8 proposed requirements. Oceangoing vessels are defined as 9 a private, commercial, government, or military vessel of 10 300 gross registered tons or more calling on California 11 ports or places. Onboard incineration is prohibited 12 within three nautical miles of the California coast, 13 except when under the direction and supervision of the 14 United States Coast Guard. In the unlikely event this is 15 necessary, the ship owner or operator is required to keep 16 record of the U.S. Coast Guard personnel who directed the 17 testing. 18 The proposed regulation requires record keeping 19 and reporting within three nautical miles of the 20 California coast. Additionally, staff is proposing 15-day 21 changes which will include a provision to allow ARB to 22 review existing MAPRPOL incineration records out to 24 23 nautical miles. The proposed amendments add measures for 24 the Executive Officer to notify potentially effected 25 persons of updates to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 Administration, or NOAA, nautical charts, which are used 2 to depict the three nautical mile limit for incineration. 3 --o0o-- 4 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KOMLENIC: Enforcement 5 of the regulation will be done by ARB staff and will 6 include onboard inspections and review of incineration 7 records. It is expected that enforcement of this 8 regulation will be done concurrently with other ARB marine 9 regulations. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KOMLENIC: Unlike other 12 oceangoing ships, military vessels do not keep 13 incineration records under MARPOL. The U.S. Coast Guard 14 has exempted them from recordkeeping requirements. 15 The United States Navy, including Military Sea 16 Lift Command, has a policy which prohibits onboard 17 incineration within 12 nautical miles from the California 18 coast. And the United States Coast Guard has a policy 19 which prohibits incineration within three nautical miles 20 of the California coast. 21 For these reasons, recordkeeping is required 22 within three nautical miles of the California Coast. 23 However, since recordkeeping is not required under MARPOL, 24 records between three and 24 nautical miles from the 25 California coast are not required. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 The military expressed concern with onboard 2 inspections. Due to heightened national security, 3 significant clearance issues could arise for ARB 4 inspectors to board military vessels. Each military 5 branch has established policies for onboard environmental 6 inspections to preserve national security, while not 7 denying legitimate entry for inspection. Prior to onboard 8 inspections, ARB inspectors would follow these policies 9 and procedures for each applicable military branch. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KOMLENIC: Now I will 12 discuss the expected impacts of the proposed ATCM. 13 --o0o-- 14 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KOMLENIC: The proposed 15 ATCM is expected to result in reduced public exposure to 16 toxic air contamiments and other pollutants, especially 17 for port and coastal communities and along the California 18 coast. ARB inspectors will be enforcing the regulation 19 which will provide for consistent enforcement statewide. 20 The proposed amendments provide for consistent treatment 21 for cruise ships and ocean-going ships. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KOMLENIC: Cost to 24 oceangoing ship owners or operators are expected to be 25 negligible. Prior to the effective date of SB 771, staff PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 estimated that about one percent of the oceangoing ships 2 that visited at California port incinerated within three 3 nautical miles of the California coast. Additionally, as 4 previously mentioned, the recordkeeping requirements are 5 similar to international recordkeeping requirements. 6 Therefore, we expect minimal regulatory burden for this 7 industry. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KOMLENIC: This slide 10 shows the proposed 15-day modifications. Although the 11 specific language has not been developed, staff is 12 proposing 15-day changes to the regulation to remove the 13 recordkeeping requirement while in regulated California 14 waters and to delete the definition esturian waters. This 15 requirement would be replaced with recordkeeping within 16 three nautical miles of the California coast. 17 The staff is also proposing to add language to 18 allow ARB to access and review incinerator records out to 19 24 nautical miles of the California coast which are 20 required under international and federal law. Review of 21 records out to 24 nautical miles is necessary to ensure 22 compliance, to get additional data to determine potential 23 health impacts from onboard incineration, and will also 24 minimize recordkeeping duplication for ship owners and 25 operators. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 --o0o-- 2 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KOMLENIC: In summary, 3 the proposed amended ATCM incorporates oceangoing vessels 4 into the regulation and thus reduces public exposure to 5 toxic air contaminants. The measure requires 6 recordkeeping and reporting within three nautical miles of 7 the California coast along with ARB review of existing 8 MARPOL incineration record out to 24 miles; allows for 9 incineration while under the direction; and supervision of 10 the Coast Guard and recognizes military security issues. 11 Therefore, ARB staff recommends that the Board 12 approve the proposed ATCM amendments limiting onboard 13 incineration on cruise ships and oceangoings ships. 14 This concludes my presentation. At this time we 15 would be happy to answer any questions. 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: First, we'll have the 17 statement from the Ombudsman. 18 Madam Ombudsman, would you please describe the 19 public participation process that occurred while this item 20 was being developed and report any concerns or comments 21 you may have to the Board at this time. 22 OMBUDSMAN QUETIN: Thank you, Chairman Sawyer and 23 members of the Board. This regulation has been developed 24 with input from the military, the shipping industry, and 25 environmental groups. Staff began working on this rule in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 January 2006. They conducted a survey of the industry 2 during the period of March through June of 2006. 3 Staff held work group meetings on the draft 4 proposal on July 19th and August 17th, 2006. Both 5 meetings were held in Sacramento and were also 6 teleconferenced. On August 30th, 2006, they held a public 7 workshop in work Sacramento, and that was webcast. 8 Additionally, they had three to five individual meetings 9 and phone calls with the military and the environmental 10 groups. Approximately five stakeholders attended each 11 meeting and work group. 12 The staff report and hearing notice were released 13 September 29th, 2006. More than 3,000 stakeholders 14 received notification by the list serve and approximately 15 175 received the information via the mail. 16 This concludes my comments. Thank you. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 18 Do Board members have any questions? 19 Dr. Gong. 20 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Just one quick question about 21 NOAA. How frequently does NOAA update its nautical maps? 22 I guess I'm concerned that is it so frequent that -- 23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KOMLENIC: They update 24 the chart any time there's new navigational hazards, they 25 can be updated. One of the charts will probably be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 updated next year. So at that time we'll notify the new 2 chart will be available for use. We'll notify the owners 3 and operators. 4 BOARD MEMBER GONG: And all the owners and 5 operators should receive it? 6 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KOMLENIC: They'll get 7 notified through the list serve, through mailing that 8 there's a new NOAA nautical chart. But many times once 9 they're revised, they already have them or they know that 10 they need to have them. But we will also notify them as 11 well. 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: This is important, because 13 the three and 24-mile limits change, is that the point 14 or -- 15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KOMLENIC: The NOAA 16 nautical charts are used for the three-mile line for 17 incineration. 18 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: This 19 is Dan Donohoue. In most cases, we're not seeing a 20 significant change with the three-mile line or anything, 21 unless an entire part of the coast falls off or something. 22 And in that case, we do. But the changes are very minor. 23 But from a legal standpoint, we have to ensure that we're 24 using the most recent NOAA charts. And so because that's 25 how we've tied it into the reg. But the type of changes PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 that you're seeing are likely new hazards, shifting of 2 sand bars or whatever associated with that. But we want 3 to make sure that we're using the most recent chart. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Gong. 5 BOARD MEMBER GONG: The funny reason, if you want 6 to call it funny, that I thought about this question is 7 that I was thinking about climate change. And people told 8 me from meetings before that the water is rising. Sea 9 coast is no longer the sea coast. So that's why I was 10 wondering about the NOAA changing of the three-mile limit. 11 It's a moving target, I guess is what I'm saying. 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Could you clarify the issue 13 of why this is three miles? Is it because the Senate Bill 14 had three miles because our previous rule was three miles? 15 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 16 Basically, the Senate Bill did specify three miles. In 17 support of looking at that, we went ahead and did some 18 analyses as what we would anticipate would be the 19 emissions and the emission impact on shore associated with 20 burning just outside of three miles. We did some 21 hypothetical scenarios with respect to that. And 22 basically what we found is that the on-shore impact we 23 would estimate to be in most cases less than one in a 24 million. 25 So in the initial analysis we didn't see any need PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 at this point in time to go further to require 2 additional -- to go further out. One of the things about 3 obtaining records and looking at records in the three to 4 24-mile range is to at least kind of do a reality check to 5 see if, in fact, we're not seeing -- we don't see that 6 much burning in that area so then our initial analysis is 7 correct. But the two reasons were basically the 8 legislation specified that and our analysis confirmed that 9 that seemed to be sufficient health protective. 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes, Supervisor. 11 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: If I could ask a question. 12 The recent trip to Asia that included visits to 13 the ports in both Singapore and Shanghai which are pretty 14 considerable in terms of the amount of shipping that's 15 gone on there became aware of something I am not sure if 16 it happens at the California ports. And in Singapore 17 especially, before a ship can dock to either load or 18 unload, they have to receive a certification that all of 19 the solid waste and all of the oil contaminated liquids 20 aboard have been removed by a licensed company there in 21 the port, remove those and disposes of them in an 22 environmentally controlled way. 23 And we've been focusing just on incineration. 24 And I became aware there seems to be a whole separate 25 issue out there beyond the incineration. And I'm PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 wondering to what extent if any -- maybe it's already 2 being dealt with, and I'm not familiar with it. But I 3 didn't know of any similar things that are happening in 4 the ports in California, and it seemed to me that may be 5 worth considering. It has a potential not only for 6 removing air pollution, but also water pollution. And it 7 seemed to me to be a pretty good idea. And here in 8 Singapore, which is arguably maybe the busiest port in the 9 world, it's being done in a routine way. 10 I thought that perhaps we ought to look into this 11 and see if there's something further that we might do. 12 Because all of the solid waste is considerable. So even 13 when these ships are coming into port, even if they have 14 incinerated, they're coming in with an amazing amount of 15 both solid or contaminated liquid waste. Barrels and 16 barrels of it off every ship and huge bags of the solid 17 waste that is coming off. It seemed to me that maybe 18 there's another aspect of this that we haven't focused on. 19 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KOMLENIC: Under 20 international regulations, under MARPOL Annex 5, ships are 21 required to keep garbage record management planS. And in 22 addition to keeping records on incineration, they're also 23 required to keep records like you mentioned, disposal to 24 port and other things, what they dump to the sea, et 25 cetera. So U.S. Coast Guard here implements and enforces PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 the MARPOL regulations. So they are doing similar type 2 things here. 3 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: But there's no removal 4 when they're in a port here in California. There's no 5 requirements that these things be removed. 6 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KOMLENIC: Well, there's 7 certain types of requirements depending on what type of 8 garbage it is. Not all garbage can go out to sea. Some 9 of the garbage that goes to port if it's hazardous waste, 10 and they need to have documentation of that. 11 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 12 Supervisor Roberts, we could look into this a little bit 13 further and -- 14 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I guess that's what I'm 15 suggesting. 16 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 17 Follow-up with the next goods movement update or provide 18 you a memo on that, but we will look into this further. 19 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I'd like you to do that. 20 And if need be, I can provide you some contacts in 21 Singapore, because it's a very fully developed system that 22 I don't think exists here. And it seemed to me that it 23 deserves some investigation. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: It seems to me this is 25 probably an opportunity to assure that we are coordinating PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 with our sister Water Quality Board agency who are 2 probably regulating the same people and don't know what 3 each other are doing. 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We are 5 coordinating with them, and they are involved in the 6 Administration's Goods Movement Action Plan. But to be 7 frank, there has not been a very robust element. There's 8 more sort of a general description of water pollution 9 issues and concerns, but not a detailed analysis of how 10 good the programs are, what needs to be changed. So it's 11 not one of the leading edges in the Goods Movement Action 12 Plan. 13 But quite apart from that effort, Secretary Adams 14 is very involved in clean water initiatives and has a 15 major proposal coming forward to the Governor. So she 16 would be interested too in this question. And we'll look 17 into it and check with our water colleagues. 18 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: That was the thrust of my 19 recommendation. I think it's something we need to look 20 at, and I think especially in addition from the water 21 quality perspective it seemed to me there's a lot of merit 22 to what they're doing. 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Gong. 24 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I remember in previous 25 meetings there was some discussion about the legality of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 three miles versus 24 versus whatever. Does California 2 have jurisdiction over those nautical miles? Has that 3 been resolved or clarified in any way? 4 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: We think there is 5 jurisdiction at least in some respects out to the 24 mile 6 line. We didn't think it was necessary to have any 7 requirements out to that limit in this rulemaking. And 8 that's why we made the modification we're proposing. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Berg. 10 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Just a follow up on 11 Supervisor Robert's comment. I believe that the oils and 12 some of those types of hazardous waste would be regulated 13 by the DTSC. So in order for them to be disposed of in 14 California or anyplace else, they would require certain -- 15 they would have to follow those regulations. 16 And then I just wanted for my own clarification 17 to make sure I was understanding the economic impacts on 18 slide 13 that you said that 99 percent of the ships at 19 this point are not incinerating within the three nautical 20 miles. So we're looking at adding to this ATCM that it 21 will be one percent of the ships that are effected. 22 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KOMLENIC: Correct. 23 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. I have requests two 25 members of the public to speak: Mary Kay Faryan and Carl PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 Schneebeck. 2 MS. FARYAN: Chairman Sawyer, members of the 3 Board, staff, Mary Kay Faryan on behalf of military 4 services. I just simply want to thank staff for working 5 with us on some of these international legal issues, 6 national legal issues, and state law issues. And that's 7 all I am here to say thank you for. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I want to take this 9 opportunity to thank you and your colleagues for hosting 10 my visit to the Marine Corps and Navy personnel and 11 facilities in the San Diego area on Monday. It was very 12 informative. I was very impressed by the activities which 13 the military are taking to help us solve our problems. 14 Thank you. 15 Mr. Schneebeck. 16 MR. SCHNEEBECK: Morning and hello again. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Schneebeck, I'll get that 18 right. 19 MR. SCHNEEBECK: It's a common mistake, believe 20 me. 21 Again, my name is Carl Schneebeck. I'm here on 22 behalf of Bluewater Network, Friends of the Earth. These 23 comments also are on behalf of the Natural Resources 24 Defense Council and the American Lung Association. 25 Bluewater urges the Board to support the proposed PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 amendments that staff has put before you. As you know, 2 this is an important regulation. It protects public 3 health from air toxins emitted during incineration and 4 builds on similar regulations for cruise ships that were 5 passed last year. 6 Bluewater supports the proposed access to and 7 review of MARPOL incineration records out to 24 nautical 8 miles. This will be important for collecting data on 9 sources of pollution from incineration as well as to 10 ensure compliance with the regulation near that magical 11 three nautical mile mark. 12 Finally, I just wanted to echo the ARB staff, 13 commend them for excellent research and public health risk 14 assessment that is contained within the staff report. 15 Thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Witherspoon, does staff 17 have any further comments? 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Nothing further. 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Since all testimony, written 20 submissions, and staff comments for this item have been 21 entered into the record and the Board has not granted an 22 extension of the comment period, I'm officially closing 23 the record on this portion of Agenda Item 6-10-4. Written 24 or oral comments received after the comment period has 25 closed will not be accepted as part of the official record PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 on this item. 2 Are there any ex parte communications that the 3 Board wishes to disclose? No. 4 Okay. The Board has before it Resolution Number 5 6-38. Do I have a motion? 6 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Move approval. 7 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Second. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Approval has been -- we have 9 a motion for approval and a second. Is there any further 10 discussion? That means we're ready to take the vote. 11 All those in favor please indicate by saying aye. 12 (Ayes) 13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Opposed? 14 Motion is carried. 15 Should we take a break now? We're ahead of our 16 expected schedule. At this time we'll take a break for 17 lunch, approximately one hour. And therefore we will 18 resume at 1:00 p.m. Thank you. 19 (Thereupon a lunch recess was taken.) 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: The next agenda item is 21 6-10-5, Amendments to the Stationary Diesel Engine Control 22 Measure to Agricultural Engines. This is a continuation 23 of the 2004 rulemaking that brought all other stationary 24 diesel engines under a retrofit and replacement rule. 25 Ms. Witherspoon, would you please introduce in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 item? 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Dr. 3 Sawyer. 4 One of the very first rules the Board approved 5 for existing diesels was the control measure for 6 stationary engines used in industrial operations and as 7 emergency generators, and you adopted that rule in 2004. 8 The amendments we are proposing today bring agricultural 9 engines into the same general program. These ag engines 10 are primarily used to pump water for crop irrigation. 11 Since 2004, substantial progress has been made in 12 cleaning up diesel ag engines. The South Coast and San 13 Joaquin Valley have adopted retrofit rules for ag engines 14 in their jurisdictions. A substantial quantity of Moyer 15 funds have been used to replace ag pumps. And two very 16 successful programs were created by Pacific Gas and 17 Electric and Southern California Edison to electrify ag 18 engines. 19 To date, almost 1,400 applications for 20 electrification of ag pumps have been submitted and about 21 300 installations have been completed. Staff is working 22 with districts to get more farmers to take advantage of 23 this program before the deadline for submitting 24 applications closes next July. 25 The proposed rule amendments build on all of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 these efforts and tie them together. By 2022, the State 2 and local programs collectively will reduce diesel 3 particulate and NOx emissions from ag engines by 4 approximately 90 percent. 5 As requested by CAPCOA, we have included 6 requirements for ag engines to be registered with the 7 local district and to pay district fees such as is already 8 the case in the South Coast and in the San Joaquin Valley. 9 The staff report estimates what the fees will be, but the 10 actual level of fees is subject to the discretion of 11 individual district boards and is tied to local direct 12 costs incurred for administering and enforcing this 13 program. 14 Richard Boyd of the Process Evaluation Section in 15 the Stationary Source Division will make the staff 16 presentation. 17 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: Good 18 afternoon, Chairman Sawyer, members of the Board. 19 Today, I will present the staff's proposed 20 amendments to the Airborne Toxic Control Measure for 21 stationary compression ignition engines. From here on 22 out, you'll hear me refer to this measure as the ATCM or 23 the control measure. 