BOARD MEETING STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 1990 EAST GETTYSBURG AVENUE FRESNO, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 2003 9:00 A.M. TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NUMBER 12277 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii APPEARANCES BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Alan Lloyd, Chairperson Mr. Joseph Calhoun Ms. Dorene D'Adamo Professor Hugh Friedman Dr. William Friedman Mr. Matthew McKinnon Supervisor Barbara Patrick Mrs. Barbara Riordan BOARD MEMBERS EXCUSED Dr. William Burke Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Supervisor Ron Roberts STAFF Ms. Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Michael Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Kathleen Tschogl, Ombudsman Ms. Kathleen Walsh, General Counsel Ms. Alexa Malik, Board Secretary PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii APPEARANCES CONTINUED STAFF Mr. John Damassa, Chief, Modeling and Meterology Branch Mr. Kurt Karperos, Manager, Transportation Strategies Section Ms. Kate MacGregor, Health and Exposure Assessment Staff Ms. Sylvia Morrow, Planning and Technical Support Division ALSO PRESENT Ms. Diane Bailey, NRDC Ms. Shirley Batchman, CA Citrus Mutual Mr. Steven Bonaker, Imperial Sugar Ms. Judy Case, Fresno County Supervisor Mr. Dave Crow, Fresno District Office Mr. Manuel Cunha, Nisei Farmers League Ms. Teresa DeAnda, El Comite Bienestar Earlimart Ms. Sandra Duval, Lumber Association of California and Nevada Mr. Tom Frantz, AIR Ms. Josefine Garcia, El Comite Bienestar Earlimart Mr. Kevin Hall, Sierra Club, Tehipile Chapter Mr. Roger Ison, California Cotton Growers Association Ms. Linda Mackay, Association of Irritated Residents Ms. Tracy Mason, CRPE Mr. Joe Miranda, El Comite Bienestar Earlimart PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv APPEARANCES CONTINUED ALSO PRESENT Mr. Brent Newell, Association of Irritated Residents Ms. Mary Reynolds, Western Propane Gas Association Ms. Patricia Slingerland, IMPCO & ITA Mr. Saffet Tannikulu, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Mr. Mike Tunnell, American Trucking Association Mr. Peter Weiner, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 v INDEX PAGE Pledge of Allegiance 1 Roll Call 1 Chairman's Remarks 2 Mr. Dave Crow 2 Item 03-5-1 Chairperson Lloyd 4 Executive Officer Witherspoon 5 Staff Presentation 6 Q&A 11 Item 03-5-2 Chairperson Lloyd 13 Executive Officer Witherspoon 16 Staff Presentation 18 Q&A 39 Ms. Linda Mackay 50 Ms. Mary Reynolds 53 Mr. Peter Weiner 59 Mr. Mike Tunnell 62 Ms. Sandra Duval 64 Ms. Patricia Slingerland 65 Ms. Shirley Batchman 69 Mr. Manuel Cunha 70 Mr. Kevin Hall 82 Mr. Brent Newell 89 Ms. Diane Bailey 102 Ms. Tracy Mason 106 Mr. Tom Frantz 112 Mr. Steven Bonaker 116 Ms. Teresa DeAnda 117 Mr. Joe Miranda 120 Mr. Roger Ison 122 Q&A 132 Vote 139 Vote 140 Item 03-5-3 Ms. Judy Case 150 Chairperson Lloyd 151 Executive Officer Witherspoon 152 Staff Presentation 153 Mr. Tannikulu 164 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 vi INDEX CONTINUED PAGE Adjournment 169 Reporter's Certificate 170 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Good morning. The June 26, 3 2003, public meeting of the Air Resources Board will now 4 come to order. 5 Supervisor Patrick, will you lead us in the 6 pledge? 7 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Certainly. Please join us. 8 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was 9 Recited in unison.) 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 11 Would the clerk of the Board please call the 12 roll. 13 SECRETARY MALIK: Dr. Burke? 14 Mr. Calhoun? 15 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Here. 16 SECRETARY MALIK: Ms. D'Adamo? 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here. 18 SECRETARY MALIK: Supervisor De Saulnier? 19 Professor Friedman? 20 PROFESSOR HUGH FRIEDMAN: Here. 21 SECREATRY MALIK: Dr. Friedman? 22 DR. WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Here. 23 SECRETARY MALIK: Mr. McKinnon? 24 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Here. 25 SECRETARY MALIK: Supervisor Patrick? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Here. 2 SECRETARY MALIK: Ms. Riordan? 3 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. 4 SECRETARY MALIK: Supervisor Roberts? 5 Chairman Lloyd? 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Here. 7 It's a pleasure to be in Fresno, and I would like 8 to invite Dave Crow to the podium to invite us here. 9 Thank you very much for your hospitality, Dave. 10 MR. CROW: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of 11 your Board and the public. Indeed, I'd like to welcome 12 you to Fresno and our district office. By my count, it's 13 been almost twelve years. You picked a wonderful time. I 14 won't comment on the weather outside. We do have air 15 conditioning so that will help you get through the day. 16 On a serious note, I would like to also commend 17 the adoption of our district's PM10 plan submittal. Our 18 Board had a lengthy hearing last week, a very democratic 19 meeting. Everybody was engaged and participated. Our 20 Board unanimously recommended the plan for your 21 consideration. And similarly, I'd like to thank your 22 staff. They've done an excellent job on the staff 23 analysis of this plan, and I commend them for your 24 attention. So have a good day and a successful day, and I 25 hope you'll adopt our plan. Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, Dave. 2 I don't know whether our two members from the 3 Valley, Supervisor Patrick or Mr. D'Adamo, want to say 4 anything at the beginning. 5 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: I'd just say thank very much 6 for being here. We always appreciate it when you come to 7 the Valley. Of course, this is Dr. Lloyd's second visit 8 to the Valley in a rather short period. 9 This plan is very important to our district, as 10 you are all well aware. And we appreciate the fact that 11 you're in Fresno today at the district offices and video 12 conferencing this to the two remote locations as well. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 14 Ms. D'Adamo. 15 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I just might add that I'm 16 looking forward to the testimony today and am very pleased 17 that the Valley seems to be engaged in this issue. That 18 may not have been the case several years ago. And I know 19 there are different perspectives and just am looking 20 forward to hearing the specifics. Thank you. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I would echo that. When I 22 did the trip through the Valley on the fuel cell vehicles, 23 I was really impressed. At all the stops people were 24 really concerned about clean air, really concerned about 25 what we're doing about it, concerned, in support of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 new technologies. And in listening to the TV, the news 2 this morning, ABC indicated that you could call them up to 3 the web page and get more information on health effects of 4 air pollution. I was really heartened and really 5 impressed. 6 Just a note to my colleagues, the mics are live. 7 So if you want to mute them, you have to hold it down. 8 And as soon as you release them, you're on again. So if 9 you could also keep the papers away from the mics, it 10 would be helpful. 11 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Can everybody hear 12 us out here? Is it okay? 13 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Louder. 14 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Louder. I wasn't 15 sure if we were projecting. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: With that, I think we'll 17 start the first agenda item today, Item 03-5-1. I would 18 like to remind anyone in the audience who wishes to 19 testify on today's agenda item to please sign up with the 20 clerk of the Board. Also if you have a written statement, 21 please give 30 copies to the clerk of the Board. 22 The first item on the agenda today is 03-5-1, a 23 public meeting to consider a health update. And for those 24 who are not familiar with our Board meetings, we always 25 start off with a health update reflecting some of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 recent research findings on the impact of air pollution on 2 public health. So it's a continuation today, and I think 3 it sets the stage very nicely for our deliberations on the 4 plan. 5 On this item today, staff will be presenting 6 recent findings on the relationship between exposure to 7 particulate matter and the risk of hospitalization for 8 acute or chronic respiratory conditions in residents of 9 California's Central Valley. This study was funded by the 10 Board as part of our health effects research program. The 11 results presented here directly demonstrate the adverse 12 health effects of exposure to particulate air pollution in 13 this California region and will improve our understanding 14 of the effects of these pollutants on the health of 15 vulnerable populations, and again, sets the stage for why, 16 in fact, we need to focus on particulates and what we can 17 do to help in the Valley. 18 So with that, I'd like to turn it over to 19 Ms. Witherspoon to introduce the item. 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, 21 Dr. Lloyd. And good morning, members of the Board. I'm 22 not used to this. Can everyone here me? No. Any better? 23 That's better. 24 In June of last year, the Board adopted new 25 annual average standards for PM2.5 and PM10. The staff PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 renewed numerous epidemiologic studies from across the 2 country on the health effects of particulate pollution 3 which were used to support the new annual standards. At 4 the time, very few studies focusing on the California 5 population were available when those standards were put 6 into place. However, today staff will present the results 7 of a recently completed study funded by the Air Resources 8 Board that focused exclusively on the Central Valley 9 population. The Central Valley has some of the higher PM 10 levels in the state, and the population here is frequently 11 exposed to unhealthy levels. 12 Kate MacGregor from the Health and Exposure 13 Assessment Branch will make the staff presentation. 14 Ms. MacGregor. 15 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 16 presented as follows.) 17 MS. MACGREGOR: Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon. And 18 good morning, Chairman Lloyd, and members of the Board. 19 In today's health update, we will focus on the 20 results of an ARB-funded study recently completed in the 21 Central Valley of California under the direction of 22 Dr. Steven Van der Eden and the Kaiser Permanente team. 23 This is an important study that contributes to our 24 understanding of the effects of particulate matter 25 pollution, especially the fine particle fraction, on the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 respiratory health effects of this population. 2 Surprisingly, there are relatively few studies 3 that have examined the health effects of particulate 4 matter on the California population. There are even fewer 5 that have focused on the effects of PM2.5 due to the fact 6 that ambient exposure data for PM2.5 has rarely been 7 available until now. This study provided us with an 8 important opportunity to evaluate the usefulness of the PM 9 monitoring network for daily ambient exposure assessment, 10 and the results I will present today will demonstrate the 11 importance of this monitoring effort. 12 --o0o-- 13 MS. MACGREGOR: This study was designed to 14 evaluate the effective increasing ambient particulate 15 matter and other gaseous pollutants, such as nitrogen 16 dioxide, on the rate of hospitalizations or emergency room 17 visits for cardiac and respiratory conditions. 18 The study was conducted between January 1996 and 19 December 2000 and focused on approximately 500,000 members 20 of the Kaiser Permanente health care plan in Stockton, 21 Sacramento, Modesto, and Fresno. Approximately 77 percent 22 of the study participants resided in the Sacramento area. 23 Daily hospitalizations and emergency room visits 24 for acute respiratory conditions, such as croup, acute 25 bronchitis, pneumonia, and chronic respiratory conditions, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 such as asthma, COPD, and emphysema were evaluated in 2 relation to daily ambient pollution concentrations. 3 Statistical analysis was used to examine the daily changes 4 in air pollution based on 24 hour average concentrations 5 and incorporated controls for confounding effects, such as 6 major co-pollutants and climate. 7 --o0o-- 8 MS. MACGREGOR: The study was successful in 9 finding statistically significant associations between 10 particle air pollution and respiratory conditions and to a 11 lesser extent between gaseous co-pollutants and 12 respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. 13 We believe the small percentage of the very 14 elderly in the Kaiser population, plus the 12 percentage 15 in the over 65 age category, may have contributed to the 16 lack of findings related to pollutant levels in cardiac 17 conditions. We will focus our discussion today on the 18 result of the respiratory health effects of particle 19 pollution levels. 20 --o0o-- 21 MS. MACGREGOR: The association between fine 22 particular matter pollution and respiratory conditions was 23 the most important finding of this study. As stated 24 previously, very few studies have focused on this 25 relationship due to a lack of exposure data. We found a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 significantly stronger association between health effects 2 and PM2.5 compared to the effects observed for PM10. 3 For PM10, we observed a range of increases from 4 2.3 percent for acute respiratory hospitalizations to 5.5 5 percent for chronic respiratory hospitalizations. 6 --o0o-- 7 MS. MACGREGOR: For PM2.5, the effects were 35 to 8 50 percent higher across the board with the greatest 9 effect seen in chronic respiratory hospitalizations. This 10 is consistent with other studies that have compared these 11 two size fractions of particulate matter, and it is 12 believed to be due to a greater intrinsic toxicity of 13 PM2.5, greater indoor infiltration rates, lower exposure 14 measurement air, or other as yet unknown factors. 15 --o0o-- 16 MS. MACGREGOR: Another interesting finding of 17 this study was the relative increases observed in 18 emergency room visits or hospitalizations as they relate 19 to increasing particulate matter pollution which varies 20 significantly by geographic region. 21 --o0o-- 22 MS. MACGREGOR: In this slide we compare the 23 emergency room visits for chronic respiratory conditions 24 in the four different cities which have increasingly high 25 rates of particulate pollution. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 --o0o-- 2 MS. MACGREGOR: For PM10 we observe an increase 3 in levels as we move down the Central Valley from 4 Sacramento to Fresno. 5 --o0o-- 6 MS. MACGREGOR: For PM2.5 we also observe an 7 increase in concentration in Sacramento to Fresno. 8 --o0o-- 9 MS. MACGREGOR: And interestingly, the rates of 10 emergency room visits per 1000 population decreased in 11 association with increasing pollution from city to city, 12 with the highest rates observed in Fresno. 13 Although the study did not separate specific 14 emission diagnosis in each area, Fresno has a higher rate 15 of asthma, at least 25 percent higher in the pediatric 16 population compared to the rest of California. And this 17 may play an important role in the increased emergency room 18 visits. 19 --o0o-- 20 MS. MACGREGOR: The results of this study confirm 21 our belief that reduction of particulate matter pollution 22 in the Central Valley is of great importance to the health 23 and well being of this, the FACES project, currently 24 underway in Fresno, will help us further refine our 25 understanding of the health impacts of particle pollution PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 on asthmatic children. However, additional studies will 2 be needed to evaluate the effects of pollution on the very 3 elderly and those with pre-existing conditions. The 4 information we obtain from this research can be used to 5 support the need to maintain and improve the fine 6 particular monitoring, while at the same time looking for 7 further pollution reduction measures in a small size 8 fraction. 9 --o0o-- 10 MS. MACGREGOR: Thank you for your attention 11 today. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have 12 about the study. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed. 14 Do my colleagues have any questions or comments? 15 Professor Friedman. 16 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I had a question 17 maybe you or Dr. Friedman could answer. 18 Do we need additional studies for the elderly and 19 youth particularly, particularly the elderly? 20 MS. MACGREGOR: Yes. I think so. Particularly 21 for the elderly because in this particular study which was 22 rather small, and we don't know about whether it's a study 23 population that's generalizable to the overall population 24 of the valley. Further study would be needed to see what 25 effects PM10 or PM2.5 is having on cardiac conditions. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 And usually -- those conditions are usually with people 2 that have pre-existing conditions -- is where we see that 3 effect. 4 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: We are 5 funding -- the ARB is funding a major study of children, 6 and I think what the -- these findings are not unexpected, 7 except for the low or indeterminate incidences of 8 cardiovascular effects in the adult population. And I 9 suspect that that is a reflection of the strategy of the 10 health plan which is not to enroll old sick people. And I 11 mean, you know, and as a result it's not an absolutely 12 representative population. It's the elderly who are at 13 risk with respect to cardiovascular effects with 14 particulate pollution. And there are many, many studies, 15 though, that confirm that relationship. I'm not sure that 16 it's required to repeat it in a specific geographic 17 location just because it's absent from this particular 18 study. 19 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Thank you. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 21 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Could you go back to 22 slide 6. I'm looking at a black-and-white copy of a color 23 graph. I'm having trouble. That's it. So I guess what 24 my question is, is this graph representative of averages 25 or bad days or the highest day? I mean, I get that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 there's an increase from about seven or eight 2 hospitalizations to 90 hospitalizations. 3 MS. MACGREGOR: What we're showing basically is 4 the overall results of the study, which was a five-year 5 study. And the means that you're looking at across the 6 different cities are based on annual averages for those 7 areas. That was data used in the study to evaluate the 8 health effects. So you see that it increases. The rates 9 of hospitalizations were also done for each independent 10 center. And once they were weighted by the person in the 11 study, Fresno stood out as being the highest. 12 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Okay. Thanks. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed. 14 And any other comments? Ms. Witherspoon? No. Thank you 15 very much indeed. Since it's not a regulatory item, it's 16 not necessary to officially close the record. 17 So we move on to the main agenda item for today, 18 and that is Agenda Item 03-5-2, public meeting to consider 19 approval of the San Joaquin Valley 2003 PM attainment 20 plan. We're also considering the approval of the 21 commitment for six new statewide strategies that have been 22 incorporated into the plan. As we all know, the San 23 Joaquin Valley has formidable air quality challenges. We 24 just heard that the emerging science continues to show 25 harmful effects from ambient particulate. We also know PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 from prior presentations that the progress in San Joaquin 2 Valley has been less rapid than other areas of the state 3 due to the severe inversion conditions that exist here, 4 among other factors, although I must say the Valley has 5 never obtained the high levels that were recorded in the 6 70s and 80s in the South Coast Air Quality Management 7 District. 8 Again, I show my colleagues who live in the 9 valley can attest to the importance of this agenda item 10 today and of the region's growing awareness of air quality 11 is a serious public health issue. Supervisor Patrick sat 12 and deliberated on the plan last week as part of the 13 San Joaquin Valley Program. 14 The PM10 plan before us benefits from the Board's 15 decade-long commitment to the California regional 16 particulate matter air quality study. This is the largest 17 and most comprehensive particulate field study in the 18 country. It was made possible only by the collaborative 19 efforts of government and industry. 20 Again, let me thank Supervisor Patrick for her 21 work as Chairperson of the committee overseeing the study. 22 Also, I would like to express my appreciation for all 23 people that went back -- continue to go back to Washington 24 to get money for this very important study. A few of the 25 people I recognize from the farmers, Manual Cunha, Wes PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 Clark, Catherine Rehise-Boyd, and there may be others. 2 But again, a truly collaborative effort. So I'd like to 3 express my appreciation for those individuals and other 4 organizations that I may have left out. It's really been 5 an excellent cooperation with the local district as well. 6 I'd also like to thank my colleague, Ms. D'Adamo, for her 7 leadership on the Ag. Air Quality Advisory Committee, 8 particularly in the last year has been reinvigorated. 9 D.D. has done an outstanding job working with the 10 community and addressing these issues. I would like to 11 express my appreciation for the participants on that 12 Committee and for the staff to help out. So I think 13 that's very good. 14 As we hear this item, the Board has a dual role, 15 to evaluate the technical basis and local control strategy 16 for the plan adopted by the district last week and 17 consider and make our own commitments for future rule 18 making. So we're obligated. Reducing emissions from 19 motor vehicles is central to the valley's PM10 plan. In 20 addition to control strategies already adopted, the Valley 21 needs even more from our program to meet the federal 22 particulate standards. The staff is proposing more 23 reductions in vehicle NOx emissions, along with a diesel 24 particulate control under development to lower the health 25 risk from diesel engines. Again, we all recognize a very PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 important component. 2 Following the staff presentation and questions 3 from Board members, we open the hearing for public 4 comment. We'll take testimony on both the PM10 plan and 5 the proposed commitment for state measures. However, the 6 Board will vote separately on those items. 7 I would like to now ask Ms. Witherspoon to 8 introduce the item and begin the staff presentation. 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, 10 Dr. Lloyd. The Board's deliberations today are aimed at 11 protecting San Joaquin Valley residents by taking the 12 actions needed to meet the first health milestone for 13 particulate matter, or PM10, the federal 25 hour, and 14 annual average PM10 standard. In the future you will be 15 considering plans to meet the even more stringent and more 16 health protective PM2.5 standards. 17 The plan before you today accomplishes several 18 objectives. First, the plan satisfies the clear need to 19 put a new valley PM10 SIP in place. It includes an 20 attainment based on existing controls and upon new 21 measures that will reduce direct PM10, NOx, and SOX 22 emissions by a combined 245 tons per day by 2010. The 23 greatest portion of these reductions comes from ARB 24 regulations for cleaner vehicles and fuels. And those are 25 supplemented by local dust, smoke, and industrial PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 controls. 