MEETING BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD BOARD HEARING ROOM 2020 L STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, JANUARY 28, 1999 9:30 A.M. Vicki L. Ogelvie, C.S.R. License No. 7871 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii MEMBERS PRESENT Barbara Riordan, Chairman John D. Dunlap, III Joseph C. Calhoun Mark DeSaulnier Dr. William Friedman Lynne T. Edgerton Jack C. Parnell Barbara Patrick Sally Rakow Staff: Michael Kenny, Executive Director Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mike Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Kathleen Walsh, General Counsel Jim Schoning, Ombudsman PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii I N D E X --o0o-- Page Proceedings 1 Call to Order 1 Pledge of Allegiance 1 Roll Call 1 Opening remarks by Chairperson Riordan 1 AGENDA ITEMS: 99-1-2 Public Meeting to Consider a Summary of the 1999 Rulemaking Calendar Introductory remarks by Chairperson Riordan 2 Staff Presentation: Mike Kenny 3 Amy Whiting 4 99-1-1 Public Meeting to Consider an Update on Selected Research Division Projects Introductory remarks by Chairperson Riordan 28 Staff Presentation: Mike Kenny 29 Dr. Holmes 29 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv I N D E X (Continued) --o0o-- Page ICAT Presentations: Dr. Jon Peters 31 Jacqueline Ayer 56 Dr. Kim Prather 69 Lance Balcom 95 Closed Session - Litigation 106 Open Session to Provide an Opportunity for Members of the Public to Address the Board on Subject Matters within the Jurisdiction of the Board 108 Adjournment 109 Certificate of Reporter 110 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 --o0o-- 3 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: If we might, I would like to 4 call this meeting to order, and to begin with the pledge of 5 allegiance, and I have asked Supervisor Patrick to lead that, 6 and so, if we would all rise, please. 7 (Thereupon the pledge was recited.) 8 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Supervisor 9 Patrick. 10 I would like to ask the Clerk to call the roll 11 please. 12 MS. HUTCHENS: Calhoun. 13 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Here. 14 MS. HUTCHENS: DeSaulnier. 15 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Here. 16 Do I get my hundred dollars? 17 MS. HUTCHENS: Dunlap. 18 BOARD MEMBER DUNLAP: Here. 19 MS. HUTCHENS: Edgerton. 20 Friedman. 21 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Here. 22 MS. HUTCHENS: Parnell. 23 BOARD MEMBER PARNELL: Here. 24 MS. HUTCHENS: Patrick. 25 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Here. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 MS. HUTCHENS: Rakow. 2 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: Here. 3 MS. HUTCHENS: Roberts. 4 Chairman Riordan. 5 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Here. 6 Thank you. As is custom, I would like to remind 7 anyone in the audience that if you would like to present 8 testimony today on any one of the items, please sign up with 9 the Clerk, who is to my left, and if you have a written 10 statement, please provide 20 copies to the Clerk for that 11 purpose. 12 We are going to change the order, if that would be 13 all right with the Board. The staff has asked that we change 14 Agenda Items to move the 99-1-2, the Public Meeting to 15 Consider a Summary of the 1999 Rulemaking Calendar, and then 16 we will hear 99-1-1. 17 So, if there are no objections, I would like to do 18 that for today. Let me begin with the Rulemaking Calendar. 19 Let me indicate to you that this is Item 99-1-2, a 20 Public Meeting to Consider Summary of 1999 Rulemaking 21 Calendar. This is a review of our Draft Rulemaking Calendar 22 for 1999, and it sets forth the Board's Regulatory Agenda for 23 1999. 24 The Board has a broad rulemaking authority to 25 interpret and implement statutes pertaining to the control of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 air pollution. This summary is being provided for your 2 planning purposes not only for the Board meetings but for 3 related activities that require your participation as we move 4 forward on these items. 5 At this point, let me invite Mr. Kenny to introduce 6 the Item and begin the staff's presentation. 7 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Chairman Riordan and Members 8 of the Board. 9 Each January, State Regulatory Agencies, such as 10 the ARB, must prepare a Regulatory Calendar outlining the 11 rulemaking activities to be undertaken by the Agency during 12 the upcoming year. 13 The 1999 Rulemaking Calendar before you has been 14 prepared by staff to meet this requirement. By statute the 15 Rulemaking Calendar must identify each regulation to be 16 adopted or amended and the authority under which the Agency 17 acts as well as the dates for issuing the Public Notice and 18 holding the Public Hearing. 19 Governor Wilson's Regulatory Reform Initiatives set 20 out in Executive Order W-144-97, directed the inclusion of 21 additional information for each rulemaking item included in 22 the calendar. 23 For the most part these requirements ensure that 24 information is provided as early in the process as possible 25 about potential economic and fiscal impact of a regulatory PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 proposal. 2 The Rulemaking Calendar is published by the Office 3 of Administrative Law, in the California Regulatory Notice 4 Register, each year, usually in February, and while we have 5 some flexibility in terms of moving items forward or backward 6 on the Calendar, we will make every effort to stay on the 7 schedule that is presented here today. 8 The Rulemaking Calendar is the product of work by 9 the Program Divisions that are responsible for the 10 development of the individual regulatory items. 11 The program staff have been assisting and preparing 12 economic and fiscal analysis by the Economic Study Section of 13 the Research Division. 14 Amy Whiting, of the Office of Legal Affairs, is the 15 Board's Regulations Coordinator, and she has taken the lead 16 in compiling the Draft '99 Rulemaking Calendar and will walk 17 us through the calendar today. 18 Copies of this Draft document have been provided to 19 you and are also in the Board book, which is available to the 20 public at the entrance to the Hearing Room. 21 With that, I would like to introduce Amy Whiting. 22 Amy. 23 MS. WHITING: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. 24 Good morning, Chairman Riordan and Members of the 25 Board. My name is Amy Whiting, and I am the Regulations PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 Coordinator, with the Air Resources Board Office of Legal 2 Affairs. 3 Today I will walk you through the ARB's 1999 4 Rulemaking Calendar. You should have a copy of the Draft 5 Calendar, which includes a few changes from the first Draft 6 version that is found in the Board book. 7 The latest version that you have before you, and 8 which is also available for the public at the entrance to the 9 Hearing Room, is currently being reviewed by Cal EPA for 10 submittal to the Office of Administrative Law for publication 11 in the California Regulatory Register. 12 For your convenience, we have also prepared a 13 document that leaves each of the rulemaking items on the 14 calendar with their projected dates to give you an easy 15 reference for the entire calendar year. 16 The Administrative Procedures Act, or APA, 17 established a number of legal requirements that must be 18 followed by all State agencies in proposing new or revised 19 regulations. 20 Even before we reach the formal regulation proposal 21 stage, ARB works closely with the affected sources in the 22 public through workshops and other consultation efforts. 23 The first step in the formal APA rulemaking is the 24 preparation of an Initial Statement of Reasons for 25 Rulemaking. The Initial Statement of Reasons, or ISOR, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 includes a description of the problem to be addressed by a 2 regulatory proposal and the justification for the solution 3 recommended. 4 This information is found primarily in the staff 5 report prepared for every regulatory item presented to the 6 Board. The APA also requires an assessment of the economic 7 impact of the proposed regulation on private persons and 8 businesses, including small businesses. 9 I will discuss these requirements in a bit more 10 detail in just a minute. 11 Under the California Environmental Quality Act, or 12 CEQA, staff must determine what, if any, significant adverse 13 environmental impacts could occur as a result of a proposed 14 regulatory action and identify available mitigatable measures 15 or alternatives. 16 The Board must consider this information as part of 17 its decision-making process and must act to avoid or minimize 18 any adverse environmental impacts of a regulatory proposal. 19 The Board must seek findings as appropriate 20 regarding the impacts on available litigation or 21 alternatives. 22 In order to design regulations that work well and 23 have the smallest possible cost, staff has a long-established 24 practice of workshops for regulatory proposals to solicit 25 input as early in the regulation process as possible. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 Controversial or technically complex regulations 2 may be the subject of several workshops or other public 3 outreach efforts. 4 In developing a regulatory proposal, ARB staff 5 evaluates the cost impact of a proposed regulation, including 6 its cost-effectiveness and identifies other economic impacts, 7 such as effects on jobs and competitiveness of businesses and 8 the State as well as impacts on State and local agencies or 9 to Federal funding. 10 This information is included in the Notice of 11 Proposed Rulemaking and the staff report to assure the Board 12 has full understanding of the economic impacts of the 13 proposals. 14 SB 10-82 enacted in 1993, also requires staff to 15 determine the cost-effectiveness of any proposal suggested as 16 an alternative that will achieve the same purpose as a 17 proposed major regulation. 18 A major regulation is defined as any regulation 19 that will have an economic impact of more than $10-million on 20 California businesses. 21 In addition to economic analysis provided for each 22 regulation, when the formal proposal is released, the 23 Rulemaking Calendar provides information about the economic 24 and fiscal impacts of proposed regulations early in the 25 regulatory development process. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 The beginning of 1999 may seem a little quiet 2 compared to the intense rulemaking schedule ARB adhered to 3 last year. Rest assured that during this apparent lull in 4 activity, much work is being done. 5 As you may recall, the Board heard and approved 6 several items toward the later part of 1998. Most 7 significant of those are the LEV rulemaking in early November 8 and the jet ski and on-road motorcycle items from December. 9 Staff is working hard to finalize each of these 10 rulemakings for submission to OAL. 11 In addition to making the 15-day changes approved 12 by the Board, which is available for public comment, staff is 13 preparing the Final Statement of Reasons, including a written 14 summary of every comment submitted in writing during the 15 45-day comment period, and every comment presented orally or 16 in writing at the Board meeting. 17 I am looking forward -- staff is now actively 18 working on the development of a number of the significant 19 issues that will come to the Board later this year, including 20 a regulatory proposal to reduce emissions from the use of 21 portable gasoline containers and improvement to the Vapor 22 Recovery Program regulations. 23 Now, turning to the calendar itself, I will provide 24 a review of these items to be presented in 1999. 25 In May, the staff will present a proposal to reduce PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 emissions from portable gasoline containers. Staff will be 2 proposing specifications for portable gasoline containers 3 that will reduce spillage during refilling of equipment, such 4 as lawn mowers and jet skis. 5 This measure will reduce public exposure to 6 gasoline vapor and resulting in lowering emissions will 7 contribute to SIP implementation and attainment of 8 health-based Federal and State air quality standards. 9 Staff is currently investigating the need for 10 revisions to the clean fuels infrastructure requirement. If 11 changes are necessary, staff has identified May as a possible 12 month to consider this issue. 13 In June, the staff will present an On-Board 14 Diagnostic II review. Staff will provide the Board with an 15 update on vehicle manufacturers progress towards meeting OBD 16 requirements. 17 Amendments will be proposed to clarify and 18 strengthen the requirements where necessary. 19 Then staff will present to the Board for 20 consideration the adoption of specifications for diesel fuel 21 for locomotive engines by extending diesel fuel quality 22 requirements to the fuel used by diesel locomotives. 23 Moving on to the middle portion of the summer, in 24 July, the staff will present amendments to the Alternative 25 Control Plan Regulation for Consumer Products and Aerosol PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 Coatings. 2 The Alternative Control Plan Regulation is an 3 emission averaging program for consumer products and aerosol 4 coatings. 5 The regulation is a voluntary compliance 6 alternative that provides cost-effective flexibility to 7 stakeholders. 8 Staff will be proposing amendments to streamline 9 reporting requirements and to add clarifying language. 10 Staff will also be proposing to make the 11 Alternative Control Plan available as a compliance 12 alternative for antiperspirants and deodorants. 13 The second item in July will be a proposal to adopt 14 Amendments to Existing Gasoline Vapor Recovery Certification 15 and Test Procedures. The proposed revisions of the Existing 16 Gasoline and Vapor Recovery Certification and Test procedures 17 for service stations will require installation of vapor 18 recovery systems that are compatible with vehicular on-board 19 refueling vapor recovery systems and require installation of 20 diagnostic systems which activate when the vapor recovery 21 system malfunctions and include program improvements to 22 clarify and update existing certification procedures by 23 improving the performance and reliability of vapor recovery 24 systems. 25 The third item to be presented to the Board in July PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 will be Proposed Revisions to After-market Parts 2 Requirements. The staff will propose amendments to ARB 3 replacing catalyst requirements to ensure compatibility with 4 new low emission standards and on-board diagnostic 5 requirements. 6 After the August break, the Board will be asked to 7 consider a fairly significant number of regulatory items in 8 September and October. 9 First you will hear a staff proposal to adopt 10 amendments to the emissions inventory criteria and guideline 11 regulations pursuant to the Air Toxic Hot Spots Act of 1987. 12 The emission inventory criteria and guidelines 13 contains criteria for facilities and districts to complete 14 thier emission inventory requirements for the Hot Spots 15 Program. 16 Amendments will be proposed to incorporate the new 17 OEHHA guidelines into the emission inventory update process. 18 Staff will also prepare amendments to the air toxics hot 19 spots fee regulation for fiscal year 1999/2000. 20 The fee regulation authorizes the State and 21 districts to cover the cost to implement the provisions of AB 22 2588. 23 The regulation may also include the fee schedule 24 for individual districts that request the Board to adopt 25 thier schedule for 1999/2000. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 Staff will also present to the Board a proposal to 2 adopt a voluntary reactivity regulation for aerosol coatings 3 and consumer products and consideration of clarifying 4 language to the Consumer Products Regulation. 5 The existing Aerosol Coating and Consumer Products 6 Regulation limit total VOC content on a percent by weight 7 basis. 8 As a voluntary alternative, staff is proposing a 9 new regulation that limits the total ozone formation 10 potential of a product. The new regulation would achieve the 11 same ozone reduction as the existing regulations. 12 The goal is to provide stakeholders flexibility and 13 provide a cost-effective alternative. 14 Adoption of that regulation would fulfill a SIP 15 commitment to consider reactivity in the Consumer Products 16 Regulation. 17 The staff is also proposing to add language to 18 further clarify definitions in the Consumer Products 19 Regulation. 20 There will also be a proposal to consider a 21 amendment to the emission control regulations for the 2000 22 and later model year off-road diesel engines, 25 horsepower 23 and greater. 24 The revised regulations will meet the emissions 25 reduction requirement measure M 9 of that 1994 ozone SIP. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 The ARB and U.S. EPA have negotiated an agreement 2 with the manufacturers of diesel engines to dramatically 3 reduce emissions from diesel off road equipment. 4 EPA has adopted regulations implementing this 5 agreement, and staff will be proposing that the Board do the 6 same. 7 Additionally, staff will ask the Board to consider 8 amendments to provide additional flexibility to the cleaner 9 burning gasoline program, including specification changes as 10 appropriate. 11 The staff will propose, as feasible, amendments to 12 increase refiners flexibility and the use of oxygen in 13 gasoline. 14 Potential amendments to improve flexibility are 15 updates to the exhaust model and the predictive model, adding 16 evaporative models to the predictive models and changes to 17 cap limits. 18 To ensure no loss of benefits from the CBG 19 regulations, changes to flat or averaging limits may be 20 needed as well. 21 The last item in September will be a proposal to 22 consider amendments to the emissions standards for urban 23 transit and school buses. 24 This regulation will modify the emission standards 25 for engines used in urban buses to reduce emissions of oxides PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 of nitrogen and particulate matter. 