BOARD MEETING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
JOE SERNA, JR. BUILDING
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CENTRAL VALLEY AUDITORIUM, SECOND FLOOR
1001 I STREET
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2007
8:30 A.M.
TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
LICENSE NUMBER 12277
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
ii
APPEARANCES
BOARD MEMBERS
Ms. Mary D. Nichols, Chairperson
Ms. Sandra Berg
Ms. Judith G. Case
Ms. Dorene D'Adamo
Ms. Lydia Kennard
Mr. Jerry Hill
Mr. Ronald O. Loveridge
Dr. Daniel Sperling
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. Lori Andreoni, Board Secretary
Mr. Bob Cross, Chief, Mobile Source Control Division
Ms. Monique Davis, Staff Air Pollution Specialist,
Stationary Source Division
Mr. Dan Donohoue, Chief, Emissions Assessment Branch
Mr. Bob Fletcher, Chief, Stationary Source Division
Mr. Todd Sterling, Air Pollution Specialist, Control
Strategies Section, SSD
Mr. Floyd Vergara, Senior Staff Counsel
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
iii
APPEARANCES CONTINUED
ALSO PRESENT
Mr. James Baker, Roof Coatings Manufacturers Association
Ms. Diane Bailey, NRDC
Mr. Howard Berman, Zinsser
Mr. Greg Bombard, Catalina Express
Mr. Jeff Browning, Sause Brothers
Mr. Tim Carmichael, Coalition for Clean Air
Mr. David Darling, National Paint & Coatings Association
Mr. Kyle Frakes, Tnemec Company, Inc.
Ms. Madelyn Harding, Sherwin-Williams
Mr. Henry Hogo, South Coast AQMD
Ms. Carolyn Horgan, Blue & Gold Fleet
Mr. Andrew Jaques, American Chemistry Council
Mr. John Kaltenstein, Friends of the Earth
Mr. Dave Laucella, ACC Solutions Industry Group
Mr. Martin Robbins, Vallejo Baylink
Mr. Richard Smith, Westar Marine Services
Mr. Jim Swindler, Golden Gate Ferry
Mr. Joe Wyman, Hornblower Cruises & Events
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
iv
INDEX
PAGE
Pledge of Allegiance 1
Item 7-10-8 2
Item 7-10-6
Chairperson Nichols 6
Chief Deputy Executive Officer Cackette 6
Staff Presentation 9
Ombudsman Quentin 29
Q&A 30
Mr. Swindler 49
Mr. Browning 50
Mr. Smith 58
Mr. Kaltenstein 64
Ms. Horgan 66
Mr. Robbins 68
Mr. Wyman 71
Mr. Alard 74
Mr. Bombard 78
Mr. Bailey 82
Mr. Carmichael 85
Mr. Hogo 95
Item 07-10-5
Chairperson Nichols 99
Chief Deputy Executive Officer Cackette 100
Staff Presentation 100
Mr. Carmichael 107
Ms. Davis 108
Ms. Harding 110
Mr. Frakes 111
Mr. Laucella 113
Mr. Jaques 116
Mr. Baker 118
Mr. Berman 120
Motion 123
Vote 123
Adjournment 124
Reporter's Certificate 125
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
1
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Good morning. We're going
3 the open the meeting and then go into our closed session
4 and resume after we're ready to come back out and announce
5 the results of the closed session. And the rest of the
6 meeting will continue from that point on.
7 So without further ado, I declare this meeting
8 open.
9 And I think we'll do the Pledge of Allegiance and
10 call the roll.
11 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was
12 recited in unison.)
13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Let's call the roll.
14 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Berg?
15 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Here.
16 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Case?
17 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Here.
18 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. D'Adamo?
19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here.
20 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Hill?
21 SUPERVISOR HILL: Here.
22 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Kennard?
23 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Here.
24 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Mayor Loveridge?
25 Mrs. Riordan?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
2
1 Supervisor Roberts?
2 Professor Sperling?
3 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Here.
4 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Chairman Nichols?
5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Here.
6 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Madam Chair, we have a
7 quorum.
8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: As indicated in the notice
9 of this meeting, we are holding a closed session today.
10 Health and Safety Code Section 39515(a) directs the Board
11 to appoint an Executive Officer who shall serve at the
12 Board's pleasure. The purpose of this closed session will
13 to be to consider the appointment of a new Executive
14 Officer. This is a personnel matter that may be
15 considered in a closed session pursuant to Government Code
16 Section 11126(a).
17 At the conclusion of the closed session, we'll
18 resume in open session and announce any results of the
19 decision of our discussion.
20 So thank you to those who are not going to be in
21 the closed session. The Board is going to retire to a
22 back room, and we'll come out as soon as we're done.
23 Thanks, everybody.
24 (Thereupon the Board recessed into closed
25 session.)
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
3
1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: The Board has concluded its
2 closed session meeting pursuant to Government Code Section
3 11126(a) to discuss the appointment of a new Executive
4 Officer. And the Board has unanimously voted. And I'm
5 very pleased to announce that our new Executive Officer is
6 James Goldstein.
7 James, where are you? There he is.
8 And so he's already been notified of the decision
9 and is expected to take office immediately. And we have
10 such confidence in him that actually we've asked him to
11 represent us at a meeting that's going to be taking place
12 in the next few minutes out at Mathur for the executive
13 team dealing with the fire emergencies. The Governor had
14 asked us to send a representative, and obviously we have a
15 Board meeting going on. But they need somebody there to
16 help them with the planning for the aftermath of the
17 fires.
18 I just want to take one minute to say how pleased
19 I am that we've been able to choose a person with the kind
20 of depth of experience in state government and
21 environmental issues that James brings to us. It's a
22 terrific signal I think for the people who work at the Air
23 Resources Board and for all of the community that we found
24 somebody with his kind of talent and commitment in our own
25 midst. And we're very much looking forward to his
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
4
1 leadership.
2 I'm personally looking forward to having a
3 partner to work with as we move forward on our mission to
4 clean up the air and save the global environment.
5 And I think I speak for all of us in saying this
6 is a great moment. And I would like to give my colleagues
7 an opportunity if they want to add anything.
8 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Thank you.
9 Congratulations to James. We look forward to great
10 leadership from you.
11 But I also wanted to thank Tom Cackette and the
12 entire management team for stepping in and assisting us
13 over these months. And it's been extraordinary. We look
14 forward to continuing great work with you.
15 (Applause)
16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: So James, before you have
17 to run off, would you like to say a couple of words?
18 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Thank you. I'm honored and
19 excited to have the opportunity to be part of the
20 leadership of this organization as we move forward you
21 know through very exciting and tremendous time.
22 We have our work cut out for us on what we've
23 been doing for 40 years on criteria pollutants and with AB
24 23 and the Global Warming Solutions Act we have even more
25 opportunities to do great things. And I'm excited to be
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
5
1 here to work with the management team and the Board. So
2 thank you for your support. It's greatly appreciated.
3 I'm looking forward to getting started in five minutes.
4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. And godspeed.
5 And thanks to Tom Cackette for once again
6 stepping in and leading the organization and for
7 continuing through this meeting to serve in his acting
8 capacity. We really appreciate that, Tom.
9 Before we get on with the rest of our meeting,
10 wanted to say two things.
11 First of all, Mayor Loveridge has had to leave us
12 because of the fires to go back to the Riverside area
13 where they are experiencing total outage of electricity
14 and some pretty serious consequences of that. So we're
15 very sorry to lose him, but understand where he has to be.
16 I also need to ask our counsel Tom Jennings to
17 clarify something from yesterday's meeting. There appears
18 to have been some confusion about the effect of the
19 aftermarket catalyst resolution 07-48. So, Tom, could you
20 clear that up, please?
21 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Thank you. As you heard
22 the staff presentation yesterday, the staff recommended
23 that the Board adopt the proposal as originally proposed.
24 There wasn't any 15-day language that was distributed.
25 Through an oversight, the resolution that you had before
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
6
1 you, however, the 15-day language where we would put out
2 additional modifications for comment. And I just wanted
3 to clarify our understanding that the Board voted to adopt
4 the regulations as proposed.
5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I believe that's correct,
6 yes. Thank you.
7 Okay. So our first item for this morning's
8 agenda is a regulation respecting commercial harbor craft.
9 This regulatory measure has an important effect because it
10 will deal with the exposure levels in neighborhoods around
11 ports which experience extremely high exposures to diesel
12 particulate matter. This will help alleviate some of the
13 concerns of those communities, and it will also have major
14 impacts on the port related emissions at the regional
15 level for both particulate matter and ozone.
16 So I'm going to ask you, Mr. Cackette, to
17 introduce the item.
18 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Thank
19 you. If I can take just a segue back to the last
20 discussion, I really wanted to point out that Lynn and
21 Mike and Tom Jennings also shared the responsibility of
22 acting EO many, many times during summer, letting me still
23 take my vacation. We all chipped in to that. And I think
24 on all of our part, it was a pleasure to do so. We're
25 looking forward to having an EO, I can assure you.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
7
1 So to the subject here today, we're proposing for
2 your consideration a regulation that will significantly
3 reduce emissions from commercial harbor craft that operate
4 within the port's inland waterways and within 24 nautical
5 miles of the coast lines. As you know, these ports and
6 waterways are often located in densely populated areas
7 exposing residents to unhealthy levels of pollutants.
8 In 2004, staff completed an exposure assessment
9 study of the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. And
10 that study revealed that the emissions from port
11 operations which includes commercial harbor craft can
12 affect a very large area and result in elevated potential
13 cancer risks, premature mortality, and other non-cancer
14 health threats to the residents.
15 Diesel PM emissions from commercial harbor craft
16 represent a significant portion of the overall emissions
17 and cancer risk. In fact, at the ports of Los Angeles and
18 Long Beach, it's the only sources that expose more persons
19 to a cancer risk of greater than ten in a million are the
20 transiting and hoteling emissions from oceangoing vessels.
21 In April of last year, we brought the Goods
22 Movement Emission Reduction Plan to you for consideration,
23 which you approved. And in that plan, we identified a
24 variety of measures aimed at reducing emissions associated
25 with moving goods via the state's highways, rails and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
8
1 ports. Cleaning up the engines of commercial harbor craft
2 was one of the measures to be investigated.
3 The state's voters agreed that cleaning up goods
4 movement emissions is a top priority. Last year, they
5 approved a one billion dollar bond to provide incentive
6 funds for cleaner equipment and technologies associated
7 with rate movement. ARB's draft plan for allocating these
8 funds include $60 million for commercial harbor craft.
9 These funds which will be administered through local
10 agencies would be introduced to replace the oldest,
11 dirtiest, and highest used engines on tug and supply
12 boats.
13 Those bonds funds will be used in concert with
14 our proposal today in order to supplement the reduction
15 obtained by this regulation. As you will see in the
16 staff's presentation, the regulation would reduce the
17 public's exposure to diesel PM emissions and result in
18 cancer and non-cancer health effects. In addition, the
19 regulation will continue to improve regional air quality
20 by reducing important precursors to ozone and particulate
21 matter.
22 The regulation will achieve this by accelerating
23 the turnover of engines for those vessel types that
24 generate a large portion of the emissions and work closest
25 to shore. The regulation provides an even faster turnover
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
9
1 schedule for the South Coast in order to provide
2 additional NOx and PM benefits to help meet the 2014
3 deadline for PM2.5 attainment in the South Coast air
4 basin.
5 I'd now like to have Todd Sterling of our
6 Stationary Source Division present the staff's proposal.
7 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was
8 presented as follows.)
9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Thank you,
10 Mr. Cackette. Good morning, Madam Chairman and members of
11 the Board.
12 Today, I will be presenting staff's proposed
13 regulation for commercial harbor craft. We have been
14 working on developing this proposal since early 2004. As
15 the Ombudsman will report, we have held many workshops and
16 community meetings in an effort to involve stakeholders.
17 We have also visited and worked with several vessel owners
18 from various harbor craft including ferries, tug boats,
19 pilot boats, and commercial fishing vessels.
20 --o0o--
21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: This slide
22 presents the topics I'll be discussing today.
23 --o0o--
24 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: First the
25 background.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
10
1 --o0o--
2 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Commercial
3 harbor craft are generally U.S. flagged vessels. They
4 vary in size from small dive boats to large ferries, but
5 are smaller than oceangoing vessels.
6 Commercial harbor craft include ferries, tug
7 boats, commercial fishing vessels, and other vessel types
8 as shown on this slide.
9 --o0o--
10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Staff
11 estimates that there are 4,200 harbor craft operating in
12 California and about twice as many diesel engines. While
13 commercial and charter fishing vessels make up about 75
14 percent of the total harbor craft population, they tend to
15 have smaller engines than other vessel types and often
16 have a single propulsion engine.
17 Ferries excursion vessels, tug boats, and tow
18 boats have larger engines and often have two propulsion
19 engines. As we will show in the following slides,
20 ferries, excursion vessels, tug boats, and tow boats are
21 responsible for the largest share of emissions from harbor
22 craft. Consequently, the regulation that we are proposing
23 focuses on reducing emissions from ferries, excursion
24 vessels, tug boats, and tow boats.
25 --o0o--
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
11
1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Almost 70
2 percent of the ferries, excursion vessels, tug boats, and
3 tow boats are located in South Coast and the bay area.
4 The remainder is split between San Diego and other parts
5 of the state.
6 --o0o--
7 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Up until
8 2000, there were no state or federal emission standards
9 for marine engines used in harbor craft. Beginning in
10 2000, marine engines began meeting U.S. EPA Tier 1
11 emission standards. Engines meeting Tier 2 standards
12 began entering the market in 2004.
13 In April of this year, U.S. EPA proposed Tier 3
14 and 4 emission standards for marine engines. According to
15 the U.S. EPA's proposed rulemaking, engines meeting Tier 3
16 standards would become available starting in 2013 to 2014
17 for most harbor craft engines.
18 Engines meeting Tier 4 standards would become
19 available in 2016 to 2017. Tier 4 standards are expected
20 to require aftertreatment technology.
21 U.S. EPA has proposed Tier 4 standards for all
22 engines except those under 800 horsepower. Nationwide,
23 800 horsepower and larger engines are a significant
24 portion of the engine population. However, in California,
25 80 percent of the commercial harbor craft fleet are
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
12
1 smaller than 800 horsepower and will not be subject to
2 these Tier 4 standards.
3 ARB has commented to the U.S. EPA that this is
4 important to California that Tier 4 standards apply to
5 these smaller engines in order to obtain needed
6 reductions. U.S. EPA expects to finalize these standards
7 by the end of the year.
8 --o0o--
9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Commercial
10 harbor craft are a large source of diesel PM and NOx
11 emissions. The emissions from these vessels are estimated
12 at 3.3 tons per day of PM and 73 tons per day of NOx.
13 Many of the engines currently in service are unregulated
14 engines, some of which have been in service for many
15 decades as these engines have useful lives of 20 to 35
16 years.
17 --o0o--
18 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: As previously
19 mentioned and shown in this slide, fishing vessels make up
20 the largest share of commercial harbor craft population.
21 Ferries, excursion vessels, tug, and tows make up about 15
22 percent of the vessel population.
23 --o0o--
24 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: However, as
25 you can see from this slide, this 15 percent of the vessel
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
13
1 population, the three pie slices on the right-hand side of
2 the chart, contribute about 50 percent of the engine
3 emissions.
4 --o0o--
5 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Also,
6 ferries, excursion vessels, tug boats, and tow boats
7 generally work within the harbor, close to shore,
8 producing greater health impacts. This chart shows how
9 close to shore the various vessel types operate.
10 The blue bar shows the amount of PM emissions
11 generated by vessel types while operating in harbor.
12 The maroon bar shows emissions generated from 3
13 to 24 miles.
14 And the yellow bar shows emissions generated more
15 than 24 miles from shore.
16 At the left side of the chart, as you can see,
17 the most emissions from ferries, excursion vessels, tug,
18 and tow boats occur in harbor and very little occur more
19 than 24 miles from shore.
20 --o0o--
21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: In 1998, the
22 Board identified diesel PM as a toxic air contaminant with
23 no Board-specified threshold exposure level. The purpose
24 of the proposed regulatory action is to reduce emissions
25 from diesel PM and NOx in order to reduce the potential
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
14
1 cancer risk and other adverse effects from PM exposure.