24 --o0o-- 25 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: During PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 my presentation, I will briefly review the background of 2 the proposed amendment, discuss the addition of in-use 3 stationary diesel ag engine requirements, discuss other 4 proposed amendments intended to clarify existing 5 provisions of the ATCM, identify stakeholder comments, and 6 staff suggested modifications to the proposal, and present 7 staff's recommendations. 8 The next few slides will provide a brief 9 background of our proposal. 10 --o0o-- 11 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: In 12 1998, the Board identified diesel exhaust particulate 13 matter, or diesel PM, as a toxic air contaminant with no 14 safe exposure threshold. Diesel PM exposure may result in 15 cancer and non-cancer health effects such as eye or lung 16 irritation, allergic reactions in the lungs, and asthma 17 exacerbation. 18 In 2000, the Board approved a Diesel Risk 19 Reduction Plan to reduce exhaust emissions from mobile and 20 stationary diesel engines. This plan identified a goal of 21 85 percent reduction in diesel PM by 2020 from all diesel 22 PM sources. In 2004, the Board adopted the stationary 23 engine ATCM. This ATCM established emission limits and 24 other requirements for new and in-use stationary diesel 25 engines used in a variety of industrial and public service PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 activities. The ATCM included emission limits for new 2 stationary diesel ag engines but defer to standards for 3 in-use ag engines into a later rulemaking. 4 During the 2004 hearing of the ATCM, the Board 5 directed staff to investigate electrification and other 6 means of reducing diesel PM emissions from in-use ag 7 engines. 8 --o0o-- 9 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: In-use 10 stationary ag irrigation pump engines are the most widely 11 used ag engines in California. We estimate that there are 12 approximately 8600 greater than 50 horsepower ag engine 13 pumps statewide and that about one half of these are 14 located in the San Joaquin Valley. About 42 percent are 15 pre-1996 model year engines and are considered 16 uncontrolled because no off-road engine certification 17 standards existed for them prior to 1996. We estimate 18 that these engines emit about 480 tons per day in diesel 19 PM and about 10,400 tons per year of oxides of nitrogen, 20 or NOx. NOx is a concern, because it is a precursor to 21 atmospheric and secondary PM as well as ozone. 22 --o0o-- 23 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: During 24 staff's investigation and development of the proposed 25 requirements, we found that the feasibility and cost PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 effectiveness of electrifing stationary engines must be 2 determined on a site-by-site basis. We arrived at this 3 conclusion as a result of the diversity we found in the 4 California ag operations, crops, local water supply, and 5 climate, and distance from electrical lines. 6 Additionally, staff found issues with ag electric rates, 7 demand charges, and the cost of line extensions. 8 We worked with the ag community, local 9 agriculture district, and the utilities to reduce cost to 10 two voluntary programs currently offered by Pacific Gas 11 and Electric and Southern California Edison. Beginning in 12 July 2005, the railroads in these utility service areas 13 have had the opportunity to voluntarily replace their 14 diesel ag engines with electric motors in return for 15 reduced electric rate and line extension charges. 16 So far, about 1400 applications have been 17 received and 300 electric motors have actually been 18 installed. The application submittal period for these 19 programs is currently scheduled to close in July 2007. 20 Although we are encouraged by the success of these 21 voluntary programs, electrification is not universally 22 feasible, and we believe other control strategies are 23 needed for reduced emissions. 24 --o0o-- 25 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: The PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 Carl Moyer Program has also played an important role in 2 the voluntary replacement of ag engines. Through June 3 2005, the Moyer Program has provided $25 million worth of 4 voluntary replacement of 2200 diesel ag pump engines with 5 new cleaner engines. This voluntary replacement has 6 resulted in diesel PM emission reductions of 92 tons per 7 year and NOx emission reductions of 1900 tons per year. 8 The Moyer program continues to be an important 9 source of incentive funding for ag engine replacement and 10 can be used to purchase electric motors in conjunction 11 with the previously mentioned electrification rate and 12 line extension incentive program. We expect the Moyer 13 Program to play an important role in encouraging early 14 compliance with the amendments we are proposing today. 15 --o0o-- 16 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: In 17 2005, two local air districts amended rules to include NOx 18 requirements for diesel and other ag engines. These rules 19 are San Joaquin Valley Rule 4702 and South Coast Rule 20 1110.2. Both rules rely primarily on engine replacement 21 compliance strategy similar to our proposed amendment. 22 The San Joaquin Valley Rule requires that the ag 23 engines be either permitted or registered, and the 24 district has developed an associated registration rule and 25 program for non-permitted engines. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 This South Coast Rule is expected to effect less 2 than 20 stationary diesel ag pump engines. We understand 3 that a separate South Coast rule will require that all 4 stationary ag engines in the district be permitted. 5 --o0o-- 6 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: I'll 7 now discuss the proposed requirements for in-use 8 stationary diesel ag engines in more detail. 9 --o0o-- 10 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: In 11 general, we believe our proposal will result in the 12 replacement of older diesel engines and significant 13 reductions in PM and NOx emissions. We are proposing 14 emission limits that are based on existing California and 15 federal certification standards for the manufacture of new 16 off-road compression ignited engines. These certification 17 standards vary with the engine horsepower and model year. 18 They become more stringent as they are phased in as Tiers 19 1 through 4 beginning in 1996. Pre-1996 and other 20 non-certified engines are often referred to as Tier 0, 21 because they are not subject to any certification 22 standards. Our proposal also provides an emission limit 23 phase-in period beginning with an initial compliance date 24 of December 31st, 2010, for the oldest and mediam to large 25 engines. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 --o0o-- 2 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: When 3 fully implemented, the proposed amendments will result in 4 most engines meeting Tier 3 or Tier 4 certification 5 standards at a minimum. Our proposal will provide 6 statewide diesel PM as well as NOx emission reductions and 7 is consistent with the San Joaquin Valley and South Coast 8 NOx rules. 9 --o0o-- 10 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: Our 11 proposal applies to Tier 0, Tier 1, and Tier 2 in-use 12 stationary diesel ag engines greater than 50 horsepower. 13 Although new stationary diesel ag engines 50 horsepower or 14 less are subject to emission limits, in-use ag engines of 15 this size are not. Similarly, diesel powered ag wind 16 machines used exclusively to protect crops from freezing 17 temperatures are exempt to the relatively low numbers and 18 limited use. The proposal contains conditional exemptions 19 for in-use diesel ag emergency stand-by engines. I'll 20 explain these two exemptions in later slides. 21 --o0o-- 22 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: 23 Generally, we believe that the proposed emission limits 24 will result in Tier 0 engines being replaced with electric 25 motors or Tier 3 engines, and Tier 1, Tier 2 engines being PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 replaced with Tier 4 engines. 2 Alternatively, a grower may decide to replace a 3 diesel engine with a spark-ignited engine, use alternative 4 fuels such as natural gas or biodiesel, or retrofit a 5 diesel engine with an add-on control device. The next few 6 slides will explain the requirements in greater detail. 7 --o0o-- 8 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: Staff 9 is proposing that Tier 0 in-use diesel ag engines not 10 exceed Tier 3 off-road certification standards by December 11 31st, 2010, or December 31st, 2011, depending on the size 12 of the engine. These compliance dates fall about four 13 years after the effective dates of the tier certification 14 standards. 15 The purpose of the four-year interval is that one 16 year is provided to ensure that sufficient engine packages 17 are available in a wide range of makes, models, and sizes 18 to replace engines engaged in ag applications. The 19 remaining three years are to allow early emission 20 reductions consistent with the Carl Moyer Program 21 incentive funding guidelines. This does not guarantee the 22 availability of Moyer funds for this purpose, but it 23 insures that growers have the opportunity to apply for 24 funding and reduce emissions prior to the applicable 25 compliance date. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 --o0o-- 2 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: This 3 slide shows that the proposed emission limits will reduce 4 Tier 0 engine emission rates by about 65 percent by 5 December 31st, 2011. NOx emissions rates will be reduced 6 by about 75 percent. Because there are no Tier 3 7 certification standards for greater than 750 horsepower 8 engines, these engines are not required to exceed Tier 4 9 standards by December 31st, 2014. Staff estimates less 10 than 1 percent of these Tier 0 engines are less than 750 11 horsepower. 12 --o0o-- 13 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: Tier 1 14 and 2 certified in-use engines are required not to exceed 15 Tier 4 certification standards for new engines by December 16 31st, 2014, and by December 31st, 2015, or twelve years 17 after initial installation, whichever is later. Once 18 again, the proposed compliance dates are four years after 19 Tier 4 standards become effective. The purpose of the 20 twelve-year provision is to allow for at least twelve 21 years of diesel engine life. 22 --o0o-- 23 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: This 24 slide shows that the proposed emission limits will reduce 25 Tier 1 or 2 diesel engine PM emission rates by about 95 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 percent. NOx emission rates will be reduced by about 60 2 percent. These reductions are expected to occur during 3 the Tier 1 and Tier 2 engine emission limit phase-in 2014 4 to 2022 or earlier if incentive funding is used to replace 5 these engines. 6 --o0o-- 7 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: NOx and 8 other air pollutant emission limits in the proposal 9 require that in-use ag engines not exceed the off-road 10 certification standards for new off-road engines of 11 similar model year and horsepower. In addition, engines 12 manufactured prior to the existence of certification 13 standards are required not to exceed Tier 1 certification 14 standards for these other pollutants. This means that 15 Tier 1 and later engines could comply with the proposed 16 ATCM requirements provided they meet the ATCM's diesel PM 17 emission limit. Usually, this could entail retrofitting 18 the engine with the add-on PM control device that's been 19 verified by ABR. These emission limits ensure there could 20 be no increases in NOx, carbon monoxide, or hydrocarbons 21 as a result of compliance with diesel PM emission limits. 22 NOx is a precursor to secondary PM and ozone. All 23 criteria pollutants are directly or indirectly associated 24 with non-cancer adverse health effects. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: There 2 is limited data available on in-use stationary diesel ag 3 emergency stand-by engines. We do know they represent a 4 relatively small fraction of stationary ag engines and are 5 primarily used as back up for electric powered ag 6 irrigation pumps. Another use is back up for temperature 7 control and lighting in greenhouses and animal housing. 8 To qualify for the proposed exemption, an engine 9 must be equipped with a non-resetable hour meter and meet 10 the definition of an emergency standby engine. Similar to 11 the remotely located engine exemption will be discussed in 12 the next slide, owner/operators of qualifying ag standby 13 engines must register and apply for the exemptions. In 14 addition, the owners or operators are required to maintain 15 records of annual operating hours and have 18 months to 16 comply with applicable emission limits should the engine 17 be retired or exemption lost for any reason. 18 --o0o-- 19 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: For the 20 remote location exemption, in order to qualify for this, 21 engines must be located at least one-half mile from the 22 nearest off-site receptor, which would be any home, 23 business, or public facility such as a school or hospital, 24 and also located in a federal ambient air quality 25 attainment area for both PM and ozone. An engine meeting PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 this criteria is expected to pose a potential cancer risk 2 of less than ten chances per million. 3 We are proposing to modify the original proposal 4 for the remotely located agriculture engine exemption by 5 removing the limitation on annual hours of operation. 6 Owners or operators of engines meeting this criteria must 7 still register and apply for the exemption. If such an 8 engine is retired or exemption status is lost for any 9 reason, the owner or operator would have 18 months to 10 comply with applicable emission limits of the scheduled 11 compliance date. 12 --o0o-- 13 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: The 14 proposed amendments require that all greater than 15 15 horsepower new and in-use stationary diesel ag engines 16 except ag wind machines be registered with the local air 17 district. 18 --o0o-- 19 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: The 20 proposal specifies minimum registration information 21 including: Owner/operator contact information; engine 22 make, model, serial number, and horsepower; estimated 23 annual operating hours; a general description of the 24 in-use locations; and at the location of any residential 25 area, school, or hospital within one-quarter mile of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 engine. Local air district may require additional 2 information as necessary for implementation and 3 enforcement. 4 --o0o-- 5 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: For 6 in-use engines, registration information must be submitted 7 by March 1st, 2008. The district must also be notified of 8 any change in owner/operator, location, replacement, or 9 significant engine modification. Registration information 10 for new engines must be submitted within 90 days of 11 initial installation. 12 The proposal contains a provision for districts 13 to recover the cost of implementing and enforcing the 14 engine requirements, including registration program costs 15 by charging fees. Alternative programs such as district 16 permitting programs may be used provided they are 17 consistent with the proposed registration program. 18 --o0o-- 19 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: In some 20 situations, replacing a Tier 0 engine with a Tier 3 engine 21 may not reduce potential cancer risks below ten chances 22 per million. This is most likely to occur if the engine 23 is located within one-quarter mile of off-site receptors. 24 Local air districts can use the registration 25 information to help identify these engines and address PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 them pursuant to the AB 2588 Hot Spots Program, which is 2 implemented by the local air districts. However, this 3 information may not come timely enough. As a result, the 4 ARB staff is working with the districts on an early 5 outreach effort to help locate these engines and provide 6 information to growers as soon as possible. Either Tier 1 7 and 2 engines are already required to meet Tier 4 PM 8 emission levels by the 2015 to 2016 time flame. Tier 4 PM 9 emission levels are very low and are not expected to pose 10 a significant risk. 11 --o0o-- 12 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: The 13 proposed requirements in conjunction with district rules 14 and voluntary incentive programs are expected to reduce 15 diesel PM emissions by 91 percent, or 448 tons per year, 16 and NOx emissions by 90 percent, or 9400 tons per year, by 17 2022. 18 On a per-engine basis, emissions of cancer risk 19 are expected to be reduced by 85 percent overall. With 20 local air district Hot Spot Program requirements expected 21 to address any near-source residual cancer risk, the 22 cancer risk attributable to in-use stationary diesel ag 23 engines is expected to be less than ten chances per 24 million throughout the state. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: The 2 estimated cost of compliance is expected to be between 34 3 and $42 million. This estimate does not factor in any 4 potential incentive funding or compliance assistance. It 5 represents the cost of lost useful engine life as a result 6 of early engine replacement, plus the cost of district 7 registration fees. 8 The current replacement cost of the effected 9 engines is estimated to be between 7,000 and $33,000. The 10 range of district registration fees is estimated to be 11 between 145 and $190 per initial registration and between 12 26 and $242 annually thereafter. 13 Some districts may need to assess higher fees. 14 These higher fees may be driven by a variety of factors 15 including, not limited to, frequency of district 16 inspections, district staffing, and other implementation 17 or enforcement needs. 18 The cost effectiveness of the regulation is a 19 relative measure of the benefits of the air pollution 20 control strategy. The average cost effectiveness of the 21 proposed regulation is about $13 per pound of diesel PM 22 reduced. 23 --o0o-- 24 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: Staff's 25 proposal also contains several amendments which primarily PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 impact non-agricultural engines. The purpose of these 2 other amendments is to update or clarify existing ATCM 3 requirements. 4 --o0o-- 5 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: Staff 6 is proposing amendments to allow the use of biodiesel 7 blends meeting CARB diesel fuel standards and to simplify 8 the requirements for using alternative diesel fuels. This 9 includes an amendment to the definition of alternative 10 diesel fuel. 11 --o0o-- 12 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: We also 13 propose to amend the definition of the rolling blackout 14 reduction program to update references to the most current 15 schedule approved by the California Public Utilities 16 Commission and the maintenance and testing to allow 17 additional measures to test an engine that has been 18 repaired after a breakdown. 19 We are proposing to modify fuel record keeping 20 requirements to facilitate record keeping for facilities 21 with centralized fuel distribution. We are proposing to 22 clarify compliance options to include Tier 3 engines with 23 85 percent PM control devices, the trucking engines used 24 by the United States Air Force, and to allow exemption of 25 engines used exclusively as test engines. In addition, we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 134 1 are proposing to add sell-through provisions that would 2 apply to sale and use of applying emergency or ag engine. 3 I will discuss this provision in more detail on the next 4 slide. 5 --o0o-- 6 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: The 7 sell-through provision allows distributors and dealers to 8 sell their engine stock during the transition period to 9 more stringent emission standeds. This reduces the 10 financial burden of being left with new stock engines 11 which otherwise could not be sold because they're not 12 compliant with the new standards. Such engines must be 13 delivered to California before and sold no later than 14 six months after the effective date of the new standard. 15 Also, a person purchasing such an engine may install and 16 use it only if a district permit application for the 17 permit engine is deemed incomplete no later than twelve 18 months after the compliance date. 19 --o0o-- 20 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: Several 21 key comments have been made by stakeholders. We have 22 received requests that the remotely located engine 23 exemption be extended to engines located in federal 24 non-attainment areas. Staff has not agreed to this 25 request because of the potential contribution to original PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 135 1 PM or ozone exceedances in these areas. 2 Concerns have also been expressed about the 3 initial 2010 to 2011 compliance dates because they may not 4 allow growers sufficient time to apply for incentive 5 funding or order and install the necessary equipment and 6 provide three years of surplus emission reductions for 7 Carl Moyer Program guidelines. The three-year 8 requirements for surplus emission reductions has been 9 reduced to one year for all affected ag engines. 10 Applicants will still need to meet Carl Moyer cost 11 effectiveness criteria. 12 A need for early outreach to growers has been 13 expressed. Many growers have never been subject to air 14 quality regulations before. We agree that this is an 15 important issue. Accordingly, staff has already begun 16 working with the local air districts on an early outreach 17 effort. We plan on providing information about the ATCM's 18 requirements and compliance options to growers and other 19 interested parties in early 2007 as well as assisting 20 local air districts on their own outreach efforts. 21 --o0o-- 22 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: Staff 23 is suggesting several changes to the proposed amendments 24 issued on September 29th. For the remotely located ag 25 engine exemption, we propose to remove annual operating PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 136 1 hour limits as previously discussed. We are proposing to 2 clarify compliance option for Tier 3 engines with respect 3 to the use of PM control devices and non-ag applications. 4 Finally, we are proposing minor language changes to 5 clarify the intent of the control measure. All of these 6 modifications would be subject to a 15-day public review 7 and comment period. And I should mention we did get some 8 comments just recently about some of the other 9 modifications that we might need to clarify. So we will 10 be looking at those as well. 11 --o0o-- 12 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: In 13 conclusion, staff recommends that the Board approve the 14 proposed amendments, including the suggested modifications 15 subject to the 15-day public review process. We also 16 recommend that the Board direct staff to assist the 17 districts to address ag engines posing a significant risk 18 to nearby receptors consistent with Hot Spot Program 19 requirements; ensure that our Carl Moyer Program incentive 20 funding priority is given to in-use stationary diesel ag 21 engine replacement, and develop and implement district 22 registration programs. 23 This concludes staff's presentation, and we're 24 happy to entertain your questions. 