2 Moving on through the fall months in October, staff 3 will propose amending of test methods designated to measure 4 the Olefin concentration and distillation temperature of 5 cleaner burning gasoline. 6 Staff will propose to change the test method 7 designated to measure the Olefin concentration of gasoline. 8 This revision will result in the use of methods considerably 9 more precise than the current designated test method. 10 Staff is also proposing to update the method 11 designated to measure the distillation temperature of 12 gasoline to the most recent version of the current method. 13 In October, staff will bring to the Board a 14 proposal to adopt additional standards for consumer products. 15 Staff will ask the Board to consider a proposal to 16 amend the compressed natural gas specifications. These 17 proposed amendments will broaden current CNG specifications 18 to allow greater use of California produced CNG. 19 To start off the winter, in November, the Board 20 meeting will cover three regulatory proposals. In the first 21 item, the Board will hear proposed revisions to the 22 attainment and nonattainment area designations for the State 23 Air Quality Standards, under the California Clean Air Act. 24 As you know, the Board is required to review 25 annually the area designations with respect to the State PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 ambient air quality standards based on recent air quality 2 data. 3 At this hearing, the Board will consider the 4 results of the staffs's review of the 1996/98 data and 5 approve appropriate changes to the designations. 6 The second item involved is considering a ACTM to 7 reduce perchloroethylene emissions from aerosol brake 8 cleaning products. Many automotive repair facilities use 9 aerosol brake cleaning products that contain 10 perchloroethylene, or perc. 11 Perc has been listed by the Air Resources Board as 12 a toxic air contaminant. 13 This Board hearing is to consider the adoption of 14 an ATCM that would reduce perc emissions and risk to the 15 public. 16 Additionally, the Board will consider amendments to 17 the agricultural burning guidelines. This will be a proposal 18 to change the burning of smoke management guidelines and also 19 propose changes to the authority to modify and improve the 20 Sacramento Valley Agricultural Burn Plan. 21 In December, the Board will be asked to look at two 22 regulatory items to close out 1999. 23 The first item is to consider amendments to the 24 emission standards for the on-road heavy duty gasoline 25 engines. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 This regulatory proposal is complement to the 2 recently adopted amendments to the on-road heavy duty diesel 3 regulations. Adoption of this regulation will also harmonize 4 California standards with U.S. EPA standards that will apply 5 nationwide. 6 Finally, the Board will be asked to consider 7 revisions to ozone transport identification and mitigation 8 regulations. 9 The Board is required to review tri-annually the 10 ozone transport identification and mitigation regulations and 11 update these regulations based on recent air quality and 12 meteorological data. 13 This hearing is for the Board to consider results 14 of the staff's review of the 1996/98 data and approve 15 appropriate changes to the regulations. 16 This concludes my presentation of the California 17 Air Resources Board 1999 Rulemaking Calendar. I will be 18 happy to answer any questions you may have. 19 Thank you. 20 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Any comments? 21 Mr. Kenny. 22 MR. KENNY: I think the only comment I would like 23 to make is last year the Board had a very aggressive agenda 24 that was presented to it, and in fact, by the end of the 25 year, the Board had adopted a number of measures which got PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 several emission reductions. 2 In 1999, the Board will also have an opportunity to 3 do something very similar, because we will be bringing to the 4 Board items with regard to refueling, both spillage from 5 containers that are used from off-road equipment and also 6 State's vapor recovery requirements that would allow for 7 refueling at the gas stations with regard to cars. 8 That is significant. 9 In addition to that, consistent with the Board's 10 direction last year, with regards to trying to establish an 11 all fuel fleet for buses in this State by 2010, we will be 12 presenting to the Board proposals in the fall that would move 13 in that direction. 14 Obviously that would be very significant. 15 Then lastly, we are looking at low sulfur gasoline, 16 again, a very significant item. 17 So, when you look at the direction that the Board 18 provided last year and where we are intending to go this 19 year, I think it is a really very important and very 20 aggressive agenda again. 21 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: It certainly is, and you are 22 to be congratulated on a very full agenda. 23 Yes. Questions from the Board? 24 Ms. Edgerton. 25 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 Mr. Kenny, when do you project the reduced sulfur 2 in gasoline measure to come up? 3 MR. KENNY: We are looking at basically bringing 4 that to the Board right now in December, so it will be at the 5 end of the year. 6 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Is that on the calendar? 7 MR. KENNY: It is on the calendar right now. 8 Actually, just a quick add on to that, we are also 9 looking at working with U.S. EPA on reducing the sulfur in 10 diesel. 11 We are looking at U.S. EPA to take the lead on 12 that, because it would actually have more significance if it 13 was implemented on a national basis. 14 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Mrs. Rakow. 15 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: Yes. 16 A question, how does the staff consider the 17 priority of when these amendments will come to the Board? 18 I recognize we are talking about the amount of work 19 that probably has to go into it, but it seems to me that the 20 amendment to provide flexibility to cleaner burning gasoline 21 has a certain urgency, and that is slated for September. 22 MR. KENNY: The flexibility there, and I will let 23 Mike Scheible speak more specifically about this, flexibility 24 there was essentially figure out a way to at least allow the 25 refiners to make cleaner burning gasoline, maintaining all PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 the air quality benefits we get today, but if there were 2 other alternatives that could be used to provide some cost 3 benefits to them, they would be able to have that. 4 Today we have not really been able to figure that 5 out in conjunction with them. So what really does drive it 6 is essentially the discussions with the industry, the staff 7 preparation that goes into trying to figure out where we can 8 go, and generally that will take at least some amount of 9 time. 10 Mike, maybe you would like to add something. 11 MR. SCHEIBLE: We are also prepared if events mean 12 there is a policy decision made at the State level about 13 phasing down oxygens on a quick schedule to accelerate that, 14 so that it can go and aid that effort, what the schedule 15 proposed says is that we are on an expedited schedule to get 16 the type of information we need to bring the Board a sound 17 recommendation from which we have a knowledge base and, 18 hopefully, a lot of industry understanding and acceptance. 19 If the events warrant us to move faster, then we 20 would move faster. 21 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Mr. Dunlap. 22 BOARD MEMBER DUNLAP: Mike, if I could ask you a 23 question about the agricultural burning item, and it is no 24 secret that is one thing that got a lot of attention from 25 this Board over the last couple of years, what are you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 thinking about there? 2 MR. KENNY: Well, what we have been trying to do is 3 work with the growers in the Sacramento Valley to address 4 rice burning in general, and one of the things we are looking 5 at doing is going forward with some modifications to Title 6 17, which is where the Rice Burning Regulations exist right 7 now. 8 The thought there was that we wanted to have a 9 little bit more ability to affect when burning occurs when 10 the meteorology does not really allow for it. 11 Right now what happens is that we make burn and no 12 burn decisions, but then if we have a burn decision, the 13 actual implementation that occurs by the districts in the 14 Sacramento Valley, there are days when the wind patterns are 15 such, and when the meteorology is such, that although it is a 16 burn day, the amount of rice that should be burned on those 17 particular days probably ought to be limited. 18 So, we want to have more control over the ability 19 to limit that on those days. 20 BOARD MEMBER DUNLAP: Okay. You know it as well as 21 I think the Board does that that is an important issue for 22 this Valley in particular, and I just encourage you to have 23 as much process as you can. 24 There has been advisory committees, Mike Scheible, 25 you and your team have done a great job with that. I know PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 that Jim Schoning has been involved, so I would just -- 2 regardless of -- 3 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Have all the stakeholders 4 involved. 5 BOARD MEMBER DUNLAP: Regardless of what the Board 6 looks like, Mike, in a couple of months, this is something 7 you are going to need to focus on. 8 MR. KENNY: Oh, this won't be a quiet one. 9 We have already actually begun the process, and in 10 fact, we have actually begun the workshop process with the 11 individuals already. It is ongoing as we speak. 12 BOARD MEMBER DUNLAP: May I ask one other one, 13 Mike, or Madam Chair, on the perc issue? 14 Mike, on the ATCM for perc emissions from aerosol 15 brake cleaning products, I seem to remember this was one we 16 had a significant amount of discussion on a year or two ago. 17 MR. KENNY: We did, because this was the one which 18 perc was removed from the VOC list,, and one of the concerns 19 was with regard to that, was there was a substantial amount 20 of perc that was being used in different types of products, 21 And in particular, brake cleaners, and so we were concerned 22 about at least the toxic consequences to the people who were 23 actually brake cleaners, and this was a way of trying to go 24 back and look at the health risk that was associated with 25 that usage and try to address it. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 BOARD MEMBER DUNLAP: So, it is kind of 2 straightening up where we left off?. 3 MR. KENNY: Yes. 4 It is a completion of what we started. 5 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Questions? 6 Mr. Calhoun. 7 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: This is a two-part question. 8 It pertains to lowering of the sulfur content of 9 the diesel fuel. You mentioned that you expected to get EPA 10 to take the lead regarding the lowering of the sulfur fuel. 11 Have you had discussion with them in this regard, 12 and if so, what kind of reaction are you getting from them? 13 MR. KENNY: We did have discussions with them, and 14 in fact, we went back and spoke with U.S. EPA and the 15 Department of Energy in December, and the reaction from U.S. 16 EPA and the Department of Energy was positive. 17 Both organizations thought it did make sense to 18 basically go forward and reduce the sulfur in diesel. They 19 had not been thinking about it directly. 20 They had been thinking about reducing sulfur in 21 gasoline, but the general response was one in which they 22 thought it made sense, and in fact, what they have now 23 decided to do at the U.S. EPA level is to go forward with an 24 advance notice of proposed rulemaking on lowering the sulfur 25 in diesel. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 Right now they are scheduled for lowering the 2 sulfur in gasoline, which is coming out with a notice of 3 proposed rulemaking in the next couple of months. They think 4 they will then also come out with the advance notice in 5 probably the early summer timeframe, so it looks like 6 movement will happen on both of those fronts at the Federal 7 level. 8 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Other questions for staff? 9 Ms. Edgerton. 10 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Mr. Kenny, I apologize for 11 coming back to this. 12 I look at December, I do not see it. I just want 13 to be sure that I can -- if I cannot tell for sure where that 14 is coming up, I imagine the public cannot tell either. 15 MR. KENNY: I think that is reasonable. 16 Essentially what we have on right now is we have 17 the Phase 3 Low Sulfur Gasoline. It should be on the 18 regulatory calendar. 19 I am looking at a tentative agenda, and it shows it 20 on there. 21 MS. WALSH: It is not showing in December on the 22 Draft Rulemaking Calendar. 23 It was part of the September item, but we can 24 separate that out for a separate item for December and 25 include that and include that in the Draft Rulemaking PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 Calendar. 2 We would create a separate rulemaking item, Phase 3 3 Gasoline Sulfur Standards and add that to the rulemaking 4 calendar that is before you right now. 5 MR. KENNY: Ms. Walsh, I think I confused the 6 issue, and I apologize. 7 What it was is I am looking at a document that 8 shows the working approach that we are planning to take for 9 the year, and on that I am looking at substantially Phase 3 10 Low Sulfur Gasoline in December, which is kind of what the 11 staff projection is. 12 In terms of the actual document that is the formal 13 document, I think that does show it on in like September, and 14 it is more than a -- 15 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Flexibility issue, which 16 did not tell me immediately that was low sulfur. 17 MR. KENNY: Yes, absolutely. 18 The reason for that, I think what you are looking 19 at here is the flexibility issue is one that we are trying to 20 provide flexibility, if we can, as Mr. Scheible indicated, if 21 in fact there is a phase out of MTBE, we would move that one 22 up. 23 But at the same time, we do think there is an 24 opportunity that exists now to go forward and to reduce the 25 sulfur in gasoline, and so the best way we can possibly do PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 that would be to combine both flexibility and the reduction 2 in sulfur at the same time. 3 It will take more of a staff effort to get the 4 sulfur down than in terms of working the process so that we 5 are ready to bring it to the Board, so that is why from a 6 staff projection standpoint we are looking at December, and 7 if would we do that, we would combine them all together. 8 Does that help clarify it? 9 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Well, sort of, but what I 10 am trying to determine is whether this final document as 11 published can include specifically under the words you used, 12 Phase 3 Reduction in Sulfur, can be included somewhere on 13 here so that the public can see where it is. 14 MR. KENNY: Yes, we can do that. 15 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: That will be coming up in 16 the December meeting? 17 MR. KENNY: Yes. 18 That is our projection right now. 19 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Any other questions or 20 comments by the Board? 21 Have there been any written comments that need to 22 be entered into the record on this particular item? 23 MS. WALSH: No. 24 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. I assume, Mr. Kenny, 25 you have no further comments. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 Since this is not a regulatory item and it is not 2 necessary, we do not have to officially close the record. I 3 want to thank you very much, and I think that this is an 4 important document, but it does have some flexibility. 5 It is like a road map of where we are going, but we 6 understand that we have flexibility, and we will use it if we 7 need it. 8 Now, let me move on to the next item, which 9 involves staff changing for the Board, along with a lot of 10 the information that is in front of us, there is a big white 11 bound volume which is before us, and it is for you to 12 utilize. 13 Please read the cover letter on the top, because it 14 will give you some clear information about the staff that is 15 willing to meet with you if you need to get any questions 16 answered today on that, but it is a resource for all of you. 17 It is a very fine resource from the Ombudsman 18 Office, and Kathleen, we thank you for this in getting that 19 out. 20 So let's move on to the next item. Are we ready 21 there? 22 No. I think, Dr. Holmes -- 23 Well, I thanked Kathleen because I think she did a 24 lot of the work. 25 Am I right, Mr. Schoning? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 MR. SCHONING: She delivered. 2 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Yes. 3 He may have put his name on it, but I know who did 4 the work. 5 BOARD MEMBER DUNLAP: Oh, I thought Kathleen Walsh, 6 that is what we were thinking. 7 I need to clarify that it was Kathleen Meade, we 8 know you are the solid performer with Jim Schoning. We 9 thought the Chairman was mentioning Kathleen Walsh. 10 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: No, no, no. 11 Kathleen in the back. 12 No, no, no. I mean, I certainly want to recognize 13 her for all her work, too, but really it is -- 14 Yes, Mrs. Rakow, you had a question. 15 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: This is going to be a 16 longer meeting. 17 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: Yes. 18 The distribution of this -- this is excellent by 19 the way -- but for my information, besides to the local air 20 districts, is there any other distribution? 21 MR. SCHONING: Certainly our own divisions and you 22 and colleagues and agencies are the initial recipients. 23 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: Is it too expensive to send to 24 some of the major libraries or maybe colleges? 25 MR. SCHONING: It is a labor intensive project, and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 we might consult with the two libraries and see what they 2 think the level of use might be, and if they came back with 3 some enthusiasm, then it would certainly justify it. 4 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. Let's move on to 5 Agenda Item 99-1-1. 