2 Second, the strategy cuts both fine particles and 3 ozone by continuing to make NOx control a priority. By 4 reducing the precursor chemicals that form particulate 5 matter at the fine end of the size spectrum, the plan is a 6 down payment on federal and state PM2.5 attainment. 7 Third, submitting the plan to U.S. EPA will allow 8 EPA to take the administrative actions needed to avoid the 9 imposition of sanctions on the region which would 10 otherwise be imposed on August 28th of this year. The 11 sanction threat stems from the lack of approvable PM10 12 plan and the region's inability to attain the PM10 13 standards by the original 2001 deadline, and that deadline 14 has been moved out to 2010. 15 Finally, the six new statewide measures would 16 continue ARB's efforts to achieve emission reductions in 17 the 2010 time frame across California. These measures are 18 a subset of the larger statewide strategy that staff has 19 proposed for your consideration later this year and which 20 will be included in both the San Joaquin Valley and the 21 South Coast Air Quality Management District ozone 22 attainment plan. And you'll be hearing those towards the 23 end of this year. 24 As noted by Dr. Lloyd, the Valley PM10 plan uses 25 the best available science to define the most effective PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 path to reduce harmful particulate levels in the valley. 2 The district's commitment to revisit the attainment 3 demonstration and plan when the final results of the 4 particulate study are available provides additional 5 assurance that the control strategy will respond to any 6 new information. We believe that plan meets the 7 applicable requirements and merits your approval. It is 8 an important next step but not the last one to improve air 9 quality throughout the San Joaquin Valley. I'll now ask 10 Ms. Sylvia Morrow to make the staff presentation. 11 MS. MORROW: Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon, and good 12 morning, Chairman Lloyd and members of the Board. 13 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 14 presented as follows.) 15 MS. MORROW: Before you today is the 2003 state 16 implementation plan that demonstrates how the San Joaquin 17 Valley will meet the federal 24 hour and annual average 18 standards for inhaleable particulate matter, or PM10. 19 There are three parts to my presentation. First, 20 I'll review the nature of the San Joaquin Valley 21 particulate matter pollution and how that guides the 22 attainment strategy. Second, I'll summarize ARB staff 23 review of the plan. And third, I'll describe the state 24 emission reduction strategy needed for the plan. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 MS. MORROW: Today's item includes two 2 inter-connected proposals for your consideration. The 3 overarching item is approval of the San Joaquin Valley 4 PM10 plan as a revision to the California SIP. To reduce 5 emissions to attainment levels, the plan builds on 6 controls already adopted by this Board, the San Joaquin 7 Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, U.S. EPA, 8 and other agencies. The plan also identifies the need for 9 new district rules and state regulations to achieve the 10 remaining emission reductions. One week ago the 11 district's governing board adopted the overall plan based 12 on the combination of commitments for new Valley measures 13 and anticipated state measures defined by ARB staff. 14 We are proposing that the Board adopt the new 15 state commitments, which would complete the attainment 16 demonstration and then allow the Board to consider 17 approval of the entire plan. 18 --o0o-- 19 MS. MORROW: Now let me first describe the nature 20 of the San Joaquin Valley particulate pollution and what 21 that means in terms of an effective attainment strategy. 22 --o0o-- 23 MS. MORROW: The San Joaquin Valley faces 24 significant air quality challenges. The region currently 25 violates all federal and state ozone and particulate PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 matter standards by significant margins. This slide 2 compares Valley air quality to federal standards using 3 data from 1999 to 2001. The height of the column is the 4 percentage by which the Valley exceeds the standards. The 5 first column shows that the highest PM10 level measured 6 over 24 hours was almost 40 percent over the federal 7 standard. The peak was reported in Bakersfield. 8 The next bars for the subsets of fine particles, 9 or PM2.5, and ozone measured both over one hour and 10 eight hours also show that the Valley needs considerable 11 pollution reduction to meet these standards. The plan 12 before you today addresses the first column, PM10, but 13 will also provide benefits toward meeting the PM2.5 and 14 ozone standards. 15 --o0o-- 16 MS. MORROW: So what is PM10? Specifically, PM10 17 are particles 10 microns and less in diameter, 18 approximately 1/6 the diameter of a human hair. PM10 is a 19 complex chemical soup of directly emitted dust and soot 20 particles formed in the atmosphere when gaseous emissions 21 react, in the same way ozone is formed. Ammonium nitrate 22 is the most prevalent type of secondary particulate. The 23 composition of Valley PM10 varies by season and location. 24 --o0o-- 25 MS. MORROW: The prime atmospheric conditions for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 particle formation are high humidity, low winds, and cold 2 temperatures. These conditions occur frequently in the 3 Valley during the wintertime where week-long cold, foggy 4 episodes occur regularly. In these conditions, emissions 5 of nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides react with organic 6 gases to form nitric and sulfuric acid vapors. These acid 7 vapors then combine with ammonia to form nitrate and 8 sulfur particulate. Because valley NOx emissions are many 9 times greater than SOx emissions, ammonium nitrate is the 10 primary problem. 11 --o0o-- 12 MS. MORROW: PM10 levels are unhealthy throughout 13 the entire San Joaquin Valley. As you can see from this 14 map, monitoring sites from Modesto to Bakersfield 15 including a 24-hour PM10 standard. Hanford, Bakersfield, 16 and Visalia also exceed the annual average standard. The 17 sources of PM10 pollution are also widespread. 18 --o0o-- 19 MS. MORROW: To better understand these sources, 20 we analyze the chemical composition of the particles 21 filtered from the ambient air, as well as their relative 22 contribution to the total measured PM10 levels. The 23 California Regional Particulate Study has provided 24 extensive data regarding particle composition beyond that 25 available from the permanent monitoring networks. The PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 study has also given us important information about how 2 high values build up over time. 3 This chart highlights the composition of PM10 for 4 several high episodes at several locations. 5 The left bar, from a fall episode in rural 6 Corcoran, is dominated by dust, the top light blue band. 7 The other two bars illustrate the shift to the wintertime, 8 nitrate-dominated episodes. Fresno has a higher 9 contribution from wood smoke compared to Bakersfield on 10 the same New Year's Day in 2001. 11 The primary cause of PM10 levels above the 12 federal standards has changed over the last decade. 13 Fall-type episodes driven by dust predominated in the 80s 14 and early 90s. Most recently the highest PM10 values 15 occur in the winter and are dominated by ammonium nitrate. 16 However, reduction in dust, smoke, and ammonium nitrate 17 are all critical to bring PM10 down to attainment levels. 18 --o0o-- 19 MS. MORROW: What are the key sources of Valley 20 PM10 and its precursors? Fuel combustion in vehicles and 21 stationary sources provide both fine particulate and NOx. 22 Dust from paved and unpaved roads, agricultural operation, 23 and construction activities are significant sources of 24 direct PM10. 25 Smoke from residential wood burning is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 significant. In the past, smoke from agricultural and 2 forestry burning was a big contributor to high PM10 3 levels, but state and local smoke management programs have 4 greatly reduced the impact. On the highest PM days shown 5 on the prior bar chart, these types of burning were 6 prohibited. 7 Finally, the largest source of ammonia in the 8 San Joaquin Valley is animal waste. It accounts for over 9 80 percent of the current emissions followed by 10 fertilizers and composting. 11 --o0o-- 12 MS. MORROW: To formulate an effective PM10 13 attainment strategy in the San Joaquin Valley, it is 14 critical to understand how precursor emissions interact to 15 form ammonium nitrate. As I described earlier, ammonium 16 nitrate precursors include NOx, ROG, and ammonia. The 17 amount of each precursor in the atmosphere relative to the 18 others determine how much ammonium nitrate is formed. 19 The chemistry is complex, but essentially the 20 precursor in the shortest supply will limit how much 21 ammonium nitrate is produced. In other words, the 22 ingredient you run out of first dictates the amount of 23 pollution formed. Reducing emissions of this limiting 24 precursor provides the best opportunity to cut particle 25 levels. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 --o0o-- 2 MS. MORROW: Multiple studies have examined the 3 relationship among NOx, ROG, and ammonia including papers 4 published in peer-reviewed journals that specifically 5 examine San Joaquin Valley chemistry. 6 The plan relies on two basic types of information 7 to understand San Joaquin Valley nitrate chemistry. The 8 first analysis of measured air quality data. The second 9 is computer simulation of San Joaquin Valley nitrate 10 formation. 11 The first approach uses analytical tools to 12 evaluate monitored precursor concentrations. The key 13 information is the relative amounts of each precursor in 14 the air. This approach identifies which precursor is in 15 the shortest supply and whether reducing emissions of the 16 other precursors may also reduce nitrate formation. 17 Analysis of air quality measurements yield good 18 information about nitrate formation at the specific 19 locations in the Valley where the data were collected. To 20 understand precursor relationships on a macro-scale 21 throughout the Valley, the plan also includes regional 22 modeling. 23 Taken together, these studies have looked at data 24 collected over three different periods in the last 25 ten years during fall and winter conditions at locations PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 from the north to the south part of the Valley. 2 --o0o-- 3 MS. MORROW: The district reaches conclusions in 4 the plan about how to reduce ammonium nitrate. ARB staff 5 were part of the technical team and concur with the 6 district's findings. 7 The overall conclusion of the study is that NOx 8 control is the most effective approach to reduce ammonium 9 nitrate particles. The results for ammonia control were 10 not conclusive. This assessment focused on changes from 11 controlling ammonia emissions and did not consider the 12 impact of removing ammonia sources entirely by relocating 13 livestock operations outside the Valley. 14 The analysis of measured air quality data 15 indicated that ammonia reduction would not be effective. 16 In other words, given the relative amounts of NOx and 17 ammonia in the Valley, ammonia reductions would not 18 accelerate attainment compared to a NOx-only approach. 19 The computer modeling suggests that a small area 20 around Bakersfield could benefit from ammonia control, but 21 this analysis still showed NOx control as more efficient. 22 However, the monitored air quality data for Bakersfield 23 suggested there would be no benefit from ammonia 24 reductions in Bakersfield. 25 The available science demonstrates a clear PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 relationship between reducing NOx emissions and lowering 2 particulate levels. The science is inconclusive regarding 3 the impact of ammonia reduction on PM10. We expect that 4 future air quality modeling developed from the complete 5 results of the regional particulate study will address the 6 inconsistencies and shed more light on the impacts of 7 ammonia controls. 8 --o0o-- 9 MS. MORROW: ARB staff concludes that the most 10 effective way to cut Valley particulate pollution is to 11 reduce both direct PM10 and NOx emissions simultaneously 12 across the Valley. Dust and smoke dominate the 13 directly-emitted pollution so measures to reduce them are 14 critical, and regional NOx reductions are the key to 15 reducing ammonium nitrate. 16 --o0o-- 17 MS. MORROW: With the understanding of particle 18 chemistry and composition in the Valley as context, let's 19 move on to the staff's evaluation of the San Joaquin 20 Valley plan. 21 --o0o-- 22 MS. MORROW: The San Joaquin Valley PM10 plan 23 lays out an enforceable strategy to attain the federal 24 PM10 standards by 2010. The district found, and ARB staff 25 concurs, that 2010 is the earliest practicable date. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 The plan provides for best available control 2 measures, or BACM, on all significant sources of PM10 and 3 PM10 precursors that the attainment demonstration 4 indicates should be reduced to accelerate attainment. 5 Under the Federal Clean Air Act, BACM is at minimum a 6 requirement to be implemented prior to developing an 7 attainment SIP. In that context, BACM is an 8 across-the-board approach. This plan provides the basis 9 to refine and focus BACM in the most effective way 10 provided by the science of the attainment demonstration. 11 The Valley PM10 plan reduces a combination of 12 direct PM10 and NOx by 5 percent per year to ensure steady 13 progress. This is an additional requirement of federal 14 law for areas that have failed to attain the PM standard. 15 The plan appropriately applies a 5 percent reduction 16 requirement to the emissions targeted by the attainment 17 strategy, directly-emitting PM10 and NOx. The district 18 uses a combination of reductions in each pollutant to 19 reach the 5 percent total. This approach is consistent 20 with the calculation convention for demonstrating ozone 21 progress. 22 Finally, the district has committed to a 23 mid-course review in 2006 to ensure they are on track to 24 attain in 2010. The mid-course review will include 25 re-evaluating the attainment strategy using the latest PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 technical information from the regional particulate study. 2 During the mid-course review, the district will consider 3 again the need for ammonia control based on the updated 4 science. 5 --o0o-- 6 MS. MORROW: As I said earlier, the key elements 7 of an effective strategy are reducing directly-emitted 8 PM10 and secondary-formed ammonia nitrate particles. The 9 strategy to reduce direct PM10 includes local dust 10 control, local smoke reduction, and statewide diesel 11 particulate controls. The strategy to cut regional 12 secondary ammonium nitrate includes statewide NOx controls 13 on engines and local stationary combustion rules. 14 --o0o-- 15 MS. MORROW: With existing and new controls, the 16 plan will reduce NOx by over 200 tons per day and direct 17 PM by over 40 tons per day. These numbers are the net 18 effect and take current growth forecasts into account. 19 NOx emissions are projected to drop between now and 2010. 20 The plan contains new district NOx rules, and ARB staff is 21 proposing new statewide strategies to reduce NOx even 22 more. 23 But without the plan, directly-emitted PM10 is 24 projected to rise because of an increase in vehicle miles 25 traveled and associated road dust. The measures in the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 plan would reverse this trend. 2 --o0o-- 3 MS. MORROW: The district board has committed to 4 adopt 14 new or tighter rules as part of the local control 5 strategy which will reduce 66 tons per day of PM10, 16 6 tons per day of NOx, and 6 tons per day of SOx in 2010. A 7 portion of the PM10 reduction is consumed by growth in 8 road dust and construction. The plan contains dust 9 reduction strategies for roads, parking lots, and 10 agricultural sources including on-field activities. 11 --o0o-- 12 MS. MORROW: The plan includes more stringent 13 industrial controls on sources such as boilers and 14 stationary internal combustion engines. The plan also 15 calls for local measures on residential wood burning and 16 space heating. The residential wood burning proposal 17 provides for mandatory no-burn days when high PH10 levels 18 would occur. 19 The plan also proposes an indirect source 20 mitigation fee to fund incentive programs. New 21 development projects that generate vehicle traffic would 22 be required to offset the associated emissions by paying a 23 fee to fund incentive programs. 24 --o0o-- 25 MS. MORROW: The environmental impact of large PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 dairies are the focus of considerable attention in the San 2 Joaquin Valley. Air emissions from livestock waste 3 include large amounts of ammonia contributing to 4 particulate matter and significant quantities of reactive 5 organic gases leading to ozone. 6 --o0o-- 7 MS. MORROW: A great deal of work is underway to 8 better quantify the air impacts of these emissions. The 9 air district through its Agricultural Technical Advisory 10 Committee has completed a dairy research action plan that 11 identifies specific research needs for emission data for 12 ammonia, organic gases, and particulate matter. This 13 summer, Fresno State is doing air monitoring to estimate 14 the total emissions from a dairy. The next step will be 15 testing emissions from an individual source within a dairy 16 operation at US Davis. This work could begin later this 17 year. 18 As I described earlier, preliminary analysis of 19 the impact of ammonia reductions were inconclusive. Using 20 the final air quality modeling tools from the regional 21 particulate study that will be available in 2005, and 22 emission data from the new research, the district will 23 re-evaluate the need for ammonia reduction. The district 24 board has committed to complete the re-evaluation and 25 revise the plan accordingly in 2006. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 --o0o-- 2 MS. MORROW: A number of questions came forward 3 at the district hearing to consider the plan. First, is 4 2010 the earliest attainment date practicable? ARB staff 5 believes it is. The air district commits to secure all 6 the local reductions in dust and smoke by 2007. The NOx 7 controls already adopted by ARB and U.S. EPA for mobile 8 sources half the total reductions for attainment in the 9 plan time frame of '99-2010. These benefits occur over 10 time as tighter emission standards for new engines phase 11 in through 2010 and the fleet turns over to cleaner 12 vehicles and equipment. Additional state vehicle measures 13 proposed in the plan would require time to realize the 14 full benefits achieving the last increment of reductions 15 necessary in the additional years. 16 The second question was about the need for 17 ammonia controls. I described our understanding of the 18 science on the question earlier. ARB staff believes the 19 district's commitment is appropriate given the available 20 information and further work underway. 21 The third question is if the 5 percent annual 22 progress element is adequate. We believe it is. The 23 progress demonstration satisfies federal requirements. It 24 relates correctly to the attainment strategy and achieves 25 greater than five percent reductions in the early years, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 thereby maximizing near-term public health benefits. 2 Lastly, is the agricultural conservation 3 management plan adequate? Under the district's proposal, 4 farmers with plots over 100 acres would need to select and 5 implement soil conservation practices to reduce dust from 6 on-field operations. Examples of these practices include 7 reduced tilling, irrigation techniques, planting of cover 8 crops, and road maintenance. The farmer would identify 9 the chosen techniques in a brief dust management plan 10 submitted to the National Resource Conservation Service 11 consistent with the district rule. The Conservation 12 Service would collect data from farmers about program 13 implementation and provide that information to the air 14 district. 15 As a backstop, if the data indicates that the 16 program is not getting the needed emission reductions, the 17 district would step into the Conservation Services role on 18 program implementation and increase the number of dust 19 reduction practices farmers must implement. With the 20 backstop provision, ARB staff believes the measure the 21 district proposes to develop would accelerate attainment 22 and meet federal requirements. 23 --o0o-- 24 MS. MORROW: Now that you have heard about the 25 San Joaquin Valley PM10 plan, I will move on to the state PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 proposal for state emission reduction commitments to 2 support this plan. 3 --o0o-- 4 MS. MORROW: The majority of the state's 5 contribution to PM10 reduction is due to the future 6 benefits of measures already on the books. Despite 7 growth, new engines standards being phased-in over the 8 next decade reduce Valley NOx emissions by more than 9 50 percent for passenger cars, over 20 percent for 10 heavy-duty trucks and buses, and over 30 percent for 11 off-road equipment. The next increment of reductions 12 needed for attainment by 2010 depends on cleaning up the 13 existing fleet. 14 --o0o-- 15 MS. MORROW: In addition to the 140 tons per day 16 of NOx reductions already secured, staff is proposing that 17 the Board commit to develop and consider new statewide 18 measures, plus achieve specific regional emission 19 reduction targets in the Valley. 20 ARB has proposed a package of 20 new statewide 21 measures to aid ozone and PM10 attainment, published as 22 the Proposed 2003 State and Federal Element of the 23 California SIP. The Board will consider the entire 24 package in the fall concurrent with the South Coast SIP. 25 The full complement of measures will also be essential for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 the upcoming Valley ozone SIP. 2 Today's proposal is for the Board approval of the 3 subset of measures that would achieve NOx and diesel 4 particulate reductions in the Valley by 2010. 5 --o0o-- 6 MS. MORROW: ARB staff began developing the 7 statewide strategy two years ago with scoping meetings 8 around California in 2001. The staff draft for the 9 statewide measures was released in January of this year. 10 We participated in 11 joint district/ARB workshops in the 11 San Joaquin Valley and South Coast and held a more 12 technical session focused on ARB measures in April. We 13 released a formal staff proposal in May and are 14 recommending a modification today in response to public 15 comments on the forklift strategies. I'll describe this 16 modification shortly with the specific ARB measures. 17 --o0o-- 18 MS. MORROW: As parts of the San Joaquin Valley 19 PM10 plan, we propose that the Board commit to develop and 20 consider adopting four new statewide measures between 2003 21 and 2008. The Bureau of Automotive Repair has already 22 committed to implement further improvements to the state's 23 enhanced smog check program. We also propose that the 24 Board commit to further reduce NOx by 10 tons per day and 25 diesel particulate matter by a half ton per day in San PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 Joaquin Valley by 2010. The state could achieve these 2 reductions by adopting the ARB and BAR measures defined in 3 the plan or by adopting other measures so long as the 4 total obligation is met. 5 --o0o-- 6 MS. MORROW: If the Board approves a commitment 7 to develop specific regulations, what happens next? A 8 control measure in a plan provides a general approach as a 9 starting point for an extensive public process to develop 10 a potential regulation. 11 For each measure, ARB staff evaluates the vehicle 12 end product use, the resulting emissions, control 13 technology, and operational changes that could reduce 14 emissions, the feasibility of control, the potential 15 environmental and economic impacts, and alternative 16 approaches to achieve the objective. 17 ARB staff hold meetings with effective industries 18 and the public to discuss the technical data collected and 19 concepts for a regulation. The next step is release of a 20 staff report and technical evaluation to support a 21 regulatory proposal. Following a 45-day comment period, 22 the Board hears public testimony and acts on the proposal. 