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 137 1 Madam Ombudsman, please describe the public 2 participation process that occurred while this item was 3 being developed and report any concerns or comments you 4 may have to the Board at this time. 5 OMBUDSMAN QUETIN: Thank you. Chairman Sawyer 6 and members of the Board, this regulation has been 7 developed with input from the California Rice Association, 8 California Farm Bureau, California Cotton Ginners, Growers 9 and Ginners Association, NISEI Farmers League, California 10 Citrus Growers, Engine Manufacturers' Association, and 11 Engine Dealers and Distributors. 12 Staff began their effort to develop this rule in 13 September 2004. Since October 2004, they provided monthly 14 updates to the Toxics and Risk Managers Committee of 15 CAPCOA and provided periodic updates to the Enforcement 16 Managers and Engineering Managers Committees of CAPCOA. 17 They held four public workshops: One in Modesto on 18 April 26th, 2006, and the remaining three in Sacramento on 19 April 27, July 27th, and September 20th of 2006. 20 There were two public meetings on July 26th, one 21 in Colusa and the other in Durham. Additionally, staff 22 had more than 100 teleconferences and individual meetings 23 with stakeholders. The workshops and meetings had an 24 average of about 20 participants. The Sacramento 25 workshops were also available via webcast. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 138 1 The staff report and Board hearing notice were 2 released on September 29th, 2006. Both were noticed on 3 the list serve, mailing lists, and posted on the ARB 4 website. There are approximately 3,900 stakeholders on 5 the mailing list and approximately 1,500 on the list 6 serve. 7 In addition to the outstanding issues already 8 mentioned, I have a couple more to add. Several local air 9 districts believe that staff has underestimated the engine 10 registration fees and that higher fees will need to be 11 assessed in order to recover costs associated with 12 implementation and enforcement. Also, some air districts 13 question the authority of the ARB to regulate criteria 14 pollutants. 15 Several members of the ag community were unhappy 16 with this meeting being held in San Francisco, an 17 inconvenient location for them to attend. And ag industry 18 also requested an additional year be added to compliance 19 dates for engines used in agricultural operations. 20 And that concludes my comments. 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 22 Do any Board members have questions at this time? 23 I will now call the first three witnesses who 24 have signed up to speak on this item. They will be Curt 25 Josiassen, Jim Wagoner, and Paul Buttner. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 139 1 MR. JOSIASSEN: Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer and 2 members of the Board. I am Curt Josiassen. I am here 3 today as Chair of the Sacramento Valley Basinwide Air 4 Pollution Control Council to comment on the proposed 5 amendments to the ATCM to incorporate requirements that 6 reduce diesel particulate emissions from in-use engines 7 used in agricultural operations. 8 My strong agricultural and public service 9 background gives me a unique perspective on the proposed 10 amendments. I am a life-long resident of Butte County and 11 a fourth generation rice grower. 12 Today, I appear before you to convey the comments 13 and concerns expressed by the Council member districts as 14 presented in our letter of November 1. I preface my 15 comments on the proposed amendments to the ATCM by 16 thanking you, your staff, for their efforts to craft 17 regulations that seek to reduce public exposure to 18 airborne toxics. The Council supports workable, cost 19 effective measures to reduce public exposure to airborne 20 toxic pollutants. 21 In this spirit, the Council provides the 22 following comments. The requirement to replace or 23 retrofit an engine should only apply if an engine piece is 24 a demonstrated health risk to the public. Along this 25 line, the Council supports an exemption for remotely PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 140 1 located low-use engines that do not pose a significant 2 risk to the public. We do not support limiting the 3 exemption to districts that are in attainment with the 4 federal ozone and particulate matter ambient air quality 5 standards. Measures to attain the federal ozone and 6 particulate standards should be implemented through the 7 SIP planning process. 8 The emission standards for in-use agricultural 9 engines are different than those standards for non-ag 10 engines. We understand this is because of the concerns 11 related to criteria pollutant emissions. The Council does 12 not support the use of the ATCM to control criteria 13 pollutants. The ATCM should only be used to control toxic 14 air contaminants. 15 The standard compliance options for in-use non-ag 16 engines should also apply to ag engines. The ATCM should 17 only apply to compression engines, ignition engines using 18 diesel fuel blends. The ATCM should not apply to 19 compression ignition engines using 100 percent biodiesel 20 or V100. 21 The Council supports CARB's development of a 22 model registration program to facilitate implementation. 23 The ATCM should not be used to address the requirements of 24 the AB 2588 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program. Depending on 25 the use, an individual engine may be subject to the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 141 1 portable equipment ATCM or stationary engine ATCM. 2 Compliance standards and time lines may be different. The 3 requirements for these two regulations should be 4 harmonized. 5 Even though CARB and local district staff have 6 completed outreach to the ag community, the Council is 7 concerned that many engine owners are still unaware of the 8 proposed regulation. Also there will be a very limited 9 period to utilize Carl Moyer grant funding with only one 10 more year of funding available for stationary ag engines. 11 No funding is available for the staff time necessary to 12 complete the outreach efforts. In order for the program 13 to be successful, more time is needed for outreach. The 14 recent industry concerns with the portable equipment 15 program illustrate the importance of adequate outreach. 16 The Council requests that action be continued to a later 17 date to allow more outreach and participation by the 18 agricultural community. 19 I thank you for allowing us to comment. 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 21 Questions from the Board members? 22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Question of staff. I had 23 a letter here from the Farm Bureau, and I'm not tracking 24 it down. But I am a little confused on the issue of 25 outreach and time to comply with the rule and also take PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 142 1 advantage of Carl Moyer dollars. I think Cynthia Cory 2 mentioned there would be a five-month period, and this 3 gentleman is saying a one-year period. 4 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: This 5 is Dan Donohoue. 6 With respect to how the regulation was originally 7 put up, what we tried to do was once the engines were 8 available -- the new engines were available, we provided a 9 year's time for those engines to get out into the market 10 and to be adapted to the pumps and all that. We also have 11 programmed in three years for the Carl Moyer funding 12 mechanism that basically required that the emissions be 13 surplus and there be a three-year period before the 14 compliance date. 15 Because of the timing issues and all that, what 16 it did mean is that under the current proposal, if we 17 stuck with the three-year Moyer compliance date, that the 18 applications and the engines would have to be in by 19 December 31st, 2007. So by the end of next year. And to 20 be able to go through and do the application, purchase the 21 engines, have it installed and operating in that time 22 period was going to become an issue. We certainly 23 committed to early outreach to help that. 24 But the significant change that we have made is, 25 rather than staying with the three-year compliance window PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 143 1 under the Moyer Program, that we reduced that to two years 2 or one year, provided that it's cost effective. So that 3 would mean that the Moyer application window would be 4 delayed out there. So you could come in and get the Moyer 5 funding out to December 31st, 2009 -- 9 or 10. 6 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: It would be an additional 7 one or two year? 8 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: It 9 would be an additional two years. There's two years of 10 additional flexibility that were not provided before. 11 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, I appreciate that 12 and think that that should provide some additional time. 13 And I do agree with the witness, however, on the 14 issue of outreach and think that with what we have coming 15 up on regulations for in-use engines, it's just really 16 important that we do this right. We don't want to miss 17 folks out there. And I know staff is aware that I'm very 18 much involved with the ag community. And if there's 19 anything that I can do to help with outreach and work with 20 other stakeholders, it's important that the ag community 21 comply. But at the same time, we have to get the word out 22 there. And we are talking about some regions of the state 23 that they may not be as aware of, say, the San Joaquin 24 Valley about these air quality issues. So there's 25 probably a steep learning curve for a number of people out PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 144 1 there. 2 So if there's anything you can do -- and maybe we 3 can talk off line at a later time about outreach efforts. 4 But just wanted to underscore the importance. 5 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: If I 6 might comment on the outreach, because you will hear that. 7 And that was certainly one of the comments that Cynthia 8 Cory made as well, is that the Air Resources Board should 9 assist the local districts. 10 We've already initiated a process with CAPCOA. 11 The San Joaquin Valley is putting together some material, 12 outreach material for their rule. And what we hope to do 13 is to be able to take that information. We will then 14 taylor it to the local districts. The Air Resources Board 15 has offered to finance the publication and mailing of 16 that. And we certainly intend to work with the other 17 districts outside of San Joaquin Valley to try to get this 18 material out. 19 We have multiple incentives not only to identify 20 the engines and make sure that they know that the Moyer 21 funding if available they can access, but also we would 22 like to get as many of the engines identified that are 23 maybe potential risk that are located close to receptors. 24 The earlier that we can find those engines, the more 25 likely we can encourage those people to get into the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 145 1 electrification program which has a sunset next summer. 2 So we're trying to do that as well. 3 But we have committed to work closely with CAPCOA 4 on that outreach effort. It is going to be a big task for 5 local districts. 6 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Just a question of the 7 witness. Do you think that growers out there that know 8 about -- of the ones that are aware of Carl Moyer, do you 9 think they're aware of also the electrification program? 10 What's your sense? I guess that's an even tighter time 11 line. 12 MR. JOSIASSEN: I think that's an issue that's 13 going to be a geographic problem. Obviously, in the San 14 Joaquin Valley, there's different type of agriculture, 15 different type of set up than what I affectionately call 16 northern California. That's Sacramento north. 17 We don't have the power that you folks think we 18 do. Most of our areas tend to be wide open spaces as far 19 as the rice growing industry. The orchard, yeah, they 20 will have more access to the electrification. But that's 21 kind of just a symptom problem we have up in our end of 22 the valley. So the electrification issue for a very small 23 minute number of growers may be a possibility. But for 24 the majority of them that use these engines off and on, 25 they're using them because they don't have access. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 146 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Ms. D'Adamo, I'd 2 also comment it's restricted to PG&E service territory for 3 northern California. But there is a provision for running 4 power lines where they don't exist that's included in the 5 grants that are available. 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Riordan. 7 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yes, thank you, Mr. 8 Chairman. 9 For the speaker, I too have talked to staff about 10 outreach, because I know it's so very important to reach 11 out. And you can't always just do it by setting up a 12 website, but you have to do a lot of personal contact. 13 And I think they're really very much committed to that and 14 have designed a very succinct fact list, but we need to 15 get it out. So anything you can do to help us know where 16 and how to reach the agricultural community that might 17 have one of these engines, it's very important to seek 18 your help as well as anyone else in the audience that's 19 part of the agricultural community. 20 I just thought I'd like to ask staff to respond 21 to his fourth point. I don't know if you have his 22 testimony about the ATCM should only apply to the 23 compression ignition engines using diesel fuel and that 24 they should not apply to compression ignition engines 25 using biodiesel. If staff could comment on that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 147 1 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: This 2 is Dan Donohoue. 3 The treatment of biodiesel was originally 4 established when we did the regulation in 2004 for 5 stationary engines. And what we did at that time is we 6 allowed any of the current engines using biodiesel to be 7 exempt from the regulation. But after that date, we 8 required that the biodiesel blends and biodiesel be 9 subject to the provisions of the regulations. 10 At that point in time, prior to the change that 11 we're proposing now, the way that was set up was biodiesel 12 would have had to have gone through the retrofit 13 verification process and the multi-media review to be 14 used. Subsequent, looking at the statute and the 15 regulations with respect to governing stationary engines, 16 we concluded that since that was not a motor vehicle fuel 17 that there were some additional options to allow for the 18 use. 19 At this point in time, given the uncertainty 20 associated with biodiesel with some of the potential 21 health impacts, what we've done is allow for the use of 22 biodiesel, but we require that the engines meet the same 23 PM standard that we've established there. There is a 24 considerable amount of ongoing work being done on diesel 25 and biodiesel blends as we get additional data with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 148 1 respect to the production and the health impacts 2 associated with that we may revisit this. But at this 3 point in time, we felt it would be appropriate that they 4 meet essentially the same requirements as if you're using 5 CARB diesel or any of the other alternatives. 6 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mr. Wagoner. 8 MR. WAGONER: Dr. Sawyer and distinguished 9 members of the Air Resources Board, I'm Jim Wagoner, Air 10 Pollution Control Officer of the Butte County Air Quality 11 Management District. 12 In preface, I'd like to say our district does 13 support your staff's efforts and your Board's efforts to 14 reduce public exposure to diesel particulate exhaust, five 15 members of my staff that have been very active working 16 with the ARB staff as part of the CAPCOA Toxic Committee. 17 We do, however, have concerns and recommendations about 18 the proposed in-use amendments before you as expressed in 19 the correspondence that we have sent on this matter. For 20 the sake of brevity, I'd like to focus my testimony today 21 on two areas: The proposed remote location exemption and 22 the need for more outreach prior to adopting the proposed 23 amendments. 24 Regarding the remote location exemption, as 25 previously stated, it would only apply to federal ozone PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 149 1 and particulate matter attainment areas. Butte County is 2 a non-attainment area for the federal eight-hour standard 3 and designated that under sub-part 1 for basic area. Our 4 district among others do not believe this is an 5 appropriate measure to put into an ATCM. We feel the 6 Tanner provisions of the Health and Safety Code authorize 7 the development of measures to reduce public exposure to 8 toxic air contaminants. We believe the provisions were 9 not intended to be used as a tool to help attain the 10 federal ambient standards. Further, our district is 11 currently going through the SIP planning process since we 12 are a non-attainment district, and we determined we don't 13 need these reductions to meet our attainment goal. 14 Therefore, we believe that the remote exemption should be 15 based solely on risk to the public from diesel particulate 16 exhaust. 17 Regarding the outreach issue, I would like to add 18 to the comments of Supervisor Josiassen. First, we do 19 appreciate the efforts of your staff working with CAPCOA, 20 holding workshops in Durham and Colusa at our request, and 21 working with our Sacramento Valley basin-wide Air 22 Pollution Control Council. Most of the outreach in our 23 air basin has occurred in the last half of this year. We 24 understand that the proposal before your Board comes 25 largely from the extended efforts and outreach which have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 150 1 occurred and have been occurring in the San Joaquin 2 Valley. The San Joaquin Valley Air District's resources 3 for outreach, compliance assistance, and program 4 implementation are much greater than those in rural areas 5 of the state, such as the Sacramento valley. The need for 6 these emissions reductions are certainly also greater in 7 the San Joaquin valley. Our district believes that 8 additional outreach is necessary in these other areas and 9 requests more time and immediate resources prior to 10 adopting this proposal. The proposed fee provisions, 11 while helpful in the long term, will not provide immediate 12 resources for districts to begin implementation of the 13 ATCM as proposed. Thank you for your consideration. 14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 15 Ms. D'Adamo. 16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Could staff clarify or 17 respond to the witness's concerns regarding adopting this 18 on the basis of toxic air contaminant as opposed to the 19 ambient standards, ambient air quality standards? 20 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Well, in this particular 21 respect, the pollutant at issue is a toxic air 22 contaminant, particulate matter. And I think that in 23 deciding when to have that particulate matter 24 requirement -- the toxic air contaminant apply in the 25 district, it is appropriate to consider the attainment PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 151 1 status. That doesn't effect the fact that what's being 2 controlled in that particular aspect is a toxic air 3 contaminant. 4 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And much of 5 the control of these engines is related to the turnover of 6 the engine from a dirtier one to cleaner one subject to 7 new standards. 8 We thought it was best to do it wholistically. 9 So we looked at the regulations, when the engines were 10 turning over, and get the best combination of PM control 11 adequate to meet the ATCM and NOx control that helps with 12 PM reductions. That we way only touch it once and it's 13 done with. We think in terms of efficiency that makes 14 sense. In terms of cost reduction that makes sense. 15 Legally, we believe we can do it that way and design the 16 reg as a measure that gets PM and NOx reductions jointly. 17 And the question comes in do you need the NOx 18 reductions. So in areas that didn't have the federal 19 non-attainment designation we judged that no. And so the 20 principle reason for the regulation was protection from PM 21 impacts. So therefore we proposed it there. It's another 22 judgment call in some of these areas. Are they going to 23 eventually need the NOx reductions or not. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Berg. 25 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you, Chairman. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 152 1 Am I understanding this proposal correctly that 2 if the horsepower is under 50, then it doesn't fall within 3 this regulation? 4 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: That's 5 correct. We and the districts for the most part do not 6 regulate in the retrofit mode the smaller engines. 7 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you. 8 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: With 9 the exception of new engines. Under the existing ATCM, we 10 do have requirements for new engines under 50 horsepower. 11 BOARD MEMBER BERG: But wouldn't that be at the 12 manufacturer's responsibility? 13 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 14 That's manufacturers. Not at the end use. It's what you 15 can buy. 16 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you very much. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 18 Ms. Buttner, and then we'll have Karl Lany and 19 Tom Jordan. 20 MR. BUTTNER: Good afternoon, Chairman Sawyer and 21 members of the Board. My name is Paul Buttner. I'm 22 Manager of Environmental Affairs for California Rice 23 Commission. We represent about 2500 rice growers. Almost 24 all of them are in the Sacramento Valley, just about 25 500,000 acres of rice production in the Sacramento Valley, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 153 1 an area of still relatively good air quality. About 70 2 percent of our acres are in an attainment area. And 3 really at this point I would like to recognize that that 4 really is no accident I believe in the Sacramento valley. 5 We have a very strong program. First of all, the rice 6 industry has phased down its rice straw burning down to 7 very small amounts, about 12 to 15 percent a year, and we 8 have a model program for the management of our 9 agricultural burning that is really a team effort on the 10 part of the air resources Board, local districts, and the 11 industry to analyze the environment on a daily basis and 12 burn only when we can burn in a manner that doesn't result 13 in impacts in neighborring communities. 14 I'd also like to thank staff for really a well 15 run effort to come out to the Sacramento Valley on two 16 occasions and explain the program. We really appreciate 17 that level of outreach. We did submit a letter to the 18 file. In that letter, I mentioned just three items that I 19 would like the Board to take a good look at. 20 The first is the issue of permitting versus 21 registration program. Because we are in an area of 22 relatively good air quality as I mentioned, most of the 23 facilities -- vast majority of the farming facilities in 24 this region are not subject to permiting under SB 700. So 25 we feel really the Board should take a strong position in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 154 1 those areas and restrict the activity to a very basic 2 registration program for these engines. 3 Secondly, I have concerns about the Carl Moyer 4 program. We appreciate the proposals by staff today to 5 adjust that three-year window. In the rural districts of 6 the Sacramento Valley, the Carl Moyer program is 7 restricted to $200,000 a year. And you can imagine with 8 these engines costing upwards of 20 to 25,000 per engine, 9 a good eight or ten engines and you're done. I think the 10 efforts of staff to adjust that window are a good first 11 step. But I think that the Air Board should look at 12 adjustments to that program in light of this program, this 13 engine change-out program, to allow Carl Moyer to perform 14 better in the rural district. 