2 Staff has evaluated the health impacts of the PM
3 and NOx emissions from commercial harbor craft and found
4 that these emissions contribute to elevated cancer and
5 non-cancer risk. Statewide, approximately 90 premature
6 deaths per year are associated with emissions from
7 commercial harbor craft. Other non-cancer health impacts
8 are also listed on the slide.
9 --o0o--
10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: I will now
11 discuss the proposed commercial harbor craft regulation.
12 --o0o--
13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: The proposed
14 regulation will focus on reducing emissions from ferries,
15 excursion vessels, tug boats, and tow boats by requiring
16 engines to be replaced with new certified engines meeting
17 the most stringent U.S. EPA marine engine standards. We
18 are not modifying these standards, just requiring that
19 engines meeting them be used in certain situation.
20 All new harbor craft, including commercial
21 fishing, will need to install new certified engines.
22 Engines being replaced in all existing harbor craft will
23 also need to be new certified engines meeting new
24 standards. All vessels will be subject to monitoring,
25 recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
15
1 --o0o--
2 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: First, we
3 will review the proposed requirements that apply only to
4 ferries, excursion vessels, tug boats, and tow boats.
5 Later, we will discuss requirements that apply to all
6 commercial harbor craft.
7 --o0o--
8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: The proposed
9 regulation will require vessel owners of ferries,
10 excursion vessels, tug boats, and tow boats to replace
11 unregulated or Tier 0 and Tier 1 engines with engines
12 meeting Tier 2 or Tier 3 emissions standard, whatever is
13 current by the time the engine is replaced.
14 The schedule by which the engines are to be
15 replaced is based on the engine model year and yearly
16 hours of operation.
17 The schedule specifies replacement dates for
18 ranges of model years starting with the oldest highest
19 used engines first. There are two compliance schedules, a
20 statewide schedule and an accelerated schedule for the
21 south coast.
22 Tier 0 engines will be replaced with engines
23 meeting the Tier 2 standards or Tier 3 when these engines
24 become available.
25 Tier 1 engines will be replaced with engines
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
16
1 meeting the Tier 3 standards.
2 --o0o--
3 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: As you can
4 see, replacing Tier 0 and Tier 1 engines with Tier 2 and 3
5 engines achieves significant emission reductions per
6 engine, ranging from 60 to 80 percent.
7 --o0o--
8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: The proposed
9 regulation will require vessel owners to start replacing
10 their engines in 2009.
11 For engines subject to the statewide schedule,
12 all Tier 0 engines will be replaced by 2016 and all Tier 1
13 engines by 2022. We have proposed an accelerated schedule
14 for vessels in the South Coast which will remove Tier 0
15 and 1 engines two to three years earlier replacing Tier 0
16 engines prior to 2014. This will provide early reductions
17 to help meet the federally mandated PM2.5 air quality
18 standards.
19 --o0o--
20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: As mentioned
21 earlier, the compliance schedule is based on the engine
22 model year. There are two situations where alternative
23 model year may be used. The first situation is if a
24 vessel engine has been rebuilt to a cleaner standard
25 through Carl Moyer type programs or owner initiative. In
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
17
1 this case, the rebuild date can be used as the model year.
2 The second situation is included in order to
3 encourage the development and demonstration of emission
4 control strategies for harbor craft. If an emission
5 control strategy which achieves a decrease in PM or NOx of
6 at least 25 percent is implemented with an engine, then an
7 owner or operator can add five years to the engine model
8 year, extending the compliance date one to five years.
9 --o0o--
10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: The proposal
11 also offers two alternatives for complying with the in
12 use-requirements. There are used to demonstrate that the
13 existing engine is already meeting the current standard or
14 that the engine is operating less than 300 hours annually.
15 --o0o--
16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: This slide
17 lists four situations where the ARB Executive Officer may
18 allow a compliance date extension of either six months to
19 one year depending on the situation. For example, a
20 one-year compliance date extension is allowed if no
21 suitable engine replacement is available.
22 --o0o--
23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Another
24 compliance option for vessel owners would be to
25 participate in an alternative control of emission plans.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
18
1 We would allow the alternative control of emissions option
2 provided that equal or greater emission reductions would
3 be achieved. This could include engine modifications,
4 exhaust after treatment control, engine re-power, and
5 using alternative fuels.
6 The regulation establishes an application process
7 that requires ARB Executive Officer approval and includes
8 public review and comment.
9 --o0o--
10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Previously, I
11 have discussed regulation requirements applies to ferries,
12 excursion vessels, tug boats, and tow boats. I will now
13 discuss requirement for all commercial harbor craft
14 vessels, including fishing boats, crew and supply, and
15 other commercial harbor craft.
16 --o0o--
17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: We'll start
18 with the requirements for all new harbor craft vessels,
19 including fishing, crew and supply, and work boats, as
20 well as ferries, tugs, and others.
21 Starting in 2009, the regulation will require the
22 most current U.S. EPA marine engine, either Tier 2, 3, or
23 4, to be installed on new vessels.
24 The propulsion engine on new ferries will have an
25 additional requirement. In addition to installing an
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
19
1 engine meeting the most current standard, the best
2 available control technology, or BACT, must be applied.
3 The determination of what is BACT for each new ferry will
4 be made on a case by case basis. ARB will make BACT
5 determinations in consultation with the local air
6 district.
7 --o0o--
8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: When
9 re-powering an in-use vessel, the most current U.S. EPA.
10 marine engine standards must be installed. Engines
11 meeting the Tier 4 standard would be required only in
12 those cases where the engine being replaced was a Tier 4
13 engine.
14 --o0o--
15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: All harbor
16 craft will be required, if not already installed, to
17 install a non-resettable hour meter to each engine to
18 monitor engine activity and also keep records for engine
19 operation. All harbor craft will be required to submit a
20 report providing engine and operation information.
21 For harbor craft other than ferries, excursion
22 vessels, tugs and tows, this is a one-time report.
23 However, ferries, excursion vessels, tugs, and tows are
24 required to report how they plan to comply with engine
25 replacement requirements and also how they have complied
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
20
1 once compliance is complete.
2 --o0o--
3 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: The
4 regulation applies to vessels that operate within all
5 California waters, including internal waters and within 24
6 nautical miles of the coast line.
7 --o0o--
8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Listed in
9 this slide are the different vessel types that are exempt
10 from the entire regulation such as temporary emergency
11 rescue and recovery vessels, oceangoing vessels, and U.S.
12 Coast Guard vessels.
13 --o0o--
14 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Additionally,
15 there are some ferries, excursion vessels, tug boats, and
16 tow boats that are exempt from the engine replacement
17 requirements. These include temporary replacement
18 vessels, registered historic vessels, and near retirement
19 vessels.
20 --o0o--
21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: This next
22 section will provide a review of the projected emission
23 reductions from the proposed regulations.
24 --o0o--
25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: The
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
21
1 regulation's accelerated replacement schedule for the
2 South Coast provides early reductions of about .2 tons per
3 day PM and 3.6 tons per day of NOx by 2013 helping them
4 meet the 2015 federal PM2.5 air quality deadline. This
5 represents a 30 percent reduction of PM and 25 percent
6 reduction in NOx.
7 The statewide schedule provides a .7 tons per day
8 reduction of PM and 10 tons per day reduction of NOx in
9 2020, representing a 40 percent and 25 percent reduction
10 of PM and NOx respectively.
11 With the implementation of this regulation, the
12 2015 and 2020 goods movement emission reduction goals for
13 harbor craft will be achieved.
14 --o0o--
15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Here are the
16 anticipated statewide PM reductions for the entire harbor
17 craft inventory in tons per day.
18 The pink upper line is the base line emissions,
19 and the orange lower line is the projected statewide
20 emission reductions from the proposed harbor craft
21 regulation.
22 The declining base line is attributed to mainly
23 normal engine turnover and a decline in the commercial
24 fishing fleet. Historical data shows about a six percent
25 decline per year in commercial fishing vessels.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
22
1 Although uncontrolled PM emissions are projected
2 to drop through 2025, the proposed regulation would
3 accelerated these emission reductions. In fact, over the
4 life of the regulation from 2009 through 2022, there will
5 be reductions of about five million pounds of diesel PM
6 emissions due directly to this regulation.
7 --o0o--
8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: The NOx chart
9 shows a similar trend as the previous PM chart with
10 increased emission reductions due to the required engine
11 replacements.
12 Again, note the many years of early reductions.
13 Over the life of the regulation from 2009 through 2022,
14 there will be a reduction of 39,000 tons of NOx emissions
15 due directly to this regulation.
16 As I stated earlier, the South Coast will be
17 subject to an accelerated schedule. This graph shows the
18 emission reductions in the South Coast.
19 The pink upper line is the base line emissions.
20 The green middle line are the emissions of the
21 South Coast vessels if on the statewide schedule.
22 And the orange lower line shows the drop in
23 emission due to accelerated schedule as shown by the
24 arrow.
25 In 2013, the accelerated schedule provides
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
23
1 significant reductions for the South Coast.
2 --o0o--
3 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: The
4 reductions resulting from the regulation will reduce near
5 source cancer risk from harbor craft by about 65 percent
6 in the Los Angeles and Long Beach areas.
7 It will also provide numerous non-cancer health
8 benefits as shown in this slide. These non-cancer health
9 benefits are estimated to result in a cost savings of 1.3
10 to $2 billion.
11 --o0o--
12 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Staff has
13 evaluated the impact the proposed regulation would have on
14 global warming. The accelerated phase-in of cleaner
15 engines with less polluting technologies along with the
16 reduction of black carbon, which is a likely contributor
17 to global warming, would result in a reduction of
18 greenhouse gas emissions.
19 However, to the extent that the exhaust
20 aftertreatment technologies are used to comply with this
21 regulation, there may be an increase in carbon dioxide
22 emissions due to the increased vessel power usage.
23 --o0o--
24 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: ARB estimates
25 that this regulation will cost industry about $460
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
24
1 million. However, because the vast majority of the
2 engines that the regulation will require to be replaced
3 are past their useful life, only about a third of this
4 amount is attributed to the cost of complying with the
5 regulation.
6 This third, approximately $140 million, is the
7 cost of replacing engines before they reach the end of
8 their useful life. The impact of the return on owners'
9 equity ranges from 0.5 to 3.5 percent decline.
10 Overall, most businesses will be able to absorb
11 the cost of the proposed regulation by increasing the
12 costs of service. And the regulation should not have a
13 significant adverse impact on their profitability.
14 --o0o--
15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: The
16 regulation would achieve very large emission reductions
17 compared to the cost of those reductions. If the total
18 cost of the regulation is attributed to reducing diesel PM
19 alone, the diesel PM cost effectiveness is $29 per pound
20 it is estimated. If the cost is split between reducing PM
21 and NOx, the cost effectiveness is approximately $15 per
22 pound of diesel PM reduced and about $1800 per ton of NOx
23 reduced.
24 --o0o--
25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: As shown, the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
25
1 cost effectiveness for the proposed harbor craft
2 regulation is consistent with recently passed regulations.
3 --o0o--
4 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: There are
5 some potential funding sources for harbor craft engine
6 replacements. For example, Carl Moyer funding and the new
7 Proposition B Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program
8 bond funds. Additional funds may be distributed by the
9 port of Los Angeles mitigation funding and the Federal
10 Transit Authority grants.
11 --o0o--
12 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: As currently
13 proposed, $60 million will be available for harbor craft
14 engine replacements through the goods movement bond fund.
15 To qualify for these funds, the replacement
16 engine would need to be installed two years prior to any
17 applicable regulation compliance date. This funding is
18 available in only certain vessel types, including tug and
19 tow boats, crew and supply vessels, and commercial
20 fishing. It is estimated that these funds could purchase
21 over 500 propulsion engines.
22 To qualify for Carl Moyer funds, there would need
23 to be a three-year lead time for the engine replacement
24 prior to the regulatory compliance date for regulated
25 vessels. There are no timing restrictions related to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
26
1 compliance dates for unregulated vessels. The
2 availability of these funds varies by local air district.
3 --o0o--
4 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: We're
5 proposing two changes to the regulatory language proposed
6 with the notice. If approved by the Board, these will be
7 subject to a 15-day public comment period. The proposed
8 regulation requires that ferry, excursion, tug and tow
9 boat vessel owners to report how they would comply with
10 the engine replacement requirement in 2009 at the time of
11 the initial reporting.
12 The proposed 15-day change would require vessel
13 owners to report how the vessel would comply by February
14 28th of the year of compliance. Requiring this report
15 within a year of compliance allows the vessel owners to
16 develop a plan based on current technology available and
17 their current economic status.
18 The second change would be to restrict the engine
19 model year determination method based on installing an
20 emission control device to vessels located outside the
21 South Coast area. This change is to prevent any delay in
22 engine replacement emission reductions in the South Coast.
23 --o0o--
24 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: This slide
25 lists four issues that have been raised either in comments
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
27
1 received or during the regulation development process.
2 The first issue regards extending the South Coast
3 accelerated compliance schedule to the rest of the state.
4 Staff evaluated the capacity of engine
5 replacement facilities within the state and calculated
6 that the current engine replacement schedule is about the
7 maximum that these facilities can handle.
8 Also, an accelerated schedule for the entire
9 state would increase the cost to the regulated community
10 and reduce the time window for Carl Moyer and bond funding
11 opportunities.
12 Additionally, since more Tier 2 engines would be
13 installed as replacement engines instead of Tier 3
14 engines, long term emission benefits would be reduced.
15 The second issue regards a suggestion that we
16 require in-use crew and supply vessels to replace their
17 engines. For this proposal, we are focusing on the
18 largest emitters of near-source risk. We will be
19 evaluating other vessel types for possible controls in the
20 future. In the meanwhile, both Carl Moyer and bond
21 funding is available to help clean up the crew and supply
22 boat fleet.
23 The third issue involves a request that ARB
24 completely remove the option to extend compliance by one
25 to five years for engines which employ emission control
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
28
1 strategy to reduce PM or NOx by 25 percent.
2 As mentioned in the previous slide, this option
3 would only apply to vessels located outside the South
4 Coast. By keeping this option in the regulation, we hope
5 to encourage the development of emission control
6 strategies for harbor craft that could be used for other
7 unregulated vessel types such as commercial fishing.
8 Currently, there are no verified controls for harbor craft
9 engines.
10 Finally, it has been suggested that we require
11 vessel owners to replace their engines with Tier 4 engines
12 when they become available, unless they prove that the
13 engine is not suitable for their vessel.
14 Since Tier 4 engines will be aftertreatment based
15 designs, we believe that requiring these installations on
16 in-use vessels would be difficult due to the increased
17 weight and size as compared to earlier tiered engines they
18 would be replacing.
19 --o0o--
20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: In summary,
21 the proposed commercial harbor craft regulation meets the
22 goods movement goals 2015 and 2020. It achieves the early
23 reductions in the South Coast air basin and is cost
24 effective.
25 It addresses in-use emission reductions for the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
29
1 segment of the fleet, it addresses a segment that poses
2 the greatest health risk. Additionally, there will be
3 opportunities in the future.
4 Therefore, staff recommends that the Board adopt
5 the proposed regulation. This concludes my presentation.
6 At this time, we would be happy to answer any questions.
7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you, Mr. Sterling.
8 Before we open it up and I have a couple
9 questions myself, I believe we need to hear the statement
10 from the Ombudsman about the public participation process.
11 OMBUDSMAN QUETIN: Chairman Nichols and members
12 of the Board, this proposed regulation has been developed
13 with considerable input from environmental organizations,
14 engine and diesel emission control associations, and other
15 interested parties.
16 Staff began their efforts to develop this rule in
17 December 2004. Since March 2004, staff has held 12 public
18 workshops in Sacramento and Los Angeles with approximately
19 10 to 40 people in attendance. They also held three
20 community outreach meetings in Moss Landing, Los Angeles,
21 and Bodega Bay.
22 In addition, ARB staff participated in numerous
23 industry and government agency meetings presenting
24 information on the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, the Goods
25 Movement Emission Reduction Plan, and the proposed
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
30
1 regulatory approach for commercial harbor craft.
2 The staff report was released for public comment
3 on September 4th, 2007. Was noticed on the ARB website
4 with hard copies available in the Cal/EPA library. An
5 internet message was sent to 1,089 people on the
6 commercial harbor craft list serve and hard copies were
7 mailed out when requested.