23 The Board can accept, reject, or modify the proposal based 24 on public comment. Throughout this entire process, 25 staff's analysis of the most effective approach evolves. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 The regulation ultimately considered and adopted by the 2 Board may closely follow or divert from the plan measured 3 based on the updated and more comprehensive information 4 gained during regulatory development. 5 --o0o-- 6 MS. MORROW: We are proposing to develop two new 7 ARB measures that focus on reducing emissions from 8 existing on-road vehicles that account for about 9 three-quarters of all vehicle emissions but only 10 one-quarter of all miles traveled by 2010. The first is a 11 program to replace worn-out emission control equipment 12 such as catalytic converters, evaporative canisters and/or 13 oxygen censors in older passenger cars. The Board heard a 14 promising report from staff a few months ago on the 15 preliminary results of a pilot program to assess the 16 feasibility of the approach. 17 --o0o-- 18 MS. MORROW: The second measure is an omnibus 19 strategy to clean up the entire truck and bus fleets using 20 a combination of potential approaches. Staff is already 21 developing a proposal to accelerate computer reprogramming 22 on mid-1990s trucks with emission control defeat devices 23 intended to improve fuel economy at the expense of 24 illegally high NOx emissions. In a legal settlement with 25 ARB and US EPA, engine manufactures are obligated to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 provide the computer software upgrade to eliminate these 2 cheater devices, but not until the engines come in for 3 rebuild anyway. Owners of these trucks are delaying 4 rebuilds for hundreds and thousands of miles beyond 5 historical average, foregoing the needed emission 6 reductions from the settlement. 7 Other approaches for this measure include diesel 8 risk reduction programs, like the trash truck regulation 9 to be considered this summer, technological and 10 operational restrictions on extended idling, addition of 11 on-board diagnostic for new truck engines, and 12 manufacturer responsibility to test trucks after sale for 13 continued compliance with emission standards. 14 --o0o-- 15 MS. MORROW: We are proposing to develop two new 16 statewide measures to reduce emissions from off-road 17 equipment in the San Joaquin Valley. The first measure is 18 an important component of the Board's plan to reduce the 19 health risk from toxic diesel particles. It focuses on 20 diesel-fueled equipment used in construction, farming, and 21 industrial operations by retrofitting control technology 22 or accelerating engine replacement with cleaner models. 23 We had initially proposed two separate measures 24 for large spark igniter or LSI engines. This category of 25 industrial equipment includes forklifts and compressors. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 The first original measure, called off-road LSI-2 targeted 2 retrofits or existing equipment. The other measure, 3 called off-road LSI 3, sought to increase the purchase of 4 electric forklifts where that technology is feasible for 5 the job conditions. 6 In response to considerable comments from the 7 forklift manufacturers, forklift users, and the propane 8 industry supplying forklift operators, we are recommending 9 that these two measures be consolidated. This action 10 would provide for a multi-faceted and flexible approach to 11 achieve the combined reductions from the two measures on 12 the same schedule. 13 Board members may refer to Attachment A in the 14 proposal resolution 3-14 for our description of the 15 revised off-road LSI-2 measure. Copies of the new measure 16 text are also available for the public at the sign-in 17 table. The consolidated measure would focus on cleaning 18 up the fleet of industrial gas equipment like forklift and 19 compressors. The approach would involve retrofit of basic 20 vehicle controls on existing equipment and setting zero 21 and near-zero emission standards for new forklift 22 purchases. Part of the technology that could do the 23 job -- part of the measurement development process would 24 be to determine what is the cleanest type of technology 25 that can do the job, considering the type of application PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 and operating conditions. The structure and specific 2 requirements of future regulatory proposals would be 3 developed over the next year in consultation with the 4 affected industry and the public. 5 --o0o-- 6 MS. MORROW: Staff recommends that the Board 7 approve the state commitment to develop specific measures 8 and reduce 10 tons per day of NOx and one-half-ton per day 9 of diesel particulate in the Valley by 2010. Contingent 10 on the approval of the state commitment, staff also 11 recommends that the Board adopt the San Joaquin Valley 12 PM10 plan as a revision to the California SIP for 13 submittal to US EPA. 14 The plan would clearly reduce PM10 levels with 15 new measures throughout the San Joaquin Valley to benefit 16 public health. The plan satisfies state and federal 17 requirements and would help avoid the imposition of 18 federal sanctions in the Valley. Thank you. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed. 20 Any questions from or comments from the Board? 21 Mr. Friedman. 22 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: I just have a 23 question that sort of relates to the pace of change. 24 Could you clarify for me in terms of the Valley plan, you 25 in one place state you're committed to a revision in 2006. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 Is 2006 the year in which you will study to see if the 2 changes are being effective so that a revision won't occur 3 until 2007? That's three-and-a-half, four years from now. 4 TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES MANAGER KARPEROS: Dr. 5 Friedman -- excuse me. The 2006 date that this district's 6 committing to keys off the results of the particulate 7 matter study that Ms. Morrow referred to in her 8 presentation, that study which is ongoing now. 9 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Can you use the mic 10 so we can all hear you. 11 TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES MANAGER KARPEROS: Kurt 12 Karperos, ARB staff. 13 The 2006 date keys off the completion of the 14 particulate matter study that was referred to in staff's 15 presentation. That work is ongoing now, and the final 16 tools -- the final modeling tools, the data, will be 17 available in 2005. So the district would begin their 18 revision and assessment process in 5 and would have the 19 revision completed by, I believe, March of 2006. 20 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: I guess I'm still 21 a little confused. You're talking about the health study 22 we just heard? 23 TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES MANAGER KARPEROS: No, 24 I'm sorry, Doctor. Ongoing in the Center Valley now is a 25 study of atmospheric chemistry of particulate matter. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: If changes need 2 to be made, they really will be made in 2006? 3 TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES MANAGER KARPEROS: 4 Absolutely. 5 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: That's what I 6 wanted to clarify. 7 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: And, Dr. 8 Friedman, if I could also add, the district board had a 9 question about reporting on progress and asked their staff 10 to report annually on the progress of the plan. 11 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Thank you. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Just on that item, I'd like 13 to say some more later, but I share your concern that we 14 have to wait until 2000 -- even 2005, 2006. I think we 15 can do some more looking at the role of ammonia without 16 saving that until later. 17 Ms. D'Adamo. 18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Yes. I had a question 19 regarding the 2006 date, kind of teeing off Dr. Friedman's 20 question, that it seems to be in harmony with when we'll 21 be receiving additional particulate matter studies. What 22 is the exact date for that? And then also, same question 23 on the dairy research action plan. I thought we would be 24 having information on that prior to 2006. 25 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: I'll start PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 broadly on -- the 2006 timing works quite well for both 2 PM10, and also we're anticipating the schedule for the 3 PM2.5 federal plans. As you heard from the presentation, 4 the secondary component of the PM10 problem which is, in 5 essence, PM2.5 in the Valley is very significant. So 6 there's a little bit of uncertainty in terms of the 7 federal schedule for the 2.5 plan, but we expect they will 8 be due in 2007. So in our view, the timing is aligned 9 quite well to make any revisions to the PM10 plan while 10 the PM2.5 plan is being developed. And clearly, the 2.5 11 plan will require new emission reduction strategies. And 12 because it's focused on secondary, it will be absolutely 13 essential to have good answers on the ammonia and NOx 14 situation by 2006 because we'll have the additional drive 15 of the 2.5 plan in that time frame. 16 And the -- do -- 17 TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES MANAGER KARPEROS: 18 Again, Kurt Karperos, ARB staff. I believe the question 19 you asked was about the dairy action plan. 20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And the CRPAQS. 21 TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES MANAGER KARPEROS: 22 There's multiple phases to the dairy action plan in terms 23 of trying to evaluate the emissions from dairies. It's 24 testing is -- took place some last year and there will be 25 more this summer. That work is looking at the dairy as a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 whole. What are the total emissions coming off the dairy? 2 There are also plans -- and that work could start this 3 year depending if we're able to line up things with UC 4 Davis to zero in and examine the emissions from specific 5 operations within the dairy, whether it be lagoon, the 6 feed, or the milk and that type of thing, as opposed to 7 going -- at least the bubble of that overall total 8 emissions from the Valley. 9 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: But the date that you 10 expect the studies to be complete? 11 TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES MANAGER KARPEROS: The 12 initial studies for the total dairy, including some of the 13 speciation work is available now, and we would begin 14 hopefully later this year on the particular operation. I 15 don't have with me here -- right here the completion of 16 that, but I have some papers at the desk I can go through. 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. If I can just add, 18 I know through the Ag. Air Advisory Committee there are a 19 number of representatives here today. Maybe the 20 representatives could discuss their involvement in those 21 studies. I believe -- the reason I asked the question is 22 because I think it's all intended to fall into place with 23 that 2006 review date, which is looking for some 24 confirmation of that for the record. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. Calhoun. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: One of the slides had a 2 bullet which stated the next increment of reduction by 3 2010 depends on cleaning up the existing fleet. I know 4 we've done a lot of talk about this, but I'm wondering, 5 Mr. Cackette, if you'd like to refresh our memory on what 6 we are doing to clean up the existing fleet and the status 7 of those programs. 8 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Okay. 9 There's -- in the plan there are several different 10 measures that get at the existing fleet. They focus on 11 cars and light trucks. They focus on on- and off-road 12 diesel, and there's one that focuses -- that has a lot of 13 attention here today -- on possible retrofits for large 14 spark-ignited engines, otherwise known as forklifts in 15 this discussion. 16 On the passenger cars we're continuing with our 17 study to identify whether some of the common emission 18 controls on the oldest cars and light trucks can be 19 replaced at sometime during their life, latter part of 20 their life, and whether those will be -- provide good 21 emission reductions and cost-effective emission reductions 22 and whether they're possible to do -- pragmatically can we 23 implement them in some matter. We've done sort of a 24 pre-pilot study. We're doing a pilot study now. There 25 would be a full scale demonstration program required PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 before we have a complete answer. But we believe there's 2 enough promise to have a measure in here that identifies 3 emission reductions that could occur this decade from 4 retrofitting passenger cars and light trucks. 5 We also have several improvements to the smog 6 check program which were committed to several years ago 7 that are still in the implementation phases. Those are 8 included in the plan as ways of getting at older vehicles. 9 On heavy duty, both on- and off-road, we have a 10 number of measures that are under development to either 11 retrofit vehicles with particulate filters or with 12 oxygenation catalysts or re-engine those vehicles with 13 newer engines that have lower emissions and better fuel 14 economy. And those regulations -- the emission reductions 15 are contained in these on-road 3 and off-road 1 in the 16 plan. Those are coming to the Board. The next one comes 17 next month, which is on trash trucks, one on public fleets 18 follows the on-road public fleets. Another one next year 19 on on-road private fleets, then followed by regulations 20 that affect off-road equipment. 21 There's a whole series of those which will reduce 22 direct particulate emissions by -- potentially according 23 to our risk reduction plan by as much as 75 percent this 24 decade. And also have -- because of the way they're being 25 developed, they'll also have some -- unanticipated in our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 original plan -- in our risk reduction plan, there will be 2 significant NOx reductions. I think that comes along with 3 some of those items as well, which will help with the 4 secondary nitrate formation here in the Valley. 5 And then the third item is on the forklifts where 6 there's a specific measure -- on the part of a specific 7 measure in the plan is looked at retrofitting gasoline and 8 propane, internal spark-ignited forklift engines with 9 three-way catalysts which is what the new forklifts are 10 being equipped with now. We think it's possible to 11 retrofit those on older ones and get significant 12 reductions. 13 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Thank you. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Any comments from my 15 colleagues at this time? Questions? We've got some 16 additional comments. I think I'll wait until later for 17 those. 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Is it your intent 19 to go to public testimony at this point? 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes. 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Before you do, if 22 I just might mention of all the measures that the state is 23 committing to, that the Air Resources Board is committing 24 to in this plan, the only one that drew any controversy 25 was the forklift measure. So you should have their -- a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 redraft of the forklift measure where we initially had 2 proposed two separate concepts. One to seek greater 3 electrification of new forklifts, and the second to 4 retrofit with a three-way catalyst, the existing. 5 And what we have done now based on extensive 6 public comment is to combine that all into a single 7 measure and add a third possibility which is to capture 8 the over-compliance of new propane forklifts, which are 9 excelling with cleaner technology and meeting our grant 10 standard by a considerable margin. 11 We don't know yet as we come to final rule making 12 at the end of '04 what the final measure will look like. 13 But the point of redrafting it today is to say we've got 14 all the possibilities on the table. We have retained the 15 fundamental commitment to tonnage that the plan relies 16 upon. And when we come back to you, we will have a 17 thoroughly vetted, very well-balanced, with as much 18 flexibility as we can provide to the forklift owners and 19 operators, measure taking advantage of various options 20 before us. 21 And so what we -- there's a chart here that 22 summarizes the measures, and the redraft of the forklift 23 measure is attached. So you -- if you can find the chart, 24 you'll have the redraft. 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Mr. Chairman. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes. 2 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: If I might add, this is an 3 issue I've been concerned about. And although I haven't 4 yet gone through the proposal in detail, it appears this 5 gives us greater flexibility and the end result would be 6 the same. So I think we're on the right track. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And again, we appreciate your 8 concern, Ms. D'Adamo which has come through to staff and 9 your concern to try to pull these together. So I think, 10 again, we appreciate your efforts here. 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: What we thought 12 you might do as you go to public testimony is take up all 13 the forklift comments first. I think that will go 14 quickly, and then we can come back to overall issues about 15 the plan. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Just to give a heads up to 17 staff. The areas I'm going to be focusing on, I'm not 18 happy with the timetable for looking at the most effective 19 way to look at ammonium nitrate control. Clearly, that's 20 a big issue. Whatever we can do in the shorter term, I'd 21 like staff to come up with a concerted effort to come back 22 to us in a shorter term. 23 One, we've got some letters here talking about 24 already fugitive dust measures applied in South Coast, are 25 they applicable here? And then in the enforceability of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 some of the fugitive dust plans in the plan here and 2 involved in the federal government. So I'll reserve that 3 until later I think. 4 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Just to give the 5 staff a heads up for my questions, I'm holding them until 6 I hear public testimony. But one of the submissions to us 7 was by Earth Justice, and they raise a number of questions 8 that I'd like staff to respond to. Maybe Ms. Walsh could 9 do that. 10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The legality of 11 the plan. 12 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: On the legality of 13 the overall plan. 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We'd be happy to 15 do that at the appropriate time. 16 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: At the appropriate 17 time. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I see they are going to 19 testify. I see them on the list. With that, what I think 20 we'll do, unless there are any more questions -- 21 Mr. McKinnon. 22 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Same thing. I'm going to 23 withhold until I hear the public testimony. I did have a 24 lot of concern about the forklifts, and I'm really 25 interested in how the modification is thought about. And PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 I understand we'll have hearings later to deal with that. 2 But I think I'm glad that there's a change. Put it that 3 way. Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. So the process 5 we're going to use is to have remote testimony from 6 Bakersfield and Modesto first of all, and then we'll come 7 back here. So first of all, we have -- in Bakersfield we 8 have Linda Mackay signed up to testify. We have 9 Bakersfield first of all. 10 MS. MACKAY: Morning. First of all, I want to 11 thank the Board for coming into our region so we can more 12 easily give you our input. My name is Linda Mackay, and I 13 live in Kern County. 14 A couple of years ago, myself and others living 15 throughout the San Joaquin Valley founded the Association 16 of Irritated Residents, A-I-R, AIR. Not only are our 17 noses, throats, and lungs irritated by the foul air of 18 this Valley, but we are irritated residents because time 19 after time we've seen our public officials, who I used to 20 believe in and thought they worked to protect our families 21 and children -- instead, we've seen them more often than 22 not serving the interest of polluting industry and that 23 includes agriculture. 24 In particular, our concerns are with the huge 25 livestock projects that are moving into our region, the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 mega dairies. We are living in some of the richest 2 agricultural-producing regions of the nation. We have 3 some of the poorest people of the nation living here. 4 Evidently, some people are making a lot of money off our 5 area, driving expensive cars, and living in large homes 6 with access to all the health care they need, while others 7 are working in low-paying jobs, living in third-world 8 conditions without any kind of health care. 9 I have too many friends living in this Valley who 10 have no medical insurance. They can't go to the doctor 11 without worrying about the cost. Those conditions 12 illustrate a real lack of balance. Having one small 13 portion of the population in the Valley who are reaping 14 the benefits and using the resources of our Valley to do 15 pretty well for themselves, but then a huge number of 16 other people of this Valley who are just being used up, 17 period. And then being poisoned on top of that. Bottom 18 line, we have an epidemic number of people with asthma and 19 other respiratory illnesses here in the Valley. We know 20 it's caused by our bad air. 21 This is a crisis, and you can't accept a plan in 22 good conscious that's going to take the slow route to 23 fixing the problem. Lives are dependent on us adopting an 24 aggressive plan to clean up the air now. In poll after 25 poll, consumers had said they are willing to pay more if PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 it means an improvement in air quality. 2 Are the industries willing to do the right thing 3 and follow more stringent PM10 regulations and take a 4 little less profit to clean our air? I wonder how many 5 are willing to do that. I also wonder if you as a 6 regulatory agency have enough courage to go against the 7 large polluting industry folk who want you to approve this 8 passive, inadequate plan. I hope you have enough courage 9 to do the right thing to balance some of the imbalances. 10 I'm a mother, and recently I became a 11 grandmother. And from that place I hope you think of the 12 children and vote no on this PM10 plan. I hope you have 13 the courage to ask the Regional Valley Board to go back to 14 the drawing board and address our air pollution crisis 15 adequately. I hope that's what you do, because frankly 16 I'm really tired of being irritated. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 18 Looking at Modesto, if there's anybody in Modesto 19 who's going to speak on the forklift issue, then I'd ask 20 them to wait until we have testimony on forklifts from 21 Fresno. I guess not. 22 The two speakers signed up in Modesto, Mike 23 Tunnell and Sandra Duval, are they going to talk about 24 forklifts? Yes. Let's have the testimony on the 25 forklifts at this end first of all so we can set the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 stage. And I'd like to ask Mary Reynolds and Peter Weiner 2 to come to the podium, please. 3 MS. REYNOLDS: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and 4 members of the Board. My name is Mary Reynolds, and I am 5 President of the Western Propane Gas Association. And as 6 the Chairman just indicated, I'm here to speak to you 7 about the propane issue. I will also tell you I'm feeling 8 somewhat schizophrenic this morning because, thanks to 9 staff in a meeting yesterday, we made great strides and 10 also the meetings with members of the Board in revising 11 this measure so that we think it's one that's actually 12 workable for not only the propane industry but also for 13 the end users. We look forward to that process. 