15 Finally, I'd like to talk about the remote engine 16 exemption. Sacramento Valley is very much an environment 17 of rural farming. It's a very rural landscape. We 18 appreciate the district's proposal for remote engine 19 exemption, and we feel that it's a solid first step in 20 managing those issues in rural Sacramento Valley and 21 probably some other areas as well that I'm less familiar 22 with. 23 What we would like is the standard within that 24 exemption right now is that the engine must be a half a 25 mile from any receptor. And this information is on page PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 155 1 277 of your packet. That's where the engine exemption is 2 described. And we would simply like that language to be 3 changed with residential area. You'll see under that 4 definition in your packet that residential area is already 5 defined as three residences or more. We feel that will 6 better reflect the rural landscape in applying this toxics 7 based measure in the rural landscape. 8 Finally, I want to comment on the 9 attainment/non-attainment issue. You now heard from Butte 10 County on this issue, and -- 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: May I ask you to conclude 12 please, your three-minute limit. 13 MR. BUTTNER: I thought I was going to get a buzz 14 in my ear. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: We turned that off. 16 MR. BUTTNER: Oh, okay. 17 Well, finally I'd like to say you also have 18 letters in your file from Mendocino as well. And really I 19 think this cuts at the issue of local authority to address 20 stationary sources. And while I appreciate that comments 21 from staff here today, that's really fundamental to the 22 air quality planning process, is that local districts 23 determine what's needed for controling down to attainment 24 levels the stationary sources in their districts. So I'd 25 appreciate a good strong look at that. Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 156 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 2 Does the Board have comments on what we've just 3 heard, or the staff? 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, I think Mr. 5 Scheible explained what our rational was. And I guess I 6 would just say that even the planning process is a joint 7 exercise between us and the air districts. Because if 8 they wrote the plans alone for the sources under their 9 control, in many cases they would not be able to 10 demonstrate attainment because mobile sources are so 11 dominant. And so just like they have opinions about what 12 should happen on the mobile source side, we have opinions 13 about what would be useful on the stationary source side. 14 As Mr. Scheible indicated, this is a two-for, 15 where you can turn it over to a better engine instead of 16 just putting a filter on and have better air quality 17 results for multiple pollutants. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And the issue on what's a 19 remote engine, remote location. 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: You mean the 21 three versus one? 22 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: With 23 respect to the request to change from receptor to 24 residential area for consistency within the regulation, we 25 believe that would be the appropriate thing to do. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 157 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. D'Adamo. 2 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: There was another point on 3 the Carl Moyer, the money running out, because some of 4 these districts don't have a very large allocation. 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's a 6 statutory problem. There's a formula that was derived 7 through CAPCOA negotiations that's driven by population 8 and air pollution severity. So in order to spend more 9 Carl Moyer moneys in those districts, you'd have to change 10 the statutes. 11 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I think we need to be 12 realistic here. We want to get those engines changed out, 13 and I don't want to extend the deadline. I was just 14 hoping there's a -- we could get some creative financing 15 out to these areas. And if we're locked in at 200,000, 16 are these figures correct? Does the staff agree 200,000 17 in these districts, new engines costing upwards of 25,000? 18 How many engines can be turned over? 19 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 20 Yeah. With respect to the maximum number of the rural 21 districts, that 200,000 number is correct. And basically 22 when you're looking at an average engine here at 200 23 horsepower, we're looking at $20,000 an engine. The match 24 depends, you know, on the district, how they elect to do 25 the money. In certain cases, we've waived the match for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 158 1 that 200,000 for rural districts. 2 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: We can't afford to waive 3 it if we're talking about eight engines instead of 16. 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We are looking at 5 creative ways to get more money to ag engine replacement. 6 For example, the Air Resources Board has a ten percent 7 holdback of Carl Moyer funds for the kinds of projects 8 that cross district lines, typically goods movement like 9 activities. And we discussed whether or not we could 10 float for a year or two some amount of money to a 11 non-goods movement activity and then hold back more in a 12 future year when we're ready to make those expenditures in 13 goods movement and do some creative accounting that way. 14 But we're aware of the problem, and we're trying to do 15 what we can to address it. 16 Also, there are times when districts don't expend 17 their Carl Moyer funds. They're unable to match, and we 18 can redistribute. Or they're unable to process contracts, 19 have any RFPs out. We get money back every year. And we 20 can reprogram that as well. 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 22 Mr. Lany. 23 MR. LANY: Good afternoon. I'm Karl Lany. My 24 company, SCEC, is an emissions testing and consulting 25 firm. We provide our services to a variety of engine PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 159 1 distributors and users throughout California. 2 The rule language that's proposed to you today 3 includes two very important provisions, the first of which 4 clarifies how engine distributors can sell their existing 5 stock of inventory, and the second of which provides an 6 alternative compliance demonstration primarily for Tier 3 7 engines that are equipped with 85 percent PM control 8 efficiency. I want to make sure that the Board 9 understands these provisions are critical, and these 10 provisions are welcomed by the user community, but 11 certainly the community we work with. 12 They recognize the complexity of the procurement 13 process. They recognize what can be an extreme cost of 14 conducting a particulate test in the field. And they 15 recognize that sometimes those tests shouldn't be 16 warranted when the best available engine and control 17 technology are installed. 18 Recently, through our discussions with the user 19 community, with distributors, and with CARB staff, it 20 became apparent that there is reason to consider extending 21 these alternative compliance demonstration capabilities to 22 a very select number of Tier 2 engines that have recently 23 been installed or may be installed in the very near 24 future. 25 As I understand today, CARB staff does understand PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 160 1 that and recognize that it is worthy of further discussion 2 and that they are willing to consider such changes in 3 their 15-day modification process. I appreciate staff's 4 willingness to consider this and certainly welcome the 5 opportunity along with the user community to work with 6 CARB staff to that end. 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 8 Mr. Jordan. 9 MR. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, 10 I'm Tom Jordan. I'm the Special Projects Administrator at 11 the San Joaquin Valley Air District. 12 We're here today to support the stationary engine 13 ATCM. Our air district's home to roughly half of these 14 engines, about 5,000 engines. We are definitely thankful 15 that the staff has worked with us. We adopted a rule that 16 regulates these engines back in June of 2005 and 17 established a registration program. And your staff has 18 worked to ensure that that registration program can mesh 19 together with this to accomplish the goals of the ATCM as 20 well. 21 We're also thankful for the outreach efforts that 22 staff has undertaken in developing the rule. And as was 23 mentioned, we are developing the outreach materials. And 24 currently the industry is looking at those to make sure 25 they're appropriate to be shared with other regions of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 161 1 state. That effort is definitely underway to provide 2 appropriate materials to get the word out about this 3 program. 4 We are aggressively looking at these engines and 5 doing everything we can in our air basin through the 6 electrification program. We've actually contracted for 7 more than 580 engines and continue to work with Carl Moyer 8 and other ways to replace these engines. And we think 9 that staff proposal works well, and we think it's very 10 workable in our region. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 12 And our final speaker will be Bonnie Holmes-Gen. 13 MS. HOLMES-GEN: Mr. Chairman and Board members, 14 Bonnie Holmes-Gen with the American Lung Association. 15 And I wanted to indicate our support for this 16 measure as another important step toward meeting the 17 state's goals for reducing our exposure to toxic diesel 18 soot with all the health effects we talked about this 19 morning and contributing to a regional and statewide ozone 20 and particulate matter control. 21 We urge you to not add any additional exemptions 22 or delays in the regulation. And we want to also commend 23 the staff for achieving both significant particulate 24 matter and nitrogen oxide, NOx, reductions in the rule. 25 We strongly support the multiple pollutant approach and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 162 1 believe that's the way the Board has to move forward. And 2 that's certainly the way we're going to have to move 3 forward as we go into the area of greenhouse gas emission 4 reductions also. We're going to have to be looking at 5 these areas, criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas and 6 what we can get from each rule as we move forward. 7 And just finally, we appreciate the interest of 8 the Board and staff to provide flexibility to allow the 9 use of the Carl Moyer funds and some of the creative 10 approaches that are being discussed. But we also wanted 11 to state that the availability of these funds should not 12 be a prerequisite to moving forward as quickly as possible 13 in this regulation. We encourage you to stick to these 14 time lines that you've laid out and not to extend them 15 back any further. 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 17 Does staff have any further comments? 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Only if you have 19 questions of us. 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Apparently not. 21 Ms. D'Adamo. 22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, just on this Carl 23 Moyer issue. Maybe the best way to approach it would be 24 to get a report back from staff as we get closer to this 25 deadline just to see if you were successful in helping out PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 163 1 with some of the creative financing. But I don't have an 2 opinion on the exact date, but whatever you think would be 3 appropriate. 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Sure. We can do 5 that. We already track Carl Moyer expenditures every year 6 in our report to the Legislature. And we can distinguish 7 what's happening on the ag side. 8 I do want to warn you that every engine subject 9 to this regulation will be subsidized at the end of the 10 day. But there will be more Carl Moyer money going in 11 this category as we approach the deadline for the 12 regulations. 13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Sure. I understand I 14 think it needs to be more than eight engines. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Riordan. 16 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, following 17 along on that. A report is good. But I'm just hopeful 18 that maybe conclusive with our Board item here that we can 19 encourage the staff to look for those extra funds that may 20 fall from some of the other uses. And we just simply hope 21 you can be very creative and find some of those moneys 22 that are necessary, and they can't necessarily be found 23 today or tomorrow. But within a period of time, a short 24 period of time, maybe we can do that, as well as the 25 outreach that I think all of us want you to emphasize as PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 164 1 we move forward on this item. 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We think there's 3 a chance there might be federal dollars through the farm 4 bill as well being expanded to include stationary 5 agriculture pumps which currently are not eligible. 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I will now close the record 7 on this agenda item. However, the record will be reopened 8 when the 15-day Notice of Public Availability is issued. 9 Written or oral comments received after this hearing date, 10 but before the 15-day notice is issued will not be 11 accepted as part of the official record on this agenda 12 item. When the record is reopened for a 15-day comment 13 period, the public may submit written comments on the 14 proposed changes which will be considered and responded to 15 in the Final Statement of Reasons for the regulation. 16 Are there any ex parte communications that Board 17 members need to address? 18 Ms. D'Adamo. 19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I spoke today with Paul 20 Buttner with the California Rice Commission and on 21 November 9th had a phone conversation with Cynthia Cory 22 representing the California Farm Bureau, and their 23 comments to me mirrored the written comments that they 24 submitted. 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I've had no contacts. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 165 1 The Board has before it Resolution Number 639. 2 Do I have a motion to approve? 3 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: So moved. 4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I second that, Mr. 5 Chairman, and indicate an encouragement to staff with that 6 Resolution for some creative funding for this as well as 7 the effort to do the outreach to reach the people in the 8 more distant areas of our state. 9 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And point of clarification. 10 Are we moving and seconding to include the residential 11 language change on the near sources in the 15 day? 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes. I understand that that 13 is what will be done. 14 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Is there any further 16 discussion? If not, we'll take a vote at this time. All 17 in favor please say aye. 18 (Aye) 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Opposed? 20 Thank you very much. 21 The next agenda item is 6-10-6, Proposed 22 Amendments to the Air Toxics Hot Spots Emission Inventory 23 Criteria and Guidelines. 24 Under State law, air toxic emissions from 25 stationary sources must be reported, assessed, and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 166 1 reduced. The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program is mature, 2 having been in place for over 15 years. Today's proposal 3 would make two key changes: Include stationary diesel 4 engines in the program; and add new health information 5 from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 6 Ms. Witherspoon, would you introduce this item? 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Dr. 8 Sawyer. 9 Today's amendments to the air toxic regulation 10 essentially align the Hot Spots guidelines with our Diesel 11 Risk Reduction Program. Based on rules the Board has 12 already adopted, many facilities are on track to comply 13 with these amendments. However, additional analyses will 14 be required where there are multiple diesel engines in one 15 place or where the inclusion of diesel engines to a single 16 facility may bring the risk above the statutory 17 threshholds. In some cases, additional control may also 18 be required. The amendments also reflect the current 19 state of the science for evaluating diesel health risks as 20 defined by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard 21 Assessment. 22 With that introduction, Chris Halm of the 23 Planning and Technical Support Division will present the 24 proposed amendments. Chris. 25 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 167 1 presented as follows.) 2 MR. HALM: Good afternoon. As Ms. Whitherspoon 3 said, I will be presenting staff's proposal to amend the 4 AB 2588 Air Toxics Hot Spots emissions inventory criteria 5 and guidelines regulation. This regulation was first 6 approved by the Board in 1989 and sets the criteria for 7 facilities to report air toxic emissions data to the local 8 air districts. Amendments to the guidelines regulation 9 are necessary to bring the Hot Spots Program up to date. 10 --o0o-- 11 MR. HALM: In my presentation, I'll provide a 12 brief overview of the Hot Spots Program, provide proposed 13 amendments for the incorporation of diesel PM, the 14 potential economic impacts, as well as staff's 15 recommendation. This regulation deals with emissions 16 reporting requirements. We are not proposing to change 17 the fees. 18 --o0o-- 19 MR. HALM: The AB 2588 Air Toxic Hot Spots 20 Information and Assessment Act was passed by the 21 California State Legislature in 1987 to provide the public 22 with information about air toxics being emitted from 23 stationary sources. This program was conceived at a time 24 when there was very limited information on the sources and 25 amounts of air toxic emissions in California. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 168 1 The key provisions are: Reporting of toxic 2 emissions by facilities, health risk assessments, 3 notifying the public of significant risks, and reducing 4 those risks at the facility to acceptable levels. 5 Over the years, the ARB's toxic programs have 6 evolved, and the Board has adopted ATCMs to more directly 7 reduce the risk from toxic air contaminants. The Hot 8 Spots Program still serves as a backstop to other air 9 toxics programs by protecting the public from air toxic 10 emissions that occur at specific facilities. 11 --o0o-- 12 MR. HALM: ARB, OEHHA, and the 35 local air 13 districts worked together to implement Hot Spots Program. 14 The Air Resources Board establishs guidelines for 15 emissions reporting, which is what we will be focusing on 16 today. OEHHA develops risk assessment guidelines and 17 assists local air districts with reviewing facility health 18 risk assessments. This requires air districts implement 19 the Hot Spots Program by collecting emissions data and 20 establishing public notification guidelines and risk 21 reduction threshholds and reviewing facility inventories 22 for risk assessments. 23 --o0o-- 24 MR. HALM: California has a multi-faceted program 25 to reduce health risks from air toxics. Emission-based PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 169 1 ATCMs reduce major risks on a sector-by-sector basis 2 usually by a specific type of equipment or process. The 3 Diesel Risk Reduction Plan addresses statewide emissions 4 of diesel PM, the most significant air toxic. And the Hot 5 Spots Program focuses on overall facility impacts. This 6 often requires a facility-wide risk assessment and may 7 trigger risk reduction for the entire facility. Hot Spots 8 is unique in that it evaluates the entire risk at the 9 facility, ensuring that the combined emissions from a 10 facility do not pose a significant risk to the public. 11 --o0o-- 12 MR. HALM: Now I'd like to provide some 13 background on the proposed amendments. 14 --o0o-- 15 MR. HALM: The guidelines regulation provides 16 guidance to air districts and facilities. This includes 17 applicability criteria, who's in and who's out, the 18 reporting schedule, and the list of substances subject to 19 reporting. The regulation also spells out the reporting 20 format for facilities and incorporates risk assessment 21 guidelines. 22 As new information becomes available, it is 23 necessary to update the guidelines regulation to reflect 24 that. The guidelines regulation was updated several times 25 in the early 1990s and again in 1997 when the program was PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 170 1 significantly streamlined. 2 --o0o-- 3 MR. HALM: Today, we are proposing amendments to 4 update the guidelines regulation to reflect the fact that 5 diesel PM was identified as a toxic air contaminant in 6 1998 and to align requirements with the stationary engine 7 ATCM implemented to reduce risks. The risk assessment 8 methodologies and health values are available from OEHHA 9 and new substances should be added to the regulation. 10 Now I will summarize the amendments we are 11 proposing in the next few slides. 12 --o0o-- 13 MR. HALM: Staff is proposing language in the 14 guidelines regulation to align the diesel PM reporting 15 requirements with the stationary diesel engine ATCM to 16 minimize duplicative requirements. We are also proposing 17 to align the timing, reporting threshholds, and reporting 18 requirements. Adding diesel PM would address residual 19 risk at facilities with multiple engines near receptors. 20 Staff is proposing to replace the 1993 CAPCOA 21 risk assessment guidelines with the 2003 OEHHA health risk 22 assessment guidelines. The OEHHA guidelines were 23 developed in a public process and lay out the methods and 24 requirements for evaluating risk from air toxics. 25 The OEHHA risk assessment guidelines are being PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 171 1 used by districts as part of risk evaluations. So we need 2 to bring the program up to date by the formal inclusion of 3 these guidelines in the Hot Spots Program. 4 --o0o-- 5 MR. HALM: We're proposing to incorporate new 6 health values that have been approved by OEHHA since 1997. 7 These health values were developed based on scientific 8 studies of the health effects of air toxics. This 9 includes the cancer potency for diesel PM. Only a few new 10 health values may trigger additional facility evaluations. 11 And for a few substances where test methods are still 12 under development, ARB staff recommends the districts 13 delay emissions reporting. 14 --o0o-- 15 MR. HALM: As required by State law, staff 16 consulted specified lists of substances. And for example, 17 that could be Prop. 65 and IARC and EPA's HAP list, among 18 others and updated the Hot Spots list of substances where 19 necessary. Nine substances are being added because new 20 health information has become available. Some substances 21 that had previously been reported as part of a chemical 22 class will now be reported individually if the data is 23 available. Two additional substances of potential health 24 concern are being added so that emissions can be tracked 25 if necessary. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 172 1 --o0o-- 2 MR. HALM: Staff is also proposing to clarify 3 that thermal spraying is a metal coating process covered 4 by the Hot Spots Program. The thermal spraying ATCM that 5 was adopted in 2004 addresses the risk from the source 6 category. So this clarification of the guidelines 7 regulation is not likely to trigger any additional 8 requirements. 