MEETING BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD BOARD HEARING ROOM 2020 L STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1999 9:30 A.M. Vicki L. Ogelvie, C.S.R. License No. 7871 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii MEMBERS PRESENT Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D., Chairman Joseph C. Calhoun Mark DeSaulnier Dr. William Friedman C. Hugh Friedman Lynne T. Edgerton Barbara Patrick Sally Rakow Barbara Riordan Ron Roberts Staff: Michael Kenny, Executive Director Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mike Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Lynn Terry, 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 Chairman Lloyd 1 AGENDA ITEMS: 99-4-1 Public Meeting to Consider an Informational Report on the Health Impacts of Air Pollution Introductory remarks by Chairman Lloyd 2 Staff Presentation: Mike Kenny 3 Dane Westerdahl 4 99-4-2 Public Meeting to Consider an Informational Report on Air Quality Status and Trends Introductory remarks by Chairman Lloyd 37 Staff Presentation: Mike Kenny 37 Marci Nystrom 37 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv I N D E X (Continued) --o0o-- Page 99-4-4 Public Meeting to Consider Research Proposals Introductory remarks by Chairman Lloyd 61 99-4-3 Public Meeting to Consider Proposals for the Air Resources Board's Innovative Clean Air Technologies (ICAT) Program Introductory remarks by Chairman Lloyd Staff Presentation: Tom Cackette Tony Andreoni 66 Public Comment: Ed Reynolds, The Reynolds Group 72 Michael Simon, ISE 79 Open Session to Provide an Opportunity for Members of the Public to Address the Board on Subject Matters within the Jurisdiction of the Board 91 Adjournment 92 Certificate of Reporter 93 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 --o0o-- 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Good morning. The May 27, 1999 4 Public Meeting of the Air Resources Board will now come to 5 order. 6 I would like to lead us in the Pledge of 7 Allegiance. 8 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was recited.) 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Will the Clerk of the 10 Board call the roll. 11 MS. HUTCHENS: Calhoun. 12 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Here. 13 MS. HUTCHENS: DeSaulnier. 14 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Here. 15 MS. HUTCHENS: Edgerton. 16 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Here. 17 MS. HUTCHENS: Professor Friedman. 18 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Here. 19 MS. HUTCHENS: Dr. Friedman. 20 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Here. 21 MS. HUTCHENS: Patrick. 22 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Here. 23 MS. HUTCHENS: Rakow. 24 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: Here. 25 MS. HUTCHENS: Riordan. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. 2 MS. HUTCHENS: Roberts. 3 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Here. 4 MS. HUTCHENS: Chairman Lloyd. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Here. 6 Thank you very much. 7 Good morning, Mark. 8 Before we get started, I wanted to pass on a 9 compliment to staff about our Website. 10 The Air Resources Board has received special 11 recognition for the highly informative home page and that 12 reflects well on everyone that makes that possible, the 13 Website designers and clerical staff to the people that 14 provide the technical information. 15 This is extremely good news, and I have many, many 16 comments throughout the country from people visiting to see 17 the Website. 18 I would like to get going with the first Agenda 19 Item. 20 This is a presentation on the health impacts of air 21 pollution. 22 I would like to remind anybody in the audience who 23 wishes to testify on today's Agenda to sign up with the Clerk 24 of the Board. If you have a written statement, to provide 20 25 copies of that to the Board Clerk. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 The first item today is really a refresher on the 2 health impacts of air pollution, to remind us all why we are 3 here and the importance of this briefing. 4 Protecting public health is our number one mission, 5 and we need to understand what the health issues are and what 6 the actions can help address the issues. 7 I have asked the Research Division to give us a 8 brief tutorial on how air pollution affects human health, and 9 then to bring us up to date on the status of the benefits 10 that we see from the research we have currently. 11 The summary will frame the next presentation on how 12 air quality has changed over the past years and what we still 13 need to do. 14 At this point, I would ask Mr. Kenny to introduce 15 the item and begin the staff's presentation. 16 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Chairman Lloyd and Members 17 of the Board. 18 Considerable improvement has been made in ambient 19 air quality in the areas of the State. This has real 20 benefits to health and welfare of the citizens. 21 More needs to be done. Levels are unacceptably 22 high. The well-being of many Californians is at risk. 23 Dane Westerdahl, of the Research Division, will 24 tell us of the biological effects of toxic air. 25 Dane will identify groups and explain why they are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 at special risk. He will remind us of the risk assessments 2 and of the various contaminant programs. 3 With that, Dane. 4 MR. WESTERDAHL: Good morning, Dr. Lloyd. 5 Today, I would like to provide you with a brief 6 overview of the health impacts of air pollution. I could 7 spend 15 to 20 minutes on the topics of each of the slides 8 that I'll show you, but I only have a minute per slide. 9 So, we will get started. 10 First, we will look at the lung and discover how it 11 is one of the key organs impacted by air pollution. 12 Next we will discuss which groups of people are at 13 special risk from pollutants in the air, what makes a person 14 sensitive and what makes people sensitive. 15 This will lead into a description of the ambient 16 air quality standards and how they are established. 17 This will be followed by information on the 18 characteristics and health impacts of two very important 19 pollutants, ozone and particulate matter. 20 Finally, we will consider a few of the challenges 21 before us and look at how ARB is responding to these 22 challenges. 23 This is a lung. 24 Let's start with one of my take home messages. It 25 is not a hollow like, a football that inflates and deflates PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 each time we breathe. 2 I will let you pass the item around as I continue. 3 The lung and respiratory system are complex 4 structures. At the simplest, the respiratory system serves 5 two functions, to conduct air from the outside world and to 6 deliver oxygen from that air to our bloodstream. 7 On the left side of the picture is the fine 8 structure of the lung, the region where the gas exchange 9 occurs. 10 On the right side is the plumbing of the lung after 11 the fine structure has been pruned away. This plumbing 12 conducts air to where the gas exchange occurs. 13 I will take a second to tell you what I have handed 14 out is, in the plastic bag, that is a real human lung. 15 In this picture, I have zoomed in to show greater 16 detail of the conducting airways and the gas exchange areas. 17 Note the red bands that encircle the airways. 18 These are muscles. They regulate the caliber or diameter of 19 the airway. 20 They respond from signals from nerves. For 21 example, they constrict when we breathe an irritant, like 22 smoke. 23 The constriction causes the airways to become 24 narrower, making the breathing more difficult. Asthmatics 25 are a group that is seriously effected by this irritant PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 response. 2 Airway constriction is characteristic of this 3 disease and can be life threatening. Several common air 4 pollutants can cause asthmatics to suffer. 5 About five to seven percent of us in this room have 6 asthma. It is a fairly common chronic breathing problem. 7 The delicate grape-like structures at the lower end 8 of the airways are called alveoli. This is where the gas 9 exchange occurs. The tissues of these alveoli are very 10 delicate and are readily damaged by air pollutants. 11 This slide shows a highly magnified, single 12 alveolus with a blood cell inside a capillary as a size 13 reference. It illustrates several things. 14 First, it gives an indication of how fine the 15 structure really is. Single cells are stretched very thin to 16 form this structure. 17 Their thinness is essential to minimize the 18 resistance to the flow of oxygen into the bloodstream. The 19 thickness must be just right. 20 If the walls were any thinner, our lungs would 21 drown us in fluids leaking from the bloodstream. 22 If they were any thicker, they would not deliver 23 adequate oxygen to body. 24 The very delicate nature of the alveolus makes it 25 particularly susceptible to the physical and chemical impacts PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 of air pollution. We know that air pollution damage does 2 occur to these structures. 3 If the cells of the alveolus are damaged, they may 4 gradually repair themselves. However, if the damage is 5 severe, structure and function is lost and the cells will 6 die. 7 Let me shift now to the issue of who is most 8 sensitive to air pollution. You can read the list. 9 The top portion of the list is not a surprise, 10 elderly, children, people with existing respiratory disease. 11 It may surprise you to learn that athletes, despite 12 their vigor, are also in the high risk category because of 13 the large amounts of air they inhale while exercising, often 14 ten to fifteen times what a resting person inhales and the 15 pollutants come with the air. 16 Take home message number two, sometime during our 17 life, each of us is likely to be at increased risk from the 18 adverse impacts of air pollution. 19 Next slide. 20 We can see two of the three of the groups of most 21 concern, elderly, children and asthmatics. The elderly are 22 of concern as they have had many of the health conditions 23 that put them at risk over the course of their lifetime, and 24 their immune system is decreasing with age. 25 Children are also high on the list, not because of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 the similarities of adults and elderly, but their lungs and 2 bodily systems are still developing. They are very active 3 and spend more time outside where they are exposed more than 4 most of us, and these factors put them at high risk. 5 Childhood asthma has been in the newspaper 6 recently, as being on the rise in this country and all over 7 the world. Children have asthma at rates higher than adults, 8 as high as 15 to 20 percent. 9 The wheezing sounds an asthmatic makes when trying 10 to breathe are caused by the restriction of air as it moves 11 through the narrowed airways. Asthma can be fatal if not 12 properly treated and it clearly can limit a child's 13 activities, and they need to be under treatment for such 14 things. 15 There is very little evidence that it is caused by 16 air pollution, but it is made worse by air pollution. 17 However, it can put a person with an existing asthmas 18 condition at risk because it increases their sensitivity to 19 allergens and other substances that can precipitate an 20 attack. 21 What are air ambient air quality standards? 22 Standards are scientifically based determinations, 23 which are part of the activity of the Board, in the case of 24 ARB or the Administrator for U.S. EPA. 25 These two groups act upon their legislative PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 mandates to produce public health policy definitions of clean 2 and safe air, that form the foundation for State, Federal and 3 local air regulatory programs. 4 Standards serve as the goal or objective for air 5 qualities. 6 State and Federal standards may differ because they 7 are developed under a different review schedule in 8 consideration of the specific needs of specific populations 9 and distinctive environmental conditions. 10 California standards are more stringent, protective 11 than those established by the U.S. EPA, the Federal 12 standards. 13 Now, for a few definitions. Basically, the first 14 is pollutant of concern, and following is the level or 15 concentration. 16 Duration is the term that modifies the standard, 17 time frame for the standard, and form is the mathematical or 18 statistical way for attainment, how many times you may 19 violate a standard and be in attainment. 20 Ambient air quality standards are adopted in 21 consideration of public health and public welfare 22 considerations. Public health concerns include factors 23 contributing to illness, discomfort and death. 24 Public welfare focuses on impacts on crops, 25 visibility or losses or damage to materials. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 Neither State nor Federal regulators consider the 2 cost of controls when they are promulgated. 3 Today's persistent pollutant problems include 4 representatives from the ambient air quality standards list 5 and toxic air contaminants. 6 How do ambient air standards differ from TACs? 7 Ambient air quality standards are designed to 8 reflect the safe level for a specific pollutant, with an 9 appropriate safety margin, and are usually established in 10 response to respiratory or cardiac health impacts. 11 They are usually set for pollutants that have 12 relatively short term health impacts. For example, the 13 one-hour ozone standard was based on the way a brief ozone 14 exposure affects lung function. 15 The longest time frame standards are for one year. 16 These are usually designed to mitigate adverse effects that 17 were associated with an average annual concentration. 18 Toxic air contaminants often have health effects 19 that are only evident after extended incubation or long term 20 exposure, such as the development of cancer over a 21 substantial fraction of a lifetime. 22 Toxic air contaminants, TAC, standards are 23 risk-based decisions, with no safe levels identified. 24 These are established by the Board and U.S. EPA. 25 I will focus the rest of the presentation on ozone PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 and particulate matter. 2 The pollutants listed at the bottom of the slide 3 might be labeled as "other." 4 They are the ones I would have added to ozone and 5 PM if I made this presentation in the 1970s. They would be on 6 the list of pollutants of major concern, and so would ozone 7 and PM. 8 Effective control programs have reduced these 9 pollutants to the other category, pollutants that do not 10 generally exist at levels high enough to pose a significant 11 health risk. 12 Two pollutants in this other list are on the watch 13 list, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide, because NO2 plays 14 a role in ozone formation. 15 Ozone is a gas that forms when hydrocarbons, oxides 16 of nitrogen and sunlight are present. 