14 Having said that, I do want to highlight a couple 15 of the issues. And I won't belabor in the interest of 16 time. I do want to address some of the concerns that 17 brought us to this point, and those are the same concerns 18 we will be grappling with as we go through the rule-making 19 process. 20 I'm also convinced, based on the comments of 21 staff and certainly the concern of the members of the 22 Board, we will ultimately finish the process with 23 something that will give us what we all want, and that's 24 cleaner air. 25 Having said that, again, I'd like to focus on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 what is now being called formally LSI-3 -- this is where I 2 get schizophrenic -- it's now LSI-2, the consolidated 3 measure. Specifically, this deals with forklifts with a 4 lift capacity of equal to 8,00 pounds or less. The 5 revised implementation date based on the data we saw this 6 morning has been changed from 2005 with an implementation 7 date of 2006. We welcome, as I've said, the opportunity 8 to work with staff and other stakeholders to develop 9 feasibility control measures that would reduce real 10 emissions. 11 In light of recent meetings, as I've indicated, 12 we think we can reach that goal. And we can do so by 13 creating additional certification bins, retrofits, and 14 other measures yet to be worked through. WPGA is 15 committed to doing our part to find solutions to help 16 California improve air quality. Thus, I'd like to address 17 some of the concerns you have that we will work through on 18 this measure. 19 We first -- let me back up and tell you that some 20 of the basis for the problems that we had was that this 21 measure went to print prior to getting any input from the 22 industry or end users. In fact, we first became aware of 23 it in January when it was posted on the South Coast 24 websites as one of their control measures. 25 But since that time, we have worked diligently to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 determine the ramifications of the measure. And as part 2 of that process we hired Sierra Research to conduct an 3 analysis of it. We have submitted their findings in 4 writing, so I won't detail them now. But suffice it to 5 say, they concluded that as written, it was highly likely 6 that the measure would cause at least 10 percent of the 7 forklift users to retain their older higher-emitting 8 forklifts longer and that others would opt to buy the 9 pre-purchased, the 2004 model year. Thus, they concluded 10 under that scenario that they would certainly negate the 11 benefit of the measure. 12 In addition to not getting the emissions benefit 13 associated with the measure, it could also cause other 14 unintended consequences, such as the elimination of 15 hundreds of jobs in the propane industry alone, as well as 16 causing other businesses in California that sell propane 17 literally to go out of business because their market is 18 tied to providing fuel to forklifts. 19 This measure would also deprive many forklift end 20 users from a much-needed piece of equipment which we'll 21 discuss momentarily. 22 I have with me a stack of letters that I'd like 23 to leave with staff. These letters are from both members 24 of the propane industry and also end users that go to 25 great detail on why they didn't think this original LSI-3 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 was workable, and moreover, they detail what needs to be 2 addressed as we go through the rule-making process. So I 3 will submit those. 4 There was a number of folks that called me that 5 wanted you to know they could not be here today to comment 6 because they are working. But nonetheless, the lack of 7 their attendance is not to say they are complacent. If I 8 might -- and maybe to facilitate this process and the 9 testimony, I would appreciate if I could ask for a show of 10 hands, not only here but in the other two sites, of those 11 that are present because they are concerned about the 12 forklift measure. Show of hands. 13 (Thereupon there was a show of hands) 14 MS. REYNOLDS: If I do a good job, I'll empty the 15 room. I would like to submit that there is a lot of 16 interest on this issue, and it's reflected by the hands 17 that you just saw. Furthermore, I'd like to say that 18 having said that we think that, again, in going through 19 the rule-making process and the commitment of staff that 20 we can resolve those issues that we are discussing. 21 One of the comments that was of great concern to 22 end users was there was a general sentiment that propane 23 lifts are interchangeable with electric. And I'm here to 24 tell you that is not necessarily the case. For example, 25 the electric forklifts do not perform well in harsh PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 weather, on steep ramps, or grades, rough terrain, or in 2 pushing and pulling application of heavy loads. 3 I'd like to briefly paraphrase comments submitted 4 to the ARB by WalMart. 5 "Currently, each our 130 stores in California 6 uses propane-powered forklifts -- a 7 propane-powered forklift to move heavy pallets 8 and cardboard bales. Electric forklifts, which 9 we use in certain indoor facilities, simply don't 10 have the power to do that job. Electric 11 forklifts require lengthy battery charging, space 12 to store and recharge batteries and are less 13 reliable when exposed to the elements. 14 "Our company, as well as many across the 15 state, would be willing to work with you on 16 alternatives to this measure that would meet 17 everyone's goals." 18 And I certainly think to side bar that the 19 consolidated measure goes a long way toward that goal. 20 Likewise, the Manufacturers' Counsel of the 21 Central Valley which represents 39 member companies here 22 in the San Joaquin District shared similar sentiments. 23 That counsel, by the way, represents business and industry 24 that includes E&J Gallo, JS Wes, Con Agra, Del Monte, 25 Foster Farms, Frito Lay, Hershey's, PG&E, packing houses, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 and the list goes on. That gives you a sense of the 2 diversity of those groups that have similar concerns. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Did I misunderstand you in 4 our earlier conversation when you said six minutes? 5 MS. REYNOLDS: I'll talk fast. And I'm almost 6 done. 7 But that one brief quote from the Manufacturers' 8 Counsel. They said, "We are concerned with this measure 9 and the resulting pollution associated with manufacturing 10 batteries, battery storage, and disposal. Required 11 electrical and structure increased electrical generation 12 during on-peak hours will provide fewer exhaust emission 13 reductions in the long run. The goal must be to gain real 14 attainable emissions that are not just on paper." 15 I would submit that taking the multi-faceted 16 approach, as mentioned in the revised LSI-2 consolidated 17 forklift emission measure will address a number of these 18 concerns as raised by myself and other stakeholders. 19 For these and many other reasons outlined in our 20 written comments, WPGA looks forward to working with staff 21 and with other stakeholders as we did in 1998 to develop 22 feasible controls with measures that will, in fact, 23 improve California's air quality. 24 Thank you for your time, your commitment, and 25 your attention. And my six minutes is now up. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And I wasn't trying to be 2 facetious there, but I think we'd like to thank the 3 industry very much for bringing forward some very 4 constructive suggestions. I think the Board members and 5 our colleagues here had some concerns, and I know 6 Mr. McKinnon had some concerns about the job issues. So 7 again, I think we're headed to actually a very 8 satisfactory resolution. I appreciate the spirit with 9 which the industry has responded and come forward with 10 really constructive suggestions so we don't sacrifice any 11 emissions, but in fact, maybe there's a better way of 12 getting this. 13 MS. REYNOLDS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 14 members of the Board. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. Weiner. 16 MR. WEINER: The lawyer will be briefer than the 17 client. 18 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 19 Board. I want to express my appreciation, and certainly, 20 I think Mary has as well, for the receptivity and 21 accessibility of work members and staff in listening and 22 responding to the concerns and data we've submitted on 23 this topic. It doesn't always end up this way. So -- and 24 as a result of these, we are no longer in opposition to 25 this measure. Just to be clear. You do have a submittal PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 from us that is, but obviously it did not take into 2 account this revision. 3 I think I'm going to try to get a copy of 4 Catherine Witherspoon's presentation of this measure. I 5 thought it was elegant and definitely included the kinds 6 of issues and multi-faceted approach we're talking about. 7 I think because this is a public hearing and because 8 there's been so much controversy as you saw expressed by 9 the hands in the room that both Mary Reynolds and I are 10 trying to essentially put forth what those concerns were 11 so that you don't have to hear from everybody. She has 12 done it so well that I'm not going to repeat what she has 13 said. 14 But we did have concerns about the feasibility of 15 the electric forklift as expressed in the former measure. 16 I think many of those have been dealt with in the revised 17 measure. We think the consolidated measure, LSI-2, may 18 still have some overly optimistic language about the 19 feasibility of using electrics, but is a much more 20 balanced approach. 21 We have suggested and the Sierra Research data 22 that was submitted showed that using the device of 23 certification bins which these manufactures can certify 24 will get the state and the district comfortable emission 25 reductions that in a sense already exist but can't be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 counted. The consolidated measure LSI-2 talks about lower 2 standards toward near-zero and zero emission. We would at 3 least suggest that you look at both those approaches. And 4 I think Ms. Witherspoon's presentation said that because 5 you may get them faster that way in terms as -- just the 6 development of the standard. 7 We were also concerned about LSI-3 as it might 8 affect consumer user behavior. I believe that the 9 consolidated measure avoids that problem. And finally, we 10 were concerned that any rule be fair or any measure be 11 fair to the manufacturers of the internal combustion 12 engine, the propane vehicle manufactures that have 13 invested over $33 million in reaching the current 14 standards and who, of course, have been over compliant. 15 So we want to make sure that any kind of rules that are 16 implemented will continue to encourage those kinds of 17 investments. And again, we think that the consolidated 18 measure, LSI-2, has the potential to achieve those desired 19 results. 20 And, again, we very much appreciate the 21 interaction with staff. Thank you. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you, Peter, for your 23 interaction. 24 With the comments by Mary and Peter, anybody want 25 to testify on this issue? Maybe it's -- bear in mind it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 may be duplicative. Recognize also we will be going 2 through the usual rule-making process. So this is just a 3 precursor to that. And there will be full work shopping. 4 There will be full disclosure on the website, and people 5 can get that information. So that will be happening. 6 There will be full involvement reflecting of the recent 7 revisions of staff here. 8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Mr. Chairman. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes, Ms. D'Adamo. 10 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: In light of the fact there 11 are so many individuals here today, just a suggestion 12 maybe we could get their names and addresses so we can 13 send them information about future workshops. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That would be great. 15 Excellent idea. 16 Maybe we can put a sign-up sheet over there, pass 17 it around so people can do that. Thank you, Peter. 18 So with that, I would like to go back to Modesto 19 so, in fact, we don't forget Modesto. And the two people 20 who had signed up, Mike Tunnell and Sandra Duval, I don't 21 know whether they want to talk about this particular 22 measure or not. But please step forward and begin your 23 presentation. 24 MR. TUNNELL: Good morning, Chairman Lloyd, and 25 members of the Board. My name is Mike Tunnell. I'm with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 the American Trucking Association, and I'm here on behalf 2 of ATA and the California Trucking Association. 3 To be honest with you, I haven't seen the revised 4 proposal, so I have no idea other than what was previously 5 presented. But I just wanted to give you a brief overview 6 of what our members' concerns were on the prior version. 7 And I'll leave it to your discretion and staff's whether 8 those concerns have been addressed. 9 You know, we use quite a few forklifts at freight 10 terminals to transfer freight from the trucks to the 11 loading docks, and we use electric forklifts and 12 non-electric forklifts for different reasons. And we 13 wanted to make sure that the flexibility was maintained so 14 that this wasn't a measure that would require us to 15 purchase electric forklifts -- the leap to electric. We 16 feel there's reasons for using non-electric technologies, 17 and we just felt that the best approach would be an open 18 approach that leaves open the different possibilities. 19 And it sounds like that's been -- the language has been 20 modified to take that approach and we would support that. 21 And I think I'll just leave it at that. Thank 22 you. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed. 24 And I think we're trying to address all your concerns. So 25 we'll make sure that you get copies of those changes. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We are arranging 2 to send the redrafted measures to both of the field 3 offices in Bakersfield and Modesto. So you'll have them 4 momentarily. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 6 MS. DUVAL: Good morning. My name is Sandra 7 Duval. I'm representing the Lumber Association of 8 California and Nevada. We have about 450 independent 9 lumber dealers and supplier members. Most of our members 10 are small family-run businesses that supply lumber and 11 other building material to contractors and the general 12 public. 13 We are encouraged this morning to hear the 14 consolidated measure. And again, I haven't had a chance 15 to review it. But just from what we've heard, it does 16 sound like this goes a long way toward addressing our 17 concerns as well. 18 We use forklifts extensively in our business. 19 Our stores are open longer than the time that a forklift 20 battery lasts on electric forklifts. We also run them 21 outside on uneven surfaces and on inclines. So in that 22 regard, propane forklifts serve our needs very well and 23 electric forklifts, unfortunately, would not. 24 So we look forward to working with the Air 25 Resources Board staff on the measure and hope that we can PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 continue to use equipment that really will serve our 2 needs. Thank you. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. And 4 please make sure that we have your contact information. 5 So with that, we'll come back to Fresno. And we 6 have Patricia Slingerland, Shirley Batchman, and Manuel 7 Cunha. 8 MS. SLINGERLAND: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and 9 Board. I'm here representing two different companies 10 today. One is an association, the Industrial Truck 11 Association. And since we did not have the revised before 12 we prepared our statements, I will be forced to read their 13 statement as is. And I'm sure they will adjust it. 14 The Industrial Truck Association, or the ITA, 15 opposes the measure designated as LSI-3, which now 16 apparently doesn't exist, which we refer to as the 17 forklift electrification measure as part of the state SIP 18 element for the proposed PM10 plan for the San Joaquin 19 Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. 20 ITA is the trade association located in 21 Washington, DC, that represents the manufacturers of the 22 vast majority of internal combustion and electric 23 forklifts sold in California and throughout the U.S. 24 Almost all of our forklift manufacturer members 25 manufacture electric forklifts, as well as the internal PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 combustion engine forklifts. And the key members -- some 2 key members manufacture only electric forklifts. Despite 3 these vested interests in the electric forklift market, 4 all ITA members, including those manufacturing only 5 electrics, oppose this forklift electrification measure. 6 ITA has been heavily engaged in the debate over 7 the LSI-3 since learning of it in January of this year. 8 Unfortunately, the hearing today conflicted with the ITA's 9 long-planned General Engineering Committee meeting in 10 Baltimore, which prevented attendance by the major 11 forklift manufacturers and ITA staff. However, I would 12 like to state briefly why ITA opposes the LSI-3 and any 13 similar measure to force the wholesale electrification of 14 forklifts. I would then refer the Board and staff to 15 ITA's extensive written comments, which we filed on June 16 28th for elaboration on these points. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Which is now outdated. 18 MS. SLINGERLAND: Pretty much, yeah. 19 The electrification proposal came out of nowhere 20 earlier this year without notice to the industry. Since 21 sometime in 1997 until a few months ago, we were 22 consistently told that emissions regulations for forklift 23 engines would consist of increasingly lower emissions 24 levels for our IC engines and that CARB was working 25 closely with U.S. EPA on a harmonized national approach PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 that would require increasingly greater use of advanced 2 automotive-type technology on our engines. ITA's written 3 comments give the chronology. 4 In good faith reliance on those representations, 5 ITA members spent about $40 million and attained a 90 6 percent reduction from the unregulated baseline emissions 7 of their IC engines, even though the current regulations 8 have never been authorized by EPA and have never been 9 enforceable. We now face the prospect that these new 10 engine designs and the forklifts that use them that they 11 cannot be purchased after January 1, 2005. 12 Electric forklifts have been around for a long 13 time and are important and useful products offering 14 several advantages over IC trucks for certain users. 15 Electric forklifts are typically quieter than IC trucks. 16 They don't expose indoor workers to carbon monoxide. They 17 may require less regular maintenance, and they may even be 18 less expensive to operate than an IC forklift over their 19 life. 20 These features have translated to a 45 percent 21 market share for the forklifts for the 8,000 pound 22 capacity or less. And as electric forklifts become more 23 versatile, primarily in terms of the instantaneous power 24 they can deliver and the amount of work they can do before 25 needing recharging, they need succeed in increasing their PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 market share. 2 The question, however, is whether CARB can or 3 should simply mandate that all forklifts at or below 8,000 4 pounds be electric. We believe the answer must be no, 5 primarily because electric forklifts still present 6 important performance limitations for many users and will 7 for the indefinite future. Those limitations include the 8 use in harsh environments, use on steep ramps for pushing 9 and pulling loads, and for continuous high lifting, use of 10 high speeds with greater acceleration and for longer runs, 11 use in powering attachments without diminishing other 12 forklift functions, and use where productivity needs 13 require full power over complete shifts and multiple 14 shifts. In short, as even the companies manufacturing 15 only electric forklifts recognize, electric forklifts are 16 generally not interchangeable with IC forklifts. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We have a copy of the 18 statement. 19 MS. SLINGERLAND: Yes. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So we can read that. 21 MS. SLINGERLAND: Okay. In conclusion, the IC 22 engine forklifts have become quite clean and are becoming 23 cleaner. 24 And my other statement is from IMPCO 25 Technologies. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: You have to read that? 2 MS. SLINGERLAND: I'm not reading it. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. We have a copy. 4 Is it along the same lines? 5 MS. SLINGERLAND: Similar. Just we wanted to 6 state that we are in correspondence with Rose Castro of 7 CARB for the aftermarket, and originally it was going to 8 be LSI-2, and we do have the technology to help with the 9 closed loop conversions and cleaning up forklift 10 applications in use and further new protection. And thank 11 you very much for listening to our concerns. We really 12 appreciate it. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Report back to 14 your members that mission's accomplished. 15 MS. SLINGERLAND: Thank you very much. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Shirley Batchman, Manuel 17 Cunha, Kevin Hall. 18 MS. BATCHMAN: Good morning, members of the 19 Board. I'm Shirley Batchman. I represent the citrus 20 industry in California. I'm with California Citrus 21 Mutual. 22 As many of you heard this morning, I came with 23 one set of comments and I have another to deliver. As 24 being a stakeholder and the end user of forklifts both in 25 the field and in our packing houses, we have some severe PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 concerns about the regulations. We've talked with staff 2 many times, and I just wanted to tell you how pleased I am 3 to hear that you have listened to our concerns and you 4 have now come up with a regulation that we are proud to 5 support. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 7 MS. BATCHMAN: So I just want to let you know, 8 and I'll let it go at that. 9 We can now continue with our operations. Now, as 10 long as I'm here, so I won't take any time later, I just 11 want you to know our industry is supportive of the PM 10 12 plan. Agriculture has a significant place and a role to 13 play. We are supportive and we hope that you will adopt 14 it as well as the associated resolution that goes with it. 15 Thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed. 17 Again, we appreciate working with the industry. 18 It's very important. 19 MR. CUNHA: Good morning, Chairman Lloyd, and 20 members of the Board and your staff and Catherine 21 Witherspoon as well. My name is Manuel Cunha, President 22 of the Nisei Farmers League, also a member of the 23 United States Department of Agriculture, U.S. Air Quality 24 Task Force that was put into law by Congress in '96 so 25 that USDA would look at air quality as EPA has with its PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 advisory committee. I'm very happy to say that advisory 2 board is working very well in addressing the issues 3 confronting agriculture across the country in which the 4 1990 Clean Air Act really never addressed agriculture. So 5 I really appreciate the opportunity this morning to be 6 here. 7 The first thing I would like to acknowledge is a 8 couple folks of the Air Resources Board staff. First, I'd 9 like to acknowledge the tremendous work that your staff 10 has done on the PM10 study of 1992. And today you've had 11 various discussions on when that information is going to 12 be coming out on the modeling and that information. Some 13 of that information has already come out as far as -- not 14 the modeling part, but some of the data that has helped 15 guide agriculture going through what it has been going 16 through for the past ten years, which is very, very bad 17 data. I want to thank Karen Magliano and her staff very, 18 very much for the hard work that she has gone through and 19 the other staff members; Lynn Terry for her efforts of 20 working very hard in trying to raise the $31 million for 21 the largest PM10 study. And that's Central Valley, which 22 includes Edward Air Force Base, San Luis Obispo, down to 23 Sacramento and the Sierra Nevadas. And also I'd like to 24 thank the Chairperson of that committee, Barbara Patrick 25 very much for her efforts in working and taking the trips PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 to DC and all of the different changes and plane 2 schedules. And Mr. Les Clark who this year put his life 3 on the line in a plane who had an emergency landing when 4 an engine went out. That's how much dedication he has for 5 raising money for this study. Thank you for not jumping 6 off the plane and at least raising our money. 