9 ARB staff also adjusted the reporting 10 requirements to allow electronic inventory submittals to 11 match the format in the Hot Spots Analysis and Reporting 12 Program, or HARP, which has been used in Hot Spots Program 13 since 2003. Again, this is necessary to bring the 14 regulation up to date to reflect what is already taking 15 place at the local air districts. 16 --o0o-- 17 MR. HALM: Now I'd like to explain how 18 incorporation of diesel PM will work. 19 --o0o-- 20 MR. HALM: The general process for evaluating 21 facilities with diesel engines begins with the district 22 determining applicability, is the facility subject to hot 23 spots. Facilities with diesel engines already in hot 24 spots update their emissions report and risk assessment if 25 necessary. Facilities with only diesel engines have a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 173 1 streamlined process where the district can quickly 2 evaluate the risk and screen out low-risk facilities from 3 the program. 4 We anticipate that the stationary engine ATCM 5 will address the risk from facilities with a single diesel 6 engine. Facilities with multiple diesel engines located 7 near receptors could still pose a significant risk after 8 ATCM implementation and may need to act to further reduce 9 their risk to an acceptable level. 10 --o0o-- 11 MR. HALM: The Hot Spots Program requires a 12 reporting of emissions from operations at a facility that 13 are routine and predictable. And that's in the statute. 14 This important determination can be complex for diesel 15 engines, because many diesel engine applications are often 16 performed on an intermittent basis, take place at 17 different locations around a facility, or use equipment 18 brought in from off site for short-term projects. 19 Because of this complexity, a determination of 20 routine and predictable is done by the local air district 21 in consultation with the facility operator. This allows 22 the determination of routine and predictable to reflect 23 the unique circumstances at the facility. Non-routine 24 activities and operation of back-up engines during actual 25 power outages when the lights go off are not predictable PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 174 1 and are not required to be reported as part of the Hot 2 Spots Program. 3 --o0o-- 4 MR. HALM: Small engines. Many facilities 5 operate small diesel engines, those less than 50 6 horsepower, that may not be subject to district permits. 7 Because these engines are not usually expected to 8 significantly contribute to the overall facility risk, the 9 proposed amendments do not require automatic reporting of 10 these engines. However, the amendments allow the district 11 to request reporting if the engines could pose significant 12 risk. And I think this is important. It is important for 13 the district to have the ability to evaluate these engines 14 where the risk may be significant. 15 --o0o-- 16 MR. HALM: In many cases, the operation of 17 portable diesel engines is not routine and predictable. 18 However, sometimes it is, and those emissions should be 19 addressed. Similar to small engines, the proposed 20 amendments do not require facilities to report emissions 21 unless the district finds there is a potential for a 22 significant risk. 23 --o0o-- 24 MR. HALM: Earlier today, the Board approved 25 amendments to the ATCM for agricultural diesel engines. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 175 1 The ATCM will satisfy hot spots requirements for most 2 owners of stationary agricultural diesel engines. In 3 order to eliminate duplicative requirements and to allow 4 the ATCM to be implemented, we are proposing to have hot 5 spots requirements applicable after 2011, which is 6 consistent with the timing of the ATCM. 7 As you heard in the previous presentation, the 8 early identification of high-risk engines near homes and 9 schools is a high priority. And we are working with the 10 districts to make this happen and to see that the risks 11 are reduced quickly. For example, as you heard, the San 12 Joaquin Valley is promoting electrification as part of 13 their strategy to reduce health risks, and other districts 14 are likely to develop similar programs. 15 --o0o-- 16 MR. HALM: Some unique diesel engines with 17 specialized safety or national security applications 18 require special consideration, because modifying these 19 engines to meet air pollution requirements may conflict 20 with other important considerations. This includes 21 military tactical support equipment, stationary diesel 22 engines at nuclear power plants, and direct dry fire pumps 23 subject to the National Fire Protection Association. For 24 these unique applications, districts will have to decide 25 whether risk reduction is feasible. In these cases, we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 176 1 believe the district should consider alternate risk 2 reduction requirements. 3 Now for the economic impacts. 4 --o0o-- 5 MR. HALM: Facility costs are a function of the 6 number of engines at a facility and how close the engines 7 are located to receptors. For the majority of facilities, 8 those with only one engine -- and this turns out to be 80 9 percent of the facilities -- costs will be low or zero. 10 This is because the stationary engine ATCM has already 11 brought the risk from the engine down to a health 12 protective level. Facilities with multiple engines 13 located near receptors may have to do more than what is 14 required by the ATCM. This could include engine 15 replacement if the risk was significant. 16 --o0o-- 17 MR. HALM: And as you can see in the chart, the 18 chart shows how costs increase with the number of engines 19 at a facility. And these are staff's estimates. 20 The total cost for the proposed amendments is 21 estimated to be $8 million over four years. Almost all of 22 these costs are due to diesel engines. Costs for 23 facilities that emit substances with new health values 24 include the cost of updating emission inventories and risk 25 assessments or facilities that emit sufficient quantities PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 177 1 of these substances. 2 --o0o-- 3 MR. HALM: The addition of diesel PM helps to 4 address health risks from facilities with diesel engines. 5 This brings the program up to date with current program 6 needs. 7 And now let's address some comments. 8 --o0o-- 9 MR. HALM: During the public comment period, 10 we've received numerous comments on the proposed 11 amendments. Most of these comments relate to the 12 application of the Hot Spots Program to portable diesel 13 engines. 14 At this time, I would like to summarize some of 15 the major issues and our responses. We believe that the 16 most significant concern identified in the comments is 17 that the proposed amendments do not explicitly align the 18 Hot Spots Program with the portable diesel engine ATCM. 19 Earlier in this presentation, we described the steps to 20 align the Hot Spots Program with the stationary diesel 21 ATCM, and we believe that it is appropriate to take 22 similar steps to more closely align the Hot Spots Program 23 with the portable diesel engine ATCM. And in the next 24 slide, I'll describe how we intend to do that. 25 We received many comments about how to apply the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 178 1 Hot Spots Program's routine and predictable rule, 2 particularly with regard to portable equipment. This can 3 be complicated, because portable equipment is often 4 brought in for short-term projects as we described 5 earlier. Different types of equipment may be used or 6 brought in by a third party. To deal with this issue, we 7 traditionally have allowed the local air districts 8 discretion to work with facilities to make the 9 determination as to what constitutes routine and 10 predictable on a facility specific basis. 11 We have discussed this issue at length with 12 CAPCOA, and their desire is to retain the flexibility to 13 make this determination at the local level. After lengthy 14 discussions regarding this issue, we do not think a 15 one-size-fits-all approach is workable. 16 We also received a number of comments requesting 17 the ARB affirm that facilities have the option to submit 18 updated risk assessment information to the local air 19 districts. We are pleased that facilities want to be 20 proactive to assess and reduce risks, and we are proposing 21 to add language in the 15-day changes that facilities have 22 the option to submit updated health risk information or 23 district review. This is a new change that is not 24 currently in the Resolution before you or it may have 25 previous -- just recently been passed out, and we ask that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 179 1 you approve this addition to the proposed modifications. 2 The Navy requested that military tactical support 3 equipment, TSE, be exempted from Hot Spots reporting 4 requirements. Although TSE is exempt from emission limits 5 under Health and Safety Code 41754, this does not preclude 6 a military facility from providing emission information 7 conducting health risk assessments, or if necessary, 8 performing public notification. 9 --o0o-- 10 MR. HALM: As part of our proposed 15-day 11 changes, we are proposing to add language to align Hot 12 Spots reporting requirements with the portable diesel 13 engine ATCM. This means there would be no Hot Spots 14 reporting for portable engines until 2010. This allows 15 the first phase of risk reduction in the ATCM to occur. 16 In the proposal, we are proposing to retain the 17 provision that states that the facility does not have to 18 report portable engine emissions unless the district 19 determines the engines at the facility may pose a 20 significant risk. 21 There are also some corrections to punctuation, 22 formatting, names of substances, and references in the 23 text of the proposal that we would like to clean up and 24 include as part of the 15-day changes before you. And 25 again I remind you we made that change to include that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 180 1 facilities have the option to submit risk assessment 2 information to the district and that's part of the new 3 changes. 4 --o0o-- 5 MR. HALM: The ARB staff recommends that the 6 Board adopt the proposed amendments to the guidelines 7 regulation with the proposed 15-day changes outlined in 8 the presentation, including the ability of the facility to 9 submit risk assessments. Thank you. 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 11 Madam Ombudsman, can we have your report, please? 12 OMBUDSMAN QUETIN: Thank you. Chairman Sawyer 13 and members of the Board, this regulation has been 14 developed with input from the refining industry, the 15 motion picture industry, their association, the California 16 Cotton Ginners Association, California Council for 17 Environmental and Economic Balance, California Farm Bureau 18 Federation, NISEI Farmers League, Pacific Gas and 19 Electric, Southern California Alliance of Publicly-Owned 20 Treatment Works, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Western States 21 Petroleum Association, City of Los Angeles Public Works 22 Department, Los Angeles County Sanitation District, and 23 finally the Orange County Sanitation District. 24 For more than three years, staff has met monthly 25 with CAPCOA Toxics Committee to discuss the proposed PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 181 1 amendments to the guidelines regulation. They held three 2 public workshops. The first meeting was held on March 3 28th in Sacramento, the second on April 3rd in Diamond 4 Bar, and the third on July 27th in Sacramento. 5 Approximately 35 individuals attended each of the 6 three workshops. Staff also held numerous conference 7 calls and individual meetings with the stakeholders. Both 8 the staff report and the Board hearing notice were 9 published on September 29th, 2006. More than 1900 10 stakeholders received the notification via the list serve. 11 I believe staff did an excellent job in outlining 12 some of the industry's concerns and their responses to 13 them. I would only add that many stakeholders are very 14 anxious about how the districts will implement the 15 proposed amendments and therefore would like to have the 16 definition of "routine and predictable" established by ARB 17 and not be open to interpretation by the districts. 18 Also I think that this was partially stated, but 19 industry feels that the portable equipment is already 20 being cleaned up with the portable equipment registration 21 program and shouldn't be rolled into this. 22 And that concludes my comments. 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 24 I have a comment and a question to start this 25 off. But if we go to page 24, slide 24, and I suspect PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 182 1 many in the audience and the public find the term "new 2 health values" confusing. I think you probably mean newly 3 determined adverse health values or adverse health 4 impacts; is that correct? 5 MR. HALM: The term health values refers to 6 cancer potencies that you apply diesel emissions? 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I think we should say that. 8 I think most people think of health as being something 9 good for you. 10 Okay. And then on 28, please. To help me 11 understand the nature of these facilities, could you just 12 run down what those four photographs are of and if they're 13 in the five engine plus category or not. 14 MR. HALM: The first picture is from Master 15 Plating down in San Diego. And that's a chrome plater 16 subject to the Hot Spots Program. They don't have diesel 17 engines, but they're subject to the -- if they were still 18 operating, still subject to the requirements of Hot Spots. 19 The second picture is a stock picture of -- looks 20 like a petroleum refining facility. I don't know the 21 specifics of that particulate facility. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: It's safe to assume 23 refineries have more than five diesel engines, I assume. 24 So they definitely would be impacted by this. 25 MR. HALM: Right. Yes. That's true. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 183 1 And then the next two pictures are of stationary 2 engines. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Maybe that doesn't quite 4 inform me enough about what kind of facilities are 5 impacted by this. 6 MR. HALM: So who's got a diesel engine in 7 California. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I'm more interested in 9 multiple diesel engines in places that have five, for 10 example. 11 MR. HALM: Certainly refineries, military bases, 12 some schools and universities in particulate, and POTWs, 13 the publicly-owned treatment works and sanitation 14 facilities and those sorts of things. It turns out there 15 are many public agencies that have many diesel engines. 16 It's not just business. It's also public agencies. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: These engines are used not 18 for emergency purposes but for day to day operations? 19 MR. HALM: I think it would be both. I think 20 most of the stationary engines are used for emergency 21 backup power. And you're including only the maintenance 22 and testing hours, and you test every month to make sure 23 the engine is still operating. Those emissions would be 24 included. When the lights go out and you turn the engine 25 on, those aren't included in the Hot Spots. Some PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 184 1 facilities have lots of portable engines which they use in 2 a different manner and those would or wouldn't be included 3 depending on whether they meet the criteria for inclusion 4 which is routine and predictable. 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Something like a movie 6 studio with portable generators would fall under this 7 category; is that possible? 8 MR. HALM: Yes. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I'm getting a better sense 10 of who's likely to be impacted by this. Thank you. 11 Are there any other questions from the Board? 12 Public testimony. The first three speakers will 13 be Tom Umenhofer, Mary Kay Faryan, and Mary Jane Foley. 14 Mr. Umenhofer 15 MR. UMENHOFER: Dr. Sawyer, members of the Board, 16 good afternoon. My name is Tom Umenhofer. I'm Senior Air 17 Quality Advisor for the Western States Petroleum 18 Association, WSPA. I'm here not only on behalf of WSPA, 19 but also representing the interest of 16 coalition members 20 that represent 16 major business associations in the state 21 of California whose thoughts are captured in a November 22 13th, 2006, letter to the Board. 23 I'm going to deviate from what I was going to say 24 to respond to your question, Dr. Sawyer. Folks that I 25 deal with have a lot of these engines, and they're PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 185 1 portable engines. And they include folks like rental 2 companies, movie studios, utilities. Caltrans has a lot 3 of them as well. But certainly a large majority are folks 4 that do field operations, water wells, and energy well 5 development. So there's where a lot of your engines under 6 this program would fall. 7 Collectively -- and I am happy to say with these 8 16 organizations I was able to boil down the testimony to 9 one page. I was worried about that about a week ago. But 10 collectively, we only have a couple major issues. And 11 these major issues were really addressed in this latest 12 redraft that you have a copy of and really went to the 13 heart of the concerns and resolve things in a very 14 positive way from my standpoint. 15 And specifically we're talking about the portable 16 equipment. The language related to the portable equipment 17 was revised in my mind to help things out quite a bit. I 18 had a very active role. I considered myself one of the 19 industry co-authors of the Portable Equipment Registration 20 Program that was amended recently along with your staff 21 and CAPCOA. So I'm very protective of that program, and I 22 felt that the original way this amendment was written up 23 it would undermine the effectiveness of that program. 24 That language has been changed to defer 25 applicability to match up with the diesel ATCM. That PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 186 1 works. That alleviates that concern of undermining the 2 program. I'd like the deadline to go away all together. 3 The second issue that was taken off the table was 4 handling of very small engines. And as you saw on the 5 staff report, the small engines will not be required to do 6 the reporting. And that's a reasonable resolution from 7 our point of view. So those two big issues are off the 8 table. And all we have left is things that are relatively 9 small and related in my mind more to the staff report. 10 And you've heard it before, definition of routine and 11 predictable. Also dealing with the term of good cause, 12 the districts' discussion of good cause. And just from a 13 businessperson's standpoint, we know one size doesn't fit 14 all, but we sure would like a little bit more direction. 15 And with regard to how these two important terms, routine 16 and predictable and good cause, are going to be applied by 17 local districts. 18 The one suggestion we have is in the staff report 19 it recommends that the risk from engines using pure 20 biodiesel blend and alternative fuels use a different 21 methodology using speciated emissions versus unit risk 22 factor, URF, for diesel. And simply put, it's like mixing 23 apples and oranges. And it's not considered as fuel 24 neutral. And I'll give you an example. Near pure 25 biodiesel is 99 percent biodiesel and would be assessed PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 187 1 under this rule using speciated emissions. 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I must ask you to conclude, 3 please. 4 MR. UMENHOFER: Anyway, we like staff to take a 5 look at that particular item so that there's some fuel 6 neutrality in there. 7 At the end of the day, all being said, WSPA and 8 the coalition members are supportive of this proposal and 9 look forward to discussing our minor issues with the staff 10 in the next 15 days. Thank you very much. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 12 Does staff have any comments on this issue which 13 we heard before of B100 and whether the toxic potency 14 should be adjusted or whether we're in the position to 15 begin to do that? 16 EMISSIONS INVENTORY BRANCH CHIEF TARICCO: I can 17 try to address that. I think as Dan said in the last 18 presentation, treatment of how we deal with biodiesel 19 began with the stationary ATCM. And we've always looked 20 at if you have an engine that is burning 100 percent 21 biodiesel, there's not information out there that would 22 lead one to believe that that exhaust is very similar to 23 an engine operating on diesel fuel. 24 So when you're looking at a risk assessment and 25 looking at the PM from an engine running 100 percent PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 188 1 biodiesel, we have said we think the best way to go is to 2 speciate the individual components. Once you put any 3 diesel fuel in with that biodiesel so you have a blend 4 like B80, B50, there's no way we can assess what the 5 exhaust characteristics are like, what part is coming from 6 diesel and what part is coming from the biodiesel. 7 So to be health protective, we recommend that you 8 apply the diesel potency factor to engines running on 9 blends of biodiesel. I think this is an ongoing area of 10 study. I think with our biofuel policy being developed, 11 we will see what kind of other information is coming out 12 and reassess this in the future. But that's the way we've 13 been doing it today. 14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 15 Are there any comments from the Board? 16 Mary Kay Faryan. 17 MS. FARYAN: Good afternoon, Chairman, Board 18 members, staff. Mary Kay Faryan, Navy Region Southwest on 19 behalf of the military installations in California. 20 Sir, to start out my remarks, I'd like to remind 21 you of the facility you had visited on Monday, Naval Air 22 Station North Island. And just to note that the military 23 installations are in compliance with AB 2588. In fact, 24 one of the risk reduction measures that we implemented at 25 the chrome plating facility was the demister that we saw PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 189 1 from the car. And that reduced our chrome 6 emissions by 2 99 percent and reduced our toxic impacts and reporting, et 3 cetera. 4 So setting the 2588 compliance aside, I'm here to 5 talk to you just about a sub-set of portable equipment 6 that staff briefed, tactical support equipment, or TSE as 7 I'll talk about it in my remarkds. 8 TSE forms a support of the backbone for our 9 national defense. Quite simply, jet engines cannot start 10 without them. Field communications cannot occur without 11 them. Test and evaluation of new weapon systems cannot 12 occur without them. TSE use remains vital to testing and 13 training evolutions throughout California basis in support 14 of DOD's overall mission to fight terrorism and to ensure 15 our national defense. 16 I'm getting on a soapbox a little bit here, but 17 it is an important category of equipment. We addressed 18 this category of equipment with the Legislature in AB 531. 19 And ARB actually did a statewide assessment of the nature 20 of those emissions and did conclude they were de minimus 21 from a statewide perspective. In that legislation, 22 districts and ARB were prohibited from providing emission 23 controls or emission limitations on this equipment. 24 We understand your staff views the question of 25 how this exemption fits within AB 2588 differently than we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 190 1 do. My purpose here is to seek changes to staff 2 recommendations that will ensure the spirit of the 3 protection of our use of TSE is consistent with your goals 4 in this regulation. 