8 Thank you.
9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
10 To kick off the questions, I have a question
11 first about the exclusion of all Coast Guard and military
12 harbor craft. Do you have any idea what proportion of the
13 inventory those represent within the category of harbor
14 craft? I would imagine it's quite significant.
15 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: Is
16 it listed in the other category or not?
17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: No.
18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, the reason I'm
19 raising the issue is, you know, it's always very difficult
20 obviously to get a handle on anything that's owned by
21 federal government and especially when it's military. So
22 I understand there's a matter of prudence why you wouldn't
23 start there.
24 But historically California has been able to get
25 a handle, occasionally at least, on federal operations.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
31
1 And if it's a big piece of what's causing the problems
2 that are effecting people's health on shore, it would I
3 think be worth making an effort to try to see if there's
4 not a way that we could move in that area, difficult
5 though it may be politically.
6 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: This
7 is Dan Donohoue.
8 What we can do on that at least as part of what
9 we're doing overall on the emissions inventory development
10 that we were getting additional data for is that we could
11 in fact initiate at the same time and effort to look at
12 both the military and the Coast Guard area on that as part
13 of the overall development when we're going to look at
14 what can we do in additional areas.
15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: It's one thing to talk
16 about naval oceangoing vessels. But when craft are
17 operating primarily inside the harbor area, it seems to me
18 there should be some ability to work with them.
19 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: To
20 the extent that they are military tug or tow boats in
21 there, they would be subject. We don't have any
22 restrictions for them in the regulations. So to the
23 extent they are those vessels, they would not --
24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: They're not exempt.
25 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: They
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
32
1 are not exempt.
2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That's good to know.
3 My second question, I just didn't understand the
4 third bullet that you presented under the issues, the
5 point that you were trying to make. If you could just go
6 back to that momentarily, the issue of removing an
7 emissions control strategy model year. I'm sorry. If you
8 could just explain that.
9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: One of the
10 options to extend the compliance year would be to install
11 a diesel emission control strategy on their vessel. So
12 that would by doing that -- so say put a DPF on a vessel.
13 That could extend your compliance year one to five years.
14 So it's a 2000 engine. It would add five years to the
15 model year that would add onto the compliance five years.
16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That was the recommendation
17 you got from some commenters.
18 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Right. Some
19 commenters want to leave it in. Some wanted to take it
20 out.
21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. And then the last
22 point that I think is actually more significant than the
23 other two is on the slide on page 18 of the paper that we
24 have, I just want to clarify the issue here, overall
25 effect on global warming. Because given the world that we
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
33
1 are now living in, I don't think the Board wants to be
2 adopting any regulations where there's a net negative
3 impact on greenhouse gas emissions. I think I understand
4 what you're trying to say here, but could I please have
5 some assurance that overall we're not going backwards with
6 this regulation?
7 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Well, we
8 believe we're going forward so in general the new engines
9 will have better efficiencies than the engines that are
10 replaced. And the vast majority of compliance with the
11 regulation will be through replacement of older less
12 efficient engines with more efficient engines.
13 However, since there is the option to apply
14 control devices -- or in the case of ferries we may
15 actually, say, take a better engines and apply an
16 additional control device, that will have some adverse
17 energy consequence. So we will lose some of the benefit.
18 And then in addition, there's an uncounted
19 benefit that doesn't come into greenhouse gases from the
20 diesel PM reductions. So we are reducing the emissions of
21 a substance that is forming and harmful. And we don't
22 have the calculation worked out to make the benefits.
23 So when you look at it, we have two things that
24 should produce significant benefits in one aspect of the
25 regulation that may have an energy cost. We think that's
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
34
1 necessary for criteria pollutant reduction.
2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, I think I wouldn't
3 hold up this obviously important rulemaking proceeding on
4 this grounds. But I would really like to see going
5 forward on any rules that we're looking at some attempt at
6 a calculation, even if it's within a range, you know, as
7 opposed to a hard number on what we think the impact is
8 likely to be on our goals under AB 32. If there's any way
9 the staff can develop to do that. I think Mr. --
10 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: We can always
11 give you a range as long as you're willing to except some
12 are not precise.
13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: There's uncertainty in all
14 of it. I think we can except that. But I think for the
15 Board not to at least show it's tracking the issue would
16 appear to be indifferent to kind of an overarching mandate
17 we now have.
18 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And we can
19 incorporate that into our Final Statement of Reasons
20 that's now on the table as a comment. We can address it
21 there.
22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That would be good, too.
23 That's enough from me.
24 Other Board members have comments?
25 Ms. D'Adamo.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
35
1 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I have a question
2 regarding the accelerated time schedule. And this goes to
3 other areas of the state.
4 I see here on slide 43 that one of the issues
5 apparently raised by the commenters and some of the
6 witnesses today will be proposing that the accelerated
7 engine replacement schedule extend to the entire state.
8 In particulate, I'm concerned about the near risk exposure
9 of passengers on ferries and excursions. If the engines
10 are available, why not have the Bay Area, San Diego, and
11 the rest of the state benefit from these cleaner engines
12 sooner?
13 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: This
14 is Dan Donohoue.
15 Basically what we're trying to do here is to put
16 in new engines in existing vessels. Certainly if it's a
17 new ferry, we have additional standards with respect to
18 those.
19 What we've had to do here in this regulation is
20 balance the useful life of these engines versus an
21 accelerated schedule. Right now for the rest of the state
22 the engine life has been -- we have reduced the useful
23 service life of those engines by about seven years. We're
24 providing for the most part 15 year service for the newer
25 fleet.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
36
1 To reduce it an additional number of years does
2 result in a fairly significant additional increase in
3 expenses. But the biggest issue is the installation
4 capacity that exists for shops to be able to install new
5 engines within those. So basically in balancing the
6 economics, the available installers, and the engines that
7 can be replaced in there, the overall schedule is what we
8 feel is technically doable and economically feasible.
9 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I would think there's not
10 much of a difference in terms of ages of the fleet in
11 South Coast as compared to other areas, unless, say, Bay
12 Area, for example, has newer engines.
13 And then as far as installers, I would assume
14 they're regionally based. They're not traveling around
15 the state, are they?
16 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: No,
17 they are not traveling around the state. What we looked
18 at is what is the capacity to install those engines. And
19 we think if we move the entire state to an accelerated
20 schedule, there is insufficient capacity to be able to
21 make those engine replacements.
22 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: There is also
23 an emissions trade off that with the accelerated schedule
24 you get more emissions reductions by 2014 which the South
25 Coast desperately needs as part of its attainment plan.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
37
1 But you actually have a little bit less in the subsequent
2 years because some of the replacements have to be done
3 with Tier 2 engines rather than Tier 3 engines. So
4 there's kind of economics at work. There's the ability to
5 make all of the transitions with the capacity to take the
6 boats out of service and put them in dry dock. And
7 there's that emission trade off that you have to make.
8 We thought the case was very clear in the South
9 Coast. We have this overriding consideration we have to
10 do everything we have committed to and can to get down to
11 the overall level of NOx reductions needed for PM by 2014.
12 And the rest of the state we felt the other balancing act
13 argued for the schedule we proposed.
14 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: What in minor adjustments
15 were made with the rest of the state, not fully
16 accelerated schedule as proposed, but shaving off a year,
17 for example?
18 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: It's a
19 balancing act. So obviously those are all possible
20 options.
21 I don't know what the emission consequences are.
22 Is there's something definitive about the 2017 year and
23 the availability of the better engines?
24 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE:
25 There would be some trade off with respect to the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
38
1 availability of the Tier 3 engines. So as you move that
2 up, you will end up replacing existing Tier 0 engines with
3 Tier 2, rather than Tier 3, which the Tier 3 is going to
4 get you, you know, significantly additional reductions.
5 The staff recommendation would be if we are going
6 to move it forward, then from an enforceability and a
7 consistency standpoint, it would be best to do it for the
8 entire state, not do it differently in various areas.
9 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: This
10 is Bob Fletcher. I wanted to clarify one of the points on
11 the rebuilds. We are looking at capacity within
12 California. So just because the tug is located in the
13 South Coast doesn't mean it will be replaced -- the engine
14 replaced in the South Coast. We did look at all of
15 California capacity when evaluating the ability of the
16 people to reinstall the engine.
17 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Ferrying of
18 the tug to the Bay Area is not a large amount of time
19 compared to the engine rebuild and the dry dock.
20 SUPERVISOR HILL: If I could follow up on Dee
21 Dee's comments. There was one question related to the
22 alternative emission control strategies that are
23 available. I think it's my understanding that there are
24 no control strategies that can be added to these current
25 engines that will reduce NOx and PM. Is that true?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
39
1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Currently,
2 there are no verified emission control technologies for
3 marine.
4 SUPERVISOR HILL: So we're assuming if they do
5 create those and put them into operation, there would be
6 some exemption or alternative benefits from that that we
7 would be able to give them an extension of time to work?
8 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: They would
9 have significant emissions reductions earlier than
10 required by the rule. And in light of those, they would
11 be able to delay the most expensive thing which is the
12 replacement of the entire engine.
13 SUPERVISOR HILL: That's the one-year exemption
14 issue. How is that related? That's on slide 22 we're
15 talking about. If an engine is not available, it would be
16 a one-year extension, is that --
17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: There might
18 be some cases where a one-off vessel, which most of these
19 are, if an engine would not be available. We give them a
20 year extension to provide them some extra time to get an
21 vessel engine to match up with that vessel.
22 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: This
23 is Dan Donohoue.
24 What we've seen in a number of the regulations is
25 when the new engines are scheduled to come out, depending
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
40
1 on what category the manufacturers really are marketing
2 those engines for, they may not -- the engines for certain
3 categories may not come up be available until later on.
4 So as long as the individual has put in the purchase order
5 in time and through no fault of their own the engine is
6 simply not available, it has not been delivered, they can
7 petition that the EO on a case by case basis look at that
8 information and make a determination that a delay is
9 appropriate.
10 SUPERVISOR HILL: So there are two issues we're
11 looking at. One is the availability of engines, and the
12 second is the availability of locations and mechanic shops
13 that can do the work.
14 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: Both
15 delay there and the delay in the actual ability to the
16 extent it has to be dry dock, dry dock space that's
17 available. To the extent it's an equipment installer that
18 can install the particular type of engine, CAT engine or
19 whatever, those are things that we've seen in some of the
20 other diesel regulations where those type of issues come
21 up. And we're trying to address those with very limited
22 exemptions for those appropriate situations.
23 SUPERVISOR HILL: Thank you.
24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Ms. Berg.
25 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you, Chairman.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
41
1 On slide 5, what percentage of the Tier 0 engines
2 make up the total inventory out of the 4200 vessels and
3 the 8300 diesel engines, what percentage are Tear 0s?
4 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Eighty
5 percent of the engines.
6 BOARD MEMBER BERG: So 80 percent of the engines
7 then actually are going to be replaced by 2016.
8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Of the
9 ferries, tugs, and tows, excursion vessels, right.
10 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And the inventory is
11 available to accomplish that, the replacement engines? We
12 really haven't talked about availability of inventory or
13 how long it takes to get these vessels out of the water
14 and how long they're in dry dock. It isn't the same as
15 trucks that make an appointment and drive over and it
16 takes a few weeks.
17 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: Two
18 comments there.
19 Number one, as far as the availability of
20 engines, Tier 0, Tier 3 engines, the Engine Manufacturers
21 Association, you know, has indicated that they believe
22 that those engines will be available on the timing.
23 Tier 2 engines are available right now. So they
24 anticipate that there is not an issue with respect to
25 that.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
42
1 Tier 3 engines are actually part of the new EPA
2 proposed regulation. So the availability of that is still
3 a bit in question. But right now they believe those will
4 be offered.
5 The issue about the installation capacity dry
6 dock time and all that is the issue that we talked about
7 before as to why we felt that we do feel there is
8 sufficient capacity to handle an accelerated schedule for
9 the South Coast, that we have the installers there. But
10 we do have questions about that being able to handle that
11 for the rest of the state.
12 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: Just
13 one clarification that while 80 percent of these engines
14 are Tear 0, we are not addressing 8300 diesel engines in
15 this regulation. We're only addressing 15 percent of
16 the -- we're only dealing with ferries, tugs, and tows.
17 So 80 percent of them would be replaced in the categories
18 we're covering in this regulation.
19 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you very much for
20 clarifying that.
21 And also in clarification, I think I missed how
22 an individual company determines their turnover schedule.
23 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE:
24 Could you bring up that extra slide on the schedule?
25 --o0o--
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
43
1 BOARD MEMBER BERG: For example, on the off-road,
2 we had the eight or ten percentage of horsepower, and so I
3 was confused on how that was determined.
4 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: This is Todd
5 Sterling.
6 This slide here shows the statewide schedule. So
7 a vessel owner owning a vessel from -- owns a ferry that's
8 a 1990 ferry. He would look at the engine model year,
9 determine how many hours of annual -- hours of operation
10 he had last year, and would either fall into the 2013 or
11 2014 time range for compliance.
12 BOARD MEMBER BERG: That explains why we need
13 that recordkeeping, so now I understand that.
14 And then also is there a registration process so
15 that the local districts are aware of the inventory? And
16 then if an inventory piece is being added or replaced, is
17 there a permitting process that then would drive the BACT
18 decision on which vessel they could purchase?
19 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: The
20 implementation and enforcement of this regulation is with
21 the Air Resources Board. The initial phase of the
22 regulation requires that all vessels, all harbor craft
23 provide information with respect to the vessel, location,
24 age of the engine and all that. So there is an initial
25 registration of all harbor craft beyond these.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
44
1 The actual implementation of the engine
2 replacement schedules would be under ARB's enforcement
3 division would be carrying out that.
4 The decisions with respect to BACT determinations
5 for new ferries, again that would be Air Resources Board
6 staff making that decision in consultation with the local
7 air district and with the EO approval of that
8 recommendation.
9 BOARD MEMBER BERG: So for a company to purchase
10 a new vessel, then they would submit the vessel that they
11 wish to purchase and get approval of that? How are they
12 going to know what is the current BACT standard?
13 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: For
14 all vessels other than ferries, what they would have to
15 ensure is that they install the current model year U.S.
16 EPA certified marine engine. That is very straight
17 forward.
18 With respect to a new ferry, what the
19 owner/operator would need to do is to submit a review of a
20 BACT determination to the Air Resources Board. And we
21 would work with them in that process of identifying what
22 for that particular ferry application they believe that
23 would be best available control technology. We would
24 review that in consultation with the district and make a
25 determination as to whether it constitutes best available
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
45
1 control technology.
2 One of the issues here is that all ferries aren't
3 the same. I mean, we have slow speed ferries. We have
4 high speed ferries. We have different size associated
5 with those and different types of systems. So we were
6 unable to make a broad determination of what's technically
7 feasible, cost effective for ferry applications in
8 general. So we elected in this case to go on a case by
9 case basis. We're talking probably about three or four
10 ferries a year at most. So I mean, it's not going to be a
11 tremendous amount of workload.
12 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you very much.
13 SUPERVISOR HILL: One follow up.
14 You mentioned that if engines are not available
15 then there would be an exemption or one-year extension
16 until that engine is available for that model. Could that
17 work if we were to go statewide with the accelerated
18 schedule? And if an engine were not available, then would
19 you get an extension but you have a purchase order in
20 place to show you're in good faith working towards that
21 goal. Couldn't you do the same thing with a facility or
22 be in the cue for the dry dock facility or replacement
23 facility usage and then be in that cue and have the
24 registration and signed up and whatever purchase orders
25 are a contract is necessary with that facility then shows
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
46
1 a good faith? And if it can't be met because there aren't
2 facilities available or the previous job is delayed it, if
3 that could keep it moving in an accelerated fashion rather
4 than delaying it. Is that something that --
5 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I guess we
6 could have a system like that. But our assessment is that
7 rather than the infrequent lack of availability of a new
8 engine that meets the right tier for the vessel, that that
9 would become commonplace. So the real risk is knowing
10 what we know about the capacity is that we would overload
11 the system. And then we would have competition with who
12 do we make go first and how do we make sure that the ones
13 that go first are in the area that we've targeted for the
14 earliest emission reductions.
15 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: I
16 think one more comment. When we looked at this overall
17 process, we were able to look at what we felt was the --
18 we called everybody that we could figure out was
19 potentially involved in the marine installation
20 application.