7 Again, it's been an honor to work with D.D. on 8 the advisory board. We thank you very much. And Dr. 9 Lloyd as well, yourself, pulling that committee to work 10 together on issues of agriculture in California as a whole 11 rather than San Joaquin Valley because air quality is an 12 issue for this entire state. And we want to thank both of 13 you very much for that. 14 Also one last person I would like to thank which 15 the study did help. In your agriculture emissions 16 inventory, there were a lot of zeros for agriculture. On 17 one emission we were creating nothing as the inventories 18 showed zero. But due to some of the data that has come 19 out in the agricultural field studies through this study, 20 we were able to modify and give real numbers to those 21 zeros on farming operations, land planing, harvesting, and 22 all that. And I want to thank Patrick Gaffney for his 23 hard, long efforts of sitting down with industry for not 24 just a few hours, but probably 1,000 plus hours in getting 25 that inventory to where it makes air districts have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 something to work with now to figure out what agriculture 2 is. And again, I want to thank staff. 3 Before I forget, I am asking this Board to 4 approve the PM10 plan this Valley has submitted on various 5 basis. I know there's been questions, and I'll take the 6 most difficult one first. That is the ammonia issue. The 7 USDA Air Quality Task Force commissioned and asked -- 8 along with the Secretary of Agriculture -- the National 9 Academy of Science commissioned a task force to evaluate 10 ammonia emissions from confined annual operations, which 11 include the chickens and those critters that run around in 12 confined areas. And that report has been issued in 13 November of 2002, gave a very comprehensive discussion of 14 what we need to do with ammonia and the problems it had in 15 the emission factors. 16 Now, saying that, though, in that in August we 17 will be meeting in Oklahoma, the task force will be, to 18 discuss the next procedures which is an aggressive plan 19 for the research and to find out where we have those 20 problems and the data that we need to help figure out what 21 is going on with ammonia from these types of operations. 22 And Dr. Lloyd, I can assure you that the Air 23 Quality Advisory Board in this Valley along with the Dairy 24 Subcommittee, this was appointed by the Agricultural 25 Technical Committee that Mr. Mark Boise chairs, is moving PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 forward with an aggressive research plan that has been 2 submitted in working with your Technical Advisory 3 Committee, which is part of the PM10 and ozone study. 4 They are moving aggressively, and they are going to hope 5 to have answers way before 2006. And we -- and several of 6 us that have other responsibilities will be watching very 7 closely that that stays on track and doesn't fall behind. 8 So I assure you we will have some answers to help you as a 9 Board and staff figure what are we doing with ammonia to 10 address that problem in all levels, including the chickens 11 and those types of critters that run around. Okay. 12 The last thing is I want to thank the staff, 13 Catherine Witherspoon very much for the forklift 14 opportunity to allow us some flexibility because we do 15 have agriculture dust, problems with, that get into 16 terminals of electrical equipment that cause major 17 problems for electric forklifts in our environment. And 18 you just can't throw water down on the side of a hill 19 because then you slide down a hill rather than go up a 20 hill to create or stop some of the dust. But, again, I 21 want to thank the staff very much for the working -- 22 coming up with the resolution that you have. 23 I also would like this Board to adopt the plan 24 with the resolution that our Board has adopted to go 25 forward to EPA. In that resolution is very important PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 issues to make sure that the Valley plan is the Valley 2 plan, and not taking other control measures that are used 3 in other states or in other districts that have been 4 classified totally different than our Valley, such as a 5 high wind erosion area that the Conservation Service has 6 done many, many years of work across this country. But 7 taking something from Oklahoma and applying it to the San 8 Joaquin Valley does not make sense at all. And especially 9 when in our industry agriculture produces over 350 10 different commodities in this Valley, all type of farming 11 equipment, as well as a farmer today may change his 12 operation because of the market demand. 13 As you noticed, my industry, which many of my 14 growers are raisin growers and wine growers. I've already 15 pulled out more than 25,000 acres of vineyards of raisins. 16 I'm going to pull out another 25,000 more than likely and 17 50,000 acres of vineyard wine grapes. 100,000 acres is 18 going to go out. Those farmers have specialized equipment 19 that they have purchased for those type of operations. 20 Now what type of crop do they go into? Very much of a 21 very hard decision to make because of the economics were 22 not there for farmers to do. So we are being very 23 conscientious. 24 Last in the plan is the CMP, the conservation 25 management practices. We believe what we have proposed in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 our plan is the most workable feasible means. And in that 2 it talks about voluntary -- working with a federal agency 3 that has a relationship with farmers today. That's the 4 Natural Resources Conservation Service. Let me give you a 5 quick one second, and then I'll be off because I know I'm 6 over time limit -- is that voluntary programs such as 7 farmers in the Valley over the past four years have oiled 8 over 600 miles of road in an equip-funding program through 9 NRCS in which funds are given by the Department of 10 Agriculture and the farmers put in the rest of the funds. 11 Also over 20,000 acres of brush from almonds has 12 been chipped and not burned in a program we have developed 13 voluntarily, the biggest program nationwide that I don't 14 think anybody can -- I would hope -- that we have 15 voluntarily removed over 2500 diesel pump engines. And if 16 I look at the time line, it's probably two years and seven 17 months that we actually replaced diesel engines of all 18 sizes in a voluntary program through your commitment of 19 Carl Moyer has been a tremendous program, not just for 20 agriculture, but for all industry. But, again, through a 21 voluntary program where farmers put money in and you, as 22 the state, were able to give money to air districts. We 23 also have done farm tractors and other pieces of 24 equipment. That has been great. 25 Lastly, farmers are concerned about the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 environment. They live here. They've been raised here. 2 My oldest farmer just retired, Japanese American, out of 3 Dinuba, 90 years old. Finally his wife told him he had to 4 stop farming. She was not being able to travel at 90 5 years old and wanted to do some traveling. And he had a 6 little health problem, but he's back on his feet. So they 7 have now retired. And the sad part of it is the children 8 do not want the farm because of the problems and the 9 uncertainty of their life of being a farmer. 10 But, again, I want to thank all of you for coming 11 into the San Joaquin Valley. Your staff has been 12 outstanding. 13 Dr. Lloyd, we appreciate all the hard work that 14 you have given, support to the agriculture industry of 15 this state so we can produce the most safest food of all. 16 And, again, thank you all and thank Catherine 17 very much for her efforts in working with the Ag Advisory 18 Committee. We appreciate that. 19 And, Lynn, for your efforts of traveling to raise 20 money. I know you had to put up with me and Les and 21 you've had to take some aspirin and things. And we 22 appreciate it very much. Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: When you are pulling out your 24 grapes, what are you going to do with the grape stakes? 25 MR. CUNHA: We'll discuss that later. We're not PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 prepared for that one, I don't think. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: It's an issue that I promised 3 some of your colleague -- they asked me that question. 4 MR. CUNHA: We'd like to -- in talking with your 5 staff on this, we have some ideas to help to resolve that 6 problem. It's a sad situation when the EPA authorized 7 that product to be used, that at the end of the day EPA 8 will no longer allow anybody to use that. I guess it's 9 over with now, but my farmers are stuck with those stakes 10 never knowing that you could not burn those treated 11 stakes. Now we can't take them to landfills because of 12 the landfills refusing them. We can't burn them because 13 of the chemicals in them. 14 And now I have piles of stakes around this 15 community. I'm greatly concerned of terrorism. We've had 16 seven major terrorism fires last week in Madera, 17 arsonists. One of them you probably saw this morning. 18 Huge sprinkler systems on wheels was torched in their 19 field. These grapes stakes are going to be a great 20 entertainment for someone to torch deliberately to cause 21 havoc. But we are going to be working with your staff on 22 trying to resolve a problem or a solution to this as well 23 as with the district. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think -- according to Lynn, 25 I think Ed Lowery of the Department of Toxic Substances PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 Control is also going to be working with us to help out on 2 those issues. So we recognize it's an important issue. 3 We're also going to try to work with you. 4 MR. CUNHA: We appreciate that very, very much. 5 Again, thank you, Doctor. 6 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, just out of 7 curiosity, what were the stakes treated with? 8 MR. CUNHA: They were treated with chromium 9 arsenic, which a preservative to preserve those stakes. 10 Like in Mississippi, the penetration for theirs because 11 their water level is usually 60 percent of the stake is 12 treated. In ours, it's only like a quarter percent of the 13 stake is treated because we don't have those water 14 problems as they have in other states. 15 But the stakes are anywhere from 10, 20, 30 years 16 old. And they don't rot in our vineyards. They hold up 17 the cross arms. We went to metal stakes, of course, in 18 the process because of cost. But in that period of time, 19 many of our farmers had to use treated stakes. And we had 20 the old redwood stakes, but as we know, that was no longer 21 feasible. So now my farmers are caught with a huge 22 economic problem and no market for our product because of 23 foreign trade coming into the United States. And even 24 with our wine grapes, foreign grapes coming in. Farmers 25 are just stuck there. And right now my other problems is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 vineyards are being abandoned by farmers. They can't farm 2 it. And we have a disease problem. That could come about 3 because of a huge economic crush to my industry. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo. 5 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I just want to reiterate 6 that the Ag Advisory Committee it also working on this. 7 We're very concerned about it. And just yesterday -- I 8 know, Manuel, you've spoken with Cal EPA. But I spoke 9 with the Under Secretary, and he's doing what he can to 10 work through ARB, DTS, and Waste Management on these 11 issues. So we need to follow up on this, and we'll be in 12 touch, I'm sure. 13 While you're up here, I know that the Chairman 14 has expressed some concerns about the ammonia issue. And 15 I was hoping -- I heard you say that you're committed 16 through the task force that you're working on and that 17 that task force will be receiving additional information, 18 and you expect that it will be prior to 2006. Just 19 wondering if you could get a little more specific with us. 20 And also regarding any commitments that the Ag Technical 21 Advisory Committee has made with the local air districts 22 on reviewing this issue prior to 2006. 23 MR. CUNHA: We just had a technical meeting and 24 asked for the Dairy Subcommittee to present to us in 25 August the information we need on the inventories or PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 what's going on, and that the ARB staff was having some 2 problems getting the information -- the inventory because 3 of the problems. We made it very clear we were not going 4 to allow that process to just stop because they don't have 5 the data. And so in August we're supposed to get a 6 report. They are to go forward to the Policy Committee at 7 the next meeting. I believe Madam Chair Patrick -- I 8 believe is scheduled for September, and they are to come 9 forward with their plans for the research. 10 Fresno State is currently in the field as we 11 speak today even collecting data as we met this week with 12 Mr. Dave Jones here at the Air District who was subbing in 13 for Mr. Boise. So there is an aggressive plan to come up 14 with some information by August and by September to the 15 Policy Committee for the plan of research. They're out 16 raising funds to get some of this done. 17 We in agriculture have made a commitment, like we 18 did with the PM10, for farming. It's a two-way sword. We 19 know that. But we've got to have good information. We 20 can't do things to cows that aren't going to reduce the 21 problem. If we can get the data -- and we're not going to 22 slow down. And I hope that we can have a report for you 23 folks probably by the first of the year on some of the 24 information we have found out so far from the PM10 study. 25 Rather than waiting for the modeling to end, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 we're going to have some filters that are going to be 2 giving us some data. And as fast as we can get that 3 translated, we will get you an update. I'll make a 4 commitment to you, come in January that I will come back 5 to the Board and present to you the information that we 6 have up to that point on the science, the research, as 7 well as from the National Academy of Science's findings. 8 We are not going to just sit and not do anything on this 9 issue. We know the importance, and we're going to address 10 it. And I promise you that. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 12 Kevin Hall, Brent Newell, Diane Bailey. 13 MR. HALL: Good morning, Dr. Lloyd, Supervisor 14 Patrick, Ms. D'Adamo. It's nice to see you here, and 15 other Board members I haven't had the pleasure of meeting. 16 My name is Kevin Hall. I'm with the Sierra Club's 17 Tehipile Chapter. I live here in the Fresno. I want to 18 welcome you back as a body, if not as individuals, to the 19 San Joaquin valley. 20 You last met here in 1992. And, obviously, we 21 need a lot more attention than that. I realize and don't 22 mean to imply that you're not giving us attention in 23 Sacramento. But our Valley has never had a legal, 24 workable cleanup plan for ozone or particulates. And 25 every plan that has moved from this district to the EPA PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 has gone to the Air Resources Board. 2 The residents of the San Joaquin Valley feel that 3 the ARB has dramatically failed its responsibility to the 4 citizens of this Valley. And as we become more interested 5 and more active as citizens who have suddenly -- not 6 suddenly, but accepted that we face a crisis, and we're 7 trying to impart a sense of urgency to all people involved 8 in the regulatory process that we need to move as quickly 9 as possible. We think it would be most beneficial if you 10 rejected the plan. 11 The overwhelming majority of rules in this plan 12 are already scheduled for rule making and implementation. 13 The problems with the plan are the rules that might be 14 made. And these aggressive plans to do research and 15 identify funding are of small comfort. We felt that the 16 plan approval last week by our own Air Board was a knife 17 into the body of the San Joaquin Valley and to approve 18 this plan would be to pour salt into that wound. 19 We have different people here today who would 20 like to discuss various aspects. I just want to touch 21 very briefly on transportation control measures. It's 22 easy to discuss briefly because if you look at our 23 attainment plan, there are none. Thank you. No. And 24 what we'd like to do is -- three quick points. We weren't 25 going to have a public workshops on these commitments. I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 asked for one, and our Board graciously agreed a month ago 2 to do so. We had one a week before the final vote on this 3 plan. 4 I'm not suggesting that local transportation 5 planning agencies haven't said, "We will try to get some 6 dust reduction, to pave roads." But if you look in the 7 plan you will find no financial commitments that we can 8 say, "There's your commitment, and we're going to make you 9 honor that commitment." You will not find specific rules 10 or reduction goals for paved road dust, although you will 11 see a vague figure about reductions in that category 12 lumped in with other reductions measures, but nothing 13 specific from those TPAs, those transportation planning 14 agencies. 15 Also very importantly -- and I think this speaks 16 to the issue of fleet replacement. You will find no -- 17 well, best available control measures, of course, of 18 technology is the requirement, as you know, for serious 19 PM10. We're hanging this plan's hat on NOx reductions. 20 Well, the NOx reduction analysis done by the local 21 transportation planning agencies was done at a RACM level, 22 reasonably available, in anticipation of an ozone plan 23 under severe non-attainment. That plan was never written. 24 In the ozone section of the Clean Air Act, 25 apparently RACM is adequate for a severe non-attainment PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 zone and ozone. But we're talking about a particulate 2 matter attainment plan that requires BACM, and the local 3 transportation planning agencies were not required by this 4 agency to do a BACM level analysis of NOx reductions 5 through the TPA and transportation control measure 6 process. I think that would have led to some firm 7 commitments in fleet replacement and some dedication of 8 financial resources. 9 All we're seeing is, reduce the paved road dust 10 and we get the state and federal money. That's 11 inadequate. That inventory is rising. While we show some 12 reduction in that, it's spread over several categories, 13 and again, it comes back to no specifics. We take small 14 comfort in that sort of effort. And I'm afraid what we're 15 seeing here is a replay of your last visit of 1992, that 16 we're looking at another decade of delay, another decade 17 of unnecessary human suffering, disease, and death. 18 I just want to make one small point, and this is 19 something I hope you can talk to your staff about doing. 20 It's a very small request, secondary request to my 21 suggestion that you should reject the plan because that 22 won't cause any delay. It will send a new message to this 23 Valley that the ARB is here not just to be seen, but to 24 act in a very firm way directing our air district to take 25 heed of the fact that too many people have been suffering PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 for too long. 2 But my small request is this. In the attainment 3 plan, you will find -- I've found, I've read -- that the 4 ARB has also joined AIR. The first speaker today in 5 Bakersfield spoke from this very dedicated group of 6 grassroots -- grassroots organization of local residents. 7 But you haven't joined the Association of Irritated 8 Residents. You joined a group called Agriculture 9 Improving Resources. Be in that group, but give it a new 10 name. Don't let your good name be co-opted in that 11 effort. I'm very offended by it. And I trust you'll 12 find -- if I've got that sequence wrong. If you had your 13 AIR first theirs came second, you can withdraw my comments 14 and ignore them. But I frankly don't -- 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I'm not familiar with what 16 you're saying. 17 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: I have no idea 18 what you're talking about. 19 MR. HALL: Well, there's a working group called 20 Agriculture Improving Resources. 21 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: What makes you 22 think we are members of it? 23 MR. HALL: Your name is attached as one of the 24 participating agencies. 25 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: You think that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 means we approved that? 2 MR. HALL: I think that means that the ARB name 3 is being co-opted, sir. I don't suggest this Board has 4 voted on that measure. Forgive me if I'm -- 5 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: That was the 6 implication of what you said initially. 7 MR. HALL: In that AIR or another area. 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We are not 9 official members of such a group. And I didn't even know 10 it existed until I saw one of the comment letters. But 11 I'm assuming what has happened is we've attended a meeting 12 as part of our ongoing agricultural research. Our 13 principle interaction with agriculture industry is through 14 our own Agricultural Advisory Committee which is 30 15 members, and Ms. D'Adamo chairs that group so -- 16 MR. HALL: The only point I hope to make, sir, Is 17 that we strive to protect our good names because people 18 tend to pick them up and run with them sometimes in ways 19 we're not aware. And I spotted that and thought I'd bring 20 it to your attention. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And you created your AIR. 22 MR. HALL: I'm not a member of AIR. Those folks 23 are represented in the audience. Thank you for your time, 24 and come back much sooner. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Mr. Chairman, I would just 2 like to make a small correction to what a couple of people 3 have said. The California Air Resources Board met in 4 Bakersfield in 1998, and you may not be aware of that. 5 And so, you know, the implication that somehow, you know, 6 for 11 years this Board has not been back is simply not 7 true. But, of course, I don't think you were involved in 8 air quality at that time. So I'm just putting that out 9 for what it's worth. Maybe two times in 12 years isn't 10 enough, but it is two times in 11 years. 11 MR. HALL: I appreciate the correction. I was 12 relying on information from another source. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think we can also say while 14 the Board may not have been here, the staff is here. And 15 we've committed substantial resources to the PEER program 16 and the Fresno asthma study. So obviously our interest is 17 here. And I think we will be back, and it won't be that 18 long, because obviously the interest you have here and the 19 great concerns you have, the Board's obligation is to 20 helping to clean the air. So we will be back sooner. 