17 Ozone attacks and damages organic material, the 18 organic material that makes up our lungs. It is especially 19 harmful to the fine structure of the deep lung. 20 This is a list that gives us specifics on ozone 21 health effects. 22 The first three of these are relatively short term 23 exposures. What we find is after one or two hour exposure of 24 ozone, lung function declines for people working outside and 25 aggravate people with other existing problems with breathing. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 There is long-term damage and less well-understood, 2 and our standards do not recognize or do not establish to 3 protect against the long-term consequences of ozone. 4 The State and Federal governments have established 5 ozone standards. Both have a one-hour standards, and the 6 Federal has recently developed an eight-hour standard. 7 These are based on decreases in lung performance. 8 The ARB evaluated the level of public health 9 protection provided by the new eight-hour standard and found 10 it to be equivalent to the State's one-hour standard. 11 As you may have heard, the U.S. EPA's new 12 eight-hour ozone and its PM standards are currently being 13 challenged in court. 14 Children and athletes, as I mentioned earlier, seem 15 to be the people most at risk health consequences from 16 outdoor exposure to ozone. 17 Each group is very active and is often outdoors 18 when ozone levels are highest. 19 As a result, local air regulators in problem areas 20 have implemented systems that warn the schools and community 21 when unhealthful ozone levels are expected. 22 School activities are typically modified to avoid 23 or limit high ozone exposure periods. 24 It is difficult to show the kinds of lung injury 25 that occurs, but this slide demonstrates the damage this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 potent oxidant does to other kinds of living tissue. 2 These are lima bean plants, treated with ozone for 3 several days, at levels similar to those that may occur in 4 urban areas throughout the state on a bad day. 5 The light colored areas on the leaves show where 6 the leave tissue is damaged or bleached by the effect of 7 ozone. The discoloration is the result from the death of the 8 cells within the leaf. 9 Similar sources of cellular injury is occurring in 10 our lungs, not exactly what we have in leaves, but we have 11 cells that exchange gases that are delicate. 12 Here is some evidence. Here is lung tissue of an 13 air way of an animal that shows injury that probably occurs 14 in people exposed to ozone. The wispy structures on the left 15 work to keep the lung clean, and on the right, it is gone 16 after exposure to ozone. 17 Most of the of the tissue may regrow. This sort of 18 tissue loss is the reason why smokers cough in the morning, 19 to do the job of the cells to clear the lungs of fluid. 20 Let's move to particulate matter. 21 Why are we concerned about particles? We have two 22 good reasons, because of the adverse health consequences, and 23 second, which I will talk about now, is visibility. 24 These two slides were both taken from the same 25 location on the UC Riverside campus. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 The hills are a mile from where the pictures are 2 taken, the picture on the left, which was taken on a clear 3 day. 4 The picture on the right is a day when the particle 5 levels are high. You cannot see the hills. They also 6 contribute to urban haze and decrease the visibility and 7 clarity at vistas and parks and cities. 8 This shows what the particles are composed of. 9 This includes dry matter, liquid droplets and bits of solid 10 material coated by liquids. 11 We can see that they are a complex mixture of 12 organic compounds, smoke, soil, dusts, metals, sulfate and 13 nitrates. 14 Particles are different than gaseous pollutants, 15 that are simple chemicals. That is what sets particles 16 apart, which are pure compounds. 17 This is a very busy slide that I could spend a lot 18 of time on. This shows the distribution of the particles in 19 the air. 20 On the right-hand side of the chart is about the 21 size particles, 10 microns in diameter, and moving to the 22 left, it is smaller and smaller until zero in size. Fine and 23 course. 24 We see two kinds of products in the humps. They 25 make up the distribution of the sizes. In the course PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 fraction, on the right, 2.5, 10 microns, we see mechanical 2 processes, tires, oil, soil, the fine fraction. That happens 3 to be the same PM 2.5 standard that the Federal government 4 established, contains products from combustion, and we should 5 be concerned about the range of products. 6 The left is a bar not labeled well, but that is the 7 ultrafines. We are just recently becoming concerned with the 8 health effects of ultrafines, those smaller than 0.1 in size, 9 the smallest are 2.5 and smaller. 10 What are the health effects of particles? 11 Air quality has improved greatly in the State over 12 the years, but we are finding effects of the particles and 13 specific pollutants and ozone. 14 People with asthma reach for inhalers, call their 15 doctors and converge on hospital emergency rooms. 16 Children suffer from bronchitis. 17 Studies, including some conducted in our State, 18 continue to indicate that lung function declines when the 19 particle levels are high. 20 Most disturbing is that when particle levels 21 increase here or in the world, so do the rates of death and 22 hospitalization of people who are already ill. 23 Is this a question of short term harvesting of or 24 early death for people that might have died anyway? 25 No. Recent studies indicate that those deaths PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 associated with PM resulted in a significant shortening of 2 lives, on average, by two or three years longer had they not 3 been exposed. 4 Which particles are of concern? 5 I talked about course, fine and ultrafines. All of 6 the particles that we can inhale are a concern for our 7 health. 8 Particles 10 to 15 microns in size do present a 9 health concern. Anything larger, we filter with the nose and 10 mouth. 11 Those between 2.5 and 10 microns in size tend to 12 deposit in the airways, with a limited number reaching the 13 deep lung. 14 Health studies confirm that asthma and bronchitis 15 problems correlate with increased levels of these coarse 16 particles. 17 Particles that are smaller than 2.5 microns in size 18 easily penetrate into the deep lung. These particles appear 19 to be associated with impacts on the heart and are also 20 associated with increased risk of death. 21 Finally, the ultrafine fraction particles, those 22 smaller than 0.1 micron, have not been widely studied, but 23 many questions seem to revolve around the possible health 24 effects. 25 These particles contribute almost no mass to a PM PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 sample, because they are small, but they are present in huge 2 number counts and have large surface to mass ratios, and they 3 may carry other harmful pollutants into the lung. 4 We must be concerned about all the particles that 5 can be inhaled. 6 I find this slide interesting. It shows the 7 surface of the lung that I passed around. You can see the 8 material. 9 The black spots are carbon particles. This is a 10 person, nonsmoker. The black spots are things the lung 11 cannot eliminate. If you have that lung, you can see it on 12 the lung as well. 13 The State and Federal PM standards are complex 14 because of the new Federal standards. We both have a PM 10 15 standard, and the Federal made it less stringent and added 16 2.5. 17 Our PM 10 is more stringent and provides good 18 protection from the coarse and fine particles. We anticipate 19 that the Board will review the process, and we are watching 20 the review process that the Federal government is doing, and 21 we will all learn from that procedure. 22 Last couple of slides, as Dr. Lloyd indicated, 23 there are major research programs going on in the State and 24 country to learn about the effects of PM and other air 25 pollutants. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 They include all the size fractions that I 2 mentioned, the coarse, PM 10. The first two are the pivotal 3 one's in terms of the standards revision. These studies are 4 reanalyzed to be certain that the findings are correct. 5 They have confirmed that the original findings were 6 correct. 7 There are studies going on to determine whether a 8 national health report can be put together to serve to tell 9 us about the effects of PM on cardiac patients and the 10 elderly people and animals. 11 Specifically, in California, we have an exciting 12 program. 13 Next slide, Steve. 14 We have a really exciting and developing program to 15 discover more about air pollution. It is important to gather 16 the information that is California-specific. 17 If you looked at the two-humped slide, the 18 constituents and relative range is dependent largely on local 19 sources and transport. 20 If you live in one part of the country, the air 21 quality and chemistry will be different. We have very 22 specific PM problems. It is important to understand what the 23 effect is and how best to go forward with the controls to 24 protect the population. 25 We are covering a wide range of epidemiologic PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 studies and animal exposures. The most exciting is the 2 Vulnerable Population. Pop program, which Governor Davis 3 added to the budget and the Legislature gave over two million 4 a year for the study. 5 That program that will run for quite sometime, and 6 initial work is on asthmatic children and families in Fresno, 7 and that's scheduled to start soon. 8 We are asking for more bang for our buck to answer 9 the questions efficiently. 10 In summary, I hope I made the point that we are all 11 likely to have at elevated risk from air pollution during 12 some time in our lives. Factors, such as our overall health, 13 activity levels and location will influence how we react to 14 community air pollution. 15 Some of us are at special risk, such as children, 16 the elderly and those with existing heart and lung disease. 17 Ambient air quality standards stand as an important 18 foundation to many of our program, they define clean and safe 19 air. 20 There are many challenges in our future, things we 21 need to do to assure we are protecting the public health. 22 Our health research program at ARB is very 23 proactive in its pursuit to get the information to do that 24 job. 25 This concludes the presentation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 Thank you. 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, Dane. 3 Thank you for getting through a lot of information 4 in a relative short time. 5 Before we start the questions, I would like to ask 6 Mr. Kenny, we have heard and read a lot on the recent court 7 decision to EPA standards. 8 How does that effect this? 9 MR. KENNY: Not really directly. 10 We have State standards as well as we are 11 progressing to develop the program in the State to meet the 12 State standards. 13 With regard to the Federal program specifically, 14 the trial court did uphold the EPA, and the Appellate Court 15 did not act in promulgating -- the EPA will appeal that. 16 At that point in time, we will get a ruling from 17 the court that will go one of two ways, sustain that or over 18 turn that. 19 If they sustain the original ruling that EPA acted 20 improperly, it is likely that EPA will go back and 21 repromulgate, and we will have a loss of time. 22 If it overturns the standard, will stay in place 23 and proceed to implement them pursuant to EPA guidelines. 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I noticed in the press release 25 California was not listed. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 Is there a reason? 2 MR. KENNY: No reason. 3 We support EPA. We supported it at that point in 4 time. 5 I cannot explain that. 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Questions from the Board? 7 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: When you said that if 8 the -- I assume you mean the full court, if the DC circuit 9 hears it en banc? 10 MR. KENNY: I'm not sure if they ask for 11 reappearing or appeal en banc. 12 They have not made a determination. 13 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Then they seek review by 14 the Supreme Court of the United States. 15 It was your opinion that if the opinion was 16 sustained that then EPA would repromulgate the regulations. 17 Could you be more specific about why you think the 18 language of the current decision, if sustained, would allow 19 repromulgation in a modified form? 20 MR. KENNY: It talks about EPA failure to 21 articulate rationale why they picked specific standard 22 points. 23 That is where EPA can address the court's concerns 24 about what the rationale is for the particular points. 25 It talks about unconstitutionality delegation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 That is confusing. 2 What will happen there is ultimate determination, 3 how it works out will play out, and that is the place where 4 there is a place to resolve that, may help in the court's 5 rationale on the unconstitutionality delegation, that level 6 of specificity may alleviate the concerns on the court. 7 Does that help? 8 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Uh-huh. 9 Ms. Walsh, anything to add? 10 MS. WALSH: No. 11 Mike and I are an agreement on the decision. If 12 you read the delegation, the language regarding the 13 delegation, the use of the delegation did not find that the 14 statute was unconstitutional, but EPA's application of the 15 description provided was unconstitutional, basically citing 16 that EPA had not stated intelligible principles for selecting 17 the cut points that they did. 18 That opens the door for the procedure that Mike 19 laid out. Should EPA not succeed in having the decision over 20 thrown on rehearing or appeal to repromulgate and do a better 21 job of explaining the cut points. 22 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Thank you. 23 There is a copy of the decision. That is good of 24 you to provide that. 25 The point is well made that it was not a ruling PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 that the statute was unconstitutional, that the Clean Air Act 2 was unconstitutional, but more with respect to application, 3 and that can be corrected, hopefully, if it is worst-case 4 scenario. 5 I wanted to ask a procedural question following on 6 the Chairman's information. Have you considered whether the 7 Air Resources Board, or would you make a recommendation as to 8 whether California should file an Amicus brief? 9 MR. KENNY: We are strongly in support of that. 10 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: It may be useful. 