21 What we are not able to evaluate is what
22 additional installations are going to need to be done
23 under the bond program, what additional installations that
24 the districts may elect to do under Carl Moyer, what
25 additional early reductions within the marine vessel fleet
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
47
1 might come about by specific port action.
2 In addition, just the ongoing repair and
3 maintenance of a fleet of 8,300 engines overall. And so
4 those were hard to do.
5 Right now, when we looked at most of those, they
6 were clearly three months out of being able to have a
7 space to do anything. So that and with the additional
8 emphasis that we believe is coming on getting additional
9 things that are not covered by this regulation marine
10 harbor craft into the program, we think there is going to
11 be even additional constraints on the capacity to do these
12 installations and to do them right.
13 SUPERVISOR HILL: Thank you.
14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Any other questions? Yes.
15 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: One small question. That
16 is a technical one in terms of these emissions numbers
17 that we see on slide 17 and onward. How much confidence
18 do we have in these numbers? You know, I know how it
19 works with cars and trucks in terms of test procedures and
20 test cycles and sampling and so on. And, you know, part
21 of it is the deterioration issue.
22 First of all, are these numbers for new
23 engines -- for when the engines are new? Do these take
24 into account deterioration? And how much confidence are
25 there in these numbers?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
48
1 CONTROL STRATEGIES SECTION MANAGER RAINFORTH:
2 These numbers are for in-use engines. It was based --
3 since most of these engines are developed from off-road
4 engines, the model was based on the off-road. And then
5 there is deterioration that's included, and it's been
6 adjusted for marine application.
7 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: The
8 test cycle on these is basically a steady cycle with
9 weightings of various modes anywhere from mainly five
10 mode, you know. So there are those factors associated
11 with it. We have had some additional testing data done on
12 this. So at this point in time, these are the best that
13 we have available.
14 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Thank you.
15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Do you use the same
16 information that EPA is using in their proposed rules?
17 Are we taking advantage of whatever is there?
18 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE:
19 Basically, this overall proposal is the base engine is
20 based on the U.S. EPA emission standard, the test method
21 and all that. I think we do have a slightly different
22 possible way on deterioration in here I think. But
23 overall, the numbers are consistent with EPA approach and
24 reflect the EPA base engine type of information.
25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
49
1 All right. I think at this point we're ready to
2 hear from the public. So we have eleven witnesses who
3 have signed up. The first three are Jim Swindler, Jeff
4 Browning, and Richard Smith. And we will be imposing a
5 three-minute time limit on testimony in addition to your
6 written comments, of course.
7 MR. SWINDLER: Good morning. My name is Jim
8 Swindler. I'm with the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and
9 Transportation District. And I'm the Deputy General
10 Manager of the Ferry Division.
11 By way of background, we operate five passenger
12 ferries Larkspur to San Francisco and Sausalito to
13 San Francisco.
14 I first would like to compliment your staff on
15 all the work they've done on this regulation. While we
16 still believe there is some improvements to be made, I
17 want to note that they worked with us over the past
18 several months. They've heard us. They visited a couple
19 ferry operations and seen firsthand some of the issues
20 here.
21 There's been a lot this morning talked about the
22 best available control technology. And I'd just like to
23 add that we would like to see the word "proven" involved
24 in this. Because the technology that we tried in the past
25 that one of my other colleagues will speak about just
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
50
1 didn't work. There was some problems with it. We'd like
2 to see the word "proven" in there as well.
3 So with that and in the interest of time, thank
4 you for the opportunity to speak.
5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
6 Mr. Browning, Mr. Smith, and then John
7 Kaltenstein.
8 MR. BROWNING: Good morning, Madam Chairman and
9 members of the Board. I'm Jeff Browning from Sause
10 Brothers. I also represent AWO, an international trade
11 organization for tug boats and ferries and the barge
12 industry.
13 And I was also hoping to get five minutes. I
14 have a lot here. Hopefully I won't get the red light.
15 The areas that we work in the member companies
16 work in and protection of the environmental is important
17 to us. We have many members who have already started in
18 the 90s, late 90s and the 2000s, to bring the boats up to
19 Tier 1 compliance.
20 We're the most efficient way to transport things.
21 Our tug boats, the inland barges can carry 60 truckloads
22 with a similar type fuel burn. Oceangoing barges, 750
23 with similar fuel burn.
24 I'm skipping around here, because I've got less
25 time.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
51
1 Unfortunately, AWO's concerns with the previous
2 draft of harbor craft regulation have in large part gone
3 unaddressed. We now are presented a draft regulation that
4 will have enormously negative economic impact on the tug
5 and barge industry. AWO has no choice but to strongly
6 oppose the California Air Resources Board regulation
7 harbor craft vessel for the following reasons.
8 It doesn't accurately address the economic impact
9 of us and unfairly requires ocean tugs to comply.
10 It does not explicitly accept existing engine
11 hours meters.
12 It sets unrealistic compliance dates.
13 Contains a burdensome application process.
14 And we believe some sections are unconstitutional
15 based on interstate trade.
16 First part I have is oceangoing tug boats.
17 Notwithstanding the provisions of this Title Section 13 to
18 Section 229, the section shall not apply to any oceangoing
19 tug boats and tow boats that shall supercede the
20 requirements of 13 CCR 22991 and 17 CCR 93118 in their
21 entirety for oceangoing tug boats and tow boats. The
22 purpose of this paragraph oceangoing tug boats and tow
23 boats shall mean tug boats and tow boats with a registry
24 foreign trade and endorsement on the United States Coast
25 Guard documentation.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
52
1 AWO strongly recommends that oceangoing tug boats
2 be removed from the harbor craft regulation and placed in
3 oceangoing regulation.
4 Oceangoing tugs operate in a similar fashion to
5 ships. They do not work close to neighborhoods or close
6 to shore. They make calls to California ports, but home
7 ports are outside of the California waters. These vessels
8 are involved in interstate commerce and not utilized in
9 ship assist work or duties generally assigned to harbor
10 craft. The growing demand on the national transportation
11 system means oceangoing tugs will be a major component on
12 the future of commodity transportation. Including them in
13 the harbor craft regulation will only limit the numbers of
14 vessels it will serve in the California ports.
15 Economic impact. We don't believe the
16 ramifications of this regulation have been adequately
17 addressed by CARB staff in the true economic impact. For
18 example, imposing a short life cycle on marine engines
19 will be so costly it will push smaller vessel operators
20 out of business.
21 Typically, main engines on tugs will last many
22 rebuild cycles. Sause Brothers' core fleet all are
23 averaged at 1975 and have been rebuilt many times.
24 Most of the engines have pre-1980 original build
25 dates. To repower those engines can cost and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
53
1 two-and-a-half to three-and-a-half million dollars per
2 tug, sometimes exceeding the total value of the tug. The
3 current compliance schedules will decimate oceangoing tugs
4 and ship assist business in the California waters.
5 My part three engine hour meters I want you to
6 refer to my comments.
7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: If you could sum up, I
8 would appreciate it. I'm letting you use up some of the
9 unexpired time of the previous speaker.
10 MR. BROWNING: I heard the staff talk quite a bit
11 about engine replacements. I've consulted our
12 manufacturers. And right now lead time of one year is for
13 EMD engines, and that's our core engine. And we have nine
14 boats look that to repower.
15 You've completely blown my thing with the time
16 limit.
17 AWO requests automatic compliance for the
18 extension dates on replacement engines due to the
19 manufacturers, not a one year, six month. We need
20 automatic compliance or automatic extension for
21 compliance.
22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I think we understand your
23 concerns.
24 MR. BROWNING: That would be in line with when we
25 can get the engines.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
54
1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: And you've explained it in
2 the letter. We appreciate that. Sorry for the time
3 pressure.
4 MR. BROWNING: The one thing I didn't hit, if I
5 could have one more minute, is the oceangoing tug
6 incorporation in this regulation. They do not belong in
7 it. They don't operate as harbor craft. They operate as
8 ships. And this fleet was recently added to the
9 regulation this year, and we haven't had time to even
10 address or look at any of this.
11 If there's 25 to 30 of these tugs running up and
12 down the coast, all of which have to be repowered. And
13 they don't even operate in harbors. They come in and do
14 ports calls and leave and should not be included in the
15 regulation.
16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. We understand
17 your point.
18 Do you have a comment?
19 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: I have a question for the
20 city attorney. In Mr. Browning's letter, there was an
21 assertion that this proposed regulation violates the
22 Submerged Lands Act and is in fact unconstitutional. I'd
23 like a clarification.
24 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL VERGARA: This is Floyd
25 Vergara, the attorney on this case.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
55
1 With regard to the Submerged Lands Act, we don't
2 believe this violates the Submerged Lands Act. That act
3 was specifically designed to address the rights between
4 the states and the federal government with regard to the
5 subsoil and mineral rights. And it had nothing to do with
6 control of air pollution or other forms of air pollution.
7 So we don't believe that this would violate that statute.
8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks.
9 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Madam Chair, one other
10 question of staff.
11 The comment about oceangoing tugs they shouldn't
12 be in this regulation, and I don't know what potential
13 connection is with this. But one of the proposals within
14 the San Joaquin Valley is to look at short sea shipping.
15 And that is moving truck good movements out of the central
16 part of California and hopefully going along the coast
17 line as a more efficient way to move goods and get them
18 off the roads and get their pollution out of the valley.
19 How is that connected or is it connected? Can somebody
20 give a little bit of some background there?
21 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Well, the
22 proposals I've seen for that are use fairly large vessels
23 where the trailer would roll on and roll off of the
24 vessel. So that vessel size might be large enough so it
25 didn't apply to our harbor craft rule.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
56
1 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Is there any element in terms
2 of the oceangoing tug boat that they're actually moving
3 goods and actually not in the harbor environment to impact
4 adjacent populations?
5 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE:
6 Todd, would you respond to why we included --
7 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Sure. We've
8 worked with Jason Lewis and Jeff Browning, who just spoke,
9 with AWO for a while. And they did a survey for us of
10 oceangoing vessels of oceangoing tug boats. They visit
11 California about 500 times a year, move up along the
12 coast. We think that they belong in this regulation, not
13 in oceangoing vessel regulation. They're the same type
14 and size as regular harbor tugs. So we think they fit
15 better in this regulation.
16 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Is the majority of their
17 travel time out in the open water, or is it actually they
18 spend a fair amount of time in the harbors contributing to
19 that pollution?
20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: They spend
21 most their time traversing along California's -- whether
22 outside or inside 24 miles along the coast of California,
23 say going from Oregon down to Oakland or down to the South
24 Coast area. They move all along California's waters.
25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: But it sounds like your
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
57
1 reason for including them has more to do with the nature
2 of the engine and the vessel than it does with the duty
3 cycle; is that right?
4 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: Just
5 a couple things. One, they are similar to oceangoing
6 vessels in that they traverse, come in, drop off their
7 cargo and leave. They generally do not -- you know, most
8 of them -- now there are some are in dual service. But
9 most of them come in and do that.
10 To the extent their certain loads they will
11 traverse within the 24 mile. If they're pushing a barge
12 that has fuel, it will be outside 24 miles. But in
13 looking at the thing, you know, we are dealing with -- we
14 looked at the number. These vessels are coming into the
15 ports 500 times a year here.
16 The other issue associated with them is that the
17 vast majority of these are older engines. Those are 1975
18 engines on a majority of these vessels. Under the
19 oceangoing vessel regulation, what they would be required
20 to do is burn distillate fuel which they are required to
21 do as is and there will be no additional opportunity for
22 emission reductions from those if they're under that --
23 counted as an oceangoing vessels.
24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
25 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: We believe
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
58
1 the emission reductions when they are in port are
2 significant, and they're in port and close to shore fairly
3 often. And they're quite different from a vessel that
4 comes and is in a California port one percent of the time
5 while it's doing its normal around-the-world journeys.
6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Okay.
7 Richard Smith followed by John Kaltenstein and
8 Carolyn Horgan.
9 MR. SMITH: Good morning. My name is Richard
10 Smith. I'm General Manager for Westar Marine Services in
11 San Francisco. I'm also a Board member of the American
12 Waterways Operators as part of my company's membership
13 within that organizations.
14 Westar is a woman-owned family business that
15 operates 18 tug boats, 9 crew boats, and 20 barges in
16 San Francisco Bay Area. And we employ about 100
17 employees. And the proposed regulations will have a
18 significant effect on our operations and our ability to
19 stay in business.
20 Westar certainly supports efforts to reduce air
21 emissions and has in fact utilized the Carl Moyer program
22 since 1996 to re-engine almost our entire fleet. We've
23 replaced more harbor craft engines in the San Francisco
24 Bay Area than any other company. However, legitimate
25 concerns of the tug boat industry presented during
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
59
1 development of the regulations have mostly not been
2 addressed. Of particulate note are the unrealistic
3 compliance dates and the gross underestimation of total
4 costs involved. Many vessels are going to have to be
5 re-engined.
6 And there's going to be disruptions in commerce
7 when tug boats are unavailable due to time out of service,
8 engine delivery delays, and limited shipyard resources.
9 This is going to cost the California consumer much more
10 than is estimated in this proposed rulemaking.
11 And many smaller tug boats companies with limited
12 financial resources will sell their boats outside of
13 California and just go out of business in our estimation.
14 We have two specific issues we'd like to
15 highlight and request changes in the proposed regulation.
16 First in regards to the December 31st, 2007, date for
17 voluntary compliance retrofitting engines from Tier 0 to 1
18 with resulting change in engine model year, we request a
19 year and a half extension on that date to July 1st, 2009.
20 That will enable us to meet the requirements of the entire
21 rulemaking.
22 Secondly, we also request the extension for same
23 fleet vessels that share compliance dates be broadened.
24 Due to our extensive re-engining under the Carl Moyer
25 Program, Westar has seven vessels that will have a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
60
1 compliance date of 2015 and seven vessels with a date of
2 2017. We would have to re-engine 14 vessels over a four
3 year period if we took advantage of the one-year extension
4 that's available.
5 And based on our experience -- we've done quite a
6 few of these now. About 36 engines all together. We
7 don't believe that we can manage that many re-engines
8 within that time period. And the single one-year time
9 extension is just not adequate. We request that this
10 extension be limited to one use.
11 I heard some questions in regards to engine
12 availability. Let me give you a real life example. We
13 ordered two Tier 2 engines under the Carl Moyer grant and
14 the delivery time was one and a half years. We just
15 received these engines. So I'm not really sure why the
16 Engine Manufacturers Association is telling you there's no
17 problem with them being available right now.
18 Finally, I'd like to say we strongly support the
19 comments and changes submitted by the American Waterways
20 Operators regarding these proposing regulations. And we
21 hope that the Air Resources Board will take industry's
22 concerns and comments seriously. Thank you very much.
23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
24 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Madam Chair, I do have a
25 question of staff.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
61
1 I appreciate you reminding me that I was going to
2 ask about the issue of small company versus large company.
3 And I notice in this rule there is no distinction or
4 categories for company size. Could you comment on that?
5 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: As
6 we went through the process of looking at this particular
7 category, we were not able to differentiate the economics
8 associated with the large or the small companies. And so
9 there wasn't any clear way that we saw different economics
10 to address this.
11 There's fairly limited cost data available on
12 company size. We felt that from a consistency standpoint
13 it was best to have all of these engines replaced on the
14 same schedule, and we're not able to differentiate out
15 anything additional.
16 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I don't know if I'm very
17 comfortable with the fact that 14 vessels in a year seems
18 to be a significant impact to me.
19 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: I
20 mean, there is -- under the current proposal, there is a
21 provision that allows for a one-year extension if you have
22 engines in the same model year. It would be possible to
23 amend that to allow for a one-year extension for each of
24 those that would extend that time line greater.
25 But right now if you add seven engines in '14 and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
62
1 seven engines in '15, it's correct, you could have four
2 years, if that provision could be re-worked somewhat to
3 allow for a greater time on that.
4 BOARD MEMBER BERG: What is the turn around time
5 for the craft being out -- the vessel being out of the
6 water? How long does this take? Is this a three-week
7 process, a month process?
8 CONTROL STRATEGIES SECTION MANAGER RAINFORTH: I
9 think it's more on the order of -- we looked at three to
10 six weeks I think for per engine I believe is what
11 information we have.