6 I would like to remind those of you in the audience 7 who would like to present testimony to the Board on any of 8 today's Agenda Items, to please sign up with the Clerk of the 9 Board. 10 If you have a written statement, please give 20 11 copies to the Clerk of the Board. 12 The next Agenda Item before us is a Public Meeting 13 to Consider an Update on Selected Research Division Projects. 14 This item provides us with an update on research 15 and innovative clean air technology programs. 16 I understand we have a number of people who are 17 involved with this program here today to share some of the 18 results of thier work, and before I turn it over to staff, I 19 would like to note that while at some point in time, 20 hopefully, Board Members will get the Innovative Clean Air 21 Technologies Update. 22 It was on my desk this morning, and I think that is 23 an excellent tool to get the information out. It kind of 24 looks like a small little brochure, and I think the idea of 25 publishing that and getting it out to people is very helpful, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 also for those who have inquiries, it gives them a bit of 2 background about what we are doing and to know whether or not 3 they can take advantage of this program. 4 So, we can use it in a variety of ways. 5 So, Mr. Kenny, let me ask you to introduce this 6 item. 7 MR. KENNY: All right. Thank you, Chairman Riordan 8 and Members of the Board. 9 As you know, we want to bring you up to date with 10 regards to the results of some of the research and 11 development projects that you funded in the years past. 12 Today, rather than asking the staff to provide the 13 update, I have elected to invite the researchers themselves 14 to tell you what they have achieved to help us continue our 15 progress towards clean air in California. 16 With that, I would like to ask Dr. John Holmes to 17 introduce our guests. 18 John. 19 DR. HOLMES: Thank you, Mr. Kenny, Madam Chairman 20 and Members of the Board. 21 Good morning. I am very pleased to have this 22 opportunity to show off a little bit about our research 23 program. 24 We are fortunate in having two investigators from 25 our Baseline Research Program here as well as two other PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 partners from the ICAT program, which you just mentioned, 2 Madam Chairman. 3 These are projects that we are particularly proud 4 of, because they have received wide recognition, and there is 5 a great deal of progress being made on these various diverse 6 fronts. 7 First of all, I would like to introduce a 8 presentation on our Children's Home Study. We have Dr. Jon 9 Peters, from the University of Southern California, to update 10 you on that project. 11 Dr. Peters is a physician with a long and 12 distinguished career in occupational and environmental 13 epidemiology. 14 He will give you a brief review of the study, 15 highlight some of the accomplishments that they achieved 16 during the last six years or so, also some of the important 17 observations made today and plans that they are putting 18 together for continuation of the study over the next four 19 years. 20 This is, as I say, is a very important study. It 21 has received some recognition, but we are hoping that it will 22 receive even more as we get into the stage of releasing some 23 of the results. 24 So, with that, let me welcome Dr. Jon Peters and 25 ask him to provide you with his thoughts on this project. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Good morning, Dr. Peters, and 2 welcome. 3 DR PETERS: Good morning. I am here representing a 4 team of scientists working on this project, and I first thank 5 the Air Resources Board for both financial and intellectual 6 support and would particularly like to acknowledge the input 7 of Helen Margolis and Duane Westerly. 8 I want to try to do two things. Number one is to 9 give you a brief progress report, and the second is to 10 describe the last part of the plan study and explain why it 11 is important to complete this. 12 So, I am going to do it with slides, and apparently 13 I cannot control the slide changing, so if we could have the 14 first slide, please. 15 Incidentally, you have a packet. You should have a 16 packet that corresponds with the slides for your reference at 17 a later date or currently, if you would like. 18 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: This is the test of your 19 profession. 20 DR. PETERS: It is the greatest fear one could ever 21 have. 22 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Especially when it is out of 23 your control. 24 DR. PETERS: There we go. 25 This is obviously the talk about this project and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 that title is there just for that, and if I could have the 2 next slide, we will try to get into this. 3 The operative word, I think, in this study for us 4 all to remember is that we are doing this to determine the 5 chronic respiratory effects or to look for respiratory 6 effects. 7 It is well-known that pollution has acute effects, 8 and some are easier to measure by putting people in chambers, 9 by doing short experiments. The chronic effects are 10 difficult and take a long time to elucidate and take longer 11 to do, and they are very important, obviously, for both 12 public health and regulatory purposes. 13 Next slide, please. 14 This is to remind you of the basics of this study. 15 I think you all have been through this before, but a quick 16 reminder, we have three major measures of health outcome. 17 We are measuring the children's lung capacity and 18 breathing capacity every year, and this allows us to get a 19 good picture of how well the lung is working. 20 We do questionnaires based on the respiratory 21 problems, asthma, pneumonia, bronchitis, some things you 22 should be familiar with, and we also do a school absence 23 monitoring program aiming at looking at respiratory illness 24 frequency and severity. 25 So, there are the three health outcomes. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 Next slide, please. 2 The questionnaires are also done to collect other 3 information that we would be interested in. 4 We have a complete lifetime residential history on 5 the children. 6 We have residential characteristics on how the 7 house is heated and how cooking is done. 8 We collect information on passive smoking, and then 9 we get information on the usual spatial, temporal and 10 physical activity of the child, whether they are exercisers 11 or not, and whether they spend a lot of time outdoors or not. 12 Next slide, please. 13 The exposure assessment, there are 12 communities, 14 as you will probably remember, and I will show you the 12 in 15 a moment. 16 In each of the communities there is a station that 17 monitors the things we thought would be the most important, 18 ozone, nitrogen dioxide, PM 10 on an hourly basis, and on a 19 two-weekly basis, we measure the smaller particles and the 20 acid vapor and some of the constituents of the smaller 21 particles. 22 Next slide, please. 23 Now, finally, this is a little bit difficult to 24 see, but it shows the widespread populations of the 25 communities that we have picked and were picked on the basis PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 of extremes of pollution levels, and I think if I count 2 right, we have six counties represented for our twelve 3 communities, a cluster in Southern California, right here, 4 where we expect the pollution levels to be very high, and 5 others picked to represent lower levels or other combinations 6 of both pollutants. 7 Next slide, please. Now, this is a little bit 8 difficult to see, but I think it is an important one, and 9 this describes how we began the study, and you probably 10 cannot see those numbers, but we had 1800 fourth graders, 900 11 seventh graders, 900 tenth graders when we began the study, 12 and we began in 1993, and we have progressed, we have 13 collected data through 1998, and in 1999 right now we are in 14 the field collecting data for the seventh time. 15 I will be talking about the results of two 16 approaches. One is the cross-sectional, I will call, and 17 that will be looking at the data we collected during the 18 first year, and then I will be telling you a little bit about 19 the logistics in two different parts, which will be looking 20 at data collected on the first four years of time, and I will 21 give you a highlight from each one of those. 22 Next, please. 23 The current cross-section, so this would be looking 24 at the first time we looked at these children in 1993, and 25 some of the major findings that have been seen, one of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 things that surprised us, and there was not very much 2 preliminary information that would suggest this, that there 3 are differences in the way boys and girls respond to 4 pollution levels, and we see different effects by gender, and 5 you will see it here. 6 When we looked at symptoms, the only symptoms that 7 we could really relate to pollution levels in the entire 8 group were wheezing in boys, related to NO2 and acid vapor 9 levels. 10 So, wheezing in girls was not related to any 11 pollution, and none of the other symptoms were related to any 12 other pollution level. 13 When we looked at lung function, we were again 14 surprised to see the major effects of lung pollution, mostly 15 NO2 and particulate matter was seen in girls. 16 There was lower lung function also associated with 17 ozone in girls with asthma, and we had some suspicion ahead 18 of time that any asthmatic children might be more susceptible 19 to effects. 20 The lower lung function was associated with ozone 21 levels in the boys who spent a lot of time outdoors but not 22 the boys that did not, and then finally in the asthmatic sub 23 group, and I will show you a picture of this in a minute, 24 because it is quite dramatic, asthmatics show bronchitic 25 symptoms, meaning cough and sputum related to pollution PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 levels, both PM 10 and O2, and I will show you the picture. 2 Next, please. 3 Now, I think the major point of this slide is that 4 if we look at the entire population of non asthmatics, there 5 is no relationship that pollution levels are getting greater 6 as we go that direction, and the incidence of bronchitis 7 symptoms is getting greater as we go from bottom to top. 8 So, if we look at the non asthmatics, nothing is 9 happening. It stays flat, no matter what the pollution level 10 is looking at PM 10, but if we look at the asthmatic sub 11 group, you can see a very strong significant relationship 12 with the children exposed to the highest PM levels who are 13 asthmatic having very high rates of chronic cough and phlegm. 14 Likewise, looking at NO2, it looks approximately 15 the same with a strong relationship in asthmatics only and no 16 relationship in the non asthmatics. 17 So, it looks as if there is a clear susceptible sub 18 group that we can see effects in. 19 Next slide, please. 20 Now I am switching to the longitudinal findings. 21 Now we are starting to look at the way the lungs 22 are growing in these children, and the major findings here 23 are that the lungs, the lung growth seems to be affected by 24 levels, higher levels than NO2, PM 10 and acid vapor, and 25 somewhat surprising that we see no consistent effect of ozone PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 with regard to lung growth, and the effects happen to also be 2 even stronger in the children spending more time outdoors and 3 in asthmatic children. 4 In case it escapes anybody's notice, the reason 5 that we looking at the outdoor part is because we expect 6 their exposure is higher if they spend more time outdoors, 7 and that is why we are looking at that. 8 Then finally, in following these children, some do 9 not have asthma when we start and develop asthma during the 10 study, and those children who developed asthma during this 11 study, if we look backward, had lower longer lung function 12 even before the diagnosis was made, which I think is an 13 important finding. 14 The next slide we show a demonstration of what I 15 have just said, again, a little bit difficult to see, and you 16 can probably see it better in the handout if you want to look 17 at that later. 18 But the major point is here is ozone, and this is 19 essentially no relationship, this line is not significant and 20 ozone levels and lung growth are not related, but the 21 relationship with PM, NO2 and acid vapor is very similar, and 22 it turns out, as a lot of you know, that the pollutants are 23 very, very correlated. 24 So, it makes it difficult to be sure what agent is 25 doing what, but anyway, you can see that these three things PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 are related to lung growth rate, and the ozone is not, and 2 that is the point. 3 Now, having told you a little bit about the major 4 findings, I would like to make a few comments on why I think 5 it is important to complete the study, and let me have the 6 next slide, please. 7 These -- I think all of these things add up to one 8 important thing, and that is by completing the study we 9 increase the certainty about all of the conclusions that we 10 are going to be able to draw, and the sub points that back-up 11 that idea are that I think we have a much greater chance of 12 identifying specific components that is the specific 13 pollutant that might be responsible. 14 We certainly have a better chance of identifying 15 the lowest effected levels and pinpointing those by 16 continuing the study. 17 We have vastly increased our statistical position, 18 and I will say a little bit more about some of these in a 19 moment. 20 We have considerably more knowledge than we will 21 have on long-term consequence of exposure. What I just 22 showed you is the lung growth rate is about five percent 23 lower in the most polluted communities versus the least 24 polluted communities, and that five percent can be important 25 for certainly a sub set of the population, if not everybody, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 and that is an important thing to pursue. 2 The long-term impact of some lung function changes, 3 which is close to what I was just talking about, and then the 4 enhancements that we have in mind for exposure assessment, 5 when we began to study, ozone was the leading, our number one 6 hypothesis that ozone was going to be the culprit, if we 7 could identify one. 8 At this point we need to change our thinking a 9 little bit, as it looks as if N 2 and PM are just as 10 important. 11 So, we need to increase our ability to do personal 12 and more specific exposure assessments on PM and NO2. 13 Then finally, studying the effects of both ambient 14 and personal exposure, we have good ambient data, but we need 15 a lot better information on personal exposure to pinpoint 16 some of the suggestions and indications that we have so far 17 in the study. 18 Now, the next slide, please, this is a comment on 19 the increased statistical precision and a favorite argument, 20 Duncan Thomas, one of my closest colleagues, and basically 21 what we are saying here is, the longer we do the study, the 22 more precise the estimates of the effects are, and there is 23 an example here. 24 The standard air, the variation of a four-year 25 analysis is half that of the two-year analysis and will PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 continue to increase as we continue to study the children. 2 Next slide, please. 3 The enhanced exposure assessment obviously gives us 4 a lot of new information. The measurements that we intend to 5 make will be looking more at the constituents of the 6 particles, and then in past years, during the study, there 7 have been suggestions in other studies that there might be 8 important effects of carbonaceous material or metals, and we 9 are going to be looking at those. 10 Certainly in the communities as it stands, and I as 11 I presented the data to you today, there are 12 data points, 12 because 12 communities, but there are also three schools in 13 each community, and we plan to do some school-based 14 monitoring that will allow us to have 36 data points rather 15 than 12 data points. 16 Then the suggestions of the effects of NO2 and PM 17 strongly point to the possibility of there being an effect of 18 freshly generated pollution from mobile sources, and we will 19 to be mounting an effort to look more closely at the 20 individual relationships of houses and schools to freeways 21 and major traffic routes and looking at traffic density to 22 approach that. 23 Then we have plans to improve the personal exposure 24 models that I have alluded to previously. 25 Next slide, please. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 The long-term consequences, now I showed you data 2 based on the lung development looking at the fourth, seventh 3 and tenth graders with cohorts that look like some effects 4 were observable, and I also showed you some data that we talk 5 about 112 milliliter difference in the FEV1, which is how 6 much air you can blow out in one second after you have taken 7 a deep breath, between cleanest and most polluted and least 8 polluted communities, and that turns out to be roughly five 9 percent, then one's breathing capacity, and it is important 10 to find out what the significance of this is in relation to 11 school absence, subsequent acute and chronic respiratory 12 illnesses and how the child's lung continues to grow. 13 Next slide, please. 14 Now I am getting close to the end, and am I not 15 sure how the timing is going. I am almost through the end. 16 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: That is fine. This is very 17 important. 18 Keep going. 