5 We have two specific requests. Current staff 6 recommendation is that districts "should" not require any 7 risk reduction for the use of TSE. We recommend this be 8 changed to "shall." The justification for this is clear 9 from our perspective in statutory and regulatory 10 prohibitions on districts from imposing emission control 11 or limitations as for TSE registered in the PERP, Portable 12 Equipment Registration Program. 13 Risk reduction can occur only in two ways: A 14 physical change to the engine; or number two, restrictions 15 on the use of the engine. It's our opinion that both of 16 these risk reduction implementations are in conflict with 17 the statutory provisions. And it is therefore appropriate 18 to prescribe the districts shall not require risk 19 reductions. 20 My last point is that we seek ARB to engage 21 affirmatively and to provide prescriptive guidance to 22 districts on emission inventories inclusions of TSEs, 23 specifically that districts provide general aggregation of 24 TSE based on reasonable assumptions: Distance from fence 25 line, consideration of risk tables. And provided that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 191 1 those demonstrate a low risk, they would not need to be 2 included in the inventory. 3 Further, specific movement of TSE should not be 4 subject to reporting. We do not think that we should have 5 to follow movements in our field generations as they move 6 around in a training range or on the flight line. Rather, 7 we should be able to provide generalized estimates or 8 location and usage. 9 We thank you for your consideration of our 10 remarks. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 12 Does staff have a response to what we heard? 13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, the witness 14 is absolutely correct that the law prohibits districts and 15 the Board from regulating emissions from this equipment. 16 And she talked about the spirit of that law. The spirit 17 of the Hot Spots law is actually right to know. And so 18 whether you can control the emissions or not, the concept 19 was that the public effected by them would know that it 20 was happening and what risks they were being exposed to. 21 Ms. Faryan talked about there's only two choices, 22 replace the equipment or use it less often. Some of the 23 things the military is looking at, though I would grant 24 you are not appropriate for wide-scale deployment at this 25 time, are fuel cells, electrification, other kinds of mode PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 192 1 of devices. 2 But I think that's the balance here that the 3 Board's going to have to find on whether the public's 4 right to know justifies a reporting element when statutory 5 limitations prevent you from doing much with that 6 information unless you have it. 7 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: If I could just 8 add one other comment is if the Board does desire the 9 reporting requirement to stay, we're certainly happy to 10 work with the Department on the guidance in terms of how 11 to report it in an efficient way the aggregation of 12 emissions and so on. 13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I would comment from my 14 discussions with the Department of Defense people earlier 15 in the week that one of the concerns expressed to me, 16 which I don't think we heard quite clearly today, was that 17 the tactical support equipment was really part of the 18 system, and that the Department of Defense wants to have 19 the same tactical support equipment in the United States 20 at the training bases that it uses overseas, which would 21 seem to make sense. Do we make that distinction? 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: No. It's really 23 just what are the emissions from it, and do they pose a 24 risk to the adjacent neighborhoods. That's what the Hot 25 Spots law does. And then you go on from there to do risk PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 193 1 mitigation where it's legally permissible. And in this 2 case, it's not. Or they could move it, but they won't. 3 They need to do what they need to do for national 4 security. And is it better or worse for the public to 5 know that there's a cancer risk associated perhaps with 6 some of that activity. 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Do you want to respond? 8 MS. FARYAN: Sir, we've had issues with respect 9 to how districts treat this equipment in the past. And 10 this pre-dates the Portable Equipment Registration 11 Program. But this is the genesis of our concern. 12 It is mission-critical equipment. And inventory 13 information, public notice, and risk reduction measures 14 are on a continuum. 15 And as Ms. Witherspoon says, you know, is 16 requiring emission inventory information for this 17 equipment -- which to get to the end point would be risk 18 reduction measures which is prohibited by statute. You 19 know, how far do you take that back? Can you permit 20 public notice by -- when you have a statutory prohibition 21 against emission controls and limitations, can you permit 22 inventory or require inventory information? I mean, it's 23 on this continuum once you notify the public, if there is 24 a problem, then what do you do about it? It is a 25 conundrum. And we think there's ample statutory support PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 194 1 for you to carve it out, quite frankly, from either the 2 emission inventory information, from the public 3 notification, and most certainly from the risk reduction 4 requirement. 5 And you're right. The worldwide deployability of 6 this information, staff knows this, is a very critical 7 component of this. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Riordan. 9 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Just maybe staff could 10 remind me. I've forgotten what the distance requirement 11 was for the notice and all of this that we go through for 12 the Hot Spots. 13 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: It's actually 14 risk-based. And each district determines what that 15 notification threshhold is for their particular district, 16 whether it's ten in a million or some other number. 17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: What's the distance 18 though? You can't have 50 miles away somebody saying -- 19 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Right. Because 20 basically you take the emissions and do your modeling and 21 you say how far out does the risk go to ten in a million, 22 for example? Does it go quarter of a mile or a mile or a 23 block, depending on the nature of the sources? So it's a 24 technical analysis that's done to determine at what 25 distance you meet a particular risk threshold. And it's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 195 1 at that distance you would be required legally to notify. 2 EMISSIONS INVENTORY BRANCH CHIEF TARICCO: If I 3 could just add in Hot Spots, there needs to be a receptor 4 nearby. So what Hot Spots does, if you are remotely 5 located, nobody lives near you, you're not an issue. But 6 if somebody lives in this case maybe near a military base 7 or a plater, you look at the risk at the nearest receptor. 8 And then the districts will set the risk thresholds they 9 feel are health protective. If the risk at that receptor 10 is below that threshold, the facility is not required to 11 do a risk reduction. If it's above, they are required to 12 do something. 13 There's not one distance that's considered 14 acceptable, because you have to look at both the amount of 15 emissions and who's living nearby. 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: One more comment 17 to put this into perspective. On the ag engine rule you 18 just adopted, we have the remote receptor exemption. And 19 staff told you that a quarter-mile away from a single ag 20 engine, the risk is still at ten in a million. 21 So not knowing what kind of engines are in the 22 TSE category and whether they're a quarter of a mile from 23 a receptor or not, you can see it's possible that military 24 operations would trip that threshold that somebody might 25 need to be notified. Some districts use 25 in a million PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 196 1 as the notification threshold. Those are the two that are 2 most in use throughout California. 3 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: What's difficult for me is 4 I have these vast remote areas for my military 5 installations. They would not be effected at all. But I 6 don't have a sense of what might be in San Diego or any of 7 these other locations. So I mean, I think the speaker 8 makes a good point, but I don't know that I can get the 9 answer to that. 10 PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT DIVISION CHIEF 11 MURCHISON: If could add one more comment. Under the Hot 12 Spots when we refer to risk, we're talking about the total 13 facility risk, not the risk from any individual piece. 14 You look at the facility in aggregate. If they trigger 15 that threshold for reduction, they look within their 16 facility on a number of different processes where they 17 might be able to reduce. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. D'Adamo. 19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I was getting a little 20 tired, but this woke me up. 21 I just think ultimately nothing can be done. The 22 public has a right to know. I mean, it just seems kind of 23 basic. Even if they can't be required to relocate, if I 24 were a resident and they can't relocate, I'd want to know. 25 Then maybe I can decide to do something and make a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 197 1 division that I wouldn't have the opportunity to even 2 analyze had I not known this information. I just seems 3 kind of basic to me. I don't know what the problem is 4 with providing information. 5 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I'd like clarification. Is a 6 receptor considered a military resident? So their family, 7 is that a receptor? 8 MS. FARYAN: Yes. Absolutely. Even employees on 9 a military base are considered receptors. 10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Not under the Hot 11 Spots law. It's outside the parameter of the facility. 12 It's however the facility is defined. And sometimes, you 13 know, that's the boundary of the base. It's the fence 14 line of the facility. It's an oil field if there is, you 15 know, petroleum extraction going on. 16 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Well, that's what I was 17 thinking. If the facility is in fact the base, you would 18 be talking about the surrounding community that lives next 19 door to the base. But then that would leave out the 20 military personnel that lives on the base. 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: It's up to them. 22 I did ask a question of our Chief Council whether 23 or not the law in any way obligated you to go one way or 24 the other. And he said, no, it's entirely at your 25 discretion. You can choose to exempt them from PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 198 1 notification or follow the spirit of the Hot Spots law and 2 say that they shall report for the benefit of the public 3 and acknowledge that that will not lead to controls, but 4 that the people will know. 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Well, I am confused on how 6 onerous the reporting requirements might or might not be. 7 Are they required to report where the equipment is on a 8 daily basis or -- 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: No. They're 10 merely required to say in mail notifications to people 11 within the risk ring what the total risk from the facility 12 is. 13 EMISSIONS INVENTORY BRANCH CHIEF TARICCO: If I 14 could add to that, for the portable equipment, that would 15 be like tactical support equipment, number one, it has to 16 be routine. And the way we structured the proposed 17 amendments for portable equipment and the less than 50, 18 the district needs to find good cause that there is a risk 19 to request that information. Because we think in most 20 cases this equipment probably won't be routine and 21 predictable and probably won't pose a big risk. So it's 22 set up so it's not automatic reporting for portable on the 23 small engines. It's going to be at the district request 24 if they think there is a risk. 25 So in terms of, I guess, the onerous of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 199 1 reporting, I'd have to defer to Mary Ann if she thinks 2 it's going to be a big deal for them or not, if she thinks 3 their equipment is routine and predictable in that it's 4 near receptors that it would pose a risk that then the 5 district would want to request that information. 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Supervisor Roberts. 7 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I was going to ask the 8 same question of the speaker. I think at the end of the 9 day, it's not clear to me to what extent we're sort of 10 setting up something that becomes difficult in view of the 11 military mission. You know what I'm hearing is that 12 reporting is not for those on the base and not for those 13 that are involved in the mission, but it's for a 14 surrounding community. And it's not clear to me what 15 pieces of equipment are effected, how often, and how 16 onerous this would be. 17 MS. FARYAN: May I respond? 18 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: That's a question to you. 19 MS. FARYAN: Thank you, Supervisor Roberts. 20 I think you raise some good questions. And the 21 problem with the reg as we see is it the discretion is 22 completely within the district, what's routine and 23 predictable as well as what level of information that we 24 need to report, which pieces of equipment we need to 25 include within the emissions inventory. So if there's a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 200 1 whole series of decisions that the district is left up to, 2 and we're asking for ARB to provide some oversight and 3 guidance as they acknowledge they have a role under the 4 statute. 5 We've asked for some specific things they provide 6 in terms of proscriptive guidance to the districts on 7 which pieces of TSE should be included within the emission 8 inventory and to carve out pieces where there was a 9 preliminary determination that it wouldn't cause an impact 10 to receptors. So I think you raise a question that I 11 don't have all the answers to because of the discretion 12 that's left within the district. 13 I did want to add one more thing. 14 Ms. Witherspoon spoke about the TSE inventory, and ARB 15 does have data on the nature of that inventory and the 16 emissions resulting and did conclude that it was a de 17 minimus level of emissions to support the AB 531 18 legislation. I understand that that's a different -- 19 somewhat a different analysis. But it's still an 20 important piece of data for this discussion. 21 And then lastly, Ms. Terry recommended or 22 acknowledged that you'd be willing to work on the 23 inventory requirements, and we embrace that. And we would 24 really appreciate your oversight and guidance and much 25 specificity with respect to this issue. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 201 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I'm still sort of bothered 2 by this. The tactical support equipment contribution to 3 the toxics has to be trivial compared to the tactical 4 equipment itself that's being supported; is that correct? 5 And say at a training facility where you have tanks. 6 MS. FARYAN: Sir, the equipment with weaponry 7 whether it's vessels, aircraft, on-road engines, off-road 8 engines, those aren't included. That's not for discussion 9 within this inventory. That's exempt by federal law as 10 well as State law. 11 So what the tactical piece of the inventory that 12 we're talking about here is just the portable equipment 13 that you saw on the aircraft carrier: The engine start 14 carts, some of the generators for lighting out in the 15 field. And they can be very big. Like at Vandenberg, 16 they've got boosters for some of the rocket, motor 17 equipment, and such. It runs the gamut. You asked to 18 quantify the nature of these emissions, and I share with 19 you the data that ARB has on AB 531 which demonstrates 20 it's de minimus. But it runs the gamut from small, less 21 than 50 horsepower engines, to very, very large engines to 22 support varying missions. 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: You're raising a 24 really good point. The Hot Spots law is the right to know 25 about stationary emissions, not total emissions. So that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 202 1 even when you notify the public, you're only telling them 2 about the fraction of risk associated with stationary and 3 portable engines. Even though they move, they're 4 considered stationary, because they're not on wheels and 5 they don't propel themselves. 6 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: And there is one 7 other aspect. It's a complicated law. One other piece of 8 it is that districts always have the discretion to go 9 beyond what the Board requires in our regulation. And 10 it's just something for your consideration as well. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. And what about the 12 request that the word "should" be changed to "shall"? Do 13 we have a response for that? 14 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Could you remind 15 us? 16 MS. FARYAN: Sure. Absolutely. It's my favorite 17 part. 18 There's a staff recommendation in the report that 19 indicates that there "should" not be a risk reduction 20 measure imposed on TSE by nature of this statutory 21 exemption. And we are asking that you be more again 22 proscriptive and direct that the districts "shall" not 23 impose a risk reduction measure. 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's fine. 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. I know we'll be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 203 1 hearing from a district at least, and maybe we can get 2 some viewpoints from their side later. Thank you very 3 much. 4 MS. FARYAN: Thank you for your time. 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Foley, and then we'll 6 have Stephanie Cheng, Frank Caponi, Sharon Rubalcava. 7 MS. FOLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members 8 of the Board and staff. My name is Mary Jane Foley. And 9 today I'm here as the regulatory affairs consultant to an 10 organization called SCAP, Southern California Alliance of 11 POTWs. We have 78 members across all the southern 12 California counties from Santa Barbara, Ventura, L.A., 13 Orange, San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino. And 14 they service the wastewater and water needs of 18 million 15 people. 16 And I'm here mostly to kick off the comments that 17 will come from one of our members following me. But I see 18 it as an overarching theme from the speakers who came 19 before me, and that's the one where they worry about the 20 discretion of the local districts. And I have a lot of 21 familiarity with the issue of consistency and discretion, 22 because I recently completed 20 years as a regulator on a 23 Regional Water Board and then the State Water Board. This 24 was usually the outcry of the regulated community that 25 they would be looking for statewide consistency and less PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 204 1 discretion in water with the Regional Boards. And I also 2 have to work on the California Toxic Rule for water. So I 3 know how important it is. I know how invaluable this is. 4 And we're not here today opposing any of it. But 5 it's just to -- I'm going to build on what was said by the 6 previous speakers. We have a couple of issues, and 7 they're mostly related to the routine and predictable, as 8 your staffperson showed the public comments. And that 9 having six counties, we have various -- we have almost 10 that many air districts. And as we work together to help 11 our membership understand what's required, what they're 12 supposed to do to be in compliance and et cetera, et 13 cetera, that discretionary problem does cause worries. 14 I'd like to use the word worries. 15 So that is, we're a little concerned that almost 16 anything could come under the Hot Spots rule, like 17 construction. I notice that one of the other members of 18 industry talked about construction. And our members feel 19 construction is handled very well in another very strict 20 environmental mandate, CEQA. 21 Another issue is the goal of the Hot Spots with 22 the inventories and the assessments and the -- let me get 23 the words right here. The risk assessments and the 24 inventories from toxics emission and the specific 25 guidelines and procedures are they're still worried about PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 205 1 the discretion that we would have -- we would not have 2 consistency in determineing how to do the inventories. 3 Will we have different risk assessment strategies from 4 district to district? And does that confuse the public? 5 And so in closing, I'm going to be followed by -- 6 I'd like to be followed by Frank Caponi and then have 7 Stephanie. 8 But I would like to say staff has been wonderful 9 in working with our members. We used to call them errata. 10 I think you call them proposed changes. Really addresses 11 a lot of the issues that were raised and totally 12 appreciative of that. And thank you for the opportunity 13 to speak to you today. And I'm just going to sit down now 14 and have -- I probably can't answer specific questions, 15 but you might be able to ask Frank Caponi from L.A. 16 Sanitation if you want some more specifics about the 17 overarching issues I tried to raise. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 19 Is there any importance to the sequence we take 20 the next two speakers? Are you suggesting -- 21 MS. FOLEY: Well, I think it would flow better to 22 have Frank Caponi from Los Angeles Sanitation. And then 23 Stephanie Cheng who is -- I'm southern California. 24 Stephanie is representing the Bay Area Clean Water people 25 and then a statewide technical group called TriTec. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 206 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Are the next two speakers 2 agreeable to switching order from what I have on my list? 3 MS. FOLEY: Thank you very much. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mr. Caponi. 5 MR. CAPONI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members 6 of the Board. My name is Frank Caponi with the L.A. 7 County Sanitation Districts. The Sanitation Districts 8 operate eleven waste water treatment plants, and we manage 9 half the solid waste generated in Los Angeles County. 10 Before I begin my testimony, I just wanted to 11 extend appreciation to the staff as usual. They are 12 terrific to work with. And say that we support the 15-day 13 amendments that the staff has proposed, that we're behind 14 all those amendments. I wanted to reiterate some of the 15 things Mary Jane said as well as hone in on some of her 16 points. I think it's very important to re-emphasize how 17 important the consistency -- when we're talking about 18 consistency, we're talking about consistency in preparing 19 inventories on calculating health risk assessments and the 20 final risk for the facilities. 21 The consistency, I can compare that to kind of 22 the PERP program. You know, the purpose of the PERP 23 program was so we didn't have 22 or 30 districts around 24 the state coming up for different ways of regulating 25 engines. This way, there was a consistent flow throughout PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 207 1 the state, much the same here. You know, as an essential 2 public service, we're always in the public eye and often 3 compared to similar facilities around the state. 4 Now at the basis of the health risk numbers are 5 different then what we fear is we fear that the health 6 risk numbers themselves will really have no meaning. And 7 it really puts us in a difficult situation. I think as 8 was pointed out already is that hot spots is a right to 9 know. The public has a right to know what's out there. 