12 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I just need to state that I'm
13 not very comfortable with this. Thank you.
14 CONTROL STRATEGIES SECTION MANAGER RAINFORTH:
15 Could I comment on --
16 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Please do.
17 CONTROL STRATEGIES SECTION MANAGER RAINFORTH: If
18 there is $60 million in bond funding as currently proposed
19 for commercial harbor craft and specifically for tugs,
20 tows, and fishing, now to qualify for that, they have to
21 re-engine two years earlier.
22 Now, yes, they have -- their compliance dates are
23 all in one year. But if they were looking for incentive
24 funds, they would have to do that earlier. And would it
25 make sense that they would spread that out over time.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
63
1 They do have -- it's in 2015. That is they have, you
2 know, from like seven years until they need to do that.
3 So yes --
4 BOARD MEMBER BERG: But they need to start in
5 2009. I mean, am I -- I don't think we have two years.
6 CONTROL STRATEGIES SECTION MANAGER RAINFORTH:
7 For the very oldest high use vessels for the pre '75s,
8 they don't have the two years. The first year they would
9 miss out on the bond funding.
10 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: In
11 South Coast, but not in the rest of the state.
12 BOARD MEMBER BERG: We're talking 80 percent of
13 the engines are going to be under this rule from 2009 to
14 2016. They're not going to be available for the bond
15 money.
16 CONTROL STRATEGIES SECTION MANAGER RAINFORTH:
17 Everything, but the ones that need to comply in the first
18 year. The others will be. The bond funding will be
19 available to them.
20 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Okay. Thank you.
21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Mr. Kaltenstein, Carolyn
22 Horgan, and Martin Robbins are next.
23 MR. KALTENSTEIN: Chairman Nichols, Board
24 members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today,
25 staff members. I want to commend you first of all, you do
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
64
1 an excellent job in this process. I realize it's been a
2 few years and we are going to move forward.
3 My colleague, Terry Shore, could not make it.
4 She's in Austrailia. I'm here in her stead.
5 I'd like to address four points and hopefully be
6 fairly quick on this.
7 We'd like to see division of the rule into two
8 parts addressing PM and NOx. And this will facilitate the
9 adoption by other states in the country of this method so
10 that they can push forward with their progressive option.
11 And that's under federal court precedent we'd like to see
12 that accomplished.
13 This allows for a lot of flexibility for other
14 states to consider the adoption of this rule depending on
15 their particular air quality situation. So we ask that
16 you do that. And we realize it's more work on your part,
17 but we would appreciate that.
18 Secondly, the accelerated compliance schedule,
19 there's been some debate over the issue and I think it's a
20 good one. I think the consensus by the environmental
21 coalition is that we can -- we would like to see the South
22 Coast compliance schedule replicated on a statewide basis.
23 We understand capacity is an issue. We'd like to see any
24 means used at our disposal, Carl Moyer, ratcheting up
25 that, perhaps looking at other capacity options on the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
65
1 west coast, bond funding to move that forward. We think
2 it could be potentially significant. And it is only
3 two years, but a lot of that work will change, you know,
4 transfer dirty engines to clean engines quicker and help
5 facilitate and advance the air quality in these port
6 communities that right now is having significant issues.
7 The third issue we'd like to address -- with
8 regard to that second one, in the technical report there
9 is some discussion about a table in fact dealing with the
10 replacement of propulsion engine. And it appears in 2011
11 and 2012 and 2014 there's some space to shift around these
12 numbers. I know the capacity number that was references
13 is 150. And if possible, we can use any means at our
14 disposal to move that around so that we can go forward on
15 the statewide replication of that at the South Coast
16 level. So I don't know if I'm reading that wrong or I
17 could be just misunderstanding that. So perhaps some
18 clarification from the staff to that issue.
19 Lastly, we feel that oceangoing tug boats should
20 be included under the regulations for the reasons given
21 and also the reasons included in our letter.
22 And, lastly, this is an issue solely on behalf of
23 Friends of the Earth. We'd like to see the Board advance
24 a more progressive position with regard to ferries beyond
25 the Tier 2 BACT to either 85 percent of Tier 2 or Tier 4
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
66
1 if feasible. And I appreciate your time. Thank you.
2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Did you want to
3 respond to the question or the comment?
4 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: With
5 respect to the first question, the first comment, on
6 splitting the regulation, staff is a little confused on
7 that. This regulation basically requires the installation
8 of federally approved certified engines. And the
9 standards for both PM and NOx go together at one time.
10 So it's different than number of the other regs
11 we've done that have maybe a retrofit system available for
12 PM, so therefore -- so in this case, it would seem to me
13 that a different state could adopt the regulation and say
14 we're adopting it for the NOx and get the PM at the same
15 time or could adopt it for the PM and get the NOx at the
16 same time. So we were a bit confused --
17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Maybe you can talk off
18 line.
19 Carolyn Horgan, followed by Martin Robbins, and
20 Joe Wyman.
21 MS. HORGAN: Good morning. My name is Carolyn
22 Horgan, and I'm the Vice President of Operations for the
23 Blue and Gold fleet. We operate ferries and excursion
24 vessels in the Bay Area.
25 And I'd like to commend the California Air
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
67
1 Resources Board and your staff for listening to the
2 concerns of the California ferry operators. Your decision
3 to have California regulations for diesel engines on
4 vessels built after January 1st, 2009, comply with EPA
5 standards, ensure that vessel operators in California will
6 not have to have one set of regulations while operators in
7 the rest of the country have a different set of
8 regulations.
9 Blue and Gold is a privately held company who
10 cares about the environment. In fact, in 2005, Blue and
11 Gold won the Governor's award for our sustainability
12 practices. We have acted proactively by replacing all of
13 our two stroke engines with cleaner burning Tier 1
14 four-stroke engines. The eight main engines and eight
15 auxiliary engines have been replaced over the past seven
16 years at a cost of almost $2 million.
17 The Carl Moyer program financed a portion of the
18 cost of these engines. We feel that we acted in good
19 faith by replacing our polluting engines. In the case of
20 our three Oski class vessels, the reduction of PM meets
21 the Tier 2 engine requirements and the NOx have been
22 reduced by 180 tons over the last seven years.
23 We believe there are a few ways CARB may
24 accommodate operators like us. Possible remedies would
25 either be to ask CARB to allow 20 full years of operation
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
68
1 for any engine and any vessels installed under the Carl
2 Moyer Program before the engine would be required to be
3 replaced. Or a Tier 1 engine installed since 2001,
4 particularly one that was funded from the Carl Moyer
5 Program, could have a phase out of 15 years from the
6 effective date of the regulation.
7 Thank you for giving me this opportunity to
8 comment.
9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
10 Martin Robbins, followed by Joe Wyman, and
11 Richard Alard.
12 MR. ROBBINS: Good morning. Thanks for the
13 opportunity to speak. My name is Martin Robbins, the
14 Marine Services Manager for the city of Vallejo's Baylink
15 Ferry Service. We operate four high speed passenger
16 ferries in San Francisco Bay.
17 I've brought some written comments and I've
18 attached them to any speaker card. I hope those make it
19 to you. I'm not going to spend time going over all those
20 points.
21 But I want to take a moment to tell that you the
22 California ferry operators do care about the environment
23 and want cleaner air and healthy air for everyone to
24 breathe.
25 We do want to thank the CARB Board for taking our
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
69
1 input over the past several months. And your re-writing
2 of the legislation as now proposed certainly reflects they
3 listened to us and took what we had to say in earnest and
4 we want to thank the staff for that.
5 I do want to touch on a couple key points that
6 will reflect the dialogue we've heard here already this
7 morning.
8 One regards I wanted to commend you for removing
9 the requirement for existing vessels to meet Tier 4
10 requirements. We felt that that was a very onerous
11 potential regulation. We don't think that that -- we
12 think that would have led to a lot of very fine vessels
13 being sent to the wrecking yard. Tier 4 is going to
14 involve aftertreatment and involve extensive impact to
15 vessels. Putting Tier 3 engines on those vessels will
16 certainly make them cleaner, and we want to commend that
17 effort.
18 With regard to the current regulation where it
19 calls for best available control technology, I'd like o
20 relay a little bit of a personal story -- but our
21 particular story. In 2004, the city of Vallejo
22 voluntarily purchased a vessel with aftertreatment control
23 technology. At that time, we purchased the best available
24 control technology. That technology has failed, and your
25 staff has been given those reports and has seen the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
70
1 pictures and the data.
2 In this case, it would have been better to do
3 nothing than do something. And I think until we can
4 include the phrase "proven" along with best available
5 control technology, we risk the same risk. And case and
6 in point, the vessel Solano today produces more pollutants
7 than our sister vessels do simply for the fact she's
8 carrying a system that no longer works. I think
9 reliability and durability are going to be key objective
10 measures that should somehow be written into this
11 regulation to quantify in some way what's best in a proven
12 technology for vessels. So I'd like to sum that up.
13 I'd also like to comment briefly on engine
14 availability and second what you're hearing that it takes
15 a year or so to get the engines.
16 And finally talk about retrofit. We're going to
17 schedule six months for our ferries to be re-powered. And
18 we're going to have to take it to a shipyard in
19 Washington. I know every vessel is a little bit
20 different. But replacing an engine is not a simple task.
21 And if somebody can do it in three or four weeks, I'd like
22 to see it. Thank you.
23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you.
24 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Could I ask the speaker what
25 is your experience on how much time it does take?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
71
1 MR. ROBBINS: We're scheduling six months. It's
2 really not a matter of simply unbolting the engine,
3 unhooking some pipes and wires and lifting an engine out
4 and putting an engine back in. Because these more
5 efficient, more environmentally friendly engines are going
6 to be a lot heavier than they are in existing vessels, we
7 are actually having to modify the hull of the vessel in
8 order to accommodate the added weight of the new engine.
9 And that's going to involve significant shipyard time.
10 BOARD MEMBER BERG: How many projects a year are
11 you expecting your company will have to do under this
12 regulation?
13 MR. ROBBINS: We have two ferries that will
14 require re-powering in 2012. That's the type of impact
15 we're looking at.
16 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you.
17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I have a question. How
18 many passengers a day on average?
19 MR. ROBBINS: We're carrying about 2500 to 3,000
20 passengers a day in San Francisco from north bay.
21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Martin Robbins, Joe
22 Wyman, Richard all and Greg Bombard.
23 MR. WYMAN: Good morning. My name is Joe Wyman.
24 I'm the Manager of Planning and Development for Hornblower
25 Cruises and Events. We are a 27-year-old California-based
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
72
1 company that owns about 40 vessels in the state of
2 California.
3 The questions that you've asked this morning
4 about number of vessels in any one year of the program is
5 valid. We have about 14 vessels that would need to have
6 their engines replaced within the first two years of this
7 legislation. And looking at the economic impact on our
8 company, we don't believe that the staff has done an
9 adequate analysis to determine the ROE on our company. In
10 fact, we think it could jeopardize our viability as a
11 company to serve the public of California.
12 We think that the -- well, I've given you some
13 written comments, and I hope you'll take a look at that.
14 The one example I've shown in my analysis is involving
15 historic vessels.
16 The regs that are in front of you say that if an
17 owner can go get his boat on the National Register, then
18 he could be exempted from an engine replacement. We don't
19 know the viability of that. We don't know how many
20 vessels can actually be placed on the National Register.
21 If you look at the National Register, the types of vessels
22 that you have there are masted ships, historic vessels of
23 limited operations. Our vessels, you know, run on a
24 weekly basis and are not of the same caliber and quality
25 those vessels are.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
73
1 We would encourage the staff and the Board to
2 look at maybe defining what would be called a classic
3 vessel, something short of being on a National Register
4 and comparable to a classic car under DMV regs where more
5 flexibility could be given to the boat.
6 The one boat that I point out -- we also have six
7 of these -- is the Wild Goose, which was owned by John
8 Wayne in Newport Beach. It was originally designed as a
9 wooden hull mine sweeper. And the engines themselves are
10 large enough that it acts as its balance. When you take
11 this boat into dry dock, you'd have to basically destroy
12 two or two-thirds of its interior hull to get a new engine
13 in it. It jeopardize its design. It jeopardizes its
14 stability certificate with the Coast Guard. And it adds,
15 you know, innumerable amount of time in dry dock. We have
16 about eight vessels that would qualify for what we
17 consider a classic vessel.
18 The other thing I wanted to point out is the
19 modification in terms of duty cycle and in terms of
20 operations. We don't understand or want an understanding
21 of where the 300-hour rule of justification comes from.
22 Excursion vessels are quite different than ferry
23 vessels. Ferry vessels operate a huge number of hours.
24 They burn a lot of fuel. Whereas excursion vessels
25 operate a limited number of hours in a given week and go
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
74
1 at very slow paces. They have a different kind of duty
2 cycle where they will drift around in the inner harbor for
3 three to four hours burning smaller amounts of fuel.
4 We think that to be lumped into larger duty cycle
5 vessels, such as commuter ferries and tug boats, is an
6 onerous implication for an excursion vessel operator.
7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Your time is up. But I
8 understand you have someone else we've with you.
9 MR. WYMAN: Richard Alard is here, who's the
10 Director of Marine Operations.
11 MR. ALARD: First, I'd like to thank you for
12 giving us the opportunity to speak.
13 My name is Richard Alard. I'm the Bay Area
14 Marine Director of Operations.
15 There's just one point I wanted to clarify as far
16 as the duty cycles of a dinner cruise boat. Historically,
17 that has not allowed us to get Carl Moyer funding. In
18 fact, on the occasions we've applied, we did not get it.
19 From the criteria I hear today from this future bond
20 funding, I don't think we'll get it either.
21 We are confused or actually concerned that a
22 dinner charter vessel that has a very low duty cycle would
23 be included in other excursion crafts and probably more
24 concerned that we're included with ferries and tug boats
25 that produce a much more larger quantity and are available
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
75
1 to this other subsidy. Thank you.
2 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Madam Chair, I do have a
3 question of the speaker. You know, one of the concerns is
4 the fact that because you carry so many passengers and
5 what emissions that the passengers might be exposed to.
6 We understand that it is a light-duty vessel. But you
7 have so many more passengers on board. And could you
8 address the exposure to the emissions while eating dinner?
9 MR. ALARD: In Hornblower, we have a wide variety
10 of vessels. In fact, we have a small 50-foot carry craft
11 that will have just a few people on who wouldn't fall
12 under this regulation because they're under 50 horsepower.
13 On the other extreme, we have converted casino
14 vessels with 2200 passengers of which wouldn't fall under
15 this regulation because they're international tonnage and
16 registry.
17 What we're concerned about are those boats that
18 go around at three knots for the comfort and enjoyment of
19 our passengers. And I can tell you we're extremely
20 concerned about their comfort as far as emissions and so
21 forth. We turn our engines off at the dock so as not to
22 disturb our customers as they come on the boat. We are
23 stewards of the environment. And it's that class of
24 vessels that I'm speaking today.
25 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Well, I've had pleasure of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
76
1 being on one of your boats. So it is a lot of fun. But
2 staff could you --
3 MR. ALARD: Pleasure to serve you.
4 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Could you address this
5 concern?
6 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: In
7 the regulation development process, when we started out
8 lumping all ferries together, we then tried to identity
9 whether there was some lower type of emissions standard
10 that could apply to certain types of vessels based on more
11 limited service.
12 What we ended up coming up with was the fact that
13 while these vessels may operate under a lower load, they
14 spend a tremendous amount of time in and around the
15 harbor. They operate a lot of hours overall. We did up
16 come up with a 300-hour lower limit exemption that we felt
17 at this point in time was a reasonable low use limit in
18 those situations. But we were unable to craft a way to
19 allow for these cells that do operate a tremendous amount
20 of time in and around the port area to come up and treat
21 them under a different schedule or different standard than
22 any of the other ferry tugs and tow boats.
23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
24 Mr. Bombard, followed by Diane Bailey, Tim
25 Carmichael, and then Henry Hogo is going to be our last
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
77
1 speaker.
2 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Madam Chair, one more follow
3 up on the issue with dinner boats.
4 It seems appropriate that they're included in the
5 regulation because of the exposure issue. But what's the
6 issue with them not able to take advantage of what other
7 regulated industries or regulated boats would be able to
8 with either the bond money or the Carl Moyer money? It
9 seems like we should be allowing them the same
10 opportunity.