21 MR. HALL: Thank you, sir. You reminded me of 22 one last comment about chickens and little critters. When 23 you look at the inventory that is projected for NOx and 24 ammonia, by 2010 they come into balance and ammonia is 25 slated to be slightly higher. But I know there are people PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 more informed than I to address that. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think that gets to one of 3 the concerns I expressed earlier that we'll discuss. 4 MR. HALL: I appreciate it. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Brent Newell, 6 Diane Bailey, Maria Abuelas. 7 MR. NEWELL: Good morning, Chairman Lloyd, 8 members of the Air Resources Board, Ms. Witherspoon. My 9 name is Brent Newell. I'm an attorney at the Center on 10 Race, Poverty, and Environment. I'm here representing the 11 Association of Irritated Residents. And they were formed 12 approximately two years ago. Their members consist of 13 Kern -- 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Can you -- 15 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Can you speak closer 16 to the mic, please. I can hear the people in Bakersfield 17 much better than I'm hearing most of you here for some 18 reason. 19 MR. NEWELL: My name is Brent Newell. I'm an 20 attorney at the Center on Race, Poverty, and the 21 Environment. We represent the Association of Irritated 22 Residents, which has been in existence for about two years 23 now. Its members come from Kern, Tulare, and Stanislaus 24 counties. Their purpose is to advocate for clean air and 25 environmental health in the San Joaquin Valley. It comes PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 as no surprise to you on the Board and us that we have a 2 public health crisis here that comes as a result of the 3 high levels of particulate matter pollution and fine 4 particulate matter pollution. 5 I'm going submit into the record a letter that I 6 originally wrote to the Air District, but I'd also like to 7 direct it to you. Also attached are two tables. One 8 table summarizes ammonium nitrate reductions. That table 9 was prepared by Karen Magliano's staff and given to me 10 shortly after the air district hearing last week. There 11 is also a table there showing 5 percent reductions which 12 are required by Section 189(d) of the Clean Air Act. A 13 legal intern at the center is going to address that 14 specific requirement contained in 189(d). So I'm not 15 going to touch on that. 16 What I do want to talk about is your duty under 17 the Health and Safety Code today. You have a duty under 18 Section 41650 to adopt this non-attainment area plan, 19 unless you find after this hearing that the plan does not 20 comply with the Clean Air Act. You must make a 21 determination today that the plan either complies or does 22 not comply. In fact, there's a substantial body of 23 evidence being submitted to you by the Center, by NRDC, by 24 Earth Justice, by the Sierra Club, by several commenters 25 showing that several portions of the plan are directly PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 inconsistent with the Clean Air Act requirement. So if 2 you do rubber stamp the plan today, you're going to be 3 violating your duty under the Health and Safety Code. 4 Why are we here now? In 1997 the Air Resources 5 Board rubber stamped the 1997 PM attainment demonstration 6 plan. That plan ended up sitting at EPA for several years 7 and EPA basically sticking it in a drawer. They never 8 took action on it. It wasn't until late 2001 they 9 indicated they were going to disapprove the plan because 10 it was inadequate. The air district through the CARB 11 asked this plan be withdrawn. That plan withdrawal 12 prompted a finding of failure to submit. And that is why 13 the sanction clock is running as it is, creating the 14 political pressure that you feel to send this plan on to 15 EPA. 16 Staff is recommending today that you again rubber 17 stamp an inadequate plan. And it appears that this 18 decision is being driven by the sanctions clock. The 19 threat of 2 to 1 offset sanctions on industry and the 20 threat of loss of highway fundings that would occur in 21 February 2004. 22 It's really simple how this sort of game of 23 creating plans and avoiding sanctions works. In order to 24 avoid sanctions, you only must get the finding of 25 completeness from EPA, which is not a finding that the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 plan is adequate. You can submit an inadequate plan and 2 turn off the sanction clock. Indeed, that is the strategy 3 that's happening. In short, your duty is to ensure this 4 plan complies with the Clean Air Act. It does not. If 5 you approve it today, you're going to rubber stamp another 6 plan. 7 I'm going to talk briefly about the conservation 8 management practices program. It's a key element of this 9 plan because it accounts for more than half of all the 10 reductions that are estimated to come from primary 11 particulate matter. There's four points I'm going make. 12 First, the plan fails to demonstrate it contains best 13 available control measures for these agricultural 14 measures. The plan fails to require that agricultural 15 sources comply with all feasible control measures. The 16 program is unenforceable. And four, the plan fails to 17 demonstrate that the USDA will have resources sufficient 18 to implement and enforce the program. 19 There are two simple rules in the plan that show 20 that this plan does not contain BACM for agricultural 21 sources. Rule 4101 and rule 4701 are rules which regulate 22 the opacity of sources of PM10 and regulate the amount of 23 NOx emissions allowed from stationary internal combustion 24 diesel engines. Both of those rules specifically exempt 25 agricultural sources. Those rules are not BACM and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 they're not BACT, best available control technology 2 because they exempt agricultural sources. You cannot 3 approve a plan that does not demonstrate BACM. These 4 rules would significantly reduce particulate matter and 5 would significantly reduce NOx, which staff has discussed 6 is a precursor for the fine particulate matter problem. 7 My second point is about the conservation 8 management practices program. The agricultural industry 9 has veto authority over the control measures contained in 10 the program. The plan specifies if a control measure 11 contained in the menu options is not acceptable to 12 agriculture, then it's not included in the program. The 13 theory behind best available control measures is that they 14 are the most stringent feasible control measures in an 15 area, and the air district is supposed to make that 16 determination, not the regulated industry. 17 Here you have a plan that is provided for the 18 regulated industry to determine which control measures 19 will be applied to. That's a fox guarding the hen house 20 type of situation. You will see potentially feasible 21 control measures being vetoed because agriculture doesn't 22 want to do them. That's not BACM. 23 The plan also allows a source to decline to 24 implement control measures within the menu based on claims 25 of infeasibility. And the only arbiter of those claims PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 are going to be the Natural Resources Conservation 2 Service, not the air district, not ARB. That's not BACM 3 either. 4 When a non-attainment area fails to attain, 5 Section 179(d) is triggered. In Section 179(d) is a 6 requirement that this new plan contains all measures that 7 can be feasibly implemented. The conservation management 8 practices program only requires a grower to select one 9 measure from a menu in five different categories. The 10 growers are not being obligated to comply with all 11 feasible control measures. They only have to select one 12 from each category of emissions. 13 So for example, the on-field sources of 14 emissions, there may be five, ten, several types of 15 feasible control measures that you implement as a source, 16 but the farmer only has to use one. Now, that's not BACM. 17 It certainly doesn't comply with Section 173(d). 18 Finally, my third point is that conservation 19 management practices program is unenforceable. This 20 revolves around the fact that the entire implementation 21 and enforcement responsibility is being given to the USDA 22 Natural Resources Conservation Services. They will 23 implement the program. Growers will submit a CMP plan to 24 the USDA and retain one on site. These plans are not 25 available to the general public. The general public has PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 no ability to access the information in these plans. The 2 NRCS will have no enforceability authority. The NRCS will 3 retain a confidential database of participating growers. 4 The air district will not maintain any records of grower 5 participation. 6 The growers will neither monitor, nor report 7 their compliance with their plans. They only have to 8 submit a plan. They don't have to demonstrate compliance 9 with their plans. The fact that there is no monitoring or 10 reporting in the CMP program subverts any Title 5 11 monitoring and reporting requirements. And again, major 12 stationary sources have Title 5 permits, and agricultural 13 sources will, in fact, have Title 5 permits. They must 14 monitor and report their emissions. They must monitor and 15 report their compliance with control measures. But the 16 control measure here says they don't have to monitor and 17 report their emissions. And you have a conflict between 18 the Title 5 program and this plan. 19 Finally, citizens lack the authority to enforce 20 this conservation management practices program. Citizens 21 do not have the ability to inspect these plans to find out 22 if a source is not complying with those plans and to 23 exercise their right to bring citizen's suit that Congress 24 has given the citizens in the Clean Air Act. Congress has 25 decided that citizens should have the ability to step into PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 the shoes of the agency that fails to enforce the law. 2 When you create a plan that insulates those regulated 3 sources from disclosing their non-compliance, then you 4 prevent citizens from enforcing the law. 5 My last point is that the plan fails to 6 demonstrate the availability of resources. NRCS is a 7 federal agency, and it's budget comes from the feds. This 8 plan does not comply with Section 110 of the Act, which 9 requires it to demonstrate where the resources are coming 10 from to implement and enforce the requirements. 11 The CMP program and Regulation 8 are both 12 administered by the USDA Natural Conservation Services. 13 There is no detail, there's no analysis that shows where 14 this money's coming from. Where is the money coming from 15 to pay the people to review the plans to compile the data 16 and to maintain this confidential database of growers? 17 You know, there's a movie called Jerry McGuire and the 18 famous line was, "Show me the money." That's what the 19 Clean Air Act says, show us the money. Where is it? It's 20 not demonstrated. There's no guarantee there's going to 21 be resources to implement these primary PM reductions 22 goals. I submitted a chart that should be displayed on 23 the document viewer. Can I have that chart, please. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I didn't see the two tables 25 that you referenced attached to -- that's one of them, I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 guess. 2 MR. NEWELL: This is one, right here. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yeah. I didn't see that 4 attached. 5 MR. NEWELL: There's been some talk about the 6 ability of ammonia to reduce ammonium nitrate 7 concentration in the air basin. And I'd like to direct 8 the Board to two rows in this graph. By the way, this 9 document was prepared by Karen Magliano's staff. It says 10 that in Bakersfield when equivalent reductions of NOx and 11 ammonia -- you can see those columns labeled NOx and 12 ammonium -- that you have roughly equivalent reductions in 13 ammonium nitrate. Also in Fresno you can see that you 14 have nearly equivalent reductions in NOx and ammonium 15 nitrate. 16 What is most interesting, here in Fresno this 17 location where you had 90 hospital admissions as a result 18 of PM concentrations that reducing NOx has little effect 19 on ammonium nitrate concentrations. Your control strategy 20 is based on NOx reductions, and the model is not 21 indicating a responsiveness. 22 Now, finally, I've talked about rubber stamping 23 the plan, Mr. Chairman. And the activists here have asked 24 that the Air Resources Board send this plan back to the 25 air district to fix it, rather than send it along just to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 stop the sanctions clock. That's what we ask. That's 2 all. You would risk a brief period of sanctions 3 ultimately to be corrected by submitting a complete and 4 adequate plan. 5 The Center would like to present you and the 6 Board with a gift today. It's a rubber stamp. It says 7 "CARB" on it. It's a big one. So if you vote to approve 8 it, I'd like you to use this stamp to stamp the plan. Can 9 I give you the stamp? 10 OMBUDSMAN TSCHOGL: Oh, sure. 11 MR. NEWELL: Thank you. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: It can't be used. It doesn't 13 have non-VOC ink in it. 14 MR. NEWELL: I hope we're not allowed to sell VOC 15 and purchase it. But the ink is also special. It's red. 16 And it symbolizes the loss of life that is occurring in 17 the Valley as a result of the PM pollution. Your own data 18 as reported by the environmental working group shows about 19 1500 or 1600 people die each year as a result of PM 10 20 levels and PM2.5 levels. And so when you rubber stamp 21 this plan, think about those people who are going to be 22 suffering because of the inadequate control measures and 23 the failure to comply with the Clean Air Act. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We share your concerns about 25 the health effects. Staff is -- I'd like staff to respond PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 because you've made some very serious charges here. I'd 2 like our legal staff to respond to that. 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Before Kathleen 4 begins, because I think this is a perfect juncture to talk 5 about the legal issues but also to say emphatically that 6 staff is not recommending to you a rubber stamp action of 7 the plan. We have conducted a substantive technical 8 analysis. We've analyzed the measures in detail. We've 9 analyzed the practicality of achieving fugitive dust 10 emissions, which is really what the CMP matter and BACM 11 terms on. 12 What I'd like is for Kathleen to address broadly 13 the approveability of this plan under the Clean Air Act 14 and the legal requirements for the demonstration of BACM 15 and then for Lynn to follow up with the last that you saw 16 on ammonia and the response to NOx and ammonia on the 17 January episode. 18 MR. NEWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'll sit down. If 19 have questions of me after their presentation, I'll come 20 back to the podium. I don't see a reason to stand here. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Is there any questions? 22 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I have one question, 23 Mr. Newell. I thought I heard you say that if agriculture 24 were opposed to something, you could not include it in the 25 plan. What's the -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 MR. NEWELL: That's in Appendix H, and I'll 2 provide you with the citation. I believe it's H7. In 3 details -- the appendix details this CMP program. And in 4 that index you will find how the various measures 5 within -- the various assortment of control measures are 6 actually formulated and presented to growers for their 7 selection. During the formulation process if a measure is 8 not acceptable to agriculture, it's not included. 9 Agriculture has a veto authority over potential control 10 measures in the CMP program. 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We'll get into 12 that in the response, what BACM turns on and the fact that 13 the plan has backstop measures in monitoring to assure 14 that in the aggregate achieved emission reductions were 15 relied upon. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Given I think there's no more 17 questions, given the fact there may be other legal issues 18 brought up, what I'd like to do is -- I changed my mind -- 19 wait for the response until we have all the witnesses. 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: On the same 21 issue. 22 MR. NEWELL: I'd love to come back to the podium 23 and respond and have a right of reply. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 25 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I'm trying to be patient PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 here. But we do need to hear that at some point. And it 2 would be good to hear everybody's testimony. 3 But I want to ask you a question. And that is, 4 we have to weigh the facts here. And I'm wondering if you 5 think it's helpful to insult the Board with a rubber stamp 6 while we're trying to weigh the facts. Do you think 7 that's a helpful thing to do? 8 MR. NEWELL: I think it's helpful to remind the 9 Board it has previously acted six years ago to approve a 10 plan that was not capable of cleaning the air by December 11 31st, 2001. It was not approveable. So I want to remind 12 you -- and if I'm insulting people -- my charges aren't 13 personal. My client is very upset by the fact that 14 they're still breathing air that's -- that has 15 concentrations of PM above the national ambient air 16 quality standard. So my presentation of a stamp is to 17 remind you that the last plan didn't do the job and to 18 remind you that you have a duty under the Health and 19 Safety Code to ensure this plan is legally sufficient. 20 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: This Board exercises that 21 duty repeatedly month after month. And we're going to do 22 it today. 23 MR. NEWELL: I hope you do it. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 25 Diane Bailey, Maria Abuelas, Charles Dees. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 MS. BAILEY: Good morning, Chairman Lloyd, and 2 members of the Board. And thanks for this opportunity to 3 comment. My name is Diane Bailey. I'm a scientist with 4 the Natural Resources Defense Counsel. 5 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I'm having trouble 6 hearing you again. Maybe I ought to come down there. I 7 don't know what else to do. 8 MS. BAILEY: I'm here today to urge you not to 9 make the same mistake as the San Joaquin district did last 10 week when it approved a seriously flawed plan which is 11 before you now. Not only does this plan fail to 12 demonstrate attainment, but it contains far too little in 13 the way of PM control, far too late. 14 Over the past decade, the district has missed two 15 attainment deadlines, 1994 and 2001. And the levels of PM 16 in the Valley have not been substantially reduced. This 17 history of missing deadlines and virtual inaction may have 18 created lowered expectations. However, it is not 19 justification for accepting a plan that only goes part of 20 the way. As asthma rates continue to sore, residents pay 21 a steep price for the inability of the San Joaquin 22 District to come up with an adequate plan. 23 We have highlighted some of the many inadequacies 24 of the plan in our written comments. However, I would 25 like to highlight just a few points right now. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 The first principle shortcoming is that the 2 attainment date of 2010 is unacceptable. Residents have 3 already waited long enough for clean air, and the district 4 should have made PM10 attainment an immediate goal. In 5 fact, PM10 attainment is only a step towards meeting other 6 stronger standards, such as the federal 2.5 standard and 7 much stronger state standards. 8 Another shortcoming is that the plan has several 9 serious discrepancies in the data that went into both the 10 inventory and the modeling. For example, the district 11 claims that PM pollution is worst in fall and winter. 12 However, Bakersfield's monitor registered 189 micrograms 13 per meter cubed in May of last year. This is well above 14 state levels. 15 Since the air monitors only measure PM on one out 16 of every six days, we have no idea how many other major 17 exceedances are occurring on the other five out of six 18 days that are not being monitored. 19 Another inadequacy of this plan is that it 20 focuses too much on dust, failing to adequately control 21 diesel exhaust and other sources of fine particulates. 22 Not all PM is created equally. For example, diesel 23 exhaust PM is much more toxic than unpaved road dust. 24 A number of measures to control diesel PM are 25 conspicuously missing from this plan. One is early PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 adoption of low sulfur diesel. Another is an incentive 2 program to help replace aging and more polluting vehicles 3 and equipment both in public and private fleets. Idling 4 limits and strict enforcement of those limits are also 5 missing. And most importantly, fleet rules, such as those 6 in place in the South Coast, are not included in this 7 plan. And this is despite the fact that the Central 8 Valley has take taken most polluted title away from 9 Los Angeles. 10 Finally, the last major deficiency of this plan 11 that I want to highlight is the failure to regulate 12 ammonia. Not only is ammonia a major precursor to 13 particulate matter, it carries significant health impacts 14 of its own. Ammonia emissions are increasing rapidly with 15 the growth of dairies and other combined animal-feeding 16 operations. 17 The assumptions and modeling that the district 18 relied on in its decision to avoid ammonia controls is 19 flawed in many ways as outlined in our comments. The 20 district conveniently chose an older study that showed 21 that reducing other PM precursors is more effective than 22 ammonia regulations. One other study showed the opposite. 23 In fact, the weight of evidence implies that ammonia 24 controls are very much needed in the Valley, and the South 25 Coast has already began to regulate them. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 In summary, the lack of data and modeling 2 uncertainties cannot be used to justify omitting ammonia 3 diesel and other measures. Districts' staff had plenty of 4 time to address these issues since the last submittal in 5 1997. Now, after all the delays with previous SIPS, the 6 district is using the sanctions time clock to force you, 7 the Board, to accept this incomplete and seriously flawed 8 plan. 9 ARB has a history of leading the rest of the 10 country in reducing air pollution. And we need that 11 leadership right here in California and the Central 12 Valley. I urge you to stand up for public health today 13 and reject this inadequate plan, instead of waiting for 14 EPA to disapprove it. 15 While we are encouraged, this plan contains many 16 measures that the district should absolutely move forward 17 with, regardless of whether the plan is approved today, 18 the plan does not demonstrate attainment and does not 19 comply with the Clean Air Act requirements. It's the 20 responsibility of this Board -- excuse me -- it's the 21 responsibility of this Board to send this inadequate plan 22 back to the San Joaquin District to be made complete and 23 compliant with the Clean Air Act. The health of the more 24 than three million residents of the Valley is in jeopardy 25 with the proposed plan, and their health should be a much PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 greater priority than any sanctions time clock. Thank 2 you. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 4 Any questions? I think the issue on ammonia 5 we'll come back to. I know there is a difficult issue 6 about translating information from South Coast to the 7 Valley because of the differences between ammonium nitrate 8 and ammonia and NOx. But clearly, we're going to ask 9 staff to talk about that in more detail. 10 Maria Abuelas, Charles Dees, Tracy Mason, Steven 11 Bonaker, Joe Miranda. 12 MR. NEWELL: I think Maria had to leave. I think 13 Tracy's here. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Tracy. Better be fast. 15 MS. MASON: Does this go into my six minutes? 16 Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 17 Board. Thank you for letting me comment. Can you hear me 18 okay? 19 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: That's better. 