10 But we have to inform the public in a very orderly way and 11 everybody following the same rules. 12 Therefore, we strongly would recommend that the 13 definition of routine and predictable be modified. And 14 once again, we're concerned about the overarching 15 discretion that this definition gives to local districts. 16 Right now, it's worded routine and predictable is 17 determined by the district. We'de like to have that 18 determined by the district removed. 19 Now, the staff has done a really good job in 20 trying to characterize the concerns of industry and the 21 public. And there's one thing though I want to point out 22 that I think was a little bit misstated. It was said that 23 we did not want the local districts to have any 24 discretion. That is just not correct. We think the local 25 districts have to have discretion. We would support the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 208 1 local districts having discretion. But what the 15-day 2 modifications do is it gives the local districts 3 discretion, but it puts bounds on that discretion. It's 4 not an open-ended discretion. And that's what the 5 language in routine and predictable does. It gives the 6 districts really unbridled discretion. 7 So we support and we think the districts should 8 have discretion. We think there's situations where 9 portable engines should be brought into the program. But 10 once again, there has to be some bounds on that 11 discretion. We think ARB should have the leadership in 12 determining some of these issues. And it's happened in 13 the past early on in the Hot Spots Program. There were 14 some difficult interpretation issues. ARB stepped up to 15 the plate. And I think they did a terrific job in trying 16 to tie down those definitions. Under this definition, I 17 think we're going to have a hard time with that. 18 Mary Jane talked about construction. 19 Construction is something that kind of inadvertently has 20 popped into this whole issue. It's something we never 21 talked about in the past. Staff in response to comments 22 had mentioned that construction may be brought into the 23 Hot Spots Program if it's over several months. In fact, 24 it may be the other way around. But what this did is it 25 set up a situation now where districts can look at this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 209 1 and say, you know what? Maybe we can bring construction 2 projects into the program because it's a bright line over 3 several months. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I must be ask you to 5 conclude, please. 6 MS. CAPONI: So we really feel that construction 7 should be very specifically stated that it's not allowed 8 in the program. And there's a whole bunch of CEQA issues. 9 There's dual regulations. 10 Give me just 30 more seconds. 11 Staff is supportive of the fact that people 12 should be able to do health risk assessments. For 13 facilities to do health risk assessments, we really term 14 this proactive early health risk reduction. And we think 15 it should be written into the regulation that facilities 16 should be able to do risk assessments. And the reason is 17 is because there will be a lot of misinterpretation on the 18 district level whether they're able to do it or not. It's 19 so important, because facilities can have early risk 20 reduction if they do risk assessments and evaluate ways to 21 reduce risk in their facility. Thank you very much. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 23 Ms. Cheng. 24 MS. CHENG: Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer and Board 25 members. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to make PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 210 1 comments. My name is Stephanie Cheng. I'm with CH2M Hill 2 and I am representing TriTec, which is a technical 3 advisory group for publicly-owned treatment works across 4 the state of California. TriTec is sponsored by the 5 California Association of Sanitary Agencies, the 6 California Water Environment Association, and the League 7 of California Cities. And the constituency base for 8 TriTec, collects, treats, and reclaims more than two 9 billion gallons of waste water each day and conserves most 10 of the sewage population in California. 11 I'm also representing the Bay Area Clean Water 12 Agencies Air Issues and Regulations Committee, which has 13 about 18 members of Bay Area publicly-owned treatment 14 works within and around Francisco. So I work very closely 15 with SCAP and also with Frank Caponi. So a lot of the 16 things they've covered are also my same comments. 17 However, the one thing I'd like to take the 18 opportunity to harp on a little bit is this definition of 19 routine and predictable. The organization and agencies I 20 represent believe that the definition of routine and 21 predictable should be modified so that the discretion in 22 defining one of the most important aspects of the Hot 23 Spots Program is not completely abdicated to the local 24 districts. So as a main example, the definition should 25 clearly state that construction projects are not included. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 211 1 And I'd like to just follow up with that we are 2 very pleased that staff has been so willing to work with 3 us and addressed many of our other comments. But that one 4 remaining comment would be with routine and predictable. 5 Thank you very much. 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 7 Sharon Rubalcava and then Barry Wallerstein. 8 MS. RUBALCAVA: Good morning. Good afternoon 9 actually at this point. My name is Sharon Rubalcava. I'm 10 an attorney with the Weston, Benshoof Law Firm in Los 11 Angeles. And I'm outside environmental council to the 12 Motion Picture Association of America. 13 We submitted written comments on the proposed 14 amendments to the guidelines. And I wanted to thank 15 staff. They worked very closely with us and very 16 seriously and thoughtfully considered the comments that we 17 made. The errata sheet that was passed out today really 18 does address most of our concerns that we raised in the 19 past. And I'm pleased to say that we support the changes 20 that they proposed with regard to the portable engines and 21 also support the change with regard to the inclusion of 22 small internal combustion engines in the inventory. 23 We still think that there are two issues though 24 that might benefit from some additional clarification 25 perhaps in the Final Statement of Reasons. And our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 212 1 comments really are going to track the comments by others. 2 And it all relates to portable -- for the most part to 3 portable engines. 4 We have one issue that's unique to us, and that 5 we wanted some clarification on how emissions should be 6 included in the inventory for leased facilities. That's 7 something that's unique to the motion picture industry. 8 Also we have on the -- after 2010, portable engine 9 emissions may be included in the inventory if it's routine 10 and predictable. Like the other speakers, we think the 11 Final Statement of Reasons could provide some 12 clarification to the local districts that would help 13 greatly in the implementation of the program. 14 So at this point I think we're in a situation 15 where during the 15-day comment period we'd like to 16 continue to work with staff, see if we can get some 17 clarifications that will make the program even more 18 workable and more understandable and uniform. And once 19 again, thanks so much to staff for being very responsive 20 to our issues. 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 22 Barry Wallerstein. 23 MR. WALLERSTEIN: Good afternoon, Chairman 24 Sawyer, members of the Board. I'm here in support of the 25 staff's original proposal. I am here also to urge you not PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 213 1 to change the current procedures for routine and 2 predictable. 3 I think it's important to note that the current 4 procedure has been in place since the inception of the 5 program, 15 years. Other than what you're hearing today, 6 my phone has not been ringing off the hook about the way 7 we've been implementing this. I think the flexibility 8 that's been provided to the districts has been used wisely 9 and appropriately and effectively. 10 I think it's important to note that your staff 11 under the current procedure provides us with examples of 12 operations that they believe are routine and predictable 13 and operations that they believe are not routine and 14 predictable, such as construction and demolition. 15 There are things that could arise where people 16 will, if you go to make a change here, argue that 17 significant toxic emissions shouldn't be incorporated in 18 the assessment. For example, it's my understanding from 19 my staff that while this was being workshopped that there 20 were those that were arguing that routine and predictable 21 should be tied to core business functions. What does a 22 core business function mean? Who gets to define that? If 23 an aerospace company has a periodic but infrequent plating 24 operation that causes high toxic risk to the surrounding 25 residents, do they get to say that's not a core business PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 214 1 function? We think that you should leave the current 2 program in place as originally recommended by your staff. 3 And in regards to the studios, those sound stages 4 are being leased routinely on an ongoing basis posing 5 potential toxic risk. They have an ability to work with 6 us to collect the data and on an appropriate schedule 7 submit that data to us. 8 Finally, I would say that in the last year we've 9 seen local community groups and environmental justice 10 groups become highly critical of risk assessment because 11 they don't trust the data and analysis. They think it can 12 be manipulated. And I would suggest to you if you go to 13 change the current process on routine and predictable, 14 that you will be feeding the notion that this isn't a good 15 tool. And we may at the end of the day end up losing one 16 of our most valuable tools in terms of protecting the 17 public. 18 On the issue of the shall, we would recommend 19 that you not do that today. I didn't have my attorneys 20 here to advise me whether our legal opinion is the same as 21 what's being expressed to you. We would like the 22 discretion to be able to make whatever arguments we think 23 are appropriate. I am not saying we have a difference of 24 opinion on it, but I can't answer that question today. 25 And I would say to you that in the past like with the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 215 1 fleet vehicle regulations, you allowed us to pursue things 2 in a little different way where we had a little different 3 opinion, and I would share with you we're still 4 implementing those regulations today. 5 So I appreciate your time and be happy to answer 6 any questions you have. 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mayor Loveridge. 8 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Help me out on this 9 routine and predictable. What is the premise -- what is 10 the premise of the changes? 11 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Actually, we are 12 not proposing a change to current practice. Some 13 individuals have expressed interest in having us try to 14 define with specificity a bright line. And because of the 15 complexity of the numbers of operations that potentially 16 are subject to this Hot Spots Program and have been over 17 the last 15 years, as Barry pointed out, we we think it's 18 worked pretty successfully to have the on-ground staff at 19 districts who know those facilities much better than we do 20 work with the facility to try to come to a consensus about 21 what constitutes routine and predictable for a particulate 22 facility. 23 Although I understand the desire for consistency, 24 at the end of the day, under Hot Spots the districts have 25 a lot of discretion. And no matter what the Board says, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 216 1 they can require more in some cases. So there's really 2 not an ability to have absolute consistency at the end of 3 the day. 4 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: So there is a change 5 being proposed or is not a change? 6 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Sorry. No 7 change by staff. Not proposed by staff. 8 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: What is the change that 9 you were addressing? 10 MR. WALLERSTEIN: What some of the other 11 witnesses have requested of you today. I'm requesting 12 that you support your staff's original recommendation, 13 which is no change. 14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Wallerstein, do you have 15 military installation inside your district? 16 MR. WALLERSTEIN: We certainly do. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: What's your experience been 18 on reporting and the like? 19 MR. WALLERSTEIN: Well, I think you probably got 20 the tone from the witness that you had earlier. It is 21 difficult at times. We certainly understand the national 22 security aspects, and we work with the military and we 23 respect that. We know it is our duty frankly to support 24 them. 25 But I would argue that the people that live next PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 217 1 door do have a right to know, even if we can't control the 2 emissions. And maybe they could decide to move if there 3 is a high enough risk. And when you have hundreds to 4 thousands of small businesses and large businesses 5 complying with this, shouldn't the federal government be 6 part of setting the example that this is the right thing 7 to do for the breathing public? 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 9 Are there any other questions from the Board? 10 That concludes our public testimony. Does staff have any 11 further comments? 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes, Dr. Sawyer. 13 There was a letter passed out while we were 14 listening to the witnesses from the California Hospital 15 Association. And they've noted their desire to align the 16 Hot Spots requirements with the seismic retrofits that are 17 underway right now that are extraordinaryly expensive. We 18 think it's a completely reasonable request and would like 19 to add this to our 15-day changes with the consent of the 20 Board. 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: For the benefit of the 22 public, could you explain a little bit more what this 23 means? 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: They have asked 25 that they not be required to enter the Hot Spots Program PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 218 1 until 2011, which is on the conclusion of their seismic 2 retrofits, during which time they would have an 3 opportunity to update generators when they do those 4 massive renovations and might not have to do additional 5 reporting and notification and control. So it would 6 minimize the number of hospitals going through that 7 exercise, because they would pick it up earlier in their 8 seismic retrofits. 9 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And this would just postpone 10 them one year? Isn't it 2010? 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: They asked for 12 2011, but were they required under our proposal? 13 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SECTION MANAGER SHIMP: 14 2010. 15 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you. 16 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: These are backup 17 generators; correct? 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes. 19 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Basically in the hospital 20 field, you test them once a month to be sure they're 21 working. And I think that's about what you do. And so 22 they're really not used unless the power goes down. If 23 these are the backup generators that we are talking about, 24 I don't think they run -- most hospitals wouldn't run -- 25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Of course, they PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 219 1 are running around the most sensitive populations that 2 there are. Even if they replace them with a cleaner 3 engine and then they're testing them, we're going to get 4 less emissions and less risk. So really just turn on -- 5 remember when you did backup generator regulations, there 6 was an hourly limitation. If they stay below the hourly 7 limitation, there was no additional control. And if they 8 went above it, they might have to change -- 9 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: But they're just testing 10 them during that period. It's just to be sure they're 11 functioning so, you know -- 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: But it can add up 13 if it's a dirty engine. And there's a lot of them. 14 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I suppose. But I think 15 it's reasonable. 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Oh, we do too. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes. 18 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: As the meeting has gone 19 on, I felt like rather than become clearer and clearer, 20 it's become foggier and foggier with respect to some of 21 these issues. And I'd like to tell you I could explain 22 the difference between the shall and not having it, but I 23 don't. I'm not seeing the significance clearly. The 24 whole issue with the military, we're talking about pieces 25 of equipment, fixed pieces of equipment? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 220 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Both fixed and 2 portable that may stay in a position for a certain amount 3 of time and return often to that position or to that use 4 routinely. 5 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Yet from the speaker from 6 the military that got up, I had the impression from their 7 perspective things that would be moving around quite a 8 bit. 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Portable engines, 10 that's right. But when it's running, it's sitting still. 11 It's not on wheels. 12 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: When it's running, it's 13 sitting still. 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: But then they 15 pick it up, move it, set it down someplace else and run it 16 there. 17 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: It is becoming clearer 18 now. Okay. To what degree -- we're setting the 19 guidelines. It's up to the local districts then to make 20 the final determination? 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: State law uses 22 terminology routine and predictable, and we've been 23 operating under that for 15 years. What's new that diesel 24 engines now come into that same filter. And so what's 25 routine and predictable for a diesel engine as opposed to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 221 1 chrome plating, as opposed to painting, as opposed to 2 anything else that might go on that are associated with 3 toxic emissions. So just apply the same logic we've been 4 applying for the last 15 years to diesels. 5 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I guess I can't -- I'm 6 having trouble understanding. We've got numerous military 7 bases. And some of those are quite large and may be 8 removed from any close proximity to neighbors. Others are 9 just the opposite. And I don't know if this is a major 10 new requirement that's going to require a whole 11 bureaucracy both on the part of the military and the local 12 air districts to try to monitor. Or is it something that 13 is so rare it's only going to -- you know, I don't 14 understand. I'm having trouble with this. And from both 15 sides, it's not becoming very clear in terms of what the 16 implications are here and to what degree we're actually 17 accomplishing anything. 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Let me try to 19 help quickly. It's a one-time assessment of your 20 emissions and a health risk assessment which does or 21 doesn't trigger notification. It does not -- it's not 22 redone every single year, every five years. It's one 23 time. 24 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: It's done once. 25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: It's done once. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 222 1 It's a one-way program. We have often discussed with 2 modifications, with other changes, should we go back? 3 Should we loop it back? And industries and sources 4 effected by changes in the rules along the way, like 5 adding different chemicals, adding different source 6 categories. 7 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Just briefly, it 8 is -- actually, there are every four year updates. 9 But what Mary Kay was asking about I think might 10 get at some of your questions about what does this really 11 mean. It means counting up the engines on site, looking 12 at their operational hours, figuring out how many are 13 there on a routine basis, which is part of the debate, and 14 then applying what we've talked about for other source 15 categories that ARB staff has developed these risk 16 screening tables for diesel engines. And so we're not 17 imagining them having to go out and hire consultants and 18 spend a lot of money to do risk assessments, because we're 19 talking about a group of portable engines we understand 20 well through our ATCM process. We have screening risk 21 tables. We can provide technical guidance to make the 22 assessment pretty simple. So in our view is that it comes 23 down to more of a policy call of whether or not we want to 24 have that information provided to the public with the 25 understanding that we lack the authority to require risk PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 223 1 reduction. 2 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: What's the role of the 3 local Boards in this? 4 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Well, as staff 5 has proposed it, the local districts would take the lead 6 in helping to define what is routine and predictable. But 7 other -- and then in terms of the notification, as was 8 discussed earlier, the district boards have established 9 the risk threshholds which would determine whether or not 10 notification is made depending on the risk level. So 11 those are the primary two functions of the district. 12 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Well, now I have to go 13 back to the local Board and help them understand what's 14 routine and predictable. And then we're going to have to 15 regulate it on the basis of the information I have right 16 now. And you know, I get it maybe clear to somebody, but 17 there's a lot that's escaping me here. 18 What about the shall? Is that a major issue 19 or -- 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: It's a 15-day 21 change, so there's time to talk about it more. And what 22 we're being asked to do is be declarative and state our 23 legal opinion that the law precludes air districts from 24 regulating construction equipment. And Dr. Wallerstein 25 said leave it up? Let us float a different legal theory PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 224 1 if we have one and maybe try to regulate those sources. 2 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: As a point of 3 clarification, the shall or should isn't in the actual 4 regulation. My understanding is the reference was to a 5 statement in the staff report. The staff report doesn't 6 have any regulatory significance one way or another. 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Would it in a 8 lawsuit? Would it have any meaning in a lawsuit if the 9 Board is sued. 10 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: The closeest we could 11 come up with was a statement that ARB staff believes it is 12 appropriate for the district to consider an alternative 13 risk reduction requirement under Hot Spots to avoid 14 conflict with DOD specifications and not compromise U.S. 15 defense operations. That's at the end of a sentence about 16 the tactical support equipment. 