11 It seems to me in that we are so closely following 12 this, and we are so involved in the sense that we have 13 problems ourselves and are in the lead. 14 MR. KENNY: If you look at the State standard, we 15 are aware of where EPA is trying to go to provide the same 16 level, and we support what they are trying to do. 17 One of the key issues is what is going to happen 18 with the guidance with regard to designations that promulgate 19 this summer. 20 When I was back in Washington recently, I asked, 21 what do you want us to do with designations, and EPA is going 22 forward with the designation. They do not think that the 23 court opinion limits them in the designation process, but 24 actually to clarify the designation, taking the standards and 25 having the States designate in the geographic regions whether PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 the regions are in compliance or not. 2 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: I, for one, support Amicus 3 brief. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. 5 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I wanted to return to 6 Dane's report. 7 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I appreciated the report 8 and the shopping list of where we have been, but it occurs to 9 me, and I agree, the next decade will see an up surge in 10 research in general on the issue of particulates in every 11 aspect. 12 What I don't know yet, and I don't know a lot of 13 things, but one of the things that I don't know is the 14 prioritization of the questions that we should ask about 15 particulates, not only the biology but the sources, not that 16 we cannot control a source, and in this we may be able to 17 control. 18 It occurred to me that perhaps Alan and you all 19 could convene a high class group of folks to help crystallize 20 for us what are the critical questions that we should be 21 approaching in the next years with respect to investigation 22 in this area. 23 We get to RFA go out, and we get good response, but 24 that is not part of the tapestry that I understand. I think 25 it would be helpful to put it together, integrate some of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 things, so that we can all understand as laypeople and 2 scientists to see the general directions that we are going to 3 go, that the path is going to follow to learn about the 4 aspect of air pollution. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I'm glad you brought that up. You 6 must be reading my mind. 7 I have asked Dr. Passat to work with staff to 8 organize such a group, and he has started. 9 We are right on things. It is very important, 10 because for me, coming to the Board, this is an important 11 question. 12 We have limited resources where should we target 13 them, and as we launch into programs, we need the information 14 to act on in that way. 15 I think that staff is working with that as well. 16 MR. KENNY: Actually, the idea is a good one by 17 both of you, and we are pursuing it. 18 MR. WESTERDAHL: Thank you, Dr. Friedman for the 19 comments. 20 We are actively involved at the national level as 21 far as PM research, and I have been on a Federal Advisory 22 Panel helping set EPA's course for PM. 23 We have staff here that are involved, and we are in 24 high consciousness to the prioritization for PM research. 25 There is a lot to learn. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 We try to keep what are our opportunities, because 2 we cannot resolve the problems ourselves. The first portion 3 is looking at asthmatic children and families in Fresno. 4 Fresno has a very high, complex PM, and the largest 5 PM monitoring program in the world, and it was an opportunity 6 to focus on something to get some answers. 7 The point is well taken. 8 MR. KENNY: There is one thing that we are doing in 9 the area of health effects, a firm based in Boston is doing 10 work on, and they did provide them with contract monies as a 11 way of trying to supplement what they are trying to do and 12 work closely with them. 13 That is one of the things that we think will be 14 helpful. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I hope by the next Board meeting 16 we will have a plan from the staff of when the meeting will 17 take place. 18 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Just a quick question. 19 I thought the presentation was excellent, and one 20 thing I hoped you would comment on, ozone, what is the most 21 significant cause, and what are those most likely to be part 22 of the regulatory effort in the near term? 23 MR. WESTERDAHL: What are the sources of ozone that 24 people breathe, a great portion is from motor vehicles, and 25 they're active programs at the State and Federal levels. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 So, that is one major emphasis and will be in the 2 foreseeable future. 3 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: With regard to that, what is 4 principal area? 5 MR. WESTERDAHL: Fuels, motor vehicles emissions, 6 emissions from refineries, we do what we can, all precursors 7 from oxides of oxygen and hydrocarbons, but we have emission 8 controls. 9 DR. HOLMES: We are doing research on emissions on 10 various kinds of solvents. 11 You will hear later a project to reduce or get a 12 better handle on a relatively small source, like paint 13 striping operations. 14 There is no large source to go after for 15 hydrocarbons. We are going after the medium to small size 16 sources that will contribute to the overall program which, of 17 course, is headed up by the motor vehicles. 18 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I was asking, if you see a 19 new regulatory effort or are we just getting on the sources 20 and bringing them in conformance with the standards? 21 DR. HOLMES: That is the name of the game. 22 As far as the regulatory program goes, look for 23 sources, evaluate them and when appropriate, reduce 24 emissions. 25 We are not scrapping the bottom of the barrel, but PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 we are down to smaller and smaller sources. 2 The SIP, State Implementation Plan, is the road map 3 that leads us, not necessarily to the standard, but to a lot 4 closer than we are now. 5 MR. KENNY: One of the things that we are looking 6 at fairly seriously right now is the toxic elements with 7 mobile sources. 8 There was a report that talked about the risk from 9 mobile sources, and that was high, and the risk in part of 10 California was in the 450 million type of range. That was 11 ambient, not hot spots, and if you take the hot spots, you 12 have triple that number. 13 We have severe exposure to do something about. 14 That is something new that we must look at and address. I 15 might add that what we have done with ozone, we have had a 16 lot of success with ozone, but we are not there yet. 17 What the Board did last year, the LEV-2 and jet 18 skis, that was significant, and we will bring to you in the 19 next year the next level that will target the ozone problems 20 and target or begin the task of the toxics problem. 21 One of the big races is the diesel on and off road. 22 We see emissions coming, if you look at light duty, there is 23 a lot of progress, and heavy duty, there is a lot to do, and 24 we will focus on that. 25 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: That is what I was looking PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 for, where specifically, in what direction might the new 2 programs lie. 3 In doing what we have done in the area of the hot 4 spots, do you see more work there? 5 MR. KENNY: I see a lot. 6 We are looking at specifics in targeting the hot 7 spots. We have not done that in the past unless requested by 8 communities. 9 One of the things in the future is where the 10 communities make a request on their own and bring the 11 monitoring in and identify the risk and identify the 12 strategies to reduce the risk. 13 We are beginning to reallocate resources and 14 finding additional resources to do that, because the report 15 that came out of Congress was significant. 16 We worked with Congress a little bit, and we found 17 the numbers were accurate. If you see the numbers that high, 18 we have something to address and address it relatively 19 quickly. 20 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Any efforts under way in San 21 Diego? 22 MR. KENNY: Yes. 23 In San Diego, the Baro-Logan area, we are working 24 with the leaders there to bring a monitoring effort in the 25 area and figure out what that means and strategies to pursue. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I would like to talk to you 2 more about that. 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I thought Supervisor Roberts was 4 one of the community leaders. 5 MR. KENNY: I caught that. 6 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: He is trying to be. 7 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: That would be false modesty. 8 That is something that has come up in a couple of 9 conversations, and I would like a better handle on what we 10 are doing and could be doing. 11 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I wanted to follow-up 12 on Lynne's question. 13 With respect to this Federal court decision, I'm 14 wondering, is EPA considering repromulgating with more 15 articulation and more intelligible language that underlies 16 the standards that were struck down pending the opinion? 17 MR. KENNY: I have not heard that. 18 What I have heard from them is that they intend to 19 appeal. At this point in time, that is where they are going. 20 They may be thinking that way, but they are 21 indicating that they are unhappy with the Court's decision 22 and disagree. 23 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Is the effect to stay, 24 any enforcement on the part of the industry to comply? 25 MR. KENNY: Nothing that readily needs to. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 The key was process of implementation and 2 designation that the States would be participating in, I did 3 specifically ask the question, what are you going to do with 4 going forward, and they plan to issue the statement, they are 5 not stayed by the Court's action. 6 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Okay. Thank you. 7 I too think we ought to weigh in. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Could we ask staff to prepare 9 something and work with the Governor's office on that? 10 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Just following up on that, 11 the questions were excellent with respect to planting the 12 seed, why do they not go ahead and do it to mute out the 13 specificity issue, and it might be that doing that would not 14 take longer than getting it through the Court? 15 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: The intelligible 16 principle. 17 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: That was a brilliant 18 thought by Professor Friedman. 19 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Thank you for that. 20 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: A lot of common sense 21 there, and the thought that he inspired in me is for us to 22 answer, as you consider what is the appropriate course to 23 take, Amicus brief, what is best for California to, what do 24 we think needs to be done now that there is this rather 25 controversial decision, which puts a lot of important health PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 issues in limbo, if we think that the thing to do is 2 repromulgate, or if you think that or as the Chairman says, 3 in his collective wisdom, and the Governor does that, the 4 question to focus on is what is best for the folks? 5 I'm sure you will follow that. 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 7 I would like you to comment on, we talk about 8 children's health and focus, and it is disturbing to see in 9 The Bee and Chronicle the high levels of toxics that children 10 in the portable classrooms are breathing and being exposed 11 to. 12 Are we doing anything on that or looking at the 13 risk? 14 MR. KENNY: We have been concerned, and we have 15 people in Research looking at the indoor air quality. We 16 have done a lot with Education, but we have no authority to 17 regulate indoor air. 18 The opportunity is there to educate the population. 19 If you look at prefabricated and the types of materials used 20 in those buildings, there are substances that we are 21 concerned about for indoor air quality and what exposures are 22 for the people, since they spend so much time inside. 23 We have tried to do things in the area, but we 24 don't have the regulatory authority. We are limited. 25 More specifically, Tom Phillips is here. He is a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 point person, and he could add additional information. 2 MR. PHILLIPS: Tom Phillips, good morning. 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: It is, when you have a smog alert 4 day, children are told to stay indoors, and now they are 5 stuck inside with potential bad exposure, like being between 6 a rock and a hard place. 7 MR. PHILLIPS: Don't breathe. 8 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: Who does have the authority to 9 regulate indoor air? 10 MR. KENNY: The Health Department has authority, 11 but the authority is not generally the same as we have. 12 We have been in a regulatory setting for the 13 standards and have the industry comply. The Health 14 Department does not act in the same way. 15 We have had negotiations with the 16 Health Department to give authority to the Air Resources 17 Board, but they have been ambivalent. 18 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: Who has the authority over the 19 school buildings? 20 MR. PHILLIPS: We looked into that. 21 The Department of General Services has general 22 requirements but not -- classrooms fall under the purview, 23 and they do not check the plans and components for the 24 building plans and the ventilation are not checked for new 25 schools, and it is left up to the district and local PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 departments. 2 So, it does not happen. 3 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: Is it because they have no one 4 experienced or with the knowledge? 5 MR. PHILLIPS: The response is no money to do it. 6 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: I suspect there is a place 7 that everything is falling through the cracks. 8 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I have a question on 9 vulnerable population program, give us a time line, Dr. 10 Holmes or Dane, can answer the question. 11 Where I'm going is where Ron was in hot spots in 12 terms of children and vulnerable populations, how do we 13 protect where they live, and I wanted to know why Fresno, and 14 I assumed it was because of you, Barbara. 15 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: It was. 16 MR. WESTERDAHL: That makes it interesting. 