19 DR. PETERS: The study design that we have 20 envisioned to complete the study's last comparisons, both 21 between and within the communities so far, we have done 22 within the communities, as you can tell, we have compared 23 community to community, but if we find out more particular 24 information about schools and children and houses, we will be 25 able to do comparisons within communities, and between PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 community comparisons, address the effect of the ambient 2 exposures only, and that is important, but we are also 3 interested in other exposures, and then within community 4 comparisons really let us look at the personal exposure, 5 local variation things, like when children are spending more 6 time outdoors or exercising, will let us look at traffic 7 patterns and that sort. 8 So, I think that concludes the slides, and I would 9 just like to summarize by saying I think we are on the verge, 10 although we are beginning to learn a lot, and I think 11 completing the study as it was originally planned will allow 12 us to get close to answering a lot of questions and most of 13 the questions at least significantly. 14 The last thing I would like to say is in doing a 15 study like this, besides the interest in air pollution and 16 what we learn from air pollution, is there is a tremendous 17 amount more to learn about children's health and lung health 18 related to things like other indoor exposures, passive 19 smoking and things of that sort. 20 So, it is a privilege for me to be involved in this 21 study. It is a great challenge. It is complicated, but it 22 is exciting and fun. 23 I would be happy to try to answer any questions, if 24 there are any. 25 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Dr. Peters, thank you so PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 much. 2 This is a very exciting study. As you know, I have 3 followed it along, and many, many have, and I think it is a 4 tremendous investment on the part of the State Air Resources 5 Board, but the information that is coming forward is so very 6 important, I think, to what we might do in our future to make 7 significant improvements in air quality that are going to 8 help children. 9 As you know, one of the things that I am hopeful 10 that you can do is sometime, and I recognize there is a cost 11 to it, and that is to track these children further than you 12 have been able to do as they grow. 13 I think it would be so interesting to be able to 14 keep some contact with those, and I think there is probably a 15 high level of interest on the part of those children, because 16 as I recall, they get interested in what is happening. 17 They love to participate in this kind of a project, 18 and my hope would be that you would be able to find some 19 money that would follow these children after the twelfth 20 grade or whenever, I have forgotten when your point of 21 cut-off happens to be, but it would be interesting to follow 22 them as young adults and see indeed what happens to them and 23 what kind of health they are enjoying over that period of 24 years. 25 It would be a real opportunity for us to learn even PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 a little bit more. 2 DR. PETERS: We could not agree with you more, and 3 we have set up the mechanism for tracking, at least we try to 4 collect all the information we can that will allow us to do 5 that, if we can ever figure out how to get the resources to 6 do that. 7 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Right. 8 It might be that some foundation or somebody 9 interested in health would be interested in doing that as a 10 public service. 11 Again, I think there is good information there to 12 be gained. 13 DR. PETERS: I might tell you, too, that there are 14 some young investigators on this team that would be in a 15 position to follow these children for a long time that could 16 replace me. 17 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Well, I am sure you will be 18 there a long time to check on them, though. 19 Let me open it up to questions. 20 Dr. Friedman. 21 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Yes. 22 I would just like to echo Barbara's comment. One 23 of the real pleasures in being on this Board has been the 24 opportunity to see what you are doing and to attend your 25 workshops and conferences, and it is really impressive. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 I want to ask you a couple of little-bitty 2 questions. In the cross-sectional portion of the study, I 3 guess that is 3600 subjects, how many, what was the actual 4 end for asthmatics, up on the early data was shown, how many 5 people were asthmatic? 6 DR. PETERS: It is about 300 something, I believe, 7 it was roughly 10 percent. 8 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: The other thing that struck 9 me, and these look like linear regressions for the FEV1 10 changes, and the different components of air pollution, the 11 ozone almost looks curvilinear rather than linear, and I am 12 sure knowing who you have doing statistics, it almost looks 13 like it goes up and then plateaus. 14 DR. PETERS: It turns out we could find no 15 significant relationship with using any kind of form of 16 curve or line or anything else like 12 dots thrown at random 17 onto the graph. 18 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: The longitudinal aspect of 19 this study makes this study absolutely unique in this country 20 or anywhere, and issues like what is the significance of the 21 difference in FEV1 under 12cc difference could be immense, 22 but the only way to know that is to throw in some 23 proactivation like exercise testing, because otherwise you 24 never unmask a difference of that magnitude of kids just 25 walking around, but you might be able to unmask it in the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 presence of tread mill or other kind of stress. 2 That costs money. It is not in the study 3 currently. 4 I really think it is immensely important. I do not 5 know the rules of the research grant, but this may indeed be 6 reason for some supplemental funding. 7 You really need the answer to this. You have all 8 this data, and now you have to know what it really means, 9 functionally, practically. 10 If one kid grows up there, is he or she going to be 11 able to do the same kind of physical athletic ability or 12 whatever it happens to be, depending on the environment? 13 You cannot answer that. You can infer that, but 14 you cannot answer it without specifically testing for it. 15 The study as it is designed now does not have that 16 kind of a test point. I would think that maybe we could work 17 together to figure out some way to augment the amount of 18 questions we ask and to get them answered before we close out 19 the study altogether. 20 DR. PETERS: I think your point is well made, and I 21 think you have attended enough meetings to know we are open 22 to any ideas. 23 We have been able to get some other funding to do 24 additional things to this group. For example, we are now 25 collecting the cells on the children by scraping the inside PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 of their mouth. It is a pretty harmless not a painful 2 procedure. 3 We do not stick needles in them. That would not 4 work. We do get cells, and we are going to be looking at 5 poly amorphisms for genes discovered, or that when genes are 6 discovered, we will be in a position to look at that. 7 We have also had an element of collecting 8 information on their diet and trying to determine whether 9 nutritional status effects the way they respond to 10 pollutants, but the idea that you have and others have had, 11 we could certainly pursue it, and we are welcome to trying to 12 figure out ways to solidify the findings and make them more 13 understandable. 14 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Mrs. Rakow. 15 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: Along that line, are we the 16 only agency that is funding this study, or are there any 17 other State agencies, like the Department of Health involved? 18 DR. HOLMES: No, not at this point, Ms. Rakow. 19 Our colleagues are aware of the study and follow it 20 very closely along with us, but the DHS people have not, at 21 least not up to this point, shown much interest in it. 22 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: It seems to be a rather 23 natural -- 24 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: It does seem natural, and 25 maybe that is where we ought to be going and looking at other PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 agencies, or as I say, some health foundations, some of the, 2 quote, HMOs that had to spin off, nonprofit organizations to 3 do good things. 4 They have money. We are competing with a lot of 5 other worthwhile things, but they do have those resources. 6 DR. PETERS: I should have mentioned and now will 7 mention that EPA has been involved in this study and has 8 helped with support for some of the absence monitoring that 9 we are doing in schools and also has supported following up 10 some of the children who left the study that are still under 11 18 that lived in -- we have studied 179 children that left 12 this area that have moved into -- we have gone to Phoenix and 13 Salt Lake and Las Vegas and places like that to find the 14 children to see if moving is affecting whether they get 15 better or what happens to them. 16 We just finished tracking down 179 of the children 17 last year with EPA's support. So there is other support of 18 things relevant to this. 19 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: But your point is well taken. 20 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: How do we do that? 21 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Well, I think we are going to 22 ask the Research Department to help, and I would hope Dr. 23 Peters has some ideas, and Dr. Friedman, you may, I am just 24 thinking of those opportunities, both private and public, 25 that might help you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: This is a financial toll on 2 people generally and families, I would think that DHS would 3 have money somewhere to get involved in this. 4 DR. HOLMES: I think, Mrs. Rakow, we certainly will 5 contact the Department of Health Services. 6 I think we will make every effort to find other 7 funding sources to supplement this very important project. 8 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Because it is in that vein of 9 preventive medicine work, you know, it could lead to that. 10 Anyway, enough. 11 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I wanted to make a 12 comment and hope that the good doctor could make a comment, 13 and the particular interest is, as the study goes along the 14 differences between communities and comparisons, and as it is 15 background, I will tell you why it is of interest in the Bay 16 Area, and particularly for my county, Mr. Schoning is 17 smiling, where we have four major stationary sources, oil 18 refineries, and we have sort of an interesting dynamic within 19 the environmental community where CBE, Communities for Better 20 Environment, puts out reports about kids at risk along the 21 fence lines of those institutions, and in Rodeo, next to the 22 Unocal, the old Unocal refinery, are in the process of moving 23 an elementary school, but the perception that those kids are 24 at higher risk than the Sierra Club say, who is constantly 25 bombarding us about urban growth and sprawl and congestion, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 so the question is sort of put to you, are kids in greater 2 risk in the communities because they are further out than if 3 they are near congestion sites and mobile sources versus the 4 stationary sites? 5 So, as you go through this, it is interesting to 6 have some real science that you could address those kinds of 7 comments to the real science, and I am just wondering if 8 you -- 9 DR. PETERS: The only comment that I would make is 10 that one of the criteria that we used for picking our 11 communities was to avoid local sources of pollution. 12 The other comment I would make is that it turns out 13 that affluence and pollution levels in Southern California do 14 not necessarily go together. Some of the far more polluted 15 communities are some of our more affluent communities. 16 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Well, I guess it would at 17 some point, maybe not within the study, and it proves, maybe 18 because I am a politician, and it brings the issues up about 19 environmental justice, and it's sort of ironic given what you 20 just said, but it would be nice at some point to be able to 21 get more hard science in that regard, maybe outside of this 22 study, I guess, is what I am hearing. 23 DR. PETERS: Right. I think so. 24 In another part of what I do, we have some 25 activities related to that, and environmental justice is an PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 important concept with little information, not enough 2 information to really see how big the problem is. 3 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I will not belabor it any 4 longer, but in the political perception it is those kids at 5 the fence lines by the refineries that are being put at 6 higher risk because of where they live, and it would be nice 7 to have science either to refute that or to reaffirm it. 8 DR. PETERS: That is what I was trying to say. 9 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: We speak different 10 languages, politicians and scientists. 11 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Isn't South Coast Air Quality 12 District doing some of that research right now? 13 DR. HOLMES: Yes. 14 South Coast is pursuing both work on children and 15 air pollution and environmental justice, and I think these 16 two will probably merge and get at some of the questions that 17 Supervisor DeSaulnier wants answers to. 18 MR. KENNY: Just to add to that, real quickly, also 19 in terms of some of the work that South Coast is doing with 20 regard to environmental justice, actually we are 21 participating in that, and in fact, we have a number of 22 people who are working on especially monitoring and trying to 23 provide information so we can answer some of those exact 24 questions. 25 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: I think they are one to watch PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 and see, and I assume your staff in the Bay Area is probably 2 interacting with them. 3 It is an issue for those who are elected officials, 4 that is for sure. 5 Ms. Edgerton. 6 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Hi. It is good to see you, 7 Dr. Peters. 8 Is the five percent per year? 9 DR. PETERS: No. 10 Five percent, that is a little over one percent per 11 year. So it is five percent over the four years, the number 12 goes with the four-year change. 13 We analyze lung growth for four years, and it's a 14 five percent difference between high and low. 15 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: So, that is interesting. 16 What I am trying to think through, and perhaps you 17 could help me on it, is comparing your results with the 18 results of the U.S.C. Study in 1990, where the victims of 19 trauma, teenage victims of trauma, had come in and their lung 20 capacity, and they had died, and their lung capacity was 21 measured, and it was concluded that it was 10 to 15 percent 22 detriment in lung capacity, presumably from living in 23 Southern California, and that is what is always quoted. 24 So, what I am trying to figure now, if it is one 25 percent a year, you have your fourth graders to your eighth PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 graders, and if it continued on that, if it was linear like 2 that, perhaps that would lead to 10 to 15 years, one percent 3 a year decrements, that would be 10 to 15 percent decrement 4 that was found by Dr. Sherwin. 5 DR. PETERS: I think your reasoning is reasonable, 6 and I think it underscores one of the reasons we need to keep 7 following the children to determine whether that one percent 8 thing persists or whether at a certain time it stops or 9 whether it ever reverses, and then what it really means, Dr. 10 Friedman explains what it really means. 11 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I am laughing because at 12 that rate by the time you are 65 you do not have any lungs 13 left. 14 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: That is a good point, which 15 is sometimes kind of how I have felt. 16 I had another question with respect to an issue 17 that is very topical, and I was glad that Supervisor 18 DeSaulnier brought up the environmental justice issue that 19 has been raised with respect to trying to look specially at 20 children and develop standards for them when there are also 21 susceptible groups, adult asthmatics and elderly. 22 Are you aware of any way to compare the 23 susceptibility of these groups? Again, this is verging on 24 the political. 25 DR. PETERS: Certainly I do not think I know how to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 do the elderly. 2 You could do a similar study with the elderly and 3 be more complicated, and one of the reasons we looked at 4 children is it makes for a cleaner and easier evaluation, 5 because there are fewer complicating factors like work 6 exposures and smoking and things of that sort. 7 I think we already know that older people, they are 8 the one's that mount in the mortality from when the pollution 9 levels vary with the mortality rates, the older people are 10 the one's who're making the list in mortality, so we know 11 they are more susceptible to that. 12 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Thank you. 13 I wanted to make just a brief comment. When I 14 first came to this building, it was 1990, and I met with 15 Elaine and Dean. 16 I was at APCD at that time, and I came because I 17 was going to file a petition to require a special standard 18 for children for ambient air quality for children. You 19 remember, Dr. Holmes, and I was all concerned about it. 20 I had an eight-year old and a five-year old at that 21 time, and I had recently moved, and I was just sure I had to 22 get the air all cleaned up for the children. 23 Well, you all persuaded me that there really was 24 not enough information to decide exactly what needed to be 25 cut back, so on and so forth, so -- and I do not know how you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 reined me in, but you did. 2 You persuaded me and impressed me. See, it has 3 been very interesting to have life proceed the way it has and 4 have the privilege of being here as the research program has 5 come forward and to share the results with you, and I thank 6 you very much. 7 Of course, now my children are 16 and 13, almost. 