11 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: They have the
12 opportunity, but they have to pass -- in the case of Carl
13 Moyer -- a cost effectiveness test, which depending on
14 their amount of emission and emission reduction
15 opportunity they may not be able to pass.
16 In the case of the goods movement bonds, the way
17 the bond is structured it says goods movement. And
18 therefore we have said we cannot see how something that is
19 basically moving passengers are providing -- a meal
20 opportunity qualifies under that bond.
21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I think you've put your
22 finger on the dilemma is that they're too small a source
23 to qualify as being very cost effective to use public
24 money on, but they do still cause exposure. So it's a
25 problem.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
78
1 BOARD MEMBER CASE: And 2200 people on a boat I
2 would think that somehow we should pursue a quantification
3 of the exposure. It may not have the cost effective based
4 on the engine and how many miles it's traveling. But
5 based on the exposure element, it does seem to have a good
6 argument that they should have that opportunity.
7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Mr. Bombard.
8 MR. BOMBARD: Good morning. I'd like to talk a
9 little bit here about Catalina Express. My name is Greg
10 Bombard. I'm President of Catalina Channel Express. We
11 operate under the authority of the California Public
12 Utilities Commission. We operate eight high-speed vessels
13 between four mainland ports, southern California and
14 Catalina Island, which is about 22 miles off the coast of
15 Los Angeles.
16 Our vessels range in size from 149 passengers to
17 450 passengers. Of the fleet of eight vessels, seven of
18 them have been repowered between the years of 2001 and
19 2005 to meet the minimum Tier 1. And some of them are
20 absolutely better than Tier 1.
21 We currently have the eighth vessel in transit to
22 a shipyard in Washington where four Tier 2 Caterpillar
23 engines, the first four I know of, are going into this
24 vessel.
25 With the finalization of this eighth vessel, the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
79
1 total cost for repowering of all eight vessels is
2 approximately $11 million. 5.5 million of that is
3 contributed by Catalina Express. The other five is
4 provided by agencies interested in emissions funding.
5 I just want to say on top of that we've never
6 seen funding available that will do the complete job.
7 When you replace this engine, you don't just replace the
8 engine. You do a lot of what Marty talked about. You
9 redo the engine beds. You have to replace transmissions.
10 You have to replace drive lines. And you may end up
11 replacing water jets and everything else. They just don't
12 come out the same. They either run at a different RPM
13 that changes torque levels.
14 There's much more to this exchange of engines
15 than I think what I've heard talked about today. There's
16 no way you can complete this task within a three week
17 period. It's been a minimum of three months per vessel.
18 The total emissions reductions, we had Ocean Air
19 Environmentalists help us with this. Our NOx reduction
20 has been eight tons per year. Thirty tons per year of PM.
21 Greenhouse gas reductions of 10,000 per year, 10,000 tons.
22 And these reductions our understanding is equivalent to
23 10,000 vehicles being taken off the road.
24 For those of us who were pre-active in installing
25 Tier 1 or better, we believe that the regulation cuts our
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
80
1 life cycle in those engines and that dollars that were
2 expended by at least 25 percent, we believe all of these
3 engines went in with the thought in mind of at least
4 lasting 20 years. That's the normal turn over period of a
5 good engine. It should go through at least three major
6 overhauls. And I don't mean top end overhauls. I mean
7 major overhauls.
8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Mr. Bombard, your time is
9 up.
10 MR. BOMBARD: I'd like to press one more piece.
11 And that is when it comes to Tier 4, we'd like to
12 acknowledge the fact that the staff has taken a look at
13 that. I think they see the viability of that system. And
14 we need to actually add into that equation where it talks
15 about best available control technology, the word "proven"
16 needs to go in there. I know you've heard that.
17 Again, I'd like to thank the staff for allowing
18 us to work with them over the last few months. I think
19 they've done a good job of taking a look at what we have
20 to do and what's in front of us here?
21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Question.
22 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: I have a question for
23 staff. This is the second speaker who said they've
24 invested recently in Tier 1 and now are concerned about
25 the time horizon replacing those. Can you speak to that,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
81
1 please?
2 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE:
3 Basically under the regulation, you know, what we're doing
4 is moving all 0s and 1s out of the equation and having
5 those replaced with 2 or 3.
6 They are correct that basically a Tier 1 engine
7 will have to be replaced with a Tier 2 engine in 15 years
8 from its original model year. And that is an accelerated
9 schedule. In the cost analysis that we've prepared here,
10 we've identified what portion of the cost associated with
11 the regulation has to do with removing useful years off of
12 the life of those engines. And that's exactly what the
13 proposal does.
14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Diane Bailey.
15 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: The
16 only other thing I mention when we talk about Tier 1
17 standards is that the Tier 1 standards really were only
18 NOx standards. They did not address PM. So that's an
19 issue when we're looking at one of the primary reasons why
20 we are moving also for further reduction of Tier 1
21 engines.
22 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Madam Chair, can I ask a
23 follow-up question? Had they not done these re-powers at
24 this time but had waited, how much useful life would they
25 have gotten out of their Tier 0 or -- they would have gone
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
82
1 to Tier 2; is that correct?
2 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE:
3 That's right. Beginning in essentially 2004, Tier 2
4 engines would be available. And so if they went to a Tier
5 2, then the regulation does not require another step after
6 Tier 2.
7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: But in addition to the
8 regulation, you could make a decision to re-power because
9 you wanted to get a more efficient engine or just because
10 your old engine was in need of being replaced. So I mean,
11 yes, this is a regulation. And it is forcing action. But
12 it's doing it at a pretty moderate pace. Fifteen years
13 versus 20.
14 Ms. Bailey.
15 MS. BAILEY: Good morning, Chairman Nichols,
16 members of the Board and staff. My name is Diane Bailey,
17 and I'm a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense
18 Council.
19 Thank you so much for this opportunity to speak
20 here today. I'm here in strong support of this
21 regulation. We've been working with staff for the past
22 three years on this rule.
23 I do want to note that we are disappointed that
24 there's a long list of concerns that we've voiced
25 throughout the process, I think none of which have been
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
83
1 addressed. And my colleague, John Kaltenstein with
2 Friends of the Earth, has raised some of these.
3 I don't want to dwell on these issues. I think
4 this is a really important rule with major public health
5 benefits. And I urge you to move forward and adopt this
6 rule today.
7 However, I do think that there are some very
8 small modifications that you can adopt today to
9 significantly improve the public health benefits.
10 As you know, the harbor craft impacts some
11 shore-side communities in California that are already so
12 heavily impacted. These environmental justice communities
13 really need this relief in the form of pollution
14 reductions from these vessels. And unfortunately,
15 representatives from these communities could not be here
16 today. But they are concerned with this pollution source.
17 And they are looking forward to the adoption of this rule.
18 I'll speak somewhat on their behalf today that their
19 staggering health concerns need to be addressed. So we
20 appreciate this effort.
21 We sent some detailed comments, so I want to
22 highlight one of the best modifications that you could
23 make today to improve this rule would be to synchronize
24 the compliance time frames for the South Coast with the
25 rest of the state.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
84
1 I believe the compliance time frame for the South
2 Coast is eleven years. And that's a really long time.
3 And for the rest of the state, there's even more time
4 through 2022. And I think there is a lot of room to speed
5 up that compliance and offer the earlier public health
6 benefits to these impacted communities.
7 I also want to note that there are significant
8 safeguards already in place in the existing regulatory
9 language that's proposed here to make sure that we don't
10 run up against the problems of capacity in terms of
11 getting enough vessels replaced or repowered in a year.
12 And that if that did happen, compliance extensions would
13 be possible. So I don't think that that's a significant
14 issue.
15 Another issue I want to raise is shore side
16 power. This is something that was not considered within
17 this rule, because shore side power for tug boats or
18 harbor craft was supposed to be part of the greater shore
19 side power regulation. It's not currently contained in
20 that proposal.
21 So I would urge you to direct staff to include
22 shore side power for harbor craft directly in this shore
23 side power regulation.
24 And I want to note that if it were included in
25 the harbor craft regulation today, that the greenhouse gas
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
85
1 impacts would be very positive. And it's worth
2 considering that impact.
3 I also want to note there's a significant
4 opportunity with this rule to get similar emission
5 reductions in other states. And I hope that the attorneys
6 can pay close attention to the final regulatory language
7 to ensure that or facilitate the adoption of this rule by
8 other states. I don't have direct suggestions on how to
9 do that, but I hope that the attorneys can give it a close
10 look and try to do that.
11 I want to thank staff for their very hard work on
12 this rule.
13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Thank for
14 keeping to three minutes.
15 Tim Carmichael and then Henry Hogo.
16 MR. CARMICHAEL: Good morning, Chairman Nichols,
17 members of the Board. Tim Carmichael, Coalition for Clean
18 Air.
19 I echo the comments of Diane Bailey from NRDC and
20 John Kaltenstein from Friends of the Earth.
21 I want to focus on just one piece, which I think
22 is the piece that we're asking for the Board to change
23 from the staff proposal, which we have said in our written
24 comments is a good proposal overall. And we are pleased
25 by the work the agency has done today.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
86
1 But I want to highlight the strongest argument
2 that the staff has for not requiring an accelerated
3 turnover for the rest of the state on the same time line
4 as the South Coast is they're concerned about the capacity
5 of the industry to be able the change over the engines on
6 time. That's the primary argument against it.
7 From our perspective, to Chairman Nichols' point,
8 this is a long time line. Even the accelerated South
9 Coast version is a long time line. If you're in this
10 business or in a related business, you're not looking at a
11 one-year or two-year window of opportunity to cash in if
12 you will on this business opportunity. You're looking at
13 a ten-year window of opportunity to either increase staff
14 or expand a facility to enable additional engine turnover
15 or replacement.
16 From our perspective, with the language that's in
17 the regulation already allowing the Executive Officer to
18 give a delay if there is a problem identified in the
19 future, and extension that is, the Board should feel
20 empowered to require the whole state to go with the South
21 Coast time line.
22 I want to emphasize something I don't think
23 anybody has mentioned today. There's a huge emissions
24 benefit associated with that. Six million pounds of
25 diesel PM would be reduced statewide and almost 20 percent
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
87
1 additional reduction in NOx emissions. Those are
2 significant emission reductions. And I think they justify
3 the Board going with the South Coast time line that's a
4 two or three year acceleration to the overall program with
5 the understanding that if problems are identified in the
6 future and they're real, the Executive Officer will have
7 the ability to give an extension. Thank you very much.
8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Yes.
9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Question.
10 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: It was a question of
11 staff. On the issue of -- well, Tim, you raised capacity.
12 But I think that Mr. Scheible raised another issue. And
13 that is loss of benefits of transferring over to I guess
14 it would be Tier 2 instead of being able to take advantage
15 of Tier 3.
16 The question I have of staff is could we
17 accelerate the time frame perhaps not as much as South
18 Coast so that we could take advantage of those Tier 3
19 engines? And I don't know enough about the time frame in
20 which they'd be available and how much we could shave off
21 on the ultimate implementation in order to achieve that,
22 achieve the benefits without any loss.
23 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: The
24 schedule for the Tier 3 engines come on line for this
25 category are 2013 and 2014. If I recall, I think under
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
88
1 the statewide schedule about 20 percent of the Tier 0s
2 would be replaced with Tier 3's under that schedule. The
3 additional emission reductions associated with those
4 engines is about 20 percent additional PM and 10 to 15
5 percent additional NOx associated with those.
6 So if you're accelerating the schedule one or
7 two years, you know, you will lose about half of that or
8 whatever.
9 The broader issue still is that when you look at
10 this, you are removing useful life from the engine of an
11 additional two years. So we're going from an engine
12 useful life in the range of 20 years down to 13 years and
13 that, you know, some of the other testimony that you've
14 heard with respect to the economics associated with that
15 and the fact that you are removing those engines from
16 service early is going to be a real issue.
17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: That would apply in South
18 Coast as well. That's an across the board issue.
19 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE:
20 That's true. It does apply in the South Coast. But the
21 fleet you're looking at here, the ferry fleet, is not
22 predominant in the South Coast. The ferry fleet is
23 predominant in the Bay Area and outside of the South
24 Coast.
25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: But the concern I have on
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
89
1 the ferry fleet is we're talking about exposure. We're
2 talking about workers who have chosen to utilize to get
3 their cars off the road, go on a ferry. And if they're on
4 that ferry every day, I don't feel as compelled on
5 excursions. You know, you take one of those boats once a
6 year. But if you're on that boat every day, I'm just very
7 concerned about the exposure to individuals.
8 So if we could go back to -- I guess I'm looking
9 at slide 18. I want to make sure I have a better
10 understanding here.
11 Statewide begin replacing by '09 replace Tier 0,
12 you're saying Tier 3 would be available in the 2013-2014
13 time frame. If we were to shave off some time on Tier 0
14 to -- giving enough time for the tier -- is it Tier 3
15 engines that would be available by 2013, 2014? So
16 arguable we could shave off two years? Instead of 2016,
17 say 2014. I just want to make certain we wouldn't have
18 any loss with that time frame.
19 CONTROL STRATEGIES SECTION MANAGER RAINFORTH:
20 Are you compressing all the earlier years? Because as you
21 do that, then what you're doing is moving some of those
22 engines into Tier 2 rather than Tier 3s. And is that what
23 you're proposing?
24 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I don't know what I'm
25 proposing. I'm looking for --
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
90
1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We need some help.
2 CONTROL STRATEGIES SECTION MANAGER RAINFORTH:
3 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: We're
4 shrinking the target. I mean, the policy we'd like is to
5 say as soon as these better engines are available, as soon
6 as possible, we'd like to get them in service. And the
7 window is relatively small as it is because there's no
8 guarantee.
9 The way the federal rules work is any engine
10 produced after a certain date has to meet the standard.
11 They can sell engines out of inventory. They don't have
12 to produce it on that date. So there is a delay in the
13 availability of the engines.
14 So there's probably some period of time that can
15 be there. But I think if we make the assumption that we
16 can move them all up and get them done in a year, you're
17 going to find out the new Executive Officer, who hopefully
18 will still be there, will be very busy with this program.
19 This deputy will not be doing it.
20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'm just maybe suggesting
21 in between now and the time that we end up debating and
22 voting on this, if staff -- I wouldn't want to be the one
23 to make the proposal. But from a policy point of view, it
24 seems we can shave some time off.
25 But it sounds like the Executive Officer has the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
91
1 discretion on the capacity issue. I just wouldn't want in
2 an effort to shave time off losing associated emission
3 benefits with the Tier 2 versus the Tier 3 engines.
4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: So we understand that
5 you're trying to balance some complicated issues and
6 you're not deliberately going slow. But I think we're
7 pushing you to go back and see if you can sharpen your
8 pencils and shave any amount of time off in a way that
9 would benefit people and the rest of the state and not
10 hurt the South Coast. Because that's where I'm from.
11 So --
12 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Madam Chair, one other
13 point as well. And my focus is more so the ferries. And
14 I don't know how complicated this change would be if we
15 included all types, tugs and tows, excursions as opposed
16 to just ferries.
17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: It might be easier to just
18 focuses in on the ferries. That's another possibility,
19 obviously.
20 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: We can
21 clearly explore these. I think we understand what the
22 Board would like to do. It's okay if the rule gets a
23 little lit more costly, but let's design it in a way we
24 can do it earlier. But let's do it in a way that we
25 doesn't lose emission benefits.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
92
1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes. But I think it's been
2 stated very eloquently by several people on these vessels
3 that many people are using over significant periods of
4 time. So it's not just -- we're not just concerned about
5 the on-shore communities being exposed. We are concerned
6 about the vessels that have a lot of ridership, you know,
7 on a daily basis.
8 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I guess in
9 going through the process with 15-day changes, if the
10 Board would give us leeway to investigate that and figure
11 out a mechanism that accelerates it and has a safety valve
12 in case we find out that it can't be done.
13 I think some of the testimony we heard, ferries
14 are among the more difficult vessels to retrofit. So
15 there will not only need to be engine availability, there
16 will need to be enough time so that the fleet gets turned
17 over. On the ferries, we'll have the additional BACT
18 determination.
19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: But it's exactly that kind
20 of thinking that always ends up having public
21 transportation having the worst emissions. We can't
22 except that as an okay thing. We have to try to find a
23 way to deal with it if we can.