17 All of the factors may be important for asthma. It 18 is, we do it through the approaches, and many of the things 19 we are taking a look at in the available database that the 20 State and Federal government has for matching with the air 21 quality, and what we know about where they live and the level 22 and can identify, are there hot spots or areas of interest 23 that should be followed further. 24 We are working with other groups and in other 25 programs to correlate the efforts not just to know what in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 general but in the children's study, we did the monitoring in 2 the schools and home and in the community to make sure we are 3 representing what people, kids are really exposed to. 4 This vulnerable population study will focus on 5 what's going on, what the climate is and what they are 6 exposed to. 7 The most bang for the buck opportunity. We find a 8 problem and where people are spending a great deal of money, 9 we jump on that. 10 As the program develops, over the years it will go 11 beyond Fresno and asthma and look at elderly people, people 12 with existing cardiac problems. 13 We have identified the research, and others help 14 identify where we need to go. We are not concerned. 15 Our major regulatory concern is not to protect the 16 average but the people who need the protection. 17 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I bring it up because of 18 the industrial belts, not necessary the age, senior, I'm 19 attempting to come up with a brilliant thought here, but in 20 terms of interest, last month, as the refineries came out 21 with their risk management plans, the concern was on the 22 fence line and the vulnerable population, the children as 23 they look at the plumes, it is interesting, versus the mobile 24 source. 25 As we evolve, I would be interested in seeing the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 differences between environment and fence line versus the 2 concerns, what Mr. Kenny talked about. 3 MR. WESTERDAHL: And there are efforts to add some 4 considerable amount of community fence lines, school yards 5 and effects especially for children. 6 There are things moving forward. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any other questions? 8 I think I have a personal interest in the issue as 9 well, and it is important to work with everyone, and we have 10 a lot of money in the Children Health's Study to see where 11 that goes, because we go on into multi-year studies, what are 12 we getting out of it, and there are competing concerns, and I 13 understand what Mr. Westerdahl is saying, vis-a-vis, 14 resources to share. 15 It is not easy to embark for a goal of 10 years and 16 at four years you have to cut it off. We owe it to people to 17 understand what they are getting, and I hope to report back 18 to the Board how we utilized that, and Mr. Kenny, the 19 Legislature. 20 If there are no more questions, it is not a 21 regulatory item, and we don't need to close the record. 22 I thank the Research staff and Dane for the 23 excellent presentation and discussion. 24 We will start the next item as soon as we have the 25 exchange of places. We hope to have a press event at eleven PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 o'clock with the truck and bus outside. We may be running a 2 little late. 3 We will see how that goes. 4 Next on the Agenda is 99-4-2, Public Meeting to 5 Consider Air Quality Status and Trends. 6 Now that we have heard the bad news about harmful 7 effects of air pollution, it's time to look at something 8 positive and see the progress that we have made and all the 9 results of our investment both that have translated into the 10 Research Program and the regulatory actions that the Board 11 has taken so we can see the substantial progress that has 12 occurred. 13 Mr. Kenny. 14 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of 15 the Board. 16 We have made great strides in improving air quality 17 as the result of the efforts of this Board, the government, 18 the business community, public, everyone in California. 19 We take pride in the fact that the air is cleaner 20 and healthier and that the key to the success, are the regs 21 that we have implemented. 22 Marci Nystrom will begin the staff presentation. 23 MS. NYSTROM: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. Thank you. 24 Good morning, Chairman Lloyd and Members of the 25 Board. As Mr. Kenny said, I will be talking about California PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 Air Quality Status and Trends. 2 In general, I will talk about the pollutants that 3 pose the greatest challenge here in California and the issue 4 that we face in continuing to recuse ambient concentrations. 5 The bulk of my presentation deals with our status 6 relative to three pollutants, ozone, particulate matter and 7 carbon monoxide. 8 As Dane told you earlier, toxic air contaminants 9 also pose problems throughout the State. I will not be 10 discussing them in this presentation. 11 The staff plans to present an informational item on 12 specifically on toxics later this year. 13 Let's get started with ozone. 14 As you well know, ozone is the main component of 15 urban smog. It is a secondary pollutant, which means that 16 ozone is not directly emitted into the air, instead, it's 17 formed in the atmosphere through a photochemical process. 18 In the simplest terms, hydrocarbon and oxides of 19 nitrogen precursor emissions, react in the presence of 20 sunlight to form ozone. 21 Because it can take some time for the photochemical 22 reactions to occur, ozone generally impacts a widespread 23 region. Furthermore, both ozone and its precursor emissions 24 can be carried from one area to another. 25 This results in transport impacts in downwind PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 areas. In some cases, high ozone concentrations can result 2 primarily from transport. In other cases, there can be a 3 shared impact from both transport and local emissions. 4 These maps show the current area designations for 5 the State and National one-hour ozone standards. Basically, 6 the term nonattainment means that ozone levels exceed the 7 health-based air quality standards. 8 Virtually all of the major metropolitan areas fall 9 into the nonattainment category. 10 When we see a great deal of overlap in the State 11 and National nonattainment areas, more areas are 12 nonattainment for the State standard, because the State 13 standard it is more stringent than the National one-hour 14 standard. 15 While California still has a substantial number of 16 nonattainment areas, we have made dramatic improvements in 17 ozone air quality. On a Statewide basis, peak ozone levels 18 decreased an average of 49 percent from 1980 to 1997. 19 This decreased occurred, despite a 39 increase in 20 population, and a 78 percent increase in the number of 21 vehicle miles traveled each day. 22 This significant decline, in the face of 23 substantial growth, demonstrates the overall success of our 24 ozone control programs. 25 This slide shows how the ozone problem in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 California compares with the rest of the nation. It shows 2 the top 10 urban areas, ranked by average number of days with 3 ozone concentrations above the National one-hour standard. 4 California areas, shown in light yellow, fill seven 5 of the top ten ranks. The only other areas are Houston, in 6 fourth place, Baltimore, in ninth place and Saint Louis, in 7 tenth place. 8 This slide points out that although we have made 9 substantial improvements in ozone air quality, we still have 10 a large number of unhealthy days, and, as you know, any 11 concentration above the standard is a health concern. 12 So, while we've been very successful with our past 13 programs, it is clear that we still have a lot of work ahead 14 of us. 15 The time frames for attaining the National one-hour 16 standard is quickly approaching. 17 This slide shows the attainment dates specified in 18 the State Implementation Plan or SIP. Four areas have 19 attainment dates in the next year and a half. The remaining 20 four must attain in the next five to ten years. 21 I'd like to talk just briefly about the three 22 starred areas. As you know, the San Francisco Bay Area 23 became attainment in 1995, and then was redesignated as 24 nonattainment in 1998. 25 During the last several years, concentrations in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 this area have been bouncing around, very near the level of 2 the standard. 3 We have seen the same thing in Santa Barbara 4 County. Some of the variability in the ambient 5 concentrations is caused by meteorology. 6 As a result, we must be diligent in reducing 7 emissions so that we can maintain the standards under a 8 variety of meteorological conditions not just the most 9 favorable conditions. 10 The last area I'd like to mention is the San 11 Joaquin Valley. This area has an attainment date of this 12 year. 13 However, the Valley will not meet this deadline and 14 will be reclassified as severe nonattainment area. 15 The deadline will be extended to 2005. 16 This slide shows the 1998 state designation values 17 for California's six most populated air basins. To give you 18 a brief explanation, we determine a designation value each 19 year based on the previous three years of data. 20 We use the designation value to determine whether 21 an area is attainment or nonattainment for the State 22 standards. The designation value represents the highest 23 measured concentration that remains after we exclude the 24 extreme values. 25 You can see that the designation values exceed the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 State standard in all six air basins. California's worst 2 ozone problem is found in the South Coast, where the 3 designation value is more than twice the level of the State 4 standard. 5 It is interesting to note that the designation 6 values for the other five areas are quite similar, ranging 7 from 0.13 parts per million, or PPM, to 0.17 PPM. 8 Therefore, each of these areas must achieve similar 9 reductions in their peak values in order to reach attainment. 10 There are a number of things that we must address 11 in our future efforts to reduce ozone. Several important 12 ones are listed here. 13 They include the impact of controls on the peak 14 values and the number of exceedence days, their relationships 15 between ozone precursors and their control, the implications 16 of weekend effect, the promulgation of the new eight-hour 17 National standard, the lack of progress in the San Joaquin 18 Valley and the impact of meteorological variability. 19 Let's look at each of these in more detail. 20 There are a number of things we can look at in 21 gauging our progress. One way is look at the peak values. 22 Another is to look at the number of days with 23 concentrations about the standard, or exceedence days. 24 Over the last 20 years, we have made substantial 25 reductions in the peak values. For example, during the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 1960s, one-hour ozone concentrations in Southern California 2 were as high as 0.65 PPM. 3 Today's values are about one-third of that. 4 However, despite this large decrease in peaks, we 5 still have a substantial number of exceedence days. 6 The South Coast provides a good example. This 7 graph shows the peak one-hour ozone trend. The peak value, 8 plotted in orange, is a calculated value that represents the 9 highest concentration we would expect to occur, once per 10 year, on average. 11 Because it is more statistically robust, the peak 12 value is the one that I will be talking about. However, for 13 comparison, I have also plotted the maximum measured 14 concentrations. 15 These are shown in yellow. You can see that the 16 peak value has declined steadily over the years. It shows an 17 overall decline of about 50 percent from 1980 to 1998. The 18 peak value in 1980 was 0.45 ppm, compared with 0.23 PPM last 19 year. 20 In contrast to last graph, this one shows the 21 number of days above the one-hour standards. Days above the 22 State standard are shown in yellow, and days above the 23 National standard are shown in magenta. 24 Both indicators still show a significant number of 25 unhealthy days. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 During the early 80s, nearly every day during the 2 ozone season had values above the State standard. 3 During the last several years, concentrations 4 exceeded the State standard on about half the days during the 5 ozone season. 6 A comparison with Houston, Texas, provides a good 7 example of just how severe our problem is. During 1994 to 8 1996, their maximum ozone value was 0.24 PPM. 9 This is similar to the maximum of 0.26 PPM in the 10 Riverside/San Bernardino area. 11 However, during this same time period, the Houston 12 area had an average of only 37 exceedence days. Compare this 13 with 107 in Riverside/San Bernardino. 14 It's clear that our future efforts must be aimed 15 not only at reducing the peaks but at reducing all 16 concentrations that exceed the standards. 17 The next point I would like to talk about is 18 precursor emission controls. As I said earlier, hydrocarbon 19 and NOx emissions react in the presence of sunlight to form 20 ozone. 21 However, NOx is interesting in that it has a dual 22 nature. It can destroy ozone as well as create it. 23 During the last several decades, we have 24 implemented controls to reduce both hydrocarbons and NOx. As 25 a result of this strategy, our ozone concentrations have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 decreased significantly. 2 Despite our success, some of the ozone modeling 3 studies conducted over the past few years have shown that 4 while NOx controls provide overall regional benefits, NOx 5 controls may not provide benefits in some localized areas. 6 However, as I mentioned earlier, ozone is a 7 regional pollutant and the modeling results should be 8 evaluated on a regional basis rather than a subregional 9 basis. 10 It is also important to note that our 11 concentrations have decreased at a faster rate than those in 12 other areas of the nation. These other areas have relied on 13 a hydrocarbon-only control strategy. 14 Using the EPA's indicator, one-hour ozone dropped 15 on average only 15 percent nationwide, between 1987 and 1996. 16 In California, the decrease was 18 percent 17 Statewide and 33 percent in the South Coast. 18 Given the success of our approach, it is not 19 surprising that the National Academy of Sciences has been 20 critical of the hydrocarbon-only strategy. 21 Furthermore, it is clear that we need to continue 22 with programs that reduce both hydrocarbons and NOx. This 23 strategy is critical not only for ozone but also for 24 particulate matter. 25 Another issue deals with the differences in ozone PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 on weekends and weekdays. Many people have the perception 2 that ozone on weekdays is decreasing while ozone on weekends 3 is increasing. However, in reality, ozone is decreasing on 4 all days. 5 What is happening is that ozone is decreasing less 6 on weekends. 