20 MS. MASON: My name is Tracy Mason. I'm speaking 21 on behalf of the AIR, which is as mentioned before, the 22 Association of Irritated Residents. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: But you are CRPE? 24 MS. MASON: I'm an intern at CRPE. But I'm 25 speaking on behalf of the AIR. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 I'm third-year law student at San McClare 2 University. I was born and raised in Tulare County. 3 I would just like to bring to your attention of a 4 few issues regarding the plan for annual 5 percent 5 reduction in PM10 and PM10 precursors. The current plan 6 fails in three ways. The first issue is the plan 7 incorrectly interprets Section 189(d) of the Clean Air 8 Act. Additionally, the plan incorrectly adds the 9 percentages in order to achieve the annual 5 percent 10 reduction. And lastly, the plan's use of a running in 11 carrying forward in order to show the annual 5 percent 12 reduction is not allowed. 13 To begin, Section 189(d) of the Clean Air Act is 14 clear on its face. It requires that PM10 emissions -- 15 which is plural, meaning all of the precursor emissions -- 16 or PM10 shall be reduced by 5 percent annually. I would 17 like to stress the word "or," which is a connective 18 disjunctive which means one or the other, not both. 19 My second point is the district cannot add 20 percentages in order to achieve the annual 5 percent 21 reduction. As stated, the statute uses a conjunctive, 22 thereby concluding the 5 percent reduction in the 23 aggregate. Furthermore, the percentages that the plan is 24 adding together have different basis, which is a 25 mathematical error. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 I submitted a plan for the Board. First, I would 2 like you to refer to this plan. For argument's sake, 3 let's say the statute does allow the 5 percent to be 4 achieved in the aggregate. Under the district's own 5 interpretation of Section 189(d), the plan still does not 6 achieve this required 5 percent reduction. 7 The data on this table is taken from the 8 district's proposed PM10 plan. The column labeled "the 9 district's percent reduction" in NOx plus PM10 shows that 10 it is exceeding the 5 percent reduction annually. 11 However, these numbers were achieved incorrectly by adding 12 percentages and using a running average. 13 The next column labeled "correct" uses the 14 district's data again, but correctly tabulates the percent 15 reductions. As can you see, out of the eight years the 16 district is only meeting the statutorily required mandate 17 one time. 18 The last column, again, uses the district's data 19 and calculates the reduction per the language of the 20 statute. Under this very straightforward way of 21 calculating, the district is not meeting the required 22 5 percent annually, as noted by the numbers in red. 23 The district has put forth the argument that 24 because there is not guidance in this area they refer to 25 the ozone's 3 percent requirement which allows for an PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 additive NOx and VOX. Section 182 of the Clean Air Act 2 which deals with ozone reductions, specifically states 3 that NOx and VOX may be added under certain conditions 4 provided by EPA guidelines. Section 189(d) which deals 5 with the 5 percent PM reduction makes no such offer. 6 I submit to the Board that by virtue of putting 7 revisions in one section, if Congress intended for PM10 8 precursors and PM10 to be added together in order to meet 9 the 5 percent, they would have stated such. Furthermore, 10 if the district is only going to reduce NOx, they must use 11 a 1.5 to 1 ratio used in the attainment modeling. The 12 plan is only using a 1 to 1 ratio. And according to their 13 own modeling, NOx reductions need to be increased 7.5 14 percent to meet the 5 percent reduction in ammonia 15 nitrate. 16 My last point is that the running averages in 17 carrying forward is not allowed per the language of 18 189(d). The statute mandates there must be an annual 5 19 percent reduction and neither the running average nor the 20 carrying forward meet this requirement. 21 The district claims that the running averages is 22 done in order to ensure that a 5 percent reduction is met 23 every year. I submit to you if the district was truly 24 reducing annually by 5 percent, they would not need to 25 employ a running average in order to ensure it. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 What a running average does is it front loads the 2 reductions so over time they can relax the reductions. 3 Similarly, the carrying forward calculations are equally 4 wrong. It has allowed the district to falsely present the 5 impression that 5 percent reduction was met in that 6 calendar year, when, in fact, it was not. 7 In summary, I would like to request the Board 8 review the district's plan for meeting the 5 percent 9 reduction. As demonstrated, no matter which way the 10 district interprets it, calculates it, or explains it, the 11 bottom line is that the legally-mandated 5 percent annual 12 reduction in PM10 precursors for PM10 is not being met. 13 Thank you very much for your time. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 15 Question? 16 Ms. D'Adamo. 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I've just got a question 18 of Ms. Walsh regarding the issue of the running averages 19 and the aggregation. 20 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: Well, we've looked at the 21 statute that applies here requiring the 5 percent 22 reduction and directly emitted PM10 or precursors against 23 the calculations that have been performed by the district 24 and believe that what the district has done is an 25 appropriate mechanism for complying with the 5 percent PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 requirement. 2 There have been a number of issues raised both -- 3 initially the question of using both reductions of 4 directly emitted PM10 as well as precursors and adding 5 those reductions to come up with the 5 percent. 6 Certainly, we believe that the language of the statute, 7 which is fairly direct, but provides a significant amount 8 of flexibility -- what the statute says is 5 percent -- a 9 reduction of 5 percent annually in directly emitted PM10 10 or precursors. Obviously, the intent is to exercise that 11 requirement in a way that gets reductions in PM10 12 emissions and exposures as quickly as possible. And the 13 district's approach for doing that does address that need 14 adequately. 15 The running average issue that has been raised 16 which looks at the front loading of the reductions and the 17 appropriateness of carrying over, if you will, over 18 compliance in the early years certainly is an appropriate 19 approach. Obviously, the sooner the emission reductions 20 are realized, the better for air quality in the area. I 21 don't think anybody would want to argue that there was 22 some appropriate need to delay emission reductions from 23 one year to the next or later years in order to make sure 24 that 5 percent was being met in each of the years as 25 opposed to over-reducing at the early years and carrying PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 over those reduction to the later years. 2 We have discussed this issue with EPA region 9, 3 and they also believe that this is an appropriate way to 4 approach the calculation of compliance with the 5 percent 5 requirement under 189(d). 6 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Regarding aggregation as 7 well? 8 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: Regarding aggregation as 9 well, yes. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 11 Tom Frantz, Steven Bonaker, Joe Miranda. 12 MR. FRANTZ: Thank you, sir. My name is Tom 13 Frantz. I'm with Kern County. I'm a third generation 14 farmer in Kern Country, but I'm also a school teacher so 15 that I can make a living. Because I only have about 100 16 acres. 17 I do farm almond trees, which I do feel 18 contribute to the air quality of the Valley. And I will 19 oil my roads. I've already used the Carl Moyer program to 20 change over a diesel pump. Agriculture has no problem 21 with these things because they're doing them already and 22 most of it's being paid for. So it's at no cost to us. 23 And that's the problem with this plan. It's not costing 24 anybody anything so it's not really going to do anything. 25 I'm President of the Association of Irritated PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 Residents. Several people, lawyers and other members, 2 have spoken already from that group. We've been fighting 3 for two years to get the Clean Air Act enforced in this 4 Valley, and this plan will not do it yet. So I see we 5 have a long fight in the courts or wherever it takes us in 6 the future. We are not irritated any more. We're quite 7 angry. I'll have to control myself here. 8 This plan does not do anything to sprawling 9 development and to oil industry and to the main pollution 10 parts of agriculture, which is these days the K folks, the 11 dairy industry, which is a growth industry in this Valley. 12 Everyday 30 to 50,000 tons every day of manure is 13 deposited into the ground and into lagoons in such a way 14 that it evaporates and decomposes into the air. That's 15 the ammonia we're talking about and a whole bunch of other 16 gases that are harmful to our health. In the way I 17 understand it, until every part of this Valley is cleaned 18 up, the Valley is not cleaned up, including the most 19 southern parts. 20 Take the city of Arvin, which I have a lot of 21 friends and colleagues down there, although I live near 22 Shafter. 20 to 30,000 people live in the LaMont to Arvin 23 area. I don't know if anybody's checking their air, but 24 the AQI, the air quality index, shows Arvin to be 30, 40 25 points above Bakersfield, worse everyday when there's bad PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 air. They've got the worst of it. They're southeast of 2 Bakersfield. They're southeast of the Kern oil fields 3 where ancient engines are chugging away pumping the 4 trickle of oil which we need because all those trickles 5 add up. But these ancient engines are allowed to be 6 grandfathered in, and nothing is in this plan to change 7 those engines over to cleaner burning or electric motors. 8 So they're going to continue chugging away for another 10, 9 15 years polluting the air, giving the NOx that floats 10 down to Arvin. 11 And Arvin has dairies going in all around, and 12 they've had them for years. But there's a huge growth 13 industry there. So they have the ammonia and other gases 14 growing by leaps and bounds all around them. And nothing 15 here is going to put a lid on that manure. What's needed 16 is to cover that manure to keep the ammonia out of the 17 air. There's ways to do that or else you have to limit 18 dairy growth and even start cutting back on it. 19 The ammonia -- if the manure was covered and 20 there was a smoke stack, you would never allow it. You 21 would never allow those kinds of emissions. Right now 22 it's a stationary source. It's all in one place, but on 23 purpose. The ammonia is decomposed into the air because 24 that's the only way these mega dairies can handle it. 25 They want to get as much of the gases and ammonia out of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 that stuff as they can. That's their goal in handling 2 manure. It's the cheapest thing they can do with it. 3 They must be required to decompose that without exposing 4 it to the air. 5 The sprawling development around Bakersfield is 6 untouched in this plan so developers approve this plan. 7 Doesn't hurt them one bit. They can take out my almond 8 trees which clean the air and put in sprawling 9 developments which pollute the air even worse. 10 This plan needs to have some real teeth in it. 11 We can't let these things -- I don't know what you can do 12 about grandfathered in things that pollute the air like 13 wastewater from the oil fields that evaporates the oil 14 into the air. Those are still in place all around Kern 15 County polluting the air and all that stuff. We've got to 16 get some teeth in here that goes after everybody that's 17 polluting and not just wait for a few regulations to kick 18 which will sort of lower our NOx problem. The ammonia's 19 up here maybe and the NOx is here, but you could do 20 something about the dairies that bring the ammonia way 21 down. NOx is barely going to creep down with this plan. 22 You could do a lot with the ammonia, and then the PM10 is 23 lowered dramatically. 24 Thank you. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 Steven Bonaker, Joe Miranda, Teresa DeAnda. 2 MR. BONAKER: Dr. Lloyd, members of the Board, 3 staff, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 4 District staff, members of the audience, and citizens, my 5 name is Steve Bonaker. I'm with Imperial Sugar Company. 6 A lot of what's been discussed so far was contained in my 7 comment letter so I won't go over it. 8 I do want to encourage the Air Resources Board to 9 fully quantify and carefully consider the economic and 10 financial impacts of anything versus the environmental 11 benefit associated. We wanted to get -- a lot has changed 12 with the new -- with that new control measure, the LSI-2. 13 And I haven't had a chance to review it. A lot of -- 14 everything has changed. We appreciate Ms. Witherspoon's 15 consideration of the industry, and we appreciate your 16 willingness to work with us and help reduce and improve 17 our Valley air. 18 We'd like to challenge -- continue to challenge 19 the Board and the district to develop alternatives that 20 would be more meaningful and minimal to adoption by the 21 remaining groups, related industries that support 22 California agriculture, its citizens, and supply the 23 highest quality of food available to the nation, and the 24 world. Thank you. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. Thank PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 you. Staff has demonstrated it's decided to work with 2 you. 3 We have Joe Miranda, Teresa DeAnda, Josefine 4 Garcia. 5 MS. DeANDA: Good morning. We made some posters. 6 We're from Earlimart. We don't have any air monitoring 7 there. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: No relation to WalMart? 9 MS. DeANDA: No. But we do have an Earlimart 10 with a Y. 11 This is a picture of lungs -- 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: What does Earlimart stand 13 for? Could you tell us. I'm not familiar with it. 14 MS. DeANDA: Earlimart, they used to get early 15 market there. It's right on freeway 99. 16 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Okay. I wasn't 17 familiar with it. 18 MS. DeANDA: It's in Tulare County. 19 First of all, I want to show you this. This is a 20 movie Air Resources Board did a lot of studies on. It's a 21 great movie, if you haven't seen it. Even though you guys 22 did the studies for it, you need to watch it. It's really 23 great. It talks about how kids' lungs are affected by air 24 pollution and how in L.A. County they really, really 25 improved the air quality there by taking measures and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 doing regulations, something that hasn't been done here to 2 agriculture which is your biggest polluter. I can leave 3 it with you. And mail it back to me, though, because it 4 costs $8. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: If it's our video, we can 6 leave it there. 7 MS. DeANDA: And please don't take this as 8 disrespectful -- 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: You can get more copies if 10 you want to. 11 MS. DeANDA: Don't take this as being 12 disrespectful. It's just -- I hope it isn't -- I hope it 13 isn't approved. It's bigger than Brent's. 14 This is my grandson, Brian. He's in sports. 15 Recently we found out that playing sports can be unhealthy 16 for your body because on bad air quality days it can 17 actually damage your lungs because they're inhaling the 18 stuff that's in the air. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Only on bad days. Exercising 20 is normally pretty good. 21 MS. DeANDA: Only on bad days. But still I mean, 22 he's got a great future in sports, but living here in the 23 Valley, I don't think he's going to be able to pursue 24 that. He does basketball. He does baseball. He swims. 25 He's only six, but he would have been a superstar if -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: He would have 2 been. Give him a chance. 3 (Laughter) 4 MS. DeANDA: And this is my grandson Brian -- 5 Angel -- Angel. He's three. He was born prematurely. So 6 he's very susceptible to asthma. They already told him 7 he's probably going to get asthma. And living here in the 8 Valley with the air pollution continuing to get bad, he's 9 probably going to get asthma. I hope not, but he probably 10 will get it. 11 Oh, my last prop. This is from across the 12 street. I live across the street from a vineyard. It's 13 dust. I'm not going to throw it on you. I'm not going to 14 do -- what's that stuff? Anthrax. It's not anthrax. 15 It's just dust. It's really loose and powdery. I put it 16 in double bag so it wouldn't leak. This is what we 17 breathe in every day, every day. When they're plowing, 18 it's even worse. We live across the street from 19 vineyards. And then when they spray, it's even worse. 20 They just sprayed last night so this has sulfur. 21 I just hope you guys don't approve this PM plan 22 right now. My kids -- well, my grandkids depend on it. 23 This is my son. He's in tee ball. He was out 24 there inhaling all this bad air also. And this is Joe. 25 He has some comments to make. But first let me see if I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 said everything I wanted to say. 2 If I ask you to -- if I could throw it on you, 3 you guys would probably say no, right. If I asked if I 4 can throw it on you, you'd say, "No, don't throw it on 5 me." Well, we don't have that luxury. We're never asked, 6 "Can we pollute you with the air?" Can we -- when we do 7 our tractors or when we're just driving down the road 8 because there's a lot of potholes, a lot of dirt in the 9 streets, it's so dusty there. And in August and September 10 when there's a lot of traffic there because of the 11 harvest, there's just a cloud of dust so thick, so thick. 12 And so I wouldn't throw it on you. Please don't say I'm 13 doing terrorists threats. 14 This is Joe. And let me show you their lungs. 15 This is bad lungs here. This is good lungs. They colored 16 them. Rosa has bad lungs. Josefina has good lungs. 17 Nicholas got mad because he has bad lungs. Persa didn't 18 want to wear lungs. 19 And this is Joe. He's nine. 20 MR. MIRANDA: I just wanted to say please clean 21 the air because my neighbor, he gots asthma, and I don't 22 want him to get more sick. And I'm just saying please 23 clean the air. 24 MS. DeANDA: She has sign, Basta ya kom el PM. 25 That means stop now -- stop already with PM, bad powder. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 "Polbo mal" means powder bad. 2 Does anyone want to interpret? I'll interpret. 3 She said she wishes -- it would be good if you 4 guys could clean the air above everything with -- she said 5 she works in the fields -- she said she works in the field 6 where there's a lot of powder, dust. And where she works, 7 there's a lot of the dust. But then in her house there's 8 a lot of the dust also because of where Earlimart is. But 9 she didn't say Earlimart. She said at her house. I don't 10 want to misinterpret. 11 And she said it was bad for the health. It's 12 worse for the health. She said in the bodies it causes a 13 lot of itchiness, and sometimes it burns a lot. A lot of 14 sneezing, like a cold. She said when they drink water, 15 sometimes they taste the dust in the water. And then they 16 have to drink more water to get that ugly taste down. In 17 the nose -- in this region there's more danger in the air 18 and in the air pollution because of the agriculture. And 19 it brings the pesticides and everything else that's in the 20 air. She said that she hopes that the air quality will be 21 better because the kids are the ones that are being really 22 affected. And even though it should be getting better, 23 it's getting worse day by day. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 25 MS. DeANDA: Any questions? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Do you have any more? 2 MS. DeANDA: I hope not. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much for 4 coming, and thank you. 5 MS. DeANDA: So I hope that it's not approved. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Now we have Roger Ison. 7 And, Roger, I don't think you generate any 8 ammonia or dust so I think you're safe. 9 MR. ISON: Thank you for that. That's right. My 10 name is Roger Ison. I'm with the California Cotton 11 Growers Association. And I wasn't really going to plan on 12 commenting. I won't want to waste any more of your time. 13 I'll be brief. I know Les and I both want to go eat so 14 let me make a couple of quick comments in response to some 15 of the things you've heard today. 16 And first of all, if you've had the opportunity 17 to look at the PM10 plan and if you've done that and 18 compared it to PM10 plans in the other non-serious 19 attainment areas, I think there's no question that the San 20 Joaquin Valley PM10 is by far the most comprehensive 21 far-reaching PM10 plan put together. I can specifically 22 talk about the ag CMP portion, or conservation management 23 program plan. And due to the science -- you heard some 24 reference to CRPAQS. We will have more information on how 25 successful our plan is -- and I'll get into the specifics PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 in minute -- than any of the other non-attainment areas. 2 I want to state, you know, on record that we both 3 want the same goal. We want to achieve the ambient air 4 quality standards. I think we just want to do ours a 5 little differently than what we've been told. We want to 6 make sure it's done accurately based on sound science. We 7 think we have that information. 8 Let me address the complaints. One of them is 9 this isn't BACM. If you looked at Maricopa County -- and 10 I'll speak specifically to the ones that have agriculture 11 in them. If you look at Maricopa County's plan, they have 12 three control measures -- or three categories you have to 13 choose a control measure from. If you look at South Coast 14 there are six, three of which are based one wind-blown 15 dust. Then compare that to the San Joaquin Valley, and we 16 have five control measures that we have to do, five 17 different categories. So ours is by far -- and none based 18 on wind-blown dust because wind-blown dust isn't an issue 19 here in the San Joaquin Valley. So by far it goes farther 20 than any of those. 21 The one complaint I had is that a lot of people 22 want to complain or criticize the plan, well, where are 23 the suggestions? What control measures should we give? 24 What is the reason we don't have a PM10 plan that's been 25 approved? It's the same problem that was in place when I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 worked at the air district ten years. There's no 2 guidance. EPA does not have a list of suggested practices 3 for agriculture PM10. They basically said, "Here's the 4 standard. You guys do whatever it takes to achieve that 5 standard." And that's what we've done. That's the plan 6 that's been put before you. 7 If you looked at the -- and I don't have it right 8 in front of me. If you look at the ag CMP plan, if you 9 look at the last page, there's a matrix there, a table of 10 15 to 20 different crops and over 35 different control 11 measures. Crop-specific control measures have been 12 developed. EPA didn't provide us that. They don't know. 13 They don't understand the process. They don't understand 14 agriculture. They don't have the emissions testing that 15 we performed as a result of CRPAQS. So ours is based on 16 sound science. It is BACM. It goes farther than anybody 17 else's in the country. 18 Is it enforceable? Again, I point to Maricopa 19 and South Coast. Maricopa, you have one page. You check 20 it off. You shove it in your glove compartment, and 21 that's it. That's the end of the discussion. You never 22 see it again. South Coast, basically the same thing. You 23 sign off the checklist. You keep it. If there's ever an 24 inspection, a complaint, you put that out. Show them 25 you've done it. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 Here what you have to do is you have to fill out 2 a plan, submit that to NRCS, and NRCS experts look at it, 3 review it. If there's things one there that don't make 4 sense, aren't right, they tell them. They have to correct 5 it. And they keep that on record and they tabulate that. 6 And they have to report back to the air district at the 7 end of the year to see if they've met the goal. So it is 8 enforceable. It's a heck of a lot more enforceable than 9 anybody else's out there. 10 The one point that they were right is that this 11 plan doesn't ensure that USDA will have the resources 12 necessary to carry this out. Absolutely. The air 13 district has no control over that. That's our 14 responsibility or USDA's responsibility. And let me tell 15 you what they've done to address that. 16 First of all, USDA and NRCS have created two air 17 quality positions based here in Fresno, the first in the 18 country. They're already on staff. They're already 19 working. They're already doing things helping the 20 district to implement control measures. That's first. 21 The California Association of Resources 22 Conservation Districts got a grant from USDA and NRCS to 23 hire a third person working on air quality specifically 24 for the San Joaquin Valley who's already been on staff for 25 a year, already going out and performing workshops and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 helping the growers to understand how they're going to 2 comply. 3 Right now there are announcements out for three 4 vacancies for three more slots, one in Fresno, one in 5 Bakersfield, and one in Merced. Three more air quality 6 people from USDA/NRCS that their sole function will be to 7 help the San Joaquin Valley farmers to comply with the ag 8 CMP plans that will be developed later this year. There 9 will be six people on staff. Their sole job is to work 10 with the farmers on this plan. So, yes, it will be 11 addressed. 12 Let me leave you with one last thought and one 13 last response. I don't have any gimmicks or props. And 14 somebody said they were insulted by the rubber stamp that 15 was put up here. Let me tell you one thing. You can 16 criticize me and my organization. You can criticize air 17 district, but there's one thing that I take strong 18 exception to. And that was the one gentleman that came up 19 here and criticized the Air Resources Board for 20 participating in a group called AIR. Now, they should 21 have done some research before they made that criticism. 22 This was a group -- and let me read you the sole purpose. 23 Okay. The partnership formed to aid agriculture in 24 promoting the voluntary improvement of air quality through 25 scientifically-proven and cost-effective measures. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 This is not a lobbying group. We don't provide 2 testimony. Mike Kenny agreed to sign on to this and 3 participate in this. And Dr. Lloyd, you were at one of 4 our first group meetings we put together with the Air 5 Resources Board several years ago in Tulare. This group 6 put together -- and where this named was pulled off, this 7 packet which is entitled "Air Quality Conservation 8 Management Practices for San Joaquin Valley farms." It 9 was a grant that the California Cotton Growers and Ginners 10 Association received from USDA and NRCS the sole purpose 11 to educate farmers on air quality. I mean, we had a job 12 to do. We had to convince farmers, number one, that air 13 quality is an issue in the San Joaquin Valley. Number 14 two, farmers have to play a role in improving the air 15 quality. And three, here's how you do it. 16 In here, it takes the rules and puts it into 17 layman's terms so they understand it. Has to comply with 18 ASTM method, whatever, and says "you shall apply water at 19 this rate." One of the things -- they say, "Wait. What 20 chemicals can I use?" That's a big complaint that was 21 always out there. In this packet is a list of products so 22 they know when they go -- they talk to the dealer or the 23 supply person they know exactly what product they'll 24 legally be able to apply to the road to reduce dust. It's 25 another baseless criticism to the agriculture industry. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 We're trying to do a job out there to address air quality. 2 I take strong exception to the criticism on that group. 3 And I applaud the Air Resources Board for being a partner 4 in this. The San Joaquin Valley Air District is a partner 5 in this. USDA, NRCS and 15 to 20 ag groups, the sole 6 purpose to educate agriculture growers, producers on how 7 to clean up the air. It's nothing more than that. It's 8 not about lobbying. It's about cleaning the air. I would 9 advise them to quit the criticism, quit the complaints. 10 If you've got suggestions on how to help us clean up the 11 air, then bring them to the table. Quit wasting 12 everybody's time. Thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: One question. One thing that 14 did disturb me early on, and I'd like you to address that, 15 that was the farmers can basically veto any control 16 measure. 17 MR. ISON: Again, you need to read the Appendix 18 H, the CMP program. What it says in there, if it's not 19 feasible for the farmer to do a particular practice, he 20 has to justify why that isn't the case. And he has to 21 work with NRCS to find another possible suggestion. For 22 example, if an almond grower, one of the control measures 23 he has to do is land preparation. Maybe he's in a certain 24 soil type or whatever that he can't address land 25 preparation. NRCS staff says, "Well, if you do this over PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 here on your unpaved roads or another category, do two 2 measures in that category, you'll get the equivalent or 3 even more reductions. So it's not -- you just simply 4 can't say, "I'm opposed to it. I'm not going to do it." 5 Number one, you have to justify why you can't do it, and 6 then you have to work with NRCS to find an alternative or 7 maybe even a better -- 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Is there a role for the air 9 district in that process? 10 MR. ISON: Yeah. We have a San Joaquin Valley ag 11 technical group that meets. And actually, that's the 12 group that developed the CMPs. Right now what we're doing 13 is prioritizing CMPs for which ones do we already have the 14 knowledge of that holds a CRPAQS, which ones we don't that 15 need further source testing and monitoring. The same 16 thing in there, any alternative practices that isn't on 17 this list, the ag technical group has to come together and 18 say what other measures can we do. So absolutely. The 19 NRCS people are air quality experts that understand 20 agriculture, so hopefully they can address it. But yeah, 21 the air district would have a role in that. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 23 That's the end of the public testimony. I don't 24 know if we want to entertain questions from the Board. 25 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Where are we on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 this? We're going to adjourn in a few minutes. I 2 unfortunately can't return when we reconvene, and I'm 3 wondering whether we've got a couple of minutes briefly to 4 hear from staff. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That's what I was going to 6 ask. Do we have any flexibility on the 12:00 o'clock? 7 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: Yes. 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We have 9 flexibility. It's a time constraint in order to have this 10 many Board members present to give the staff direction on 11 the two lawsuits that we are going to talk about. That's 12 where -- 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Catch 22 here. 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: And it would take 15 more than a couple minutes, I'm afraid, to do justice to 16 all the legal issues that have been raised. I would think 17 it would take us more like 10 or 15 to sort of layout the 18 staff's reaction to the multiple issues you've heard. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. Well, what we will do, 20 we'll adjourn until 1:00 o'clock. And we'll come back at 21 1:00 o'clock, and the Board will have a closed session to 22 discussion several issues that staff has brought before 23 the Board. These are -- it's not -- this litigation being 24 discussed by the Board. 25 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: The closed session is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 intended to -- for the Board to hear advising counsel on 2 four separate lawsuits that have been identified in the 3 notice, Coalition for Clean Air versus the South Coast Air 4 Quality Management District; Central Valley 5 Chrysler-Plymouth, Daimler Chrysler, General Motors versus 6 the Air Resources Board; Liberty Motors, Daimler Chrysler, 7 General Motors and Isuzu Motors versus the California Air 8 Resources Board; and Daimler Chrysler, General Motors, 9 versus the California Air Resources Board. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 11 (Thereupon a lunch recess was taken) 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I'd like to restart the Board 13 meeting, and I would like legal counsel, Ms. Walsh to 14 describe the deliberation over lunch time. 15 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: I just wanted to report 16 that the Board met with staff and legal counsel to discuss 17 litigation regarding the zero emission vehicle regulation. 18 That's the Central Valley Chrysler-Plymouth case which was 19 filed in U.S. District Court, the Liberty Motors case and 20 the Daimler Chrysler cases filed in Fresno County Superior 21 Court. And following discussion with staff and legal 22 counsel, the Board provided direction to the staff 23 regarding resolution of that litigation. 24 The Board also met with staff and counsel to 25 discuss proposed settlement in the case of Coalition for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 Clean Air versus the South Coast Air Quality Management 2 District and the Air Resources Board. And following that 3 discussion of counsel, the Board approved a proposed 4 settlement agreement in that action. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. I think we had -- 6 one of the issues which we left off before lunch was to 7 talk about -- responding to the charge that was not a 8 legal document, wouldn't satisfy the requirements of the 9 Clean Air Act. 10 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: The Board does have an 11 obligation, as indicated by commenters, to review the plan 12 and make a determination whether it does comply with the 13 requirements of the federal Clean Air Act. In preparation 14 for that activity on your behalf, staff had prepared and 15 today presented their analysis of the plan. 16 Based on that analysis, staff has recommended to 17 the Board that the plan does meet the requirements set out 18 in Section 110 and 189 of the Clean Air Act. 19 Specifically, the plan does include an attainment 20 demonstration that provides for attainment of the standard 21 by the earliest practical date, which is a requirement of 22 the federal law. The plan does include BACM as required 23 by federal law. 24 There are certainly technical issues related to 25 that question, and you have heard information and argument PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 related to that dispute both from staff and commenters, 2 and that is addressed also in the staff report for today's 3 item. The individual measures in the plan do meet the 4 specific requirements of the Clean Air Act, including 5 staff believes that they are enforceable as required under 6 the Act. And it is our advice that from a legal 7 perspective this Board is, in fact, supported in a 8 decision to approve the plan, should you decide to do 9 that. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Questions from the Board on 11 that issue? I'm not a lawyer so I rely on obviously legal 12 counsel in that case. Are there any other issues? 13 The one I would like to bring up was the one I 14 brought up earlier. I thought we had a lot of discussion 15 on the role of ammonia and the most effective ways of 16 controlling ammonium nitrate. And I heard some comments 17 made that I would still like to suggest that staff come 18 back in three to four months to the Board summarizing all 19 the issues, why, in fact -- showing that the table we saw 20 where ammonia looked to be equally as effective as NOx in 21 reducing a medium nitrate at certain locations. Of 22 course, if you look at Fresno, neither NOx or ammonium 23 were particularly effective at reducing that, which again 24 is another issue. 25 And also to wrap into that the stuff that Manuel PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 134 1 indicated, maybe give us some highlights. Maybe that's 2 working with him on some of the ammonia control measures, 3 but to give us a status report. And also why we cannot 4 move faster, because I know we talked about 2006. I think 5 that's really a long time. So anything we can do to 6 expedite that. And what I'd like you to do is maybe work 7 with D.D. on the Ag Advisory Committee on that issue so 8 that, in fact, they're fully involved. 9 The other one on the fugitive dust, we had the 10 letter from the Coalition saying we're doing stuff in 11 South Coast and why it's not being implemented here. I 12 heard Roger make some of the comments maybe why it's not 13 appropriate here. 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: There was also a 15 letter that commented on an Imperial Valley rule and this 16 district should adopt a rule as stringent. And staff has 17 investigated both of those comparisons, and I'll let Lynn 18 comment on that. 19 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Yes. We took a 20 systematic look at what the South Coast has done. I have 21 to give them credit for leadership in being the first ones 22 to try to address the issue. And actually a parallel 23 consent was developed here. The first step was 24 essentially the district will adopt a rule that will 25 require the farmers to essentially develop this plan. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 135 1 The next step then is what we heard earlier today 2 in terms of taking the work that has been done to look at 3 specific industries, specific crop types. And all of that 4 technical work in the Valley that is being done under the 5 osmosis of the ag tech group has allowed the development 6 of best management practices for specific categories. 7 They're not completely done with that. They're continuing 8 effort to develop more and more of those. The reality is 9 the scope is greater in the Valley, so there's a lot more 10 technical work to be done. But I think that's 11 acknowledged and the commitment is there. 12 So the next step is to submit the plans to NRCS 13 and have them actually screen to make sure that the 14 commitments are being met. That is actually an additional 15 step that is not in place in the San Joaquin Valley. So 16 we see this as -- excuse me -- South Coast. So we see 17 this as a strengthening in the San Joaquin Valley. 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: There is not a 19 discrete control measure in the South Coast that would 20 apply to agriculture that's not being applied here. They 21 have a very similar approach to selection of measures on 22 site. And then they don't have the overlay of federal 23 review and the requirement for justification and 24 substitution and alternatives and then the aggregation of 25 all the data to make sure that across the Valley it's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 136 1 summing to the tonnage reductions that's needed. And this 2 district as well has a back stop measure where we'll fill 3 in behind if there's any deficiencies in meeting the 4 fugitive dust reduction targets. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Is there any truth -- I know 6 there's truth to one of them. That is that South Coast 7 exports the cattle to the Central Valley. Is there any 8 truth to the fact they export the manure as well? 9 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: That has been -- 10 in their PM10 plan they assumed that essentially the 11 dairies would move out of the basin. That is not 12 happening as quickly as they had assumed. So there's now 13 kind of a new approach which is assuming that the waste 14 itself will be moved out of the Valley in the interim 15 before the dairies completely move out. It's a 16 recognition, the pace is just not quite as fast. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Where does the waste go? 18 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: To the San 19 Joaquin Valley. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Maybe there's some fees that 21 could be collected. 22 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Unlike some of 23 my colleagues at work here, I'm not a manure expert. But 24 I need to ask you, aside from reducing the number of cows, 25 is there any biodegradable approach that can look at this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 137 1 problem in a unique or creative way? 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The most 3 effective approach in which people are working vigorously 4 on right now is to capture the gases and use them in 5 digesters. So there's both a combination of how they're 6 treating the waste and covering the ponds -- 7 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Capturing means 8 they're not spread out all over the place. 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: They're not 10 spreading it out over the field to dry out and gas off to 11 the atmosphere. But instead they already are ponding it 12 into lagoons and using biological processes to break it 13 down. But that is an emitting process itself. The next 14 step is the overlay of capturing the gases and using them 15 productively to produce energy. 16 And interestingly enough, it's the land 17 conservation agencies that are out front on both funding 18 this activity and bringing it about. There's three 19 digester projects under development in the Central Valley, 20 and then the water quality agencies are right behind them 21 on prior practices to dampen emissions which included the 22 application of water. And the Imperial valley rule was a 23 water-based rule that the water agencies have risen up and 24 said that's not a very good idea. You're creating 25 additional runoff. So we're in the quest of a multi-media PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 138 1 solution that preserves the land values, that protects the 2 waterways, and minimizes the emissions to the atmosphere. 3 And that's what is to come out of these multiple research 4 projects under way. The digester's on the leading edge 5 because the energy crisis also brought that to the floor 6 whether we were overlooking additional ways of generating 7 electricity. We have new funds in that direction. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I view that this would come 9 under the scope of what I'm asking staff to come back 10 with. 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: More substantive 12 presentation on that. 13 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: There's a concept of 14 "waste energy," and I guess it's most appropriate for 15 this. But there was at one time an application for a 16 waste energy facility there at one of the prisons in 17 Chino. They had some extra land. Did that ever get 18 developed? I sort of left it midstream, and I never knew 19 if they actually -- 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I don't think so. 21 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: We'll have to 22 check. I don't recall that moved beyond the proposal 23 stage. But we'll check and get back to you. 24 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: There was also something 25 with the Chino basin water district that they obviously PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 139 1 would be very interested in trying to remove the waste 2 from the dairy facilities as quickly as possible because 3 it had implication to the water quality in the water table 4 in that area. And they were trying to work out some sort 5 of a facility as well. And if any one of these could have 6 worked, it really would have made, I think, a large 7 contribution and something that the San Joaquin Air 8 Pollution Control District could then perhaps encourage. 9 Because, you know, it had some -- it's getting everything 10 all lined up and put together at the right time. But it 11 makes good sense if you can just get it together. 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: It does make good 13 sense. The principle barrier financial. Because still at 14 the end of the day, it's a more expensive way of 15 generating power. If you're relying on power contracts 16 alone to produce the dollars they want, there needs to be 17 either concerted public subsidies to underwrite this 18 activity or the advent of regulations that create new 19 costs for not doing this. And then you weigh the control 20 costs against perhaps the savings from producing some 21 electricity and it becomes more advantageous to. But it's 22 the cost barrier. 23 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: If you'll remember back, 24 there was a standard offered, number 4, that was back a 25 number of years ago, and that was a way to encourage this. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 140 1 And, of course, the rate payers ultimately paid. But you 2 could solve a few problems with that process. 3 Unfortunately, as you say, that went away. 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We're trying to 5 resurrect it by biomast energy plans in the dairy instance 6 and always the barriers should the rate payers be asked to 7 underwrite this, should we find another way of subsidizing 8 it for regulating it, but we're working on it. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think there's also studying 10 the stuff that Manuel is doing. 11 Any other comments? 12 Mr. McKinnon. 13 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah. I was just going 14 to chip in. There's a professor at Cal Poly San Luis 15 Obispo that's been working on collecting methane, I think, 16 in dairy operations. And he had sort of developed this 17 scheme around power generation. So -- but I gather -- you 18 know, I gather that it costs money to do it. I guess if 19 there's a good thing about concentration of the dairy 20 industry, this may be that it becomes sort of affordable 21 to think through how to do it. 22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I just had a question of 23 staff regarding the enforcement mechanisms of this plan. 24 I know that they exist but thought it would be helpful if 25 staff could recount those measures to correct the record PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 141 1 because I know there were some concerns raised by the 2 witnesses earlier in the event that the 5 percent 3 reduction is not met. 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We're trying to 5 decide who's going to answer you. 6 Well, the lion's share of emission reductions in 7 this plan comes from measures this Board adopts. So you 8 have all the customary powers at your disposal and your 9 legal staff's disposal to issue notices of violation and 10 bring about the changes required by our regulations. 11 For the district rules, they're regulatory in 12 form. They have similar powers of issuing NOVs and fix-it 13 tickets and all the rest of it. The key difference, and 14 what most of the testimony was about, was the conservation 15 management plans and whether you can talk about 16 enforcement in the same way with those plans. There will 17 be a regulation that Lynn described a moment ago that 18 requires the individual farmers to have such a plan. So 19 in first instances you can enforce that requirement by 20 inspection, by asking to see the plan they had produced. 21 And then it's monitored through this process of submitting 22 data and the back and forth with the federal agencies and 23 the annual report of emission reductions achieved. 24 And then we'll be figuring out and innovating 