24 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Madam Chair, let me add
25 another wrinkle of concern in this. Although I fully
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
93
1 support accelerating this, I don't want us to be in a
2 position of penalizing people that have made a recent
3 investment in Tier 1.
4 So to the extent you can create that balance and
5 not penalize those -- I don't know if that's possible. I
6 don't know how many near-term Tier 1 investments have been
7 made. But that's a concern of mine that we are shortening
8 the useful life of those who just made an investment.
9 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Can staff
10 tell me under the rule if someone, for example, installed
11 an engine in 2004 it's Tier 1, when is the compliance date
12 for replacing that with a Tier 3?
13 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE:
14 2019.
15 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: The people
16 who have used to Carl Moyer money and done investments
17 fairly recently under the proposal have the full 15 years
18 of life that we think is reasonable, not 20 years. And
19 they wouldn't be affected by a provision that tinkered
20 with the 2017 date.
21 SUPERVISOR HILL: I think, Madam Chair, if I
22 could. You're also looking at the fact that Carl Moyer
23 funds are public funds that we used to expedite the
24 emissions reductions, but also not paid for by the
25 corporation, the company, and the ferry firm themselves.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
94
1 So I think it's an important consideration when we look to
2 the future. And the amortization of that cost over 10
3 years, 12 years, or 15 years or 20 years.
4 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Also Madam Chair.
5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We have many considerations
6 here.
7 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Well, I think I have a large
8 concern over how many vessels a company has to deal with
9 in an annual period of time. And I'm in agreement with my
10 colleagues on the full time frame.
11 But I am concerned about if your fleet is such
12 that you have to turnover all of your fleet in a
13 three-year period and not be able to take advantage of the
14 time frame, because of the number of hours -- or I'm not
15 quite sure I understand the scheduling.
16 I am concerned about the companies that have 14
17 vessels to turn over in one year. I physically do not
18 understand how that's possible. So I would like to have
19 my colleagues consider that we have this time frame, even
20 if we shorten it from 2009 to whatever time frame we have
21 at the end, but that there is a limit to annually how much
22 you have to do.
23 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: I
24 appreciate these discussions, because these are the ones
25 we've had.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
95
1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: This is going to be painful
2 if we have to try to engineer a bunch of amendments right
3 on the spot. But I think it would be best if we not do
4 that but allow room for a little bit of tinkering, if
5 that's doable based on the considerations that we've made
6 here.
7 We still have to hear from Henry Hogo. Sorry,
8 Henry. Maybe you have some additional wisdom to add to
9 this discussion, and then we're going to have to bite the
10 bullet here.
11 MR. HOGO: Good morning, Madam Chair and members
12 of the Board. I'm Henry Hogo with the South Coast Air
13 Quality Management District.
14 The South Coast AQMD staff is in full support of
15 the proposed regulation as presented today. And we urge
16 your Board to adopt the regulation.
17 I did want to make a couple comments relative to
18 BACT and on the ferries in particular. We have firsthand
19 experience in visiting some of the ferry lines in the
20 Baltic Sea. And they've been using SCR technology as well
21 as other water emulsification and water injection
22 technologies for many years now.
23 And to me, at least, it's a proven technology.
24 It was just unfortunate that the tests on the one ferry
25 that's out here was using a particular technology and we
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
96
1 hadn't had a chance to look at it very closely. But we
2 have given to your staff several reports relative to some
3 of the experiences with the technology. So we think when
4 staff evaluates BACT it will be proven technology.
5 The other point I wanted to make on the Catalina
6 ferry, couple of those vessels actually came in under our
7 emission credits program. So they came in. They received
8 funding to clean up their engines and the emission
9 reductions were sold as credits. Some of it in the
10 reclaim market.
11 So I think there were early adopters who saw an
12 advantage to having cleaner vessels and also to make up
13 for the costs. So some of these comments, you have to
14 hear the full story about.
15 So with that, I would urge your Board to adopt
16 the regulation as proposed by staff. And I would want to
17 acknowledge the cooperative efforts that we have had with
18 your staff. Thank you.
19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
20 I'm going to make a proposal fellow Board
21 members. This is an important rule, and I don't want to
22 delay it. But I think that it might be smart to continue
23 this item for a month. I think we could actually close
24 the hearing portion, if I'm not mistaken, and simply ask
25 staff to address the principle policy concerns that Board
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
97
1 members have raised here which have to do with the
2 possibilities for accelerated turnover, the issue of
3 equity or of acknowledgement of early investment and
4 whether that's being treated fairly and the issue of fleet
5 size and impact of the program on operators' ability to
6 actually to manage their businesses. I think those were
7 the three principle concerns that were raised. And
8 they're all important concerns.
9 I think you guys have answers to all the
10 questions. But the fact is we still want to push further
11 on those questions. And given that we have a relatively
12 less onerous schedule coming up next month, we could just
13 bring it back at that point with any recommended changes
14 by staff and have a vote next month.
15 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: We
16 could essentially do that, and it would give us a chance
17 to put some numbers and simple tables and make the issues
18 that you've raised a little more analytically clear.
19 SUPERVISOR HILL: The emphasis on ferries.
20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I'm sorry. With that
21 addition, the focus was on the ferries.
22 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Madam Chair, can I add one
23 more thing? I think Henry talked about this. If you can
24 confirm the proven technologies issue and whether or
25 not --
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
98
1 BOARD MEMBER CASE: If we could ask staff to come
2 back on the potential -- if we're going to regulate a
3 group, it doesn't seem in the sense of fairness they
4 should be excluded from the opportunity to use Carl Moyer
5 moneys if we're regulating them and they're willing to do
6 it on an accelerated basis.
7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Applicability of Moyer and
8 whether that would make an amendment to program rules or
9 whether we can interpret the rules.
10 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Exposes a significant number
11 of people directly.
12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Any more? Any other
13 considerations while we're kicking this back to the staff
14 for more work?
15 If not, I want to thank everybody who
16 participated. Clearly, the Board was paying attention and
17 reflecting your concerns. I have no doubt we're going to
18 move forward and adopt the rule at our next meeting, but
19 we may be making some modest changes to improve it
20 overall.
21 I think there's a widespread recognition that the
22 staff has done an extraordinary amount of work to get us
23 to this point. And we're very grateful to you. So please
24 don't take this as a sign of weakness, but a sign of
25 strength that we're anxious to get this as good as we can
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
99
1 before it goes out. Thank you very much.
2 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER:
3 Chairman Nichols, can I ask for one clarification? We are
4 going to focus on ferries, but not excursion vessels; is
5 that correct?
6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That was the request. If
7 we have to narrow the focus in order to avoid the
8 disbenefits, the priority would be on the vessels that
9 have the most people for most of the time.
10 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: Thank
11 you.
12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Any other
13 questions or clarifications? If not we need to take a
14 break, and then we've got one more item to deal with.
15 Take a ten-minute break, please.
16 (Thereupon a recess was taken.)
17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We are going to try to get
18 the architectural coatings hearing underway quickly. And
19 the amendments that we're area dealing with architectural
20 coatings are aimed at reducing volatile organ by limiting
21 the VOC content of architectural coatings.
22 And before we turn this over to the staff, I
23 particularly wanted to express appreciation to the
24 National Paint and Coatings Association as well as the air
25 pollution control districts for their assistance in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
100
1 developing this control measure. It's been another
2 longstanding agenda item, and it is complicated
3 technically. I know, because I was here when we first
4 started dealing with VOC in paints. And that was a long
5 time ago. So I'm glad we're back with some new and
6 improved measures. And I'll turn it over the staff for
7 further comments.
8 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: To make
9 it quick, I want to highlight just one thing, which is
10 this proposed action would contribute to the SIP goals
11 that the district have committed to by achieving a 28
12 percent reduction in VOC, and that translates into 15 tons
13 per day. So it's a significant item. And I'll turn it
14 over to Monique Davis of Stationary Source to do the
15 presentation.
16 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was
17 presented as follows.)
18 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST DAVIS: In order
19 to accommodate the travel schedule, I'm going to be giving
20 an abbreviated presentation. So we will be powering
21 through the slides as quick as I can. If you want to stop
22 me, please do.
23 Thank you, Mr. Cackette. Good morning, Chairman
24 Nichols, members of the Board. Today we are presenting
25 proposed amendments to our suggested control measures for
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
101
1 architectural coatings.
2 --o0o--
3 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST DAVIS: We're
4 going to move on to background on slide 4. We want to
5 talk about what architectural coatings are. They are
6 basically coatings that are applied the stationary
7 structures and their appurtenances, such as railings,
8 piping, that kind of thing. They include not just house
9 paints but also wood stains, industrial maintenance
10 coatings, traffic coatings, et cetera, and it's important
11 to note that aerosol paints are not included in this
12 suggested control measure. They are covered by separate
13 ARB rule.
14 --o0o--
15 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST DAVIS: Why do
16 they regulate them? They generate VOCs. They generate 95
17 tons per day of VOC reduction in 2004. And they attribute
18 to four percent of the VOC emissions from all the sources
19 in California.
20 --o0o--
21 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST DAVIS: We're
22 going to move on to slide 7. We just explained briefly
23 what the SCM is. It's important to understand it's a
24 model rule that has no effect until the districts actually
25 adopt it into their local rules because districts have the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
102
1 primary jurisdiction over architectural coatings in
2 California. And the Board approved the current version of
3 the SCM in June 2000.
4 --o0o--
5 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST DAVIS: We're
6 going to move to slide 9 right now. Twenty districts
7 currently have adopted the SCM the Board approved in 2000.
8 Those VOC limits became effective in 2003-2004. It was a
9 very successful SCM. Other jurisdictions have adopted it
10 including those in the Ozone Transport Commission and
11 Ohio. And also the U.S. EPA is considering modifying the
12 national rule to be similar to our 2000 SCM.
13 --o0o--
14 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST DAVIS: We're
15 moving to slide eleven. Why are we proposing amendments?
16 We want to help districts meet their SIP commitments and
17 reduce emissions for those districts outside of the South
18 Coast Air Quality Management District. The South coast
19 had their own architectural coatings rule that has low
20 limits already. This proposed amendment that we're
21 presenting to you today would not effect the South Coast
22 Air Quality Management District.
23 Other reasons are we want to improve the category
24 definitions and assist those districts that don't have the
25 resources to develop their own rules since it's rather
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
103
1 complicated.
2 --o0o--
3 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST DAVIS: We're
4 going to move on to slide 13 where we discuss what types
5 of revisions we're proposing today. We want to lower the
6 VOC limits for 19 categories and make other modifications
7 to the language to improve and modify definitions and
8 reporting requirements.
9 --o0o--
10 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST DAVIS: Slide 14
11 is a summary of the categories for which we are proposing
12 lower VOC limits. And slide 15 --
13 --o0o--
14 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST DAVIS: --
15 contains those effective dates that we're proposing for
16 those categories. For most of them, 2010. For the rust
17 preventative and specialty primer, sealer, undercoaters,
18 we would like to add an additional two years because those
19 are more challenging to reformulate.
20 --o0o--
21 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST DAVIS: We're
22 going to move on now to slide 21. Slide 21, I want to
23 spend a little time on this, because I want to go over
24 some of the factors that we considered when we were
25 developing these proposed amendments that are pretty
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
104
1 critical. And that is primarily districts SIP commitment.
2 We have six districts that have already identified
3 architectural coatings measures in their plans. We wanted
4 to help them meet those. And in fact the proposal we're
5 bringing to you today exceeds those district SIP
6 commitments.
7 We also wanted to develop a rule that was
8 enforceable by the broad variety of districts, not just
9 the big districts, but also the little districts that have
10 very little staff to enforce and implement these types of
11 rules. District resources were key in the types of
12 proposal that we're bringing to you today.
13 Also climate conditions were an issue.
14 Throughout California, we have a variety of climates that
15 impact what types of technologies we think are feasible.
16 And also the need for flexibility options. We
17 didn't want the district to have so many off ramps and
18 flexibility options and exemptions and other additional
19 programs that made it difficult for districts with small
20 staffs to implement because there would be a lot more
21 recordkeeping, a lot more enforcement required.
22 And finally we looked at the feasibility
23 reactivity based limits. We analyzed that carefully. And
24 at this time, we're looking at we don't think it's
25 feasible for districts primarily due to the lack of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
105
1 resources at the district level to implement reactivity
2 based limit.
3 Districts have a jurisdiction. So unlike with
4 the aerosol coatings regulation, they would be the ones
5 responsible for implementing the reactivity based limit.
6 However, we are determined to continue working with
7 industry and districts to continue looking at the
8 possibility of implementing a reactivity based type of
9 rule in the future for architectural coatings.
10 --o0o--
11 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST DAVIS: So slide
12 22 are some minor changes we're proposing to the original
13 proposal we released. The first one is that we have
14 proposed to delete Table 2 because the districts have
15 requested it. However, we've been discussing this with
16 industry today. And they would like to make some
17 additional small revisions to that. We would like to work
18 with them over the next 30 days to implement those changes
19 and make sure those changes are okay with the district as
20 well. Basically, it would be going back to what we have
21 now with some small modifications, which is fine with us.
22 And then the other two were just minor revisions
23 in language to improve consistency and finally clarify the
24 effective dates for container requirements.
25 --o0o--
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
106
1 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST DAVIS: So let's
2 go to slide 24, where it's the impacts of the proposed
3 amendments. We expect 15 tons per tons a day of VOC
4 emission reductions statewide. And that excludes the
5 South Coast, because they are not affected by this
6 proposal today. And we did an environmental assessment.
7 We did an economic impact assessment. And we think it has
8 very good cost effectiveness which is comparable to
9 similar coatings rules adopted by ARB and the districts.
10 --o0o--
11 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST DAVIS: On slide
12 25, we summarized the district SIP commitments that are
13 out there. And you can see these districts' SIP
14 commitments.
15 --o0o--
16 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST DAVIS: And the
17 future on slide 26, we have plans to conduct technology
18 assessments for the proposed limits, continue
19 investigating potential for lower limits, and the
20 feasibility for reactivity based limits, continuing
21 monitoring research for architectural coatings, conduct
22 another comprehensive survey, and 2011 limits kick in.
23 --o0o--
24 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST DAVIS: And
25 finally, summary, we think it will achieve 15 tons per day
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
107
1 of VOC emission reductions. It exceeds the goals. It
2 meets the needs of large and small districts. It's cost
3 effective, technically feasible, so on --
4 --o0o--
5 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST DAVIS: -- slide
6 29, we recommend that you approve the proposed amendments
7 to the suggested control measure with the suggested
8 changes. And like I said, we will continue working with
9 with industry to address that issue about most restrictive
10 limits.
11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. I just wanted
12 to say that was a terrific presentation. It was brief,
13 but expressive and it got the point across. All right.
14 Are there any questions from the Board members
15 before we turn to public testimony?
16 We are ready for public testimony. So we have
17 eight witnesses actually. Tim Carmichael followed by
18 David Darling and Madelyn Harding. If you would when I
19 call your name, if you'd be poised to move up quickly. So
20 we really want to do our best to have our time for
21 discussion. Thank you.
22 MR. CARMICHAEL: Thank you, Chairman Nichols.
23 Tim Carmichael, Coalition for Clean Air here in strong so
24 port.
25 This is a no brainer. There is an enabler in a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
108
1 good way. The rest of the state needs guidance from the
2 Air Resources Board and what they need to do relative to
3 our architectural coatings. And I think if you have
4 looked at where pollution is coming from in the state,
5 projected to come from over the next decade, this is one
6 of those shocking categories where it's not necessarily
7 intuitive even to Board members here that architectural
8 coatings are such a big source of pollution in our state.
9 And you know for those reasons -- and again just
10 emphasize what the staff said. This is a suggested
11 control measure. You're not adopting a reg for the state.
12 You've given guidance to most of the state on what they
13 need to do or what they can do.
14 We strongly encourage you to support it. Thank
15 you.
16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
17 David Darling, Madelyn Harding, and then Kyle
18 Frakes.
19 MR. DARLING: Hi. I'm Dave Darling, National
20 Paint and Coatings Association.
21 I don't have much time. Just a couple comments.
22 First of all, based on what Monique said today,
23 it is important to work with staff and industry to deal
24 with the Section 5.2 most restrictive limit. We agree
25 with what Monique said if we can take the next 30 days and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
109
1 work out the problems and, you know, figure them out.