7 The weekend-weekday phenomenon has raised a number 8 of questions, and we're continuing work that will help us 9 better understand it. 10 In the past, ARB and others have conducted data 11 analyses, but none of these studies has shed much light on 12 the cause-and-effect relationships. 13 However, based on an understanding of atmospheric 14 chemistry and the weekend-weekday emission differences, there 15 are several competing theories. 16 These theories are based on the timing emissions, 17 the various mix of emissions and the total amount of 18 emissions. 19 Each theory has different control implications. 20 Although we cannot yet explain it, the key to 21 determining the cause of the weekend effect seems to be 22 understanding emission. 23 To help in this effort, we have initiated a number 24 of studies to collect the necessary activity data and develop 25 a weekend emission inventory. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 Air quality monitoring and statistical analyses 2 will be used as complementary approaches to assess the 3 emission inventory estimates, determine their effect on ozone 4 levels and their implications for ozone control policies. 5 We have a workshop scheduled next month to gather 6 comments on our proposed workplan. Our goal is to analyze 7 the existing data in time for the Year 2000 Air Quality 8 Maintenance Plan. Analysis of new data would then be 9 completed in time for the 2003 AQMP. 10 This graph for the South Coast illustrates the 11 weekend-weekday effect. It shows the average number of hours 12 above the standard on weekends in yellow and on weekdays in 13 magenta. 14 As you see, the number of exceedence hours has been 15 decreasing for both weekends and weekdays, however, the 16 exceedence hours on weekdays are declining at a faster rate. 17 As a result exceedence hours on weekends now 18 account for a greater percentage of the total than they did 19 during the early 1980s. 20 The next thing I would like to talk about is the 21 new National eight-hour ozone standard. Although our past 22 efforts have focused on achieving the one-hour standards, we 23 must now concentrate on reducing eight-hour concentrations as 24 well. 25 While the recent court decision has set in motion a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 legal process that will take some time to sort out, we are 2 still moving ahead with our work in this area. 3 We expect the U.S. EPA will designate areas for the 4 eight-hour standard in the summer of 2000. Based on our 5 analysis, we expect there will then be a better match between 6 the State and National nonattainment areas. 7 Plans for attaining the eight-hour standard are due 8 in 2003. During the interim, we expect that emission 9 reductions aimed at achieving the one-hour standard will also 10 be effective in reducing the eight-hour values. 11 Furthermore, any controls we implement to meet the 12 State standard will move us closer to attaining the new 13 eight-hour standard. 14 This slide shows the current State nonattainment on 15 the left, the areas that we expect will be nonattainment for 16 the eight-hour standard are shown on the right. 17 As you can see, there is a very good match among 18 the areas. This overlap of areas should facilitate a more 19 comprehensive and integrated approach to ozone control. 20 As I said, our efforts to reduce one-hour 21 concentrations have also benefitted the eight-hour 22 concentrations. 23 This slide for the South Coast illustrates the 24 progress that we have already made. It shows the decrease in 25 the one-hour values, plotted on the left axis, and the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 eight-hour values,plotted on the right axis. 2 Concentrations for both averaging times are 3 declining at similar rates. Furthermore, since the National 4 eight-hour standard is now closer in stringency to the State 5 standard, attainment for the National standard will be more 6 closely aligned with attainment for the State standard. 7 While we have made substantial progress in most 8 areas of the State, there are a few areas that have not 9 responded to our ozone control efforts. This is very evident 10 in San Joaquin Valley. 11 As you can see, there has been very little change 12 in the peak values since 1980. There seem to be a number of 13 reasons for the lack of progress. 14 First, the area has concentrated more on a 15 hydrocarbon control strategy than dual hydrocarbon and NOx 16 strategy. 17 A second factor is the physical location of the 18 area. The Valley location is conducive to stagnant 19 meteorological conditions. 20 The surrounding mountains serve as a barrier, 21 favoring the build-up of precursor emissions and pollutants. 22 Finally, many of the Valley areas have experienced 23 significant growth rates over the past 20 years. 24 For example, between 1980 and 1999, the Statewide 25 population increased 40 percent. During the same time PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 period, population in the San Joaquin Valley increased nearly 2 60 percent. 3 We will need to watch this and other similar areas 4 closely to assure future progress. 5 The last ozone issue I would like to talk about is 6 meteorological variability. As you all know, meteorology can 7 have a large impact on air quality. 8 A prime example is the impact of El Nino on ozone 9 during most of 1997 and early part of 1998. 10 The El Nino weather pattern tends to bring with it 11 cooler temperatures and better dispersion than we would 12 normally expect. 13 As a result, we saw ozone concentrations that were 14 lower than normal. While many people saw this as a great 15 improvement, it really reflected a change in meteorology 16 rather than a change in emissions. 17 We are continuing to evaluate methods we can use to 18 factor out the impact of meteorology. The goal is to better 19 understand air quality as it relates to emission reductions. 20 This in turn will give us a better understanding of 21 which control strategies are most effective. 22 The San Francisco Bay Area provides a good example 23 of the meteorology problem. This graph shows the maximum 24 one-hour ozone values, measured from 1980 to 1998. 25 There's a substantial amount of variation in these PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 values from one year to the next. 2 Although there are many factors that contribute to 3 the variability, meteorology is certainly one of them. If we 4 could factor out the meteorological influence, we would see a 5 much smoother trend. 6 Furthermore, it would probably alleviate the 7 problem of areas bouncing in and out of attainment. By 8 recognizing the influence of meteorology, we can work toward 9 attaining the standards under all types of meteorological 10 conditions, even those that are adverse. 11 Now, I would like to move on to the next pollutant, 12 which is particulate matter. 13 In contrast to ozone, particulate matter is not a 14 single substance but rather a mixture of a variety of 15 substances. This make the particulate matter very different 16 from most of the other pollutants we deal with. 17 Some particles are emitted directly into the air. 18 These are the primary particles. Some of the primary 19 particles are the very small, or fine particles. 20 Others are the larger or coarse particles. One of 21 the major contributors to the primary particles is geological 22 material from activities such as motor vehicle travel, 23 construction and strong winds; mobile sources, such as 24 diesel-fueled vehicles also contribute to the primary 25 particles. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 In contrast to the primary particles, other 2 particulate matter results from gases. These gases are 3 transformed through physical and chemical processes in the 4 atmosphere. These are the secondary particles. 5 The major precursors for the secondary particles 6 are hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur. 7 The secondary particles tend to be fine particles. 8 The major contributors are precursor emissions from 9 combustion processes. These processes include sources such 10 as motor vehicles and stationary sources. 11 Now, you are probably familiar with the recent 12 increased interest in fine particles. These are the 13 particles that are less than 2.5 microns in diameter. 14 In the summer of 1997, the U.S. EPA promulgated 15 National PM 2.5 standards. We are just beginning to deploy 16 a Statewide PM 2.5 network to collect data that comply with 17 the new standard. 18 The State standard is based on PM 10. PM 10 19 comprises all particulate matter of 10 microns diameter or 20 less. As a result, PM 10 includes both the coarse particles 21 and the fine, PM 2.5 particles. 22 These maps show the current State and National PM 23 10 nonattainment areas. Almost the entire State is 24 designated as nonattainment for the State standards. 25 This contrasts starkly with the smaller number of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 National nonattainment areas. However, you must keep in mind 2 that the National 24-hour PM 10 standard is three times the 3 level of the State standard. 4 So, we would expect fewer National nonattainment 5 areas. 6 On a nationwide basis, the PM 10 problem is 7 generally limited to the western states, and we have a large 8 share of the problem. In fact, four of the six serious 9 National nonattainment areas are located in California. 10 One of these areas, the Coachella Valley, has 11 petitioned the U.S. EPA for redesignation as attainment. The 12 request is awaiting approval. 13 This slide shows the remaining three serious 14 nonattainment areas and their attainment dates. Originally, 15 these areas had to attain by 2001. However, the Clean Air 16 Act allows areas that cannot demonstrate attainment by 2001 17 to petition for a five-year extension. 18 All three of these areas have done so. 19 This slide shows the State PM 10 designation values 20 for the six most populated air basins. Similar to ozone, the 21 South Coast is again the worst area. 22 However, the San Joaquin Valley is not far behind. 23 The remaining areas have designation values that are one and 24 a half to almost three times the level of the State standard. 25 This illustrates the point that we still have much PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 to do. 2 I would like to emphasize that theses values do not 3 reflect the absolute highest concentrations in California. 4 Generally, the highest concentrations are measured during 5 dust storms in desert areas. 6 While these high values are a great concern, they 7 typically do not reflect the concentrations to which the 8 majority of people are exposed. 9 There are several points related to particulate 10 matter that warrant discussion. These are the 11 characteristics of PM 10, the impact of the ozone precursor 12 controls, the impact of meteorological variability and, 13 finally, the problem of regional haze. 14 Let's talk first about PM 10 itself. As you saw on 15 the designation map, nearly all of California is designated 16 as nonattainment for the State standards. 17 Currently over 99 percent of the State's population 18 is exposed to PM 10 values that exceed the State standards 19 during at least part of the year. 20 One of the things that makes the particulate matter 21 problem so difficult is that the emission sources are very 22 diverse. 23 Furthermore, because of the variety of sources and 24 the size and chemical make-up of the particles, both the 25 nature and the causes of the problem can vary considerably PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 from area to area. 2 As a result, two areas with similar concentrations 3 may have very different PM 10 problems. 4 To add to the complexity, a single area may have a 5 different type of PM 10 problem during different times of the 6 year. 7 This slide provides a good illustration. It shows 8 the seasonal variation in the fine particles, shown as the 9 yellow bars, and the coarse particles shown as the magenta 10 bars. 11 It also shows the seasonal variation in the total 12 PM 10, plotted as a line above the bars. 13 You will notice that the fine particles are highest 14 during the fall and winter months. During this time, 15 combustion sources, such as wood stoves, motor vehicles and 16 stationary sources, contribute to the problem. 17 In contrast, the coarse particles are highest 18 during the summer and fall. This is the time when the ground 19 is dry and easily disturbed by winds and human activity. 20 You can see that the two size fractions have very 21 different sources. As a result, they require very different 22 approaches to control. 23 In the past, we have not made a concerted effort to 24 control PM 10 for its own sake. However, as I will show you, 25 our ozone controls have had some impact. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 You will remember from our earlier discussion that 2 both oxides of nitrogen and hydrocarbons are precursors to 3 ozone. They are also both precursors to PM 10. They are 4 especially important for PM 2.5 because they tend to be very 5 small in size. 6 As a result, our ozone strategies have had the 7 added benefit of reducing particulate matter levels. 8 This slide shows how the ozone precursor controls 9 have already helped. It shows the South Coast annual average 10 PM 10 trend on top and PM 2.5 on the bottom. 11 Both lines are declining, and they track pretty 12 well. When you look at them on a percentage basis, we see 13 that PM 10 decreased about 35 percent over the eight year 14 period. 15 In contrast, PM 2.5 decreased about 40 percent. 16 These percentage decreases are fairly close. However, as I 17 will show you in the next several slides, much of the 18 decrease in PM 10 is probably due to rainfall. 19 So, in reality, the difference between the two is 20 probably much greater than shown here. Nevertheless, the PM 21 2.5 reduction represents quite a significant side-benefit 22 from our ozone control programs. 23 The next point I would like to talk about is 24 meteorological variability. Similar to most other 25 pollutants, PM 10 is also sensitive to meteorology. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 This is particularly true for the coarse particles, 2 because they tend to settle out first. 3 When we look at improvements in PM 10 over the 4 years, there is a strong correspondence to rainfall. 5 This graph shows the annual average PM 10 for 6 Bakersfield, plotted with the annual rainfall. As you can 7 clearly see, the years with high PM 10 generally had low 8 rainfall. 9 In contrast, the years with low PM 10 generally had 10 high rainfall. This means that much of the improvement we 11 have seen over the last ten years is probably tied to 12 favorable meteorology. 13 Without additional controls, we could see higher PM 14 10 levels in future years if we have drought conditions, 15 similar to those in the mid to late 1980s. 16 The last point I would like to talk about for PM 10 17 is the issue of regional haze. We have heard a lot about 18 this in recent years, especially as it relates to visibility 19 in the Grand Canyon area. 20 Many people use visibility to judge air quality. 