8 One of them would almost be out of the range of your study 9 anyway, so the damage has been done. 10 DR. PETERS: They are generally 18 when we lose 11 track of them at this point. 12 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Well, at any rate, thank 13 you very much, and I am glad at least we have cleaned up the 14 air a great deal in that period, so no matter what the 15 results are, it is improved. 16 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Are there any other questions 17 of Dr. Peters? 18 Seeing none then, Dr. Peters, we thank you very 19 much and encourage you in this effort. 20 Dr. Holmes, next item, please. 21 DR. HOLMES: Thank you, Madam Chairman. 22 Our next speaker is Ms. Jacqueline Ayer. She is 23 the Director of Engineering Operations for our partner Air 24 Quality Specialists, Inc. 25 Ms. Ayer has a Masters Degree in Mechanical PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 Engineering, from UC Berkeley, and she is the principal 2 investigator for our ICAT project that is underway at 3 Steelcase Office Furniture manufacturing facility in Orange 4 County. 5 She is going to talk about two different 6 technologies that are being developed, first on dynamic 7 recirculation and also fluidized bed absorption to reduce 8 emissions from industrial coatings and solvent operations. 9 This is a very important area, because a 10 significant part of future reduction that we are going to get 11 we need to get in VOC emissions will come from this sector. 12 So, we are very glad to have Ms. Ayer with us here 13 this morning. 14 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Good morning, and welcome. 15 MS. AYER: Thank you. 16 That was so comprehensive, I do not even think I 17 need to put up the first slide. 18 I am talking about two different technologies that 19 are used in conjunction with each other to provide a means of 20 cost-effective VOC emission controls. 21 Before I get into the discussion of the program or 22 details, I would like to summarize who all the partners in 23 crime are, if you will. 24 First of all, there is Air Quality Specialists, of 25 course, and we are providing program management, coordination PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 with developing the report required by the ICAT program and 2 technical assistance as well. 3 A second partner in this is Southern California 4 Edison, and they will be critical to the success of this 5 program. They are providing performance evaluations and 6 energy evaluation report as well as transfer assistance. 7 A third member, again a crucial member, is 8 Steelcase North America. You probably know them. They make 9 a lot of office furniture that you may or may not have in 10 your office. 11 They are the host site, which is under ICAT 12 programs, and in particular, I understand, are critical. 13 They are also providing substantial funding, several million 14 dollars worth of funding to this program. 15 The forth element, obviously, is the ARB, and we 16 would not have an ICAT program without the California Air 17 Resources Board. They are providing substantial funding and 18 technology profiling support, which is crucial as well. 19 Finally, we are working also with the South Coast 20 Air Quality Management District, who is also providing 21 substantial funding support, and will be helping out on the 22 transfer portion of this program. 23 The program targets large stationary sources of VOC 24 emissions in general and coating and cleaning operations in 25 particular. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 The overall objective is to evaluate the 2 applicability and cost-effectiveness of two different 3 technologies that may be used separately or in tandem. 4 The second goal is to make these technologies more 5 visible to industry and regulatory agencies. This is 6 considered very important. 7 One of the reasons for that is that in order for us 8 to achieve compliance with ambient air quality standards, we 9 have two approaches available to us. 10 First of all, there is the command and control 11 regulation. Second of all, there is the market incentive 12 type programs. 13 In the absence of a viable market-based VOC control 14 program, a command of control approach is the order of the 15 day. 16 The development of effective command and control 17 and BACT provisions demands that regulatory agencies be aware 18 of emission control alternatives. 19 Our final goal is to enhance technology 20 implementation via the public outreach and other technology 21 transfer programs. 22 Now, the first technology I am going to talk a 23 little bit about is not really an emission control technology 24 per se. Rather, it provides a means of reducing exhaust flow 25 rates from coating and solvent operations, which therefore PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 reduces the emission control cost for these operations. 2 Historically, controlling VOC emissions from 3 painting operations have been costly due to the very high 4 flow rate that these operations generate. 5 For example, a large aircraft painting operation 6 might generate 500,000 CFM exhaust flow rate, which could 7 cost to install an emission control device to process this 8 flow could cost over $10-million just initially on the 9 installation cost. 10 If we could find a way to reduce the flow rate by 11 80 or 90 percent, we could actually reduce the cost to below 12 $2-million, which is a substantial savings. 13 So, how do we do this? 14 Also, one advantage or one other thing we want to 15 do is not only bring down the installation cost, but we also 16 want to bring down the operating cost, which means we want to 17 effectively reduce the exhaust flow from these operations on 18 a real time basis continuously. 19 So, how do we do that we do that? 20 With something called dynamic recirculation. 21 Now, we have a blow-up of the technology. Okay. 22 Let me get my pointer. Just a minute. In the 23 meantime, I think Ralph is going to show what I am trying to 24 point to. 25 What you have illustrated here is a simple enclosed PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 spray booth operation. Air flow passes through the enclosure 2 of where the painting operation obviously takes place. It 3 passes through a filter system to remove the over spray 4 particulate and enters into the exhaust flange in the back of 5 the booth. 6 From there the process flow is split, either some 7 of it is sent to the emission control device, the remainder 8 passes through a recirculation duct, where it mixes with 9 fresh air that is brought in to replace exhaust air, and then 10 it is reintroduced back into the spray booth. 11 Now, what I have just described for you is what 12 would be called a static recirculation system, and there are 13 not many, but there are some of these technologies in place 14 now. 15 What we are trying to do or demonstrate on the ICAT 16 program is we can take it a step further. We can actually 17 actively manage the recirculation flow and exhaust flow. 18 So, it would continuously reduce the exhaust flow 19 on a real time basis. 20 How do we do that? 21 The answer lies here in the integration of the 22 central controller and the FTIR monitor. 23 What the FTIR monitor does is it monitors the 24 concentration of hazardous constituents in the recirculation 25 duct, and it sends signals to the central controller. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 The signals indicate whether or not the 2 concentrations in the recirculation duct are well below 3 established safety levels. 4 If they are, then it is a reasonable thing for us 5 to actually increase the recirculation rate there by reducing 6 the exhaust flow rate continuously. 7 So, this connection is always on whenever the 8 recirculation system is operational, and that is how we 9 actually achieve the dynamic recirculation or dynamic 10 optimization of the exhaust flow from the process. 11 The next technology that I am going to talk about, 12 and we do have a more expanded picture, and I will show you 13 in just a minute, is actually an emission control device, and 14 it is known as fluidized bed absorption. 15 It is different from much more standard fixed bed 16 absorber technologies in that it is a continuous process and 17 is very energy efficient. 18 The energy efficiency is derived from several 19 parameters. First of all, there is a very low pressure drop 20 through the whole system, which means that the fan size can 21 be a lot lower than a standard fixed bed system. 22 There is also a relatively low temperature 23 operation. That saves on operating costs. Finally and 24 perhaps most importantly, you can actually achieve up to a 25 one to one flow reduction on the control system. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 That's significantly better than what you can 2 achieve with a fixed bed system or absorption system, which 3 on a good day will get ten to one reduction. 4 So, I do not want to get into too much detail on 5 the technology unless you would like me to, but the system is 6 configured to have a separate absorbing and desorbing module, 7 which operates continuously, this allows us to effectively 8 reduce the flow rate that goes into the system here by up to 9 100, which means, for example, if you have 100,000 CFM 10 flowing into your control device here, the size of your 11 actual control system, which is right here is less than 5,000 12 CFM. 13 Now, with standard fixed bed systems, with a ten to 14 one flow reduction, you might achieve on 100.000 CFM 15 influence, you might achieve a 10,000 CFM control system 16 size. 17 So, you can effectively reduce the size and the 18 operating cost of your emission control system by a factor of 19 10 using the fluidized technology right here. 20 This what I have illustrated here is what we have 21 at Steelcase, where we have the absorber modules and desorber 22 modules connected to a condenser system, where the solvent is 23 recovered. 24 You could, if you wanted to, put in some sort of 25 other control device, a thermal oxidizer, catalytic oxidizer, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 whatever is most appropriate for your process technology. 2 Now, a ten to one flow reduction for the fluidized 3 bed system has been demonstrated in what I call simple 4 systems or single solvent systems. For example, the 5 semiconductor industry, and one of the things we want to 6 demonstrate with this program is that it can be applied to 7 more complicated multi-solvent systems and still achieve a 8 high flow reduction ratio. 9 I would like to talk a little bit about the 10 advantages of these technologies. Dynamic recirculation and 11 fluidized bed technologies can be used in tandem or 12 separately. They are not a packaged unit. 13 For example, recirculation is not viable for your 14 operation, you can certainly use fluidized bed, and vice 15 versa. In fact, in many instances people who are interested 16 in dynamic recirculation are interested in it and not just 17 because they lower VOC emission control costs, but they also 18 save significant heating ventilation and air conditioning 19 HVAC costs as well. 20 Upgrade cost, as indicated previously, the cost of 21 VOC emission controls is often cost prohibitive. By 22 achieving flow reductions of up to 90 percent and 23 continuously reducing exhaust flow rates significantly, 24 emission control system and HVAC cost reductions are 25 achievable. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 For some types, dynamic recirculation can actually 2 reduce BACT thresholds by up to 90 percent, which is a very 3 important message I think we need to get to the regulatory 4 agencies at the rule promulgation and BACT determination 5 level. 6 Advantages of the fluidized bed technology include 7 low energy demand due to low temperature operation and high 8 flow reduction ratios, and it also has solvent recovery 9 capability, such as very green technology and very attractive 10 for that reason. 11 So, where are we on the Steelcase project? 12 I want to give you a brief update on what is 13 happening. 14 The Dynamic Research System upgrades have been 15 installed. The fluidized bed system has been installed, and 16 it will be charged with the absorbing media sometime in the 17 immediate future, the start of these activities should be 18 completed by the middle of next month, and we will hopefully 19 be completing our six-month performance evaluation of both 20 the technologies, both dynamic recirculation and fluidized 21 bed, by August of this year. 22 Let me touch a little bit on some of the 23 technologies commercialization opportunities. To date 24 dynamic recirculation has never been demonstrated in a full 25 scale operation. Static recirculation has in a few isolated PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 incidences but not dynamic. 2 If we can demonstrate it successfully under the 3 ICAT program, we will have several immediate opportunities, 4 including a new aircraft paint hangar at the Victorville 5 International Airport, the old George Air Force Base down in 6 Victorville. 7 There is also an opportunity to retrofit an 8 existing hangar facility in Long Beach. 9 The long term opportunities include military 10 aerospace and marine vessel coating operations as well as 11 vehicle and ground equipment manufacturing operations. 12 Additionally, by providing information to 13 regulatory agencies, a more effective BACT technology for 14 some applications can be established and made available. 15 As indicated previously, the fluidized bed solvent 16 recovery system has only been applied to simple solvent 17 operations. We need to establish first of all if the 18 fluidized bed system will work in a multi-solvent 19 application, and second of all, we need to establish whether 20 or not we can achieve the high flow reduction ratio that we 21 are able to achieve on other process operations. 22 If successful, there are numerous multi-solvent 23 application opportunities, including the automotive industry, 24 the aerospace manufacturing, for example, the manufacturer 25 right now of the system we are testing at Steelcase is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 looking at an opportunity at Lockheed, Palmdale. 2 I think they want to see the outcome of this 3 program first, which is very important. Also, metal parts 4 and furniture coating applications as well. 5 If we can overcome the tech transfer hurdle and 6 demonstrate the system, we could achieve widespread 7 technology acceptance due to low temperature in the high 8 energy efficiency operation, in particular the solvent 9 recovery capabilities. 10 So, how will we promote tech transfer for both the 11 dynamic recirculation system, the fluidized bed system? We 12 will be working with Southern California Edison, who will be 13 providing an extensive workshop and extensive workshop 14 support. 15 We will also be attending symposia and giving 16 presentations, and we will also be developing a Website where 17 people who are interested in these technologies can download 18 information immediately. 19 I would like to close with some final thoughts on 20 why this ICAT program and ARB's and AQMD's participation is 21 so important. 22 I believe that the key to achieving compliance with 23 ambient air quality standards lies in technology innovation 24 and effective tech transfer mechanisms. 25 The ICAT program brings these elements together. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 First of all, it provides a platform for demonstrating very 2 promising and important technologies, particularly for 3 sources that are among the most difficult to control, and 4 also one of the major VOC stationary sources that we have in 5 industrial operations. 6 Second of all, it provides financial support for 7 the sampling validation tests, and it really provides an 8 independent assessment of the viability and the applicability 9 of these technologies, and to encourage other operations to 10 actually install these types of systems, the third party 11 evaluation is very important. 12 Third, it greatly enhances the visibility of these 13 technologies to both the industrial and the regulatory 14 sectors. 15 Finally, it also provides links to State and local 16 regulators to further enhance our tech transfer activity. 17 That concludes my presentation, and if you have any 18 questions or would like me to go into some of the technical 19 details, I would be happy to. 20 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 21 We appreciate that excellent presentation, and let 22 me open it up to questions by the Board. 23 I am sure Steelcase is very happy to have you. 24 MS. AYER: I hope so. 25 It has been a long project. We have had stumbles PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 along the way, but we are up and running, and we see the 2 finish line, which we are very pleased about. 3 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. 4 I do not think we have any questions. 5 We will go on to Dr. Holmes. 6 Thank you, again, so much for being here today. 7 DR. HOLMES: Thank you very much, Ms. Ayer. 8 The third presentation this morning is on the 9 aerosol time-of-flight mass spectrometer. That is a 10 mouthful. We will try to get it down your throat as easily 11 as possible. 12 Professor Kimberly Prather, of the Chemistry 13 Department, of UC Riverside, has been working with ARB 14 funding since 1996, and she developed a transportable aerosol 15 time-of-flight mass spectrometer, one we can carry around, 16 one we have used extensively in our study in 1997 and other 17 work we have done and are doing. 18 This has revolutionized the PM sampling world, has 19 generated more information at a fraction of the cost than any 20 other approach that we have tried. 21 It is going to assist us in developing more 22 effective scientifically sound control plans for PM 10 and PM 23 2.5, and let me add this, just perhaps it may lead us to a 24 better understanding of just how PM 10 and PM 2.5 produce the 25 adverse health effects that Dr. Peters discussed earlier. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 Dr. Kim Prather. 2 DR. PRATHER: Good morning, and thank you. With 3 that introduction, maybe I should just stop there. 