2 Just real quickly, NPCA supports CARB's
3 determination that technology issues still remain with low
4 VOC coatings. Those include adhesion problems, freezing
5 during transportation and storage of products, products
6 which scrub or pick up, mildew, fungus resistance, stain
7 blocking, as well as the fact that coatings need to be
8 available for Californians wide variety of climates, which
9 Monique had stated.
10 It's important to emphasize how much this is
11 really going to achieve. It's nearly 30 percent overall
12 reductions in emissions. Depending on how do you that
13 calculation, it's 37 percent reduction if you look at the
14 specific categories that have newly lowered limits.
15 That's a significant amount of reductions, especially
16 considering the fact that, you know, we've had significant
17 reductions from this category in the past couple decades.
18 Two requests from the staff or to the Board.
19 Especially primer sealers category, extending the date to
20 2012. However, industry is really believes that category
21 still a sub-set that needs to be available. We'd like to
22 work -- or requesting that Board direct staff to complete
23 especially primer technology review by December 2010 to
24 address any needed changes to that specialty primer
25 category definition or limit.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
110
1 There's current work going on at ASTM to try to
2 narrow that definition. And I think it will be helpful if
3 we can work with staff to do that.
4 Second thing is that as far as reactivity and
5 atmospheric availability, we agree staff should work with
6 industry over the next several years. And we suggest
7 developing a low reactivity innovative product exemption
8 that will essentially be able to keep our reactivity on
9 the table. Because we feel that interactivity is a good
10 thing, but there are some initial concerns.
11 With time being tight, those are my comments.
12 Any questions?
13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: No. Thank you very much.
14 Appreciate your comments. Thank you.
15 And I think we may want to respond a little bit
16 later to your suggestion.
17 Madelyn Harding, Kyle Frakes, Andrew Jaques.
18 MS. HARDING: Good morning. My name is Madelyn
19 Harding. I'm Corporate Manager of Regulatory Affairs for
20 the Sherwin Williams Company.
21 I'd like to say right off that glad to hear that
22 staff wants to continue to working with us on Section 5.2
23 the most restrictive limits, because that came as quite a
24 surprise to us this morning when we discovered there were
25 changes we had not anticipated. We're really glad and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
111
1 look forward to working with staff on that.
2 I do want to stress that the proposed SCM in
3 addition to getting almost 30 percent overall reductions,
4 if you calculate the reductions on the base of the
5 specific categories that are being impacted, you discover
6 it's a 37 percent reduction from those categories. That
7 is an aggressive -- very aggressive regulation that I
8 think is going to be challenging for the statewide
9 implementation that's expected.
10 On the other hand, we do support staff. And I
11 think they worked very well with us and look forward to
12 continue to work with them. Thank you.
13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Appreciate your comments.
14 Kyle Frakes, Andrew Jaques.
15 MR. FRAKES: Good afternoon. I'm Kyle Frakes
16 with Tnemec Company. We're a manufacturer of
17 architectural and maintenance coatings.
18 We recognize the need for environmental
19 stewardship and VOC reductions in California. We support
20 VOC limits based on technically feasible field proven
21 coatings technology. We appreciate the opportunity to
22 provide comments.
23 I originally put in a blue card, but I changed it
24 to yellow today. But given the comments of working with
25 them on Section 5, I'll withdraw my opposition and look
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
112
1 forward to working on that most restrictive limit.
2 Just wanted to -- I submitted written comments.
3 I hoped you all received those. I just wanted to
4 highlight a couple points.
5 We disagree with the public comments indicating
6 the exemption of TBAC would allow the industrial
7 maintenance coating limit it to be lowered to 100 gram per
8 liter. TBAC is not a simple solution for the coatings
9 formulator and has a number of limitations relating to
10 solubility and compatibility with certain chemistries.
11 Epoxy resins have limited solubility and TBAC. And TBAC
12 is show to cause micro foam and other surface defects
13 which cause both aesthetic and performance problems in two
14 component urethane products.
15 The fast evaporation rate of TBAC limits its
16 ability to provide the flow and leveling required for
17 smooth acceptable finish and a number of architectural and
18 industrial maintenance coatings.
19 We do, however, support the exemption of TBAC as
20 a VOC to allow industry and other formulation tool to
21 create lower VOC products. There is a limited number of
22 choices for exempt solvents, and some of these have
23 limitations related to solvency power, evaporation.
24 Twenty-eight other states have exempted TBAC, and there's
25 additional regulatory burden for manufacturers to track
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
113
1 and report different VOC measurements for the two states
2 that have not exempted TBAC. It is our opinion that
3 exemption of TBAC would help eliminate confusion among end
4 users trying to understand and comply with the various
5 regulations.
6 That's all I have today. Thank you.
7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
8 American Chemistry Council, followed by Dave
9 Laucella, James Baker.
10 MR. JAQUES: Madam Chair, if it would be okay,
11 would I have my colleague Dave Laucella speak first?
12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Sure.
13 MR. LAUCELLA: I was going to say good morning,
14 but good afternoon, Chairperson Nichols, Board members.
15 My name is Dave Laucella of Shell Chemical Company. And
16 I'm here representing the American Chemistry Council
17 solvents industry group.
18 From the perspective of companies that
19 manufacture and market solvents, our industry is committed
20 to the development of responsible and sustainable
21 regulations that reduce the environmental impacts of our
22 solvents.
23 I'm here today to make an urgent appeal to the
24 ARB to not approve the 2007 AIM coatings SCM as currently
25 proposed, because there is the better way that ARB can
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
114
1 achieve greater and more immediate reductions in ozone
2 forming potential through the use of a photochemical
3 reactivity based SCM for coatings. A reactivity approach
4 delivers targeted and substantial reductions and OFP to
5 meet the air quality objectives while giving greater
6 flexibility to coatings formulators so they can achieve
7 environmental objectives without compromising product
8 performance.
9 The end results means coatings that look better,
10 work better, and last longer and are low ozone formers.
11 We have submitted detailed comments to the ARB in advance
12 of this meeting which we hope you've had the chance to
13 review.
14 The key point we wish to focus upon today is that
15 the current and proposed mass-based VOC emission controls
16 have reached the point of diminishing returns and no
17 longer achieve the full intended reduction of ground level
18 ozone. As indicated in our written comments, ARB's own
19 data reveals that the mass-based VOC regulations have
20 missed significant opportunities to reduce OFP because
21 there is no incentive for the air districts and product
22 formulators to account for the reactivity of the solvent
23 being used.
24 The data show that continued reduction of
25 mass-based limits as leading to increased use of higher
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
115
1 reactivity solvents which offsets much or in some cases
2 all of the required ozone reductions. In 24 of 38 aims
3 coatings categories, the OFP per pound of solvent
4 emissions increased often dramatically from 2000 to 2004.
5 As a result, the reported 14 percent decrease of massive
6 VOC emissions from these AIM coatings achieved only a
7 seven percent decrease in ozone formation potential.
8 Meaning that 15 percent of the opportunity for air quality
9 improvement was missed entirely.
10 This back sliding effect is due in large part to
11 the mass-based SCM's failure to encourage formulators to
12 make lower reactivity substitution choices within the
13 construct of the SCM.
14 This situation becomes even worse when looking at
15 specific property product categories. For example, on
16 architectural flat coatings, the total mass of VOC
17 emissions decreased by 11 percent from 2000 to 20004.
18 However, the total ozone formation potential increased 5.4
19 percent or 1.88 tons per day in that same period
20 statewide. This happens because VOC mass reduction
21 approach drives formulators to use higher reactivity
22 solvents. As such, the outcome of non-targeted mass based
23 approaches is unpredictable and the depends entirely on
24 subsequent formulation choices which are neither regulated
25 nor tracked.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
116
1 So at this point, I'd turn to it over to my
2 colleague Andrew Jaques to continue.
3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
4 MR. JAQUES: Hi. I'm Andrew Jaques, American
5 Chemistry Council Solvent Industry Group.
6 The regulation of VOCs in end coatings is clearly
7 a solvents issue and as such our industry has taken a
8 proactive effort in engaging ARB staff and the executive
9 management throughout 2007 to carry forward the message
10 about use of reactivity and to present these findings to
11 make an appeal for the photochemical reactivity adjusted
12 VOC measures in the draft SCM.
13 We feel the momentum has been gradually building
14 towards the use of reactivity as seen in the recent South
15 Coast Technology Forum and Round Table.
16 With respect to the end coating SCM, however, the
17 position of some has been that reactivity is too
18 complicated, not desirable, and that it's too late for
19 inclusion in this SCM. We think ARB has a very compelling
20 opportunity to get much more significant ozone formation
21 reductions and should act now rather than waiting until
22 the next cycle which could be seven to ten years,
23 depending on previous reviews.
24 California's experience with aerosol coatings
25 rule clearly shows that reactivity can be done
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
117
1 successfully, and assumed that it will be adopted by the
2 EPA's national Aerosol coatings rule.
3 In summary, we are requesting ARB not to approve
4 the 2007 AIM coatings SCM. Direct the staff to develop a
5 reactivity-based SCM that measures and controls what we
6 feel matters most, ozone formation potential. A
7 reactivity approach when applied across all product
8 categories clearly has the ability to be a win-win
9 situation for ARB, the AQMDs, and the people of California
10 by affording industry the opportunity to effectively do
11 its part in reducing the ozone formation potential of its
12 products while maintaining the economic and technological
13 viability to make and sell products.
14 We stand ready to assist ARB in whatever way
15 possible and offer our resources help to make the benefits
16 of reactivity become a reality.
17 Thank you very much for your time. And I would
18 like to thank the staff for their opportunity to meet and
19 discuss with them. And also for Monique, hopefully I will
20 make my flight. Thank you.
21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
22 Every once in a while one of our staff members
23 turns out to be a star in one of these proceedings. You
24 just have to deal with that.
25 James Baker followed by Howard Berman.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
118
1 MR. BAKER: I'm James Baker. I'd like to thank
2 the Board for the ability to present here today. I
3 representing the Roof Coatings Manufacturers Association.
4 RCMA agree and concurs with the American
5 Chemistry Council and NPCA when developing a revised SCM
6 with regard to architectural coatings to base the basic
7 reactivity base. We also would look to see an innovative
8 product exemption included in there also.
9 We've submitted written testimony with regard to
10 that which you should have today.
11 Additionally, RCMA opposes the minimum aluminum
12 content for the newly established aluminum roof specialty
13 coating without significant research showing any
14 additional benefit in reducing tropospheric ozone by
15 increasing the minimum content to .7 pounds per gallon.
16 In addition, many producers of aluminum roof
17 coatings have earned the right to qualify their products
18 as EPA energy star roof products in that program. The
19 proposed reduction in VOC limits coupled with change in
20 minimum elemental metal content and reformulation will
21 undoubtedly necessitate the reevaluation of Energy Star
22 related products for roof coatings. This could take up to
23 a three-year period and remove certain products during the
24 testing period that consumers would no longer be able to
25 choose.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
119
1 RCMA considers these to be an effective way and
2 inexpensive way for people to create at reflectivity on
3 the roofing. And we encourage the ARB to consider
4 withdrawing this category and allowing these products to
5 remain under the category of metallic pigment coatings.
6 Additionally, RCMA contends that solvent-based
7 bituminous roof coatings may serve a smaller market in
8 California. However, the reduction from 300 grams to 58
9 grams per liter constitutes a simple ban on solvent borne
10 coatings. Solvent borne bituminous roof coatings are used
11 for different purposes in California, including chemical,
12 material, incompatibility of substrate, a cool damp local
13 climate, an inability to perform adequate surface
14 preparation, or the degree of the roof slope, and/or the
15 ability to repair effects in between rains.
16 ARB staff acknowledged this point in Section 533
17 of its technical documentation and noted that other parts
18 of the countries including the northeast and midwest are
19 subject to colder less temperate climates and may not
20 permit the use of water-borne emulsions.
21 Traditional borne solvent bituminous roof
22 coatings may be beneficial in these climates and in less
23 temperate climates because they have the ability to
24 withstand sudden climate change.
25 In addition, RCMA expresses their hope with the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
120
1 AQMD will solicit the import of RCMA and other industry
2 professionals in adopting a rule that is functional for
3 one climate, yet inappropriate for another.
4 RCMA supports working with staff on redrafting
5 the revised Section of 5.2 and the most restrictive
6 limits, as we feel this could cause significant confusion
7 to industry and to regulating bodies.
8 Again, I'd like to thank the Board for this
9 opportunity to present today. Thank you very much.
10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. I'm assuming
11 you've submitted written comments. There was a lot of
12 detail.
13 MR. BAKER: We have.
14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Howard Berman
15 is our final speaker.
16 MR. BERMAN: Good afternoon. I will be extremely
17 brief. I'm here on behalf of Zinsser a manufacturer of
18 specialty coatings. I have two points.
19 One, I want to thank staff for being
20 understanding of the technological issues that are within
21 Zinsser's products and building those into the SCM.
22 And, two, we support staff's recommendation
23 regarding the most restrictive limit provision and that it
24 be worked out over the next month or so. Thank you.
25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
121
1 Are there any other witnesses who failed to
2 submit cards?
3 Do any Board members have ex parte communications
4 that they would be required to disclose on this matter?
5 None.
6 STATIONARY SOURCE ASSISTANT CHIEF BARHAM: This
7 is Bob Barham, staff of the Stationary Source Division.
8 I'd like to clarify our proposal for Section 5.2.
9 Basically, what we would do is go back to something as
10 Monique mentioned in her presentation, similar to the
11 section that existed in the 2000 rule. And we would need
12 to adjust the categories to be more reflective of the
13 categories we're changing today. So that in essence is
14 what we would proposing to work on over the next 30 days
15 with the districts.
16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That clarifies what the
17 subject for discussion would be.
18 We have a resolution number 07-46. Should we
19 have a motion and a second and then discussion?
20 SUPERVISOR HILL: I'll move the resolution.
21 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: I'll second it.
22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: A motion and a second.
23 Any additional comments by the Board members at
24 this point? It's pretty straight forward.
25 I really appreciate the work that's gone into
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
122
1 this. I know this is multi-faceted industry and many,
2 many products that we're dealing with here. But I'm
3 pleased by the overall tenor of the comments. I know we
4 haven't satisfied everybody.
5 And I'm personally -- you know, there's sort of
6 always this hope out there that there's a better way to do
7 this with the reactivity measures. But it seems to be
8 clear that we're not there yet. And in the mean time, the
9 districts really need this suggested control measure. So
10 this will give them something to work with. And I'm sure
11 we'll be hearing back again in future years more about
12 this topic.
13 STATIONARY SOURCE ASSISTANT CHIEF BARHAM: That's
14 correct, Chairman Nichols.
15 We need to make one clarification regarding the
16 CEQA comments that we received.
17 STRATEGY EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER NYARADY: I'm
18 Jim Nyarady. I'm the lucky manager that Monique works
19 for.
20 I wanted to say since we got a written comment
21 about CEQA that for the record we have to give response
22 for that. For let me repeat for the record since we
23 getting a written comment about CEQA I have to give a
24 response for that.
25 The comment was that we had not done adequate
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
123
1 environmental assessment in the staff report and technical
2 support document. There was a full environmental impact
3 report that we did for the 2000 SCM, and that's been
4 incorporated by reference because it contains analysis
5 that are still valid for the current proposal.
6 And there's additional information that's
7 provided in chapter six of the technical support document.
8 And both chapter six and the 2000 EIR conclude that the
9 SCM would have a positive environmental impact. And then
10 chapter 5 of the technical support document contains a
11 detailed analysis for each category including information
12 on the types of products that would or would not comply
13 with the proposed limits. Also includes information on
14 the compliant products such as resin technologies and
15 performance testing results.
16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
17 Any other Board member comments before I call the
18 question? All right.
19 All in favor of the suggested control measure in
20 the resolution say aye.
21 (Aye)
22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Any opposed?
23 Hearing none, the motion carries unanimously.
24 Do I hear a motion to adjourn.
25 BOARD MEMBER CASE: So moved.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
124
1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We are adjourned. 12:18 PM
2 (Thereupon the California Air Resources Board
3 adjourned at 12:18 p.m.)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
125
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 1st day of November, 2007.
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