21 They believe if they can see things in the distance, the air 22 must be clean. 23 Particulate matter contributes to poor visibility. 24 Generally, the particles that are PM 2.5 and smaller are the 25 major culprits. Reducing these fine particles, which result PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 from soot, oxides of sulfur, hydrocarbons and oxides of 2 nitrogen, will go a long way toward improving regional haze. 3 Now, I would like to make just a few comments about 4 carbon monoxide. California's carbon monoxide problem is 5 largely solved. 6 By 1998, most areas of the State were designated as 7 attainment for both the State and National standards. At 8 this point we have only two remaining nonattainment areas, 9 Los Angeles County and the City of Calexico, in Imperial 10 County. 11 We are continuing to study the problems in these 12 areas in an effort to develop locally focused control 13 strategies. 14 One of the issues stemming from our efforts to 15 control carbon monoxide emissions is the need for wintertime 16 oxygenated fuels. Such fuels are no longer required in most 17 of the attainment areas. 18 One exception is the Lake Tahoe area. However, 19 next month the staff plans to present an item that would 20 remove the requirements there as well. 21 We expect that in the future decreasing emissions 22 from motor vehicles will be adequate to assure continued 23 maintenance or compliance with the standards. 24 Finally, we come to the summary, and the obvious 25 question is, where do we go from here? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 While we have made tremendous strides in improving 2 California's air quality, despite significant growth, we 3 still have a long way to go. 4 Currently, we have a large number of nonattainment 5 areas, and over 90 percent of the State's population breathes 6 unhealthy air during some part of the year. 7 Our future efforts must be focused on continuing to 8 improve air quality, with a specific emphasis on ozone, 9 particulate matter and regional haze. 10 In the past, ozone was our main focus. However, 11 our ozone control efforts have had the added benefit of also 12 reducing PM 2.5. In the future, we need to look at the 13 impacts on all pollutants and develop a more integrated 14 overall strategy. 15 We must also recognize the need for Statewide 16 strategies. Multi-pollutant air quality problems are found 17 throughout the State, making Statewide control strategies 18 important to address California's air quality goals. 19 This concludes my presentation. However, before we 20 open it up for questions, I would like to mention that we 21 have been working to make all of our air quality and 22 emissions data available to the public. 23 We have a demonstration of some of our tools set up 24 outside the hearing room. We invite you to stop by and take 25 a look. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 Now, if you have any questions, we will be happy to 2 answer them. 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much for the 4 presentation. 5 Any questions from Members of the Board? 6 Yes, Mr. Calhoun. 7 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: You mentioned the workshop 8 where you are looking at the weekday-weekend differences. 9 Has a notice been sent for that? 10 MR. CROES: June 23. 11 The notice will be sent out tomorrow. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any other questions? 13 Any further questions? 14 I presume no written comments. 15 Again, since this is not a regulatory item, there 16 is no need to close the record, and I would thank the staff 17 for the presentation and providing the material. 18 At this point, I would like to essentially take a 19 break here. We are scheduled at this time to see an example 20 of our Innovative Clean Air Technology Program results. 21 This is a program that is different from the 22 Research Programs whereby we work with the private sector to 23 develop the technology needed to attain the standards. 24 Some of you may have seen the results of one of the 25 participants in the program. We have a hybrid electric LPG PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 bus, on the sidewalk, and we have in the parking lot a hybrid 2 big rig truck that uses an electric motor coupled with a 3 compressed natural gas engine. 4 The truck particularly is of great interest. This 5 is the first time we have seen such a thing and these are 6 technological breakthroughs as we face the growing challenges 7 in moving goods and reducing emissions. 8 We will take a 20-minute break to go out to the 9 parking lot there to hear from the project developers ICE and 10 Cal Star and Westar. 11 Then we will go promptly to the Board items and the 12 proposals and the ICAT program. 13 Thank you. 14 (Thereupon a brief recess was taken.) 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I would like to reconvene the 16 Board meeting. So much for the 20 minutes. 17 I would like to congratulate the staff for the 18 excellent work in bringing that technology to that status, 19 and I look forward it to being commercialized and on the 20 road. 21 We have lost two Board Members, Supervisor Roberts 22 and Bill Friedman, and it was important for Dr. Friedman for 23 the Research Proposals, but in his stead, we have six 24 research proposals brought by the Research Division, and Dr. 25 Holmes, do you or staff have anything to say about the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 proposals? 2 DR. HOLMES: No, nothing in particular. 3 We briefed several Board Members and have not heard 4 any concerns nor received any telephone calls, so I think we 5 are okay. 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: We have no public comments either. 7 Does the Board have any questions? 8 No questions. 9 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: If there are no questions, I 10 move approval of the items. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I need to ask a question. 12 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Somebody needs to ask a 13 question. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: One of the things I am concerned 15 about is the shrinking research budget, and I want to try to 16 work with staff to increase that. 17 Another way is to do leveraging of funds. There 18 are several of the research proposals where there is no 19 cosponsorship. 20 Is that because staff tried and failed or has not 21 tried at all? 22 DR. HOLMES: We make an annual visit to our 23 partners in the South Coast AQMD and make a list of the 24 proposals that we plan to do, and we have a commonality of 25 interest, and in those cases we get cofunding, and there are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 other projects that we have no direct infusion of dollars but 2 in kind support from agencies or districts interested in the 3 work. 4 I agree that there is probably more we could do to 5 seek out cofunding from other government agencies and other 6 interested parties. That effort continues. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you, Dr. Holmes. 8 I certainly will join with you in trying to, again, 9 look for funds from appropriate sources to stretch the 10 valuable dollars and get more dollars. 11 MS. WALSH: Before you move on to take a vote on 12 the Resolution, let me clarify for the record, with Mrs. 13 Riordan, there are six Resolutions in the Research Board 14 Item, Proposed Resolution 99-16 through 21, and I would like 15 to clarify that the motion includes all of those? 16 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. I include all of 17 those with some specificity. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: We have a motion. 19 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Second. 20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: So, all in favor of adopting all 21 the Research Proposals, say aye. 22 Opposed, no. 23 Nothing. 24 Okay. 25 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: If I might, I know it would PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 be a bit of a stretch, and everyone is competing for these 2 dollars, in terms of health and health research, you could 3 make, I think, a case in the right study for some of the 4 tobacco money. 5 I think you might begin to think about that. I 6 think, I do not know what the State is doing about that 7 dispersal of money. There might be a case to be made for 8 some research. 9 I think it correlates, and that may be available to 10 be made. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Maybe we could ask staff to look 12 into that and report back at the next Board meeting. 13 MR. CACKETTE: There has been discussion, and we 14 will give you the status. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: A crumb from a big amount might be 16 a lot. 17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I think that there is 18 tremendous competition, and I recognize that, but I think you 19 could really draw some cause-and-effect type of research that 20 could be useful to the State. 21 MR. CACKETTE: Especially if the mechanism does not 22 matter, what the particles, but how they get into the body 23 and through the lungs and things like that. 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 25 That is an excellent suggestion. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 The next item is 99-4-3, the Public Meeting to 2 Consider Proposals for, as I mentioned, the Innovative Clean 3 Air Technology, or ICAT program. 4 This is the fifth year of the program and it is 5 already bearing fruit, as we saw outside there. 6 ARB's ICAT funding supports technologies that not 7 only have high potential for improving air quality in 8 California but also offer great promise for stimulating the 9 State's economy through significant commercialization 10 opportunities. 11 What we just saw outside was an excellent example 12 of that part. 13 With that, I would like to see if staff has a 14 presentation or any comments on the proposals before you. 15 MR. CACKETTE: Mr. Kenny is held upstairs in a 16 conference call. 17 I think you saw the results of one of ICAT programs 18 outside. We do not need to give the background as to what 19 the program is about. 20 The key focus is to move things out of research and 21 development stage into commercialization stage and get clean 22 air technology and get jobs for Californians. 23 We do this every year, and we got 42 pre-proposals, 24 asking for general ideas, and we went through those and 25 prioritized them and invited 17 firms to respond with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 details, with costs and objectives, and we got 13 of those 2 that submitted proposals, and we are recommending that you 3 consider three for funding today. 4 Many of them had interesting aspects, but these 5 three are likely prospects of providing a commercial product 6 for sale and will help California with jobs. 7 The objectives are consistent with the overall 8 goals and plan of the Board. They meet the technical and 9 business requirements that we have established for the ICAT 10 program, and they will help the Board meet the clean air 11 objectives. 12 Tony Andreoni will make the presentation. 13 MR. ANDREONI: Thank you, Chairman Lloyd, Board 14 Members. 15 This will provide the Board information on the 16 three ICAT proposals staff is proposing for funding this 17 year. First, I will review the ICAT program and summarize 18 the recommendation for funding these proposals, and I will 19 introduce two speakers to discuss the respective ICAT 20 projects. 21 As the Chairman mentioned, this is the fifth year 22 of the ICAT program that provides the funds for the 23 development and control technology. As shown on the slide, 24 projects increase the air pollution prevention and control 25 technology, increase cost effectiveness or develop new cost PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 effective alternatives. 2 They must have potential for creating jobs in 3 California. 4 ICAT funding must be used for projects at the 5 pilot, prototype or application demonstration stages. Most 6 of the capital available in the U.S. is for basic research or 7 commercialization after a full demonstration shown by steps 8 12 and 6 on the slide. 9 Once through the first two stages, however, some 10 ideas die from lack of funding and others are commercialized 11 by other countries. We refer to this as the valley of death. 12 ICAT funds help the business bridge the valley of 13 death. ICAT provides funding of 50 percent of the project's 14 total cost. The applicant and partner share the remaining 15 cost. 16 We were limited to 350,000 per project. ICAT 17 requests for proposal provides limits on certain costs. 18 Also the contractor must explicitly justify the 19 costs. These requirements assure us that companies move to 20 commercialization, thereby recovering expense and making a 21 profit. 22 To get the word out, we increased our efforts by 23 attending workshops and conferences and meetings statewide. 24 We continue to expand the mailing list, focusing on companies 25 that develop new technology. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 Due to use of the Internet, we've expanded the Web 2 page to provide additional information, and the results show 3 an increase in number of visitors. In 1997, close to 300 4 visitors logged on, and in 1998, 1300 logged on. 5 The number of ICAT Web page visitors in 1999 has 6 increased four-fold when compared to the same period last 7 year. 8 We are aware that bidders spend a lot of money and 9 time preparing their proposals. That is why we begin by 10 requesting brief pre-proposals. 11 The new solicitation bid package is to encourage 12 the businesses to participate in the program. Some companies 13 found that various requirements of the IFP are confusing; 14 therefore, as we have done since 1995, we held a workshop to 15 assist the companies submitting the proposals. 16 We discussed the overall objectives and 17 administrative requirements, matching funds, budgets, 18 confidentiality provisions and participation in Disabled 19 Veteran Business Enterprises. 20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Do you hold it in Sacramento or 21 other parts of the State? 22 MR. ANDREONI: Just in Sacramento. 23 ICAT proposals are not only evaluated by ARB staff, 24 but also and advisory committee, consisting of business and 25 technical reviewers provides evaluation to ARB staff. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 This year, six external advisors participated in 2 the proposal review process. In addition, the South Coast 3 Air District Management District and California Energy 4 Commission staff helped select these ICAT proposals. 5 The ICAT program has funded 11 projects in both the 6 mobile and stationary sources. Four projects funded in 1995 7 are completed, and new technologies are entering the market. 