4 What I would like to explain to you this morning is 5 the technique that Dr. Holmes described, which we developed 6 in my lab at UC Riverside for the last, it has taken about 7 seven years, and we are pushing forward on it. 8 I am waiting for the film to start. 9 The technique that we refer to is aerosol 10 time-of-flight spectrometry, what the California Resources 11 Board has funded, has been the development of transportable 12 versions of this instrument to allow us to move around to 13 regions of the State of California as well as now we are 14 starting to move around to different regions of the United 15 States. 16 Actually, we have one instrument in the Indian 17 Ocean right now. On a boat in the Indian Ocean right now, 18 not in the Indian Ocean, but basically the California Air 19 Resources Board was first to sort of jump into this new 20 technology, and our goal has been to show them that was a 21 good choice. 22 I think we are learning things at a relatively 23 rapid rate, and today I would like to share with you the 24 results we have and sort of give you a comparison to what was 25 previously available. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 So, briefly, the technique, in less of a mouthful, 2 is ATOFMS, and what this technique does in a nut shell is it 3 allows us to obtain the size and chemical composition of 4 individual particles. 5 This is drastically different from the way that 6 particles of PM has been measured in the past. I will show 7 you why this provides very unique information. 8 What we can also do is we can measure these 9 particles on a continuing basis. So we can continuously look 10 at what is outside and tell you right now what is there. 11 That has not been available before. 12 So, what the results that I would like to focus on 13 are just to show you what type of information you could 14 obtain as far as how the size and composition vary for 15 atmospheric particles that were sampled in California as well 16 as the study we did in the Grand Canyon recently. 17 One really big area for us is source 18 characterization. If you can keep things as single particles 19 and look at them and identify them, you can really start to 20 nail down the source of where these particles came from. 21 So, I will show you how we are able to do that. I 22 will talk about some of the field study work we have done, 23 and I will show you reasons why it is important to obtain 24 this information in real time, and then finally, I will wrap 25 up with some highlights on the technique. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 So, basically the motivation for our research, I 2 really do not need to go into that, I think PM research is 3 becoming really at the forefront of all atmospheric research. 4 People are realizing we are really far behind in our 5 understanding of particulates, and so, sort of stepping down 6 to our primary goal, right now is to sort of help establish 7 or determine whether the current regulations are appropriate 8 or not, and if they are not, what can we do about it? 9 As you know, the regulations as they stand are PM 10 10 or PM 2.5. That means that right now the regulations are 11 based on the total mass of particulates in the atmosphere. 12 But the problem being, to a chemist, is that these 13 regulations are not chemically specific. You think about gas 14 species, like ozone and NOx, we have specific regulations for 15 each of the different types, whereas for PM, since we are 16 basing it totally on mass, what ends up happening is we could 17 treat sea salt particles of the same mass the same as we do 18 diesel exhaust of the same mass. 19 So, intuitively, just up front, this does not make 20 complete sense. But given the techniques that were available 21 to establish these regulations, that is what people had to go 22 with, they sort of, you will see that mass or the cut really 23 does end up defining compositions sort of after the fact, it 24 does a pretty nice job. 25 But we wanted to go in a little bit further, just PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 one level further and see how much more information we could 2 gain on the chemical composition, and this morning I would 3 like to show you what new information you can get from that, 4 the drawbacks of typical methods, as I mentioned. 5 We sample particles continuously, but the way 6 people have done it in the past is to collect the particles 7 on filters over time. These collection periods last from 8 hours to days to weeks, depending on the concentrations that 9 are present in the atmosphere, and over that time the samples 10 can undergo loses and changes to the point, whether maybe you 11 are doing the analysis a year after you have collected the 12 sample, you have to question whether that sample really is 13 representative of what actually existed in the atmosphere. 14 The other thing is when you collect everything on a 15 filter for that long of a period, you are collecting 16 particles from a lot of sources through a lot of different 17 meteorological conditions and things that have gone through a 18 lot of different chemistry, and you are averaging it all 19 together. 20 You are basically scrambling the information. So, 21 basically it is very, very difficult to distinguish between 22 the particle types. 23 Looking at the single particle, as you will see in 24 a minute, we were able to do that, so the long collection 25 times, the long analysis times turn out to be pretty PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 critical. 2 There really has been a way that if you look 3 outside and it looks really bad today, you could find out 4 what is out there. Basically you go through the filter 5 collection process through a long analytical procedure to 6 figure what was there, and maybe a year later in some cases 7 you find out what was outside that day. 8 The other thing is by taking all these filter 9 samples there is a huge cost associated with how many filter 10 samples you take of how many different sizes, and the cost 11 really, really builds really fast. 12 Our technique, basically by looking at each 13 individual particle, we obtain both the composition as well 14 as the size. The size from a health effect perspective is 15 important, because it determines where it settles in our 16 body. 17 Composition, we believe, should have some impact on 18 that as well. So, from a health effect perspective, it is 19 really important, but also from a source perspective, if you 20 know the size of the particle as well as what is in it, you 21 can really start to nail down where the particles are coming 22 from. 23 We can detect virtually all the chemical elements 24 at once in each particle. As I mentioned, this is basically 25 a really fast method. It gives you an instantaneous snapshot PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 of what is there right now. 2 We developed transportable ones, as I mentioned, 3 and the other nice thing is that we can now get qualitative 4 and we are heading towards qualitative trends and how 5 particles change over time, and this really, with the long 6 collection times used in the past, this is brand new 7 information that no one really knew how particles changed. 8 Do they even change over a 24-hour period? 9 It was really difficult to tell from filter 10 collection techniques. 11 So, this slide detects why we decided to look at 12 single particles. It just shows two extremes. 13 If you collect a bunch of particles on a filter, 14 you will see a lot of different compounds, as I have picked 15 here. The question was remaining from all the filter 16 sampling, are all those compounds uniformly distributed? 17 Does every single particle look alike, or in fact, 18 are there, say, five different particle types, and they are 19 all in fact quite different? 20 You can imagine, the bottom picture is much more 21 simple for understanding. Maybe you could break it down into 22 different sources, and then just count up the particles and 23 figure out relative proportions of particles put into the 24 atmosphere. 25 There is another way of viewing it. Say you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 detected a certain amount of lead on your filter sample. The 2 question is, does each particle contain a little bit of lead 3 or basically 10 percent of lead, or in fact, does one 4 particle contain 100 percent lead? 5 Now again, from health effects perspective, knowing 6 the difference between these two extremes is extremely 7 important. 8 So, this is a picture of the instrument we built 9 and we designed with the California Air Resources Board. 10 What it shows is there are particles that enter the little 11 cloud, and they are just sucked into the instrument. 12 They pass through a scattering laser which says, 13 the particle basically says, I am here. They go down a 14 little further, pass through another laser. 15 There are two points. We measure the time between 16 the first point. We measure the time it takes to go between 17 here and here. 18 If we notice how fast it is moving, we can 19 determine its size. Smaller particles move faster, and 20 bigger particles move slower. 21 We can also time when it gets down to the center of 22 what is called the time-of-flight mass spectrometer, and we 23 fire a pulse laser, blow that particle apart, and we obtain 24 positive ions down one tube and negative ions down another 25 tube. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 Basically we get two sort of pictures of what is in 2 each single particle as well as its size. This is the only 3 instrument in the world that gives you both of those pieces 4 of information. 5 In the next slide, that was sort of my -- this 6 will show you how it works in more of a picture fashion, an 7 animation of how it works. 8 There is the instrument, and the lasers are on, and 9 so those are your two points where you trap the two particles 10 between. The next particle will come in. Here comes the 11 particle. 12 The first step, fire, second scatter fire and there 13 goes the pieces, and we get two mass spectra. On the 14 left-hand corner you can see we are getting the size 15 distribution of the particles as well, so we get basically, 16 acquiring all this information really, really fast. 17 So, on your screen you get all your different types 18 of information, and we can break down particles into soil, 19 organic or combustion type particles, sea salt and basically 20 have a complete picture of what is out there instantaneously. 21 This is a picture of the instrument, one of the two 22 instruments. We built two identical instruments with the 23 funding. 24 One instrument is called Jake, and one instrument 25 is called Elwood. It is easier than saying aerosol PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 time-of-flight mass spectrometers. 2 This is Jake at the beach in Long Beach in our 3 first field study, and what you can see, this is the heart of 4 the instrument right here, those are the two flight tubes 5 that I showed you where the chemical analysis was done. 6 The particles are pulled in through here, and all 7 of this is just control electronics. So, it is a relatively 8 simple instrument. 9 That is why we call it transportable versus 10 portable now, because it is easy to move around, and we can 11 basically be sampling within 10 minutes of arriving where we 12 are. 13 So, even with all those lasers, people sometimes 14 think that might create problems, it is actually very 15 ruggedly built, and it is really fast. 16 It is just getting set-up in new locations. 17 So, this shows what, and you do not have to 18 memorize these peaks, but it is really important from a 19 chemical view point. 20 This is what is called the mass spectrum of an 21 individual particle. What it shows is the composition of all 22 of the chemical pieces that were in one particle sampled in 23 the atmosphere at the Grand Canyon, and what you see are 24 carbon, a lot of carbon peaks, which says that this was a 25 combustion particle, so that sort of narrows down the source. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 But in addition, it shows the vanadium and vanadium 2 oxide, which are metals of very major concern as far as the 3 health effects perspective. Now, when you see vanadium on a 4 piece of filter paper, you really do not have a clue on where 5 it is coming from. 6 But looking at the combination of vanadium with 7 these organic species, in this little inset, are the negative 8 ions, which is sulfate, so this combination basically helps 9 us to sort of narrow down the source of the particle. 10 This shows another combustion type particle with 11 sulfates and negatives, and you see the two, they are down 12 the two flight tubes, so you see why we go to the trouble of 13 obtaining both pieces of information. 14 Show you an extremely different particle type, this 15 is 1.7. That is supposed to be a micron particle. 16 So, they are very, very small. The other one was 17 0.8 microns. So they are very, very small. 18 These show that zinc and lead combination particle 19 which you can see how much different information you get in 20 the negative ion mode, and this is sort of surprising. 21 I mean, we saw a lot of these at the Grand Canyon. 22 Now they are trying to figure out where they all came from, 23 but we saw a lot of these over time. 24 But the big question is if you can do all those 25 compositions, what can you learn about the size breaks that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 we now have come to use as regulations. 2 Well, the question is, if they have different 3 compositions, do they have different sizes? 4 The answer, as you can see here, is yes. 5 If they did not, they would basically, all these 6 different colors would just spread from here to here with no 7 break anywhere, like there is here. 8 So, this was sort of our first major contribution 9 in this area was determining what particles are composed for 10 non organic species like combustion particles versus those 11 composed of inorganic species like sea salt and dirt. 12 There is a very major difference in their sizes, 13 and there is a nice, actually clean-cut break right about one 14 micron, so this is the first hint that maybe even if you do 15 not want to go after a specific compound to regulate you can 16 actually just draw your cut a little lower, because PM 2.5, 17 this is 2.5 microns, and this is where our current fine 18 particle cut is, you can see that you can be influenced by 19 sea salt and soil in the atmosphere. 20 So, you may be really concerned, and in fact, in 21 Riverside we see this quite a lot. You will have huge mass 22 loadings on certain days, and you may think it does not look 23 that bad outside, but a lot of comes, it is just sea salt, 24 because the particles are so much bigger than these 25 particles, they weigh more, and so they can actually PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 influence the PM 2.5 mass a lot. 2 So, this just shows there is a very nice distinct 3 break actually, and so fortuitously, if you draw the cut 4 point at a different place, perhaps a little lower, you will 5 be able to reduce contributions from sea salt and soil which 6 is, I always describe this as I would much rather take a walk 7 on a beach than suck on a tail pipe of a diesel truck, and 8 intuitively it makes sense. 9 So, one of the questions is can we start picking 10 out sources? We should be able to. 11 So, one of the studies we did, we went to the 12 Caldecott Tunnel, and the nice thing about that tunnel is it 13 forces trucks to go through one bore and cars and trucks to 14 go through another bore. 15 We used the study to help identify the difference 16 between cars and trucks. 17 The next slide shows an example of cars and trucks 18 being put on a dynamometer, and you can see you do not have 19 to see the peaks are not as important as just seeing that 20 this is a car particle and this is a truck particle, and you 21 can easily see that there are very, very distinct 22 differences. 23 The biggest difference is calcium is not as present 24 in the car particles. There is a huge calcium marker in 25 truck particles. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 In both cases, they are small. So these would both 2 be in the combustion mode. 3 But we believe we are working really hard on trying 4 to identify these in the atmosphere and then track them and 5 determine their relative proportions. 6 Doing it on a filter is really difficult. This 7 slide is a really neat example of looking at different 8 sources and seeing if you can distinguish between them. 9 This shows biomass burning, so fires basically, 10 soils and sea salt, and the neat thing is, let's say you were 11 looking at a piece of filter paper and you saw a lot of 12 potassium, that is this mark here, a lot of times people want 13 to use that as a tracer and say that is biomass burning, but 14 you can see the problem with that, and that all of these 15 contribute to the potassium, but what you can do it by 16 looking at the single particles, look at what else is 17 present, and you can nail that this is biomass burning, and 18 this is soil, and this is sea salt. 19 They are very, very distinct signatures and very 20 easy to distinguish from one another. 21 So, one of the first studies we did was a field 22 study where we had one instrument in Long Beach, one 23 instrument in Fullerton and one instrument in Riverside, and 24 since we can do real time measurements, we are hoping that we 25 can track a relatively clean air mass from out over the ocean PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 inland. 2 We did this study with Professor Glen -- group 3 from Cal tech. They were running more conventional sampling 4 instruments along side our instruments so that we could 5 calibrate our instruments but also hopefully learn something 6 about chemistry. 7 I have to say up front that when we first developed 8 these instruments that we were going to use them to sample 9 outside, nobody believed we would learn anything. 10 It is a soup outside, and people did not know how 11 much you learn by looking, trying to pick out each single 12 particle and learn something. 