17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Could you read that one 18 more time? 19 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: I will read the whole 20 sentence, because I only read you the second half. 21 "While the emissions from TSE can be included in 22 an emissions inventory if the use is routine and 23 predictable and the district determines that the facility 24 may pose a potential significant risk, ARB staff believes 25 it is appropriate for the district to consider an PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 225 1 alternative risk reduction requirement under Hot Spots to 2 avoid conflict with U.S. DOD specifications and to not 3 compromise U.S. defense operations." 4 Now that doesn't make reference to the portable 5 equipment constraint that's been referred to before where 6 we are not authorized to establish emission controls or 7 emission limitations for portable equipment owned by the 8 military that is tactical support equipment. 9 One of the things I'm trying to communicate is 10 that the shall or should is very squishy. If you would 11 like the regulation to have some direction on what the 12 districts can and can't do in terms of risk management, it 13 could. It may be sufficient that we already have the AB 14 531 restriction for portable equipment that tactical 15 support equipment cannot be subject to emission controls 16 and emission limitations. We don't have to have the 17 regulation tell the districts that, because the Health and 18 Safely Code already says that in the portable engine 19 program. 20 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Okay. And with respect to 21 construction, could you just discuss that a little bit 22 more? 23 EMISSIONS INVENTORY BRANCH CHIEF TARICCO: In our 24 staff report, we gave examples, general guidance on things 25 that the districts may or may not find routine and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 226 1 predictable. And these were just examples. We worked 2 with the districts to come up with a list. 3 One of the things that we indicated the districts 4 likely would not find to be routine and predictable are 5 construction projects of a short-term nature. And a lot 6 of the commentors are concerned. 7 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I don't think there's any 8 such thing in California. 9 EMISSIONS INVENTORY BRANCH CHIEF TARICCO: The 10 commentors are concerned on the flip side the districts 11 then could find construction projects that last longer 12 than a few months could be subject to Hot Spots. And we 13 would agree that is a possibility. We think it's maybe 14 unlikely, but conceivably you could have a construction 15 project that lasts many, many years. And the districts 16 may want the facility where that construction is occuring 17 to include that in their inventory. So we want to leave 18 that open -- 19 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: But ultimately it's going 20 to be the district that would make that decision? 21 EMISSIONS INVENTORY BRANCH CHIEF TARICCO: That 22 would make that call, yes. 23 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Being part of a very 24 enlightened district, I don't have a problem with that 25 but -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 227 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mayor Loveridge. 2 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: I think maybe it's 3 elected officials syndrome. By the clarity is -- the 4 grade of the discussion, almost the less the clarity. 5 But let me just ask. If this hss worked 6 reasonably well, I have not have any flak in my tenure 7 over a hot spot judgments by the district. I know there's 8 always a worse-case scenario. What if -- and the 9 probability of what is near zero. But it's possible. But 10 it seems to me this has been around for 15 years. It's 11 worked. I'm not sure what the big deal is. What's the 12 big deal? If no one objects, if the districts have been 13 reasonable, if it helps out in terms of public health, 14 help me understand what the big deal is. 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Nobody likes 16 telling neighbors that they might be causing risk to their 17 health. And I think there's some concern by witnesses and 18 folks who sent in letters that at the end of the day if 19 their activities are included, they might have to make 20 those declarations. When we went through this process 21 with major stationary industrial facilities, they almost 22 all found ways to get below the risk threshholds so no 23 notifications went out. 24 And there will be the motivation. But to have 25 that happen, you might incur some cost which could be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 228 1 avoided if you weren't put in this regulation in the first 2 place. So that's kind of the tension you're hearing. 3 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: I guess I'm voting for 4 the status quo. 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. D'Adamo. 6 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: What about land use 7 issues? What if there are no residents currently and the 8 reg doesn't kick in? And now a local planning board 9 decides to put them in a housing development, how does 10 that interface with this? If there's no reporting 11 requirement, because there's no houses there currently. 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Here's what we 13 think would happen. If you did an original risk 14 assessment and you were over the threshold of ten in a 15 million, but nobody lived there, you wouldn't have to do 16 any notification. Four years later, when you have to do 17 your update, if you are still over ten in a million and 18 somebody had moved in, you'd have to send them a letter. 19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: There's the problem. Why 20 wait until somebody moves in? Is there a way maybe 21 through the land use guidance document that we can have 22 information in there for planning commissions to consider 23 there are certain types of facilities in which if there 24 were residents there -- 25 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Actually, our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 229 1 land use guidance does talk about diesel engines. And the 2 question is -- what Catherine described is the way State 3 law is written. So you're right. It needs to go to the 4 guidance mode for land use planners to look at where 5 they're putting houses and schools, et cetera. So we can 6 go and look at our land use guidance to see how well we've 7 addressed diesel. And maybe we can add a supplement to 8 describe the scenario. 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We also have risk 10 data up on our website for stationary facilities. So you 11 can go in and look at where the risk zones are, which 12 might be vacant land now. But you might be thinking about 13 buying a house and you can see see that in graphical 14 display right now for different ZIP codes, different 15 neighborhoods. 16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'm not thinking of 17 residents. I'm thinking of developers and planning 18 commissioners. They're the ones that have to have that 19 information. 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's guidance. 21 PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT DIVISION CHIEF 22 MURCHISON: In the Health and Safely Code, there's a 23 provision that the districts can notify a facility if 24 things have changed. For example, if a receptor has moved 25 in closer, the district can require an update at this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 230 1 point. 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: For something which was such 3 a small modification, this evoked lot of -- well, I think 4 you educated your Board on this issue. 5 I will now close the record on this agenda item. 6 However, the record will be reopened when the 15-day 7 Notice of Public Availability is issued. Written or oral 8 comments received after this hearing date but before the 9 15-day notice is issued will not be accepted as part of 10 the official record on this agenda item. 11 When the record is reopened for a 15-day comment 12 period, the public may submit written comments on the 13 proposed changes which will be considered and responded to 14 in the Final Statement of Reasons for the regulation. 15 We'll now take our ex parte comments. I spoke 16 with Ms. Faryan and others on the 13th of November, and 17 their comments reflected what we heard here today. 18 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: I spoke to Susan Noble 19 yesterday. She's with Western States Petroleum 20 Association. And her comments were reflected by Mr. 21 Umenhofer in his comments today. 22 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Just briefly, I spoke to 23 Ms. Faryan earlier today and was in line with the 24 testimony. 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: The Board has before it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 231 1 Resolution Number 6-40. 2 Do I have a motion to approve? 3 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: So moved. 4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Second. 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Is there any further 6 discussion? 7 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Just a question. And that 8 goes to Mr. Jennings, what he drafted. I didn't know, Mr. 9 Jennings, if that was a part of the record or if you have 10 drafted that as a -- 11 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: I was reading from page 12 55 of the staff report, which is 479 of the Board book. 13 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. 14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I'd like to make a comment, 15 and that is I thoroughly endorse Ms. D'Adamo's statement 16 that the public has a right to know what they're being 17 exposed to. I think that should guide our actions. At 18 the same time, I think we should avoid having people 19 engage in excessive paperwork that really is of little 20 relevance. So I think we can balance those two without 21 much difficulty. 22 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: But the public needs to 23 know that there are limitations as it relates to the 24 military facilities as to remedying the problem. And it's 25 fine to let them know, but we need to let them know the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 232 1 whole picture, not just part of the picture. And I think 2 Mr. Jennings has -- it's in the document before us. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mayor Loveridge. 4 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: I thoroughly agree with 5 the two premises you offered. You find them in the 6 Resolution before us? 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I don't think that my 8 statement about paperwork that doesn't accomplish anything 9 is there. I think that should be a guiding principle of 10 everything we do. 11 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: I will be voting in 12 favor of the Resolution based on the two premises offered 13 by our Chair. 14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Supervisor Roberts. 15 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Does this motion address 16 the hospital situation that we have talked about? 17 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Actually, I was 18 going to ask staff to remind us of a couple of those 19 points. 20 EMISSIONS INVENTORY BRANCH CHIEF TARICCO: In 21 addition to the proposal before you, there were two new 22 additions that we spoke about today. One was a proposed 23 change to the regulation to make it clear that a facility 24 could submit an updated health risk assessment. And the 25 second element was that we were going to include a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 233 1 provision that would not bring hospitals hospitals in 2 until 2011. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: One-year delay. 4 Are we ready to vote on this? 5 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: These are part of the 6 motion now? 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes. 8 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Okay. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: All those in favor, please 10 indicate by saying aye. 11 (Ayes) 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Opposed? 13 Motion is carried. 14 I think this is an appropriate time to give our 15 court reporter a break and the rest of us a break. We'll 16 resume in ten minutes. 17 (Thereupon a recess was taken.) 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: The next agenda item is 19 6-10-7, Recommended Changes to Area Designations for State 20 Ambient Air Quality Standards to Reflect Current Data. 21 Ms. Witherspoon, would you please introduce this 22 item? 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Dr. 24 Sawyer. 25 This year is the first time that California's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 234 1 ozone designation include the more stringent eight-hour 2 ozone standards which cause a few more counties to become 3 non-attainment. However, on the positive side, we're 4 pleased to report California's last non-attainment area 5 for carbon monoxide, Imperial County, now meets that 6 standard. 7 Staff's presentation is brief. They're back 8 there betting on five minutes, four minutes, three. So 9 we'll see what they can do. Timer starts now. Ms. 10 Theresa Najita of the Planning and Technical Support 11 Division will make that presentation. Go. 12 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 13 presented as follows.) 14 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NAJITA: Thank you, Ms. 15 Witherspoon. Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer and members of 16 the Board. Today I'll be talking about our proposed 17 amendments to the area designations for the State ambient 18 air quality standards. 19 --o0o-- 20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NAJITA: ARB sets the 21 State standards at levels to protect public health. The 22 designations provide an indication of whether the state 23 health-based standards are being met in each area of the 24 state. We update these designations each year based on 25 the most recent air quality data. Areas that do not meet PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 235 1 the state standards are required to develop air quality 2 plans to ensure progress towards meeting these standards. 3 This year, proposed changes to the designations 4 are based on data collected during 2003 through 2005. 5 Changes are proposed for carbon monoxide, PM10, PM2.5, and 6 ozone. The first three changes are good news stories that 7 reflect ongoing progress in meeting these standards. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NAJITA: For carbon 10 monoxide, we propose that Imperial County and the Salton 11 Sea air basin change from non-attainment unclassified to 12 attainment. This is the last area violating the State 13 carbon monoxide standards. 14 --o0o-- 15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NAJITA: For particulate 16 matter designation changes, we recommend that portion of 17 Sonoma County within the north coast area basin change 18 from non-attainment to attainment for PM10. 19 We also propose that San Luis Obispo County and 20 the south central coast air basin change from unclassified 21 to attainment for PM2.5. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NAJITA: This is the 24 first time ozone designations are based on both the 25 one-hour and the recently adopted eight-hour ozone PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 236 1 standards. Any area violating either or both of the ozone 2 standards will be designated as non-attainment. 3 We are proposing four new ozone non-attainment 4 areas. These changes are due to the consideration of the 5 new more health protective eight-hour ozone standard. 6 These areas, which are shown in brown in the map, are Inyo 7 County in the great basin's valley air basin, San Luis 8 Obispo County in the south central coast air basin, 9 Siskiyou County in the north east plateau air basin, and 10 Sonoma County in the north coast air basin. As you can 11 see, most of the state is non-attainment for ozone. 12 --o0o-- 13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NAJITA: We are also 14 recommending two counties in the northeast plateau air 15 basin, Lassen and Modoc, and the Lake Tahoe area basin be 16 changed from attainment to unclassified due to a lack of 17 complete data. There has been no fundamental change in 18 air quality in these areas. 19 And finally, several areas are changing from 20 non-attainment transitional to non-attainment, again due 21 to consideration of the more stringent eight-hour 22 standard. 23 While these designation changes will occur by 24 operation of law, Board action will formalize the change 25 in the regulations. These areas are the north central PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 237 1 coast air basin and seven counties in Sacramento Valley 2 air basin, Butte, Shasta, Solona, Sutter, Tehema, Yolo, 3 and Yuba. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NAJITA: In closing, 6 staff recommends that the Board adopt these proposed 7 amendments to the state area designations and confirm 8 those designation changes which occur by operation of law. 9 This concludes my presentation. We can now 10 answer any questions you have. Thank you. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Madam Ombudsman, will you 12 please provide your report? 13 OMBUDSMAN QUETIN: It's roughly about 45 minutes 14 long. 15 (Laughter) 16 OMBUDSMAN QUETIN: Chairman Sawyer and members of 17 the Board, staff initiated their efforts to develop the 18 2006 version of the area designations report on May 5th, 19 2006. They held one public workshop on July 24th, 2006, 20 in Sacramento where approximately 20 stakeholders attended 21 representing the air districts, Regional Council of Rural 22 Counties, Sierra Research, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 23 and other interested parties. 24 In addition, staff contacted each air district to 25 discuss their proposed PM designation and any other PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 238 1 changes pertaining to their region. 2 The public hearing notice and staff report were 3 published and posted to the website on September 29th, 4 2006. The notice was also e-mailed to several hundred 5 individuals and companies. I'm unaware of any unresolved 6 issues or concerns. Thank you. 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. I'd like to make 8 a statement. And that is that I never thought in my 9 lifetime I'd see California come into attainment statewide 10 for carbon monoxide. And I want to congratulate our staff 11 at the Air Resource Board, but this is a case where the 12 credit is clearly due to the auto industry who provided 13 the technology and durability of technology, and not only 14 for California, but it appears it migrated into Mexico to 15 a sufficient extent so that the -- I assume the transport 16 from Mexicali is not putting Calexico out of attainment. 17 Is that indeed what happened? 18 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: That's true. 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I think this is good news, 20 and I congratulate you and the auto industry for making 21 this happen. 22 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Could I ask one quick 23 question real quick? Just the ozone designation changes 24 that you showed and basically shows pretty much the whole 25 state is in non-attainment, is that an eight-hour PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 239 1 standard? What standard is that? It didn't have it on 2 the chart. 3 AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH CHIEF MAGLIANO: That 4 reflects both our State one-hour and eight-hour standards. 5 We look at them together and do an aggregate ozone 6 attainment/non-attainment. 7 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: So if you had attained the 8 one-hour standard, you would still be in non-attainment? 9 AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH CHIEF MAGLIANO: Right. 10 There are some cases in each of those four new areas they 11 were previously attaining the one-hour standard, but 12 because we have a new more stringent eight-hour standard, 13 that's what puts them into non-attainment. 14 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: As we continue to improve, 15 we continue to change the rules so -- 16 AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH CHIEF MAGLIANO: Right. 17 We have more stringent benchmarks that we're evaluating. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Berg. 19 BOARD MEMBER BERG: No. I appreciate, Mr. 20 Chairman, that you didn't gloss over the fact that we did 21 have some great news. And we always have so much to do, 22 because there doesn't have seem to be a lack of toxins or 23 pollution. And the fact that this is really terrific on 24 the carbon monoxide, and I really appreciate everybody. 25 Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 240 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Are there any other further 2 comments from the staff? 3 If not, since all testimony, written submissions, 4 and staff comments for this item have been entered into 5 the record and the Board has not granted an extension of 6 the comment period, I'm officially closing the record on 7 this portion of Agenda Item 6-10-7. Written or oral 8 comments received after the comment period has closed will 9 not be accepted as part of the official record on this 10 agenda item. 11 Do any of us have ex parte reporting to do? No. 12 Do I have a motion to adopt? 13 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: So moved. 14 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Second. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: All those in favor? 16 (Ayes) 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Opposed? 18 The measure is carried. 19 This is a first of a two-day meeting. And 20 because there may be people here who will not be coming 21 back tomorrow, we want to provide an opportunity for 22 members of the public or members of the Board to provide 23 comments on any topic which they wish to do so. I have no 24 indications from member of the public they'd like to do so 25 at this time. Members of the Board? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 241 1 If not, do I have a motion for adjournment until 2 8:30 tomorrow morning? 3 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: So moved. 4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I'll second 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And all in favor? 6 (Ayes) 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And I'm not going to ask for 8 no's on this one. See you in the morning. 9 (Thereupon the California Air Resources Board 10 adjourned at 4:10 p.m.) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 242 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 I, TIFFANY C. KRAFT, 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 hearing was reported in shorthand by me, 7 Tiffany C. Kraft, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the 8 State of California, and thereafter transcribed into 9 typewriting. 10 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 11 attorney for any of the parties to said hearing nor in any 12 way interested in the outcome of said hearing. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 14 this 30th day of November, 2006. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR 24 Certified Shorthand Reporter 25 License No. 12277 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345