8 AVES/ADCO Metal Coating System and Adhesive 9 developed and demonstrated a metal coating system that 10 contains zero VOC and no hazardous air pollutants, aerosol 11 products and chemical water borne resin, and they are 12 marketing the technology internationally. 13 Other contractors formed a consortium with the 14 equipment to commercialize the technology. 15 I note that once the ICAT technology is 16 commercialized, the contractors work with the Office of 17 Environmental Technology for official certification. 18 This voluntary statewide certification process 19 assists in the permitting of technology while ultimately 20 increasing the domestic and international use of emerging and 21 mature technologies. 22 This completes the review of ICAT program. I will 23 describe the three projects that we recommend for funding 24 under this year's ICAT program. 25 We selected these three proposals because we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 believe they address important program needs that the ARB 2 feels are technically feasible, have potential to improve the 3 market and may be commercialized in a few years. 4 The first proposal is ultralow NOx burner for 5 process heaters and industrial and utility boilers, by Altex 6 Technologies Corporation, located in Santa Clara. 7 Boilers and process heaters are a significant 8 source of NOx emissions. Altex has designed an innovative 9 burner, ULNB, that provides low NOx emissions. 10 Staff has reviewed the information during the 11 review process and concluded that the technology is feasible. 12 Pilot scale burner tests have shown that 13 significantly lower costs compared to post combustion 14 technologies. 15 Besides reducing emissions, it has lower CO2 and 16 will help mitigate global warming because it consumes fuel 17 more efficiently. 18 The second proposal, commercial cooking grease 19 emissions control, microwave cleaned ceramic filter 20 technology commercialization was submitted by Industrial 21 Ceramic Solutions, ICS, in Tennessee, and demonstrated the 22 proposed technology in California. 23 Commercial broilers, griddles and deep fryers are a 24 significant source of air borne grease, contributing to air 25 pollution in urban areas of the State. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 To reduce emissions, ICS has developed a microwave 2 cleaned filter technique using carbide fibers. The microwave 3 heats the fibers to high temperatures to oxidize the grease 4 into water and carbon dioxide, then it regenerates the filter 5 for use -- downstream to oxide any VOC created during the 6 filter regeneration. 7 The fully developed ICS filter system seems to have 8 a high particulate efficiency, much less than existing 9 electrostatic precipitators for regeneration. 10 The final project is advanced zeolite concentrator 11 for control of VOC emissions, by the Alzeta Corporation, in 12 Santa Clara. 13 VOCs from industrial sources is by thermal or 14 catalytic oxidation. If there are large flows of VOC before 15 oxidation, they make a system, an absorber wheel to 16 concentrate VOCs before oxidation. 17 This picture shows how currently they are able to 18 absorb double the capability. The proposed system will be 19 saving fuel, cost and capital cost for semiconductor and 20 eliminate VOCs each year. The reductions will reduce green 21 house emissions. 22 Other potential applications may be in the printing 23 and coating industries. 24 To summarize, the ICAT program is providing vital 25 funding for projects and technologies in California and helps PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 the economy to grow. 2 The success of zero VOC coating can play a role to 3 help the businesses bridge the gap between research and 4 commercialization. 5 We believe that we have three promising proposals 6 for projects that help us meet the goals and objectives for 7 healthier air while strengthening the economy in California. 8 Before you consider the ICAT proposal funding, two 9 contractors close to finishing projects will provide you with 10 a short update, the Reynolds Group, Orange County, and ISE 11 Research Group, in San Diego. 12 First, Ed Reynolds, from the Reynolds Group, dual 13 stage biofilter to reduce ozone precursors and odorous sulfur 14 compounds for sewage plants. 15 They are using the funding to demonstrate the pre 16 filter that deals with the acids. It is used in conjunction 17 with the biofilter, extending the life of making it a more 18 viable emissions control technology. 19 Mr. Reynolds has a Masters degree in Civil 20 Engineering, from the University of Houston and Masters in 21 Business from Harvard. 22 Mr. Reynolds has been involved in biofilters with 23 the University of California, who has cosponsored 24 biofiltration. 25 Mr. Ed Reynolds. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman and Board Members, 2 thank you for the opportunity to come up from Orange County 3 and make the presentation to you. 4 Our presentation is on the biofilter technology, 5 not a priority technology, but originated here in Orange 6 County, and with the help of your funding, we have 7 jump-started, so we think it has great promise for commercial 8 success. 9 The actual title of thea project which you funded 10 the application demonstration of is the dual stage biofilter 11 for publicly owned treatment works. 12 It is a biological filter device that treats air 13 pollution biologically. It has ideal flow rates to show and 14 prove that the technology works. 15 This technology was demonstrated at a public-owned 16 treatment works. You see two participants looking from the 17 works to the biofilter. 18 The biofilter collected air from the head works 19 where the odorous and VOCs were selected and passed those 20 into the biofilter bed that you see in the foreground. 21 The technology that you sponsored was the 22 pretreatment, the three containers at the fronts edge of the 23 biofilter. 24 Conventional biofilters in this case contain wood 25 chips as active medium. The bacteria grow and consume the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 contamination that pass over. Hydrogen sulfide at POTW or 2 pulp and paper plants passes over the wood chips. They 3 degrade. 4 These two are inspecting the wood chips that was 5 not pretreated has severely degraded. This is the 6 pretreatment, was built in three tanks, full of lava rock and 7 included in the yellow container are computer controls 8 devised to control and measure all the parameters of the 9 system via the Internet now. 10 Looking at the tank, you can see inside that the 11 air flows in the right and goes through the belt and passes 12 over and exits into the second stage on the bottom. 13 A significant amount of literature has been 14 published regarding how biofiltration works, microbes act on 15 the contaminant medium. 16 We had three tanks so that we could vary the three 17 put time. We added hydrogen sulfide, such as benzine, 18 toluylene, ethylene and chloroform and measured the results 19 after a series of tests. 20 There was excellent hydrogen sulfide removal and 21 very good biological destruction. 22 We calculated that we ran that 1430 pounds of 23 hydrogen sulfide and 50 of VOC to prove there were active 24 bacteria, you see these are what act to treat the 25 contaminants in the pretreatment tank. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 There are several key factors to make it 2 successful. One is the biodegradability of the contamination 3 and the in flow of the waste treatment that requires 4 reactivity and the size of the reactor. 5 Your funding helped us to do sizing and proper 6 characterization so that when we commercialize as a company 7 and as an industry based in California, we know what we are 8 doing with a lot more certainty. 9 As has been mentioned earlier, there are several 10 conventional treatment methods, carbon absorption, oxidation, 11 or burning, catalytic reduction and chemical processes. 12 The primary advantage of biofilters is that it is a 13 natural method of treatment, no hazardous waste created, low 14 natural resource use, little power is needed to power, to 15 push the air and water and nutrients to make the bugs happy. 16 Maintenance is very low, which will result in 17 conducting great results for commercialization. 18 Some of the disadvantages are that they cannot 19 treat high concentrations of waste air streams. There is 20 difficulty handling loads. 21 The funding helps us solve these dilemmas. As you 22 saw with the three tank system, we have treatment through a 23 smaller area. 24 In the United States, there are 52,000 waste water 25 facilities, 500,000 pump stations, and hydrogen sulfide is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 becoming a nuisance and associated with the waste water 2 treatment is a number of different VOC. 3 What we have seen from the demonstration is there 4 are a number of industrial applications in small and medium 5 sized businesses. 6 We intend to start selling biofilters. We will 7 provide a niche in engineering and design of systems. We 8 have been able to establish a website. 9 What you have helped us do is help us overcome the 10 chicken and egg dilemma. Engineers will not use the 11 technology until proven, and engineers have not tried it, so 12 how can it be proven, and you significantly helped us 13 overcome that barrier. 14 It has been a good demonstration. As in 15 everything, the risk of acceptance is by proof. 16 We are thankful that you supported the technology 17 and staff helped us identify commercialization opportunities 18 which we explored and have proven that biofilters do work. 19 You helped us jump start it, and we think these can 20 be a commercial success. 21 We thank you very much. 22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you for the presentation. 23 Do any Board Members have questions? 24 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I have one. 25 I think you mentioned the fact that the wood chips PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 were pretreated. 2 What do you use to pretreat the wood chips? 3 MR. REYNOLDS: The three tanks were the pretreated 4 with lava rock, and we passed the air over the lava rock. 5 These three tanks are the pretreatment for the 6 entire biofilter, which takes up an area of 2,500 to treat 7 3,000 CNM of air. 8 We demonstrated on the higher unit by treating the 9 hydrogen sulfide that they last a longer time. They take up 10 less space at a pumping station to pump the sewage to get it 11 to the POTW, and a number of those in San Diego, there are 12 foul odors. 13 The sizing problem is overcome by being able to 14 pretreat. The treatment efficiency was so good, we may not 15 need post treatment because of the results. 16 Did I answer the question, Mr. Calhoun? 17 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I'm not sure. 18 MR. REYNOLDS: You asked what the pretreatment was 19 and that occurred. 20 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: What is involved in the 21 pretreatment? 22 MR. REYNOLDS: Passing the air over a lava rock 23 medium. 24 The air that comes out of the head works contains a 25 lot of hydrogen sulfide and VOC. The pretreatment is so that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 does not have to pass through the second stage. 2 DR. HOLMES: The hydrogen sulfide converts, kills 3 the bugs and cause the wood chips to deteriorate. 4 The pretreatment avoids the problem. 5 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: I was interested. 6 It was an excellent presentation. Thank you, Mr. 7 Reynolds. 8 In Southern California, and one of the things that 9 you are going to be working toward to market in California to 10 POTWs where we have primary secondary treatment, is that the 11 odor, even though the gray water treatment and some of the 12 odor issues, is this at the time that it removes air 13 pollutants, is it removing the odor? 14 MR. REYNOLDS: Our nose detects hydrogen sulfide at 15 one PPM, and we are pretreating at 250 PPM. 16 This is an odor control that is exactly the intent 17 or the purpose. 18 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Thank you. 19 Will it be equally useful and necessary as primary 20 and secondary tertiary POTW or not? 21 MR. REYNOLDS: You are performing less and less 22 treatment, and the odors, you have no odors off a tertiary, 23 process, it depends where the odors are occurring, and what 24 stage in the process you are, up stage, there is more 25 potential than down stage. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: What size market is there 2 for that? 3 MR. REYNOLDS: How do you quantify, in unit sales 4 or dollars? 5 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Dollars. 6 MR. REYNOLDS: We believe that the total scrubber 7 is $25 million a year, we are projecting over the next couple 8 of years $30 million to $150 million in sales for overall 9 market in the United States. 10 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: That is excellent. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. ANDREONI: Thank you, Mr. Reynolds. 13 Our second speaker is Mike Simon for ISE Research 14 Corporation. Mike talked to us outside, but he will discuss 15 the development of the two hybrid vehicles. 16 These vehicles use relatively small engines to 17 charge the batteries for a period, as all electric motors 18 have engines to provide supplemental power and combine the 19 use of batteries to help to reduce gas consumption and 20 emissions. 21 Mr. Simon has a Masters in Energy Systems from 22 Stanford, and he oversees the strategic development. 23 MR. SIMON: I would like to begin by thanking the 24 Chairman and Board for your flexibility and indulgence. 25 I understand that you had to interrupt the meeting PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 to go outside for our demonstration. 2 It is a pleasure to be here. This ICAT proposal is 3 one of the most rigorous that we have gone through. The team 4 is very thorough, and the process of down selecting and 5 interviewing was very extensive, and at the same time, we 6 found them to be pleasant to work with, flexible and 7 understanding the nuance of technology and development, and 8 the success of this program reflects well on your staff as it 9 does on our company and the other team members. 10 The five vehicles that you see, the center is the 11 Kenworth truck that you saw upstairs, and the vehicle on the 12 right is the 32 foot bus. 13 I would mention that there are other vehicles that 14 we have built with the technology, electric tow tractor, used 15 for the past year by United Airlines, the most reliable in 16 the fleet. 17 The vehicle to the left of that is an electric 18 water truck and has been operating in Southern California for 19 Sparklets, and they are talking about 50 of these trucks. 20 The vehicle between the Kenworth and the bus is the 21 most recent we have, a hybrid electric military tractor, used 22 by the military going through operations at North Island 23 Naval Air Station. 24 We are inserting the technology into vehicles all 25 over the country and having an impact on the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 commercialization of the technology. 