13 The next slide shows that it was not that 14 difficult. This shows looking at sea salt particle reactions 15 in Long Beach, so sea salt is mostly sodium chloride. It can 16 react with nitric acid, which is a pollutant, to give you 17 sodium nitrate plus HCL gas, and this slide shows if we can 18 clearly identify all the sea salt particles, we can watch 19 them react in time. 20 So, this is over basically from 9-24-96 thru 21 9-26-96. As you can see, here is the nitrate content of 22 those particles versus the chloride content. So the chloride 23 is being replaced by the nitrate, and the question was, is 24 there any correlation or anti-correlation at all? 25 You can see that these are very, very PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 anti-correlated over time, and it jumps out very, very 2 strongly at you. 3 This study represented, it was published in Science 4 last year, and it represented the first time somebody 5 monitored a heterogeneous reaction in the atmosphere by 6 looking at the particles. 7 Heterogeneous means gas reacting with a particle. 8 People that have studied say the gas phase, as you know, for 9 a really long time and sort of speculate when gas phase 10 concentrations go up and down that maybe the particles are 11 involved somehow. 12 We actually track the particles and the gas phase 13 concentration and were able to start to map those together. 14 This is what the other results of the study. We 15 compared nitrate -- these are nitrate concentrations taken 16 from 9-23 all the way thru 10-2. 17 So, our instrument is the blue, and you can see we 18 ran, basically turn on our instruments, and they run. We do 19 not have to worry about the cost associated with collecting 20 that much sample. It does not really cost us that much more, 21 but what is interesting is the orange points were Professor 22 Glen Cass's measurements made on filter paper on particles 23 .56 to 1 microns, and you can see that where they predict the 24 nitrate concentrations should be we go, we also predict the 25 same thing, but you can see how much more additional PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 information you can get by obtaining -- these were four-hour 2 averages, so each one of these points is a four-hour average. 3 Our points are one-hour averages on a continuous 4 basis, and you can see how much more chemical information you 5 can get by running continuously, and hopefully we can start 6 to correlate why we get, for instance, the spike in time, 7 what else was changing in the atmosphere and start to 8 understand why these high mass loadings occur of PM in the 9 atmosphere. 10 The question is now how fast can we measure 11 processes in the atmosphere? Filters, I mentioned, require 12 between four and twenty-four hours to collect enough samples 13 to be able to see it. 14 Next slide. This shows just a simple cartoon of 15 what happens if you measure something on a continuous basis. 16 This red curve versus if you collect four-hour 17 samples or twelve-hour samples, and what you can see is the 18 twelve-hour period you can see that with a four-hour average, 19 you get these sort of points, three different points. 20 With the twelve-hour average, you sort of get a mid 21 range point, and the big question is, say all of a sudden it 22 is ten o'clock in the morning on this day, there was a high 23 number of hospital admits with major respiratory problems. 24 You can see that by looking at the four-hour sample 25 you could see that it was not as high perhaps this time, but PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 if we were running during this time, we could actually say 2 what exact particles were there in the atmosphere at this 3 exact time, and maybe this spike over here, or this spike 4 over here, you can see how much more you can get information, 5 you can get specific information by running continuously. 6 So, how fast can we go? 7 This shows, the magenta are our points taken with 8 ten-minute averages. The blue are Suzanne Herring's 9 measurements taken with ten-minute averages with a completely 10 different technique. 11 So, this was a very reassuring study in that we 12 were measuring nitrate mass concentrations, and she was 13 measuring them with her instruments, and we were measuring 14 with our instruments, and you can see things track extremely 15 well. 16 For an atmospheric measurement, this is considered 17 very, very good tracking. I'm quite happy and somewhat 18 surprised that things track so nicely. 19 One of the things you can do is her nitrate 20 instrument, it is very small, compact and it measures nitrate 21 concentration very well, but can you, the thing is what is it 22 really telling you about the particulate matter chemically? 23 You can take it a step further and see these two 24 peaks about 10:00 in the morning, and this one is about 1:00 25 in the afternoon, and you can see both contain high amounts PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 of nitrate, so is the chemistry, is the stuff that is in the 2 air at those two times, exactly the same. 3 The next slide we can answer that. This shows the 4 breakdown that I showed you earlier, the total size 5 distribution. You can see the nitrate distribution goes from 6 0.1 microns all the way out to 3.3. 7 So, we are mainly looking at PM 2.5 and basically, 8 and I am not going to go into huge detail other than if you 9 compare this, this was the morning slice, just compare the 10 general shape of these different plots compared to afternoon, 11 do they look the same? 12 They look completely different. 13 So, you get the same total mass of the nitrate, but 14 you can see the chemistry is different. So, we can start to 15 investigate why do you get the differences? 16 What is influencing the chemistry? 17 So, one of the big things that we can do now is we 18 are starting to work really hard on tying in, in a 19 quantitative way, where we do not see our day versus a day 20 where we do, and the various extremes, so we can start to 21 explore what is causing the visibility problem that we 22 experience unfortunately so often in Southern California. 23 There are multiple applications of aerosol 24 time-of-flight mass spec. We, from a outerspirit monitoring 25 view point, we look at and try to understand and hopefully by PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 understanding and characterizing sources regulate pollution, 2 better understanding just the atmospheric chemistry. 3 This is like brand new. This is an amazing area to 4 be in right now, and every time you turn on the instrument, 5 you learn something new. 6 It is sort of almost hard to describe. We look at 7 visibility degradation, and we can also put particles, 8 actually have the opposite impact of greenhouse gases in 9 controlling the radiation balance. 10 So, that is why we have one of our instruments at 11 the Indian Ocean right now to study on a global scale how 12 particles impact radiation or climate change. 13 We can track and allocate sources. One big 14 application is vehicle emissions, trying to understand why 15 cars and trucks put out particles and what we can do. 16 If we have real time monitors at say Ford Motor 17 Company or say places where they are trying to understand 18 diesel emissions, we can hopefully start to understand when 19 the or what step the particles are formed. 20 One of the applications we are just starting to 21 exploit is we use it for particles, you can make particles 22 out of anything. 23 You can spray water. You can spray extracts from 24 soils. You can use it as a generic tool, pharmaceutical 25 analysis, analyzing pharmaceutical powders is huge, explosive PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 protection, biowarfare detection, all of these different 2 applications have led to the push for the instrument to be 3 commercialized, and it is now being commercialized by a major 4 aerosol instrument company. 5 My push is more in really to, I want to see the 6 mountains again, every single day. That is the area that we 7 are going to stay focused on, and we have made pretty rapid 8 progress, and I hope that it keeps going. 9 The highlights, we have gotten, actually just this 10 week, one of the bottom, we can inquire a hundred thousand 11 particles in a day. 12 So, what do you do with all this information? 13 Yes, you can look through one at a time. I could 14 have shown you millions of particles, and you would have been 15 sound asleep, but what can we do with that information? 16 Well, data analysis is a big one, and we work in a 17 study funded through the California Air Resources Board, we 18 are working with Phil Hotchkiss' group at Clarks University, 19 and we developed a way that a computer will sort the 20 particles according to their chemical types for us rather 21 than us doing it one at a time. 22 Believe me, I have looked at about a million of 23 these particles, and I am glad the computer does almost as 24 good of a job but much faster. 25 So, Chemical and Engineering News just highlighted PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 us. This just came out yesterday, but the research that we 2 have done with the transportable instruments has drawn a lot 3 of attention, and it has been highlighted in a lot of 4 different places, and in addition, it has led recently to a 5 couple of different awards, the Smoluchowski Award is the 6 International Aerosol Award which I got for development of 7 the transportable instrument. 8 As far as funding goes, California Resources Board 9 funded us very, very early in this whole process, to which I 10 am deeply indebted to them, because it was early on, and a 11 lot of people kind of thought we were a little bit nuts, 12 because the biggest criticism I had at that point was, if it 13 could have been built, and it was this important, it should 14 have been built. 15 There must be something that you are missing. The 16 California Air Resources Board did something that most States 17 would not do, which was take a chance on a new technology, 18 and now California is way ahead of the pack, and they have 19 been for a long time in air quality, but hopefully we are 20 helping put them a little bit further ahead. 21 Now, other states are following suit. U.S. EPA is 22 funding our research in a pretty major way right now to help 23 encourage us to take Jake and Elwood to other states and 24 help, this is the quickest way for states that do not have 25 any idea what is there or areas that have no idea what is in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 their air. 2 This is the quickest way to do that. If you all of 3 a sudden have to catch up and realize what is in your air, 4 which a lot of places are coming to grips with, this is the 5 fastest way to do that. 6 So, I think it is going to be used in a lot of 7 different areas. It is going to Atlanta to be part of the 8 first Super Site next August, and right now it is doing a 9 study in Bakersfield, looking at the pollution problem in the 10 Central Valley. 11 But the other funding sources, and there are a lot 12 of them, and they are basically just funding different 13 aspects of the research, trying to push the source 14 characterization work that we do, it is all integrated 15 together mainly into the pollution side of it, understanding 16 pollution. 17 As I mentioned, in summary, it is a very, very 18 exciting time in particulate research, and I feel like I do 19 not quite know how it happened, but it is working out very, 20 very well, and we hope to help out in as much as we can with 21 the pollution problems in the next several years. 22 Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, and we thank you 24 for your enthusiasm. 25 Just out of curiosity, when you built Jake and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 Elwood, now that you have built them, what would the cost be 2 if you were to build more, do you think -- 3 DR. PRATHER: They cost us right now about a 4 hundred K a piece. 5 The first one cost closer to 250 to start, and I 6 think that price will go down. 7 But to calibrate, if you ran filters for a week 8 along side of multiple size cuts and multiple times, you 9 would get your hundred thousand back just in a week. 10 So, it sounds like a lot initially, but the fact 11 that you can run it continuously and get continuous size 12 information and continuous composition, you recover your cost 13 very, very rapidly. 14 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Well, that is nice to know. 15 That might encourage others to get involved. 16 Questions? 17 Dr. Friedman. 18 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Kimberly, bear with me 19 while I try to articulate this question. 20 You know we recently took a position about the 21 particulate related diesel exhaust toxicity, recognizing that 22 there are umpteen potential carcinogenic molecules that could 23 be attached to almost any size. 24 It is like the cartoon you show. We do not know if 25 10 percent of 10 molecules or 10 percent of particles have X PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 or it is 1 particle out of 10 and so forth, and so your 2 technique allows the separation of family sizes of particles, 3 and it allows some chemical composition studies, but it does 4 not allow, without coupling this to a GC mass spec, the 5 analysis of what toxins are on these aggregates. 6 DR. PRATHER: It does. I just did not -- 7 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: How do you do that? 8 DR. PRATHER: Basically, I did not show it. 9 This is sort of our newest data that we are just 10 getting right now. 11 One of the questions was, it comes down to organic 12 speciation, what I showed you was hitting the part, you know, 13 we have to blow this particle apart with one laser, but there 14 is a better way to do that, and we are just doing that now 15 where we puff it with what is called an infrared laser, which 16 just vaporizes it, and we come in with another laser with 17 much lower power, and we do not fragment things, and so we 18 get the molecular weight from all the different species, so 19 that does tell you what the different chemical species are, 20 and we can do PAHs. 21 PAHs are the thing where the hydrocarbon, the 22 things that people talk about for activity or the things that 23 are the very best out right now. 24 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: If you had shown that, I 25 never would have asked the question. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 DR. PRATHER: I am sorry. 2 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: The rest of us probably would 3 never have known what it meant. 4 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: It is an important issue. 5 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: I am sure it is. 6 DR. PRATHER: We can actually, the PAHs are going 7 to be our marker, because they are on everything. 8 They are not just on diesel exhaust, as you know. 9 They are on wood smokes. You get very different types, and 10 we are going to use those as our tracer species now to let us 11 differentiate between, because that big green mode that I 12 showed you is what I call the differentiating between the 13 different particles in that mode, which is a lifetime 14 challenge, and Glen Cass has been working on it for a really 15 long time. 16 We now can do it with single particles. It is a 17 lot of work, and I could dedicate the rest of my career just 18 to sort of sorting out that one green mode. 19 It is like I say, the PAHs are really important, 20 and we can distinguish between the different types, so we are 21 doing that now. 22 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Very good. 23 Any other questions? 24 Thank you so much. Thank you. 25 We appreciate that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 Dr. Holmes. 2 DR. HOLMES: I was especially proud of the work 3 that Kimberly has done in our program. She is a chemist with 4 a knack for both physics and mechanical things, and she has 5 also learned very, very quickly what our problems are and 6 attacked them with great enthusiasm. 7 So, we appreciate her very much. 8 Our last speaker is Mr. Lance Balcom, from Westport 9 Innovations, Inc. 10 Mr. Balcom is the Program Manager for our ICAT 11 contract with Westport to develop an injector system that 12 allows a diesel engine to operate on natural gas. 13 Biographical information, he holds a degree in Biomechanical 14 Science from the University of British Columbia as a 15 Professional Engineer. 16 The Westport system promises to deliver the same 17 efficiency as diesel fuel but with substantially lower 18 emissions. 19 Westport is currently demonstrating their 20 technology on a UC Berkeley transit bus, and they brought 21 their bus to our parking lot, outside. So, I will hope you 22 will take the opportunity to take a look at it later this 23 morning perhaps, let the people from UCB take you on a short 24 ride. 25 Now, with that, Mr. Balcom. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 MR. BALCOM: Okay. I would first like to, I need 2 to begin with a bit of an explanation. 3 The presentation you are about to see was put 4 together and was to be presented by our present CO, who went 5 in for surgery for a broken wrist on Monday, so he was in no 6 condition to come down and make this presentation and asked 7 me to do it instead. 8 He is really sorry to not have the opportunity to 9 come and do this and to thank you, CARB, for the ICAT 10 support, which stimulated our ability to bring this product 11 from the test bench to commercial deployment, and that is 12 what I would like to talk a little bit about today. 13 I am going to spend about 10 minutes. I have three 14 pieces of presentation. I will give you a quick overview of 15 Westport and our technology and what we think is good about 16 it, and I have a short video. 17 We had a story done on us by CNN about a month ago. 18 So, I thought I would run that. They did a very good job of 19 capturing what Westport is about and where our product is at, 20 and then I am going to come back and spend another few 21 minutes on our commercialization process and highlight what 22 the ICAT program has meant to us in preforming and achieving 23 that to let you know what our status is and what the results 24 and outcome will be. 25 A brief history, Westport is based on a core PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 technology that was developed in the University of British 2 Columbia over a period of ten years graduate study research 3 on ancient combustion. Westport was formed in early 1996 to 4 commercialize the technology, and the property that came out 5 of that research, in late 1996, we approached CARB for 6 financial support in helping us bring that product to market 7 in what is the best developed alternative fuel market in the 8 world here in California. 9 Westport is about direct, or work in the area of 10 direct injection, meaning the placement of fuel into the 11 cylinders of engines. What our influential property and our 12 knowledge and our expertise revolves around is the direct 13 injection of gaseous fuels. 14 So, how do you place and manage, convert vehicles 15 to run when you have converted them to run gaseous fuels? 16 How do you optimize their performance? 17 We have applied the technology first to a diesel 18 engine. The reason we have done that is the diesel engine is 19 in most respects, almost all respects, an excellent engine. 20 That is to say, it is simple. It is robust. It 21 has forms of characteristics that match the needs of heavy 22 duty vehicle users very, very well, but the problem I am sure 23 the Board appreciates is what comes out of the tail pipe. 24 If we can enable an engine, a diesel engine to 25 operate on natural gas and preserve those characteristics PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 that are so important to the users but reduce the emissions, 2 we have a much stronger chance of having an impact. 3 So, that is what we have done, and that is what we 4 have been able, we significantly were able to generate 5 significantly lower emissions, much lower. 6 Well, when we have applied our technology to our 7 current generation of technology, we were able to generate 8 NOx reductions of between 40 to 55 percent, PM reductions of 9 a similar order of magnitude. 10 When we talked to the folks at ICAT prior to doing 11 this presentation, one of the questions that was, what does 12 that mean in terms of a real engine? 13 We have applied this to a 1692, an engine that is 14 in common use in transit today. When we have applied this 15 technology, we can take -- the 1690 went out of production in 16 1994 because it was not able to meet emissions requirements. 17 Applying our technology, we can certify it as a new 18 engine today, and in fact, we may very well choose that route 19 as our certification route. 20 In fact, we are within a very close margin of 21 meeting the 2004 target with the 1692 engine. The 1692 22 engine is a two-stroke, and it is old technology. 23 What we are also in the process of doing, and I 24 will talk about this a little further, is applying this to 25 the newer, cleaner four-stroke engines. When we do that, we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 think we will go substantially beyond, we are very sure we 2 are going to go substantially beyond the 2004 target. 3 I would like to turn it over to our friends at CNN 4 and let them do the run-through on what they were able to say 5 about our technology. 6 (Therefore a videotape was shown.) 7 MR. BALCOM: Okay. One point that I actually 8 kicked over as I was talking about the emissions on the 9 emission chart on the CO2 side combination, we have an effect 10 on PM and nitrous oxides, and we also have a combination of 11 retaining diesel efficiency and using the gaseous fuel which 12 reduces carbon dioxide with viable 25 percent, is an 13 unregulated emission today, but it is certainly getting a lot 14 of profile and attention, as I am sure the Board is aware. 15 I said I would talk a little bit about our 16 commercialization strategy, and the video talked about that 17 briefly as well. It is really a two-step program. 18 I would like to talk just briefly about each of the 19 two. We want to take our transit, and are in the process of 20 taking our transit program, our transit product to market. 21 That is the 1692 engine inventory, there are 22 several reasons for doing that, one of them is that we can do 23 a lot of good -- the 1692 is a very dirty engine, and it is 24 in very prevalent use. 25 The second reason is we can -- there is a lot of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 public policy funding decisions that are made in the transit 2 industry that allows us an entry into the advanced 3 technology, but equally importantly to us is to gain the 4 credibility and the demonstrated performance that lets us go 5 in the next step into taking the injector into the general 6 market place. 7 The diesel engine industry is, I am sure the Board 8 has experienced, this is a fairly conservative industry, and 9 so they are looking for fairly hard proof that our technology 10 can do what it says it can do, and in fact, the ICAT program 11 has been instrumental in helping us achieve that and gets 12 that evidence. 13 On the transit bus program, where are we at, we 14 completed our demonstration program April, the middle of last 15 year. That involved building prototypes, preliminary 16 prototypes and taking the model on demonstrations to transits 17 to show that to them, show them the technology, also 18 conducting independent emissions testing to generate the 19 results that I have mentioned earlier and verify what we 20 already knew in terms of the capabilities. 21 Where we are at now is in a product introduction 22 phase. We are trying to deploy the vehicles. We expected to 23 deploy 10 of them this year in key situations or accounts 24 where we can build credibility and trust and then roll those 25 next year with fleet conversions of a large number of them in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 California. 2 They are also starting to have interest in them on 3 the East Coast as well. 4 Also in the product introduction phase is the 5 certification process, and the improvement of the product 6 durability which, of course, is essential to transit 7 operators, as matching the existing durability of that 8 engine, so that is the process we are following. 9 We cannot do this alone. So we have had to work 10 with sponsors. 11 The person in the front of the picture there is 12 Kevin and is actually in the audience here. Kevin from the 13 University of Berkley stepped forward and said they would be 14 our pilot site, would be a whole site for the early 15 technology, and we are very thankful for them for the 16 opportunity to do that, and the real story in that picture is 17 actually the guy that is behind there, Bus 92, which is also 18 parked out front. 19 It is the bus that we have converted and has been 20 in service at UC Berkeley. That was paid for in part with 21 Air Resources funding as the world's first vehicle deployment 22 known in service, and it will be joined shortly by two more 23 buses that have been funded by the Bay Area AQMD. 24 So, we will have three buses in service within the 25 next couple of months, and the California Energy Commission PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 has participated as well as doing some funding, comparative 2 studies between the performance of these buses their diesel 3 counter parts and some of the existing spark ignition 4 technologies that are also on-site. 5 Okay. I wanted to highlight the ICAT program 6 achievements. When we came to you and asked for funding, we 7 promised we would do three things, four things. 8 We said, number one, that we would verify the 9 emission capabilities, and so you helped us fund independent 10 verification to get the emission results that have allowed us 11 to build the credibility with the engine manufacturers. 12 Second, we wanted to demonstrate drive-ability. 13 The the driver you saw at Berkeley saying, boy, does this 14 thing go just like diesel, and other drivers, but to allow us 15 to prove that we have done that through taking our 16 demonstration bus, the big blue bus that you saw, to a 17 variety of transits and having people evaluate it and 18 formally through engine distributors, dealerships, and we are 19 doing it, of course, in Berkeley. 20 Then lastly, operability that we are going to prove 21 that this thing can actually function in service and capture 22 data, prove that it is indeed efficient and it is indeed 23 performing the same way as diesel and generating the kinds of 24 savings and performance that we are telling you that it will. 25 The last, and I said there was four, was to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 generate the commercialization plan and to follow through on 2 that plan and take it to market. 3 One of the comments made by the people when we 4 received the grant, what we are really interested in is 5 funding programs that succeed, and to that end, I would like 6 to talk briefly about our OEM program. 7 Having brought the data that the ICAT program has 8 allowed us to research, we have gone to the engine 9 manufacturers. Now, our essential presentation to them is 10 not much different than the transit that you can have the 11 same engine and get the same performance but do it with a 12 clean fuel and therefore get the clean air savings. 13 Engine manufacturers have a few more pieces that 14 they are interested in. One of them is what is it going to 15 do to my manufacturing cost, because our technology, as Brad 16 showed you, is simply a replacement of the injectors. 17 That means they do not have to retool the engines. 18 They do not have to retool their production line. 19 The process is the same as it would have been 20 otherwise, so it is non-invasive, and it is easy for them to 21 do, and they do not need to redesign the engine, because it 22 performs exactly the same way as it did before. 23 Similarly, their dealers were finding and wanting 24 to know about their dealer acceptance. That has been quite 25 high, because the engine looks and feels just like a diesel. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 What is different is what comes out of the tail 2 pipe. 3 Lastly, the thing we are finding is also of 4 interest to them because we have, through the transit program 5 and the ICAT funded activity, has been able to move the 6 technology along, it allows them, gives them a fast track 7 development process in a situation and in an environment, 8 regulatory environment where they are under pressure to move 9 more quickly to address cleaner requirements. 10 So, have we been successful in executing this 11 commercially to develop the plan, yes, we have. 12 I am pleased to be able to discuss, last October we 13 were able to go public with Memorandum of Understanding that 14 we have with Cummins to co-develop two engines for 15 evaluation. 16 Those will be the cleaner, newer four-stroke 17 engines that are entering the market now, and they are 18 targeted at two major application areas. One is stationary 19 power, and secondly is class A trucking, and we see that as 20 really the logical extension. 21 Westport vision is to allow you to buy a variety of 22 different engines from a variety of different manufacturers 23 with Westport insight. 24 So, that is a synopsis of what the ICAT program has 25 allowed us to move forward on, and we are deeply appreciative PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 of how that funding has allowed us to move forward. 2 I think in essence that is what Westport is all 3 about. 4 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Mr. Parnell has a question. 5 BOARD MEMBER PARNELL: I was just wondering about 6 the fuel infrastructure in how that applies with the 7 complexity in terms of supply, if we go to trucks that 8 transport long distances, I can see stationary engines being 9 one thing, but when we get it into the mobile fleet, what do 10 you see? 11 MR. BALCOM: There is no question infrastructure is 12 an issue. 13 One thing I did not talk about is our technology 14 will work with either CNG or LNG. 15 Now CNG is, and you may be aware of, is about 6 16 times the size of natural gas of the diesel fuel. So that is 17 applicable in a bus where you have a lot of room. 18 But if you go to a long haul trucker and say I want 19 to displace that much cargo space, you are not going to get 20 very far. So that is it. You need to go to LNG. 21 CNG infrastructure is fairly well developed. LNG 22 still has some distance to go. 23 We have the pumps, the fuel technologies that will 24 allow LNG fuel delivery. The engine we will be developing 25 will be an LNG engine, but we are dependent on fueling PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 infrastructure in order to proceed. 2 So ironically, our fuel delivery technology is 3 actually also applicable on the fueling station side. So, we 4 find ourselves in a situation where we are also being 5 approached by organizations to look at using our pumping 6 technology to pump LNG, and that is an attractive business 7 opportunity for us. 8 The challenge is just to focus, so we go after that 9 market as well. 10 BOARD MEMBER PARNELL: Just to follow-up, if I may. 11 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Go right ahead. 12 BOARD MEMBER PARNELL: The longevity of these 13 engines, maybe you addressed that and I missed it. 14 MR. BALCOM: The longevity of the engine itself 15 from a crank shaft perspective, the engine feels no 16 different, so it runs the way that it ran before, and that is 17 the major advantage of the engine. 18 Our technology, we are working to improve its 19 reliability. We have just completed a thousand hour 20 durability test, which is kind of the entry point into the 21 big leagues in durability. 22 We have some distance to go in achieving commercial 23 grade durability, but our progress has been good, and we are 24 fairly confident that we are going to get there. 25 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: All right. I will freeze PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 this for a moment in time, because we want to ask more 2 questions, but I am going to have to deviate just slightly 3 from what we had originally thought was going to be our 4 schedule, which would have been to go out and first to finish 5 with you and questions and answers and then go out and see 6 the bus and whatever. 7 But we do have a closed session, and I need, for 8 good reasons, to have that closed session and come back to 9 the hearing. 10 So, if we could sort of stop here for a moment, and 11 ask the audience, and including our speakers and staff, this 12 should not be a long closed session, but we will return back 13 here, I would think within what about 25 minutes or maybe 14 even sooner, maybe just say 20, so everybody is here, and we 15 will just pick this right up and go right back to where we 16 were. 17 So, we need to adjourn. The Board will go to the 18 Fourth Floor Conference Room for our Closed Session, and we 19 will return back here in about 20 minutes. 20 (Thereupon a brief recess was taken.) 21 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: We are back, and we kind of 22 froze in time, and we are going to ask if there are any other 23 Board questions that we might have for this particular 24 presenter? 25 Supervisor Patrick. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: I have a real quick 2 question, and that is how long does it take to modify the 3 bus? 4 MR. BALCOM: How long it takes to some degree is a 5 function of how many people you put on the task, but the 6 conversion of the engine takes two hours. 7 The larger challenge is putting the CNG tank system 8 on the bus. That is no more challenging or less challenging 9 for our technology than for any other. 10 In general, for a retrofit for putting in the tanks 11 even under the bus, that could take three weeks or so, two to 12 three weeks if you put in a larger team. You can do it in a 13 couple of weeks. 14 For a roof-mount configuration, we can do it in two 15 weeks. 16 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: I see. 17 Thank you. 18 Okay. Any other questions? 19 We thank you, and later, after the completion of 20 this meeting, we will go out and see this bus. 21 MR. BALCOM: And we thank you. 22 Actually, my presentation has been, the Board has 23 been really instrumental in helping us bring this to market. 24 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. Good. That is 25 what the program is for. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 Dr. Holmes, does that complete your presentation? 2 DR. HOLMES: Yes, that concludes the four 3 presentations that we brought for you today, and we 4 appreciate our speakers coming, and we appreciate your 5 enthusiasm about some of these projects. 6 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: And we assume that you have 7 incorporated, if there were any written comments, that they 8 have been incorporated into your presentation; is that right? 9 MR. KENNY: Yes. 10 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Good. Mr. Kenny, any further 11 comments? 12 MR. KENNY: Nothing further. 13 CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: All right. We will move on 14 to the next item, which is the open comment period. 15 This is the period at which time anyone is welcome 16 to make a presentation to the Board. 17 We obviously ask you to make very concise 18 statements that need to be on items under the jurisdiction of 19 this Board but not necessarily on today's Agenda. 20 Anyone wishing to speak on this item? 21 Seeing no one, we will move on. 22 Let me adjourn this meeting of January, and for us 23 to go outside and see the bus that has been brought over from 24 Berkeley. 25 I thank you all very much for your attendance. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 (Thereupon the Air Resources Board meeting was 2 adjourned at 12:35 p.m.) 3 --o0o-- 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 110 1 CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 2 3 I, VICKI L. OGELVIE, a Certified Shorthand 4 Reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify: 5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 6 foregoing hearing was reported in shorthand by me, Vicki L. 7 OGELVIE, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of 8 California, and thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 9 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 10 attorney for any of the parties to said hearing nor in any 11 way interested in the outcome of said hearing. 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 13 this seventh day of February, 1999. 14 15 16 VICKI L. OGELVIE 17 Certified Shorthand Reporter License No. 7871 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345