2 ICAT helped us make the trend and is helping get us 3 through the valley of death that you saw. 4 National Space Enterprises, the precursor company 5 formed by individuals who, myself and two others, worked for 6 General Dynamics, in San Diego, and were cut in the prime of 7 life by budget cuts at the Federal level, forcing the space 8 program and General Dynamics into down sizing and selling to 9 Martin Muerto, and we formed this enterprise with the South 10 Coast Air Quality District, followed in short by Cal Star and 11 Air Resources Board, we were able to branch and use the 12 aerospace exposure from General Dynamics, the basic systems, 13 engineering skills that we had learned in the defense 14 industry, where the high expectation for rapid prototyping 15 and high quality not only build unique, economic, potentially 16 commercialized product. 17 We are not a company content to build cute vehicles 18 to show that we build them. We are not satisfied until we 19 put thousands on the road of the country. 20 In the span of two and a half years, we've shown 21 this is a virtual driven system that we put on the front 22 page, plus the next to last, we have funded to do a 40 foot 23 transit bus, with Niemeier of America Corporation, one of the 24 bus manufacturers and the Air Force to do a design of a cargo 25 loader. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 These are vehicles with high fluctuating duty 2 cycles in terms of power. They consume high amounts of 3 hours, start and stop, and create lots of emissions in the 4 process. 5 They are targets for air quality regulations, and 6 they are targets for technology, because they are expensive 7 vehicles. They range in price for a standard 50,000 to 8 60,000 up to 350,000 for CNG bus. 9 Some of the cargo loaders go for half a million 10 dollars or more, that the military buys. The high cost of 11 components, as long as we stay small quantity is exorbitant. 12 We selected this product line other than passenger 13 cars, you have seen the class 8 truck. I will not go in 14 detail, but I point out the hybrid is that specific 15 technology that we developed with the ICAT funding was a 16 computer system that controls the whole truck. 17 The hybrid, it runs, is the electric motor. It is 18 an electric vehicle, AC induction and large battery pack to 19 have to power. The truck can go 10 or 20 miles on battery 20 power. 21 Most vehicles, commercial vehicles, need to go more 22 than that. That is why we have a hybrid. 23 We have a small engine that burns and recharges the 24 batteries. It enables us to develop the computer program and 25 network to check, that detects what the power is and measures PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 automatically when the engine needs to be turned on to 2 recharge. 3 No other hybrid in the world does this. It is not 4 only big. It is smart. 5 Some of the specifications for the vehicle are 6 shown here. We learned that motor technology from the 7 defense, and adapted it for the Sparklets truck. 8 We got the motor working before the defense got it 9 working. In fact, I don't think they have it working yet. 10 That gets back to the comments about small 11 businesses and sometimes the advantage they have in doing 12 things quickly. 13 The vehicle has no transmission, but goes 75 miles 14 an hour. We have done preliminary testing. We do not have a 15 large budget to do extensive testing, but we have done some 16 initial testing with our clean air partners in San Diego and 17 have the data from the general manufacturers. 18 When it is running, it is running at the sweet 19 spot, not revving up and down. The batteries are one. You 20 pull from the power, you put it back into the batteries. 21 The battery is load level, unless the engine 22 operates at the sweet spot. 23 What you see there is R and D prototype. We 24 believe we are able to expand to two trucks, the second 25 truck, the chassis is being built and shipped next week. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 That is custom. Long-term production vehicles 2 using a chassis to take advantage of the hybrid, you put the 3 components in the vehicle, to make it fuel efficient for 4 economic benefits. 5 You saw the bus out there. Similar to the hybrid 6 truck, has an operating range 10 to 20 miles. You could 7 drive 200 miles a day. 8 We were actually pleasantly surprised how well it 9 performed. The first was placed in service March first, and 10 we have put 4,000 miles on it, and invite you after the 11 hearing to take a ride. 12 I believe you will see for yourself, it really is a 13 pleasure. It rides faster, smoother and quieter than any bus 14 I have been on. 15 The feed back is they were fighting over who gets 16 to drive it. The drive motor for the bus is smaller than the 17 one in the truck and has not nearly the demand sequence. 18 One of the other features of the vehicle is we have 19 technology to control and make them smart. We rely on 20 off-the-shelf parts to keep the cost down. 21 In fact, the whole entire system for drive cost us 22 less than 100,000 for everything. That is remarkable. There 23 are buses out there selling for 500,000 each with fuel cells 24 and other things. 25 Our sticker price is 369,000 for the 30 foot bus, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 and for the 40 footer, we are starting in the mid 400's. 2 Both those prices will come down as quantities go up. 3 The ICAT funding played a pivotal role in the 4 programs. The basic control were put in the bus. We used 5 the control system in the bus, as we did in the truck, and 6 the same in the military tractor. 7 We got direct financial assistance, jointly, half a 8 million, the State kicked in 180 through the Office of 9 Strategic Technology, and that was the bulk of the funding, 10 and the other was a 250 grant from DARBA. 11 ARB funding provided credibility for outside 12 customers and potential customers. This, I believe, 13 successful demonstration that we had this morning, this was 14 the first public unveiling of either of these vehicles. 15 I believe that will go on a long way based on the 16 feedback upstairs, and thank you for helping us do this. 17 I'm prepared to answer any questions you might have 18 at this time, and thank you, once again for your support. 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you, Mr. Simon. 20 Any questions? 21 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: You may not be able to 22 answer this. 23 Thank you for the excellent presentation. But I do 24 want to ask you if you could help me sort out comparisons of 25 some of the different types of advanced buses in terms of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 emissions? 2 Let's say, could you compare, you have thought 3 about it, because this is your business, you are trying to 4 figure out how to sell your own buses, so you have 5 considerations there. 6 The hybrid electric 30 foot transit bus, which you 7 have running on propane, how would that compare with a fully 8 operational natural gas 30 foot transit bus? 9 MR. SIMON: I have been advised by people, more 10 experts in atmosphere mix, that propane produces NOx or 11 particulate matter, somewhere in the general range of 12 compressed natural gas, higher or near. 13 We did the propane using a mobile gases analyzer. 14 Based on what we put the catalyst, we measured no NOx. We 15 extrapolated less than a gram per brake hours, power hours. 16 So, we hope to verify that finding with the 17 cooperation of the staff. We do feel that the propane 18 versions will be also equally attractive from an emissions 19 standpoint, in terms of 30 to 40 feet, we do not see 20 emissions increasing. 21 We are going to use similar engines, same in the 40 22 foot bus. The major interest we are seeing now is in using 23 the turbine. 24 The cap zone turbine, we are going to use with the 25 City of LA. I failed to mention, we have an order of 12 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 buses right now, and another order for 19 pending in a couple 2 weeks. 3 We have prospect of the 30 buses on the road by 4 this time, before San Diego catches up in their own back 5 yard. The ancillary power unit is shifting to turbine. 6 We have seen turbine like Allied Signal and Caps 7 and others suggest six or seven parts per million nitrous 8 oxide. 9 If these translate, we are talking trucks of a gram 10 per mile per brake hours, no NOx for these systems operating 11 on vehicles. 12 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: That is very exciting, and 13 I would ask staff if you want to make comments in terms of 14 the competition, and you may want to do the different sorts 15 of buses. 16 How I would feel if I were in charge of buying 17 buses at the MTA and transit authority and trying to do the 18 right thing for buying, we have the following information. 19 MR. SIMON: May I address that first? 20 I have not met a driver that is entirely happy with 21 a vehicle from the driver's standpoint, for maintenance, or 22 there are a few isolated and some success CNG buses, but they 23 generally, performance wise, have no compelling reason over 24 diesel. 25 In fact, the performance between CNG and straight PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 propane, acceleration is less than diesel. If the engines 2 are not kept perfectly tuned, the emissions go up, and if you 3 are not careful and pay strict attention how the engine is 4 running, you can have problems. 5 The hybrid, because the electric motor is driving 6 the wheels not the general, gives you superior performance 7 off the bat. It can climb the hills. 8 The first time on a route in Los Angeles, there is 9 a steep hill with a stop sign at the top of the hill. The 10 conventional bus, because they stop on the hill, they cannot 11 get it started again. 12 We took our bus, they came to the stop and went on, 13 no problem. They even said based on that, go to the other 14 hill, not on the route, because they cannot get up the hill 15 and the people have been clamoring for a bus stop because 16 they have to walk, and they took the bus and went up the 17 hill. 18 By the time it got up, it was accelerating. 19 You would not see that in a CNG bus. Between the 20 electric type of technology and secondly because of the 21 general operation constraint, it is in the sweet spot. 22 The problem about tuning is less an issue, because 23 you set it to rpm and not stressing the issue like you are in 24 heavy duty cycles. We think those are fundamental. 25 This technology enhances our competitive position. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any others? 2 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Staff, any comment or any 3 further comment on that in terms of the line up of the 4 record? 5 That was an excellent response and goes into the 6 transcript on the Net, so people might have the opportunity 7 to learn from what you have to say. 8 MR. CACKETTE: What is exciting is that they offer 9 greater potential than the comparable diesel. 10 They are tapped on the bottom end and after 11 treatment, until we get cleaner diesel fuel, to allow the 12 treatment to work, which are potentially a ways off. 13 This technology has the chance to get the lower 14 emissions right away. It is not a competition between the 15 various technology, both the natural gas offer attributes. 16 They are on the road. We have 150 in the fleet, 50 17 percent of the fleet seem to operate well. 18 Growing up in Seattle, the electric trolley buses, 19 you know when they snap in, the torque feels good in low 20 speed and really climbs the hill. 21 The hybrid design, depending on the design of the 22 internal combustion, you can design for low emissions. All 23 the competition is not natural gas versus hybrid, it is both 24 of those, both conventional, diesel -- 25 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: I have a quick question. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 I think the hybrid heavy duty truck is very 2 exciting. 3 Have you projected the cost when it goes commercial 4 per unit? 5 MR. SIMON: We have done a number of cost 6 projections and get better with experience. 7 In reasonable production quantities of a few 8 hundred a year, that we can get within 50,000 of the price of 9 a conventional truck. That is without getting into large, 10 many of thousands of units, where there would be a greater 11 convergence, the near term goal is 50,000. 12 The price difference is still in the hundred 13 thousand plus range across the board for the vehicles. One 14 of advantages is that we are not dependent on a market niche. 15 We can collect the orders from tractor operators 16 and civil and military combined to get to a higher level 17 faster. That is why we adopted the philosophy of 18 off-the-shelf for the vehicles. 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any other questions? 20 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: I see the fuel cell bus. 21 Do you have any comments on the fuel cell? 22 MR. SIMON: Our plan has been from conventional to 23 turbines and eventually fuel cells to generate, and as they 24 are affordable, we plan to use them. 25 In fact, we have interest in them in some of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 vehicle manufacturers that we are working with, and we 2 believe that we will have one sooner, but I'm not prepared to 3 comment specifically, and I agree we are not in competition 4 with CNG, but we are at an advantage. 5 We see CNG is out there. 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 7 Again, I think it was a good comment, Mr. Cackette, 8 the real competition, and I encourage you to finalize the 9 tests to find out what is really going on on the road. 10 If there are any other questions from staff -- 11 MR. ANDREONI: That concludes the presentation. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you again. 13 I thank the staff and both the speakers for 14 excellent comments. 15 I guess there appear to be no written comments. 16 Do I have a motion to include all three 17 Resolutions? 18 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: I so move. 19 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: Second. 20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Moved and seconded. 21 All voting in favor, say aye. 22 Against? 23 It is passed unanimously. 24 That brings us to open comment period, and we do 25 have one speaker for the open comment period. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 MS. HUTCHENS: He has said he does not wish to 2 testify. 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: We have no speakers. 4 Before anyone gets the chance to raise any more 5 issues, we will adjourn, and thank you. 6 The meeting is officially adjourned. 7 (Thereupon the Air Resources Board Meeting 8 was adjourned at 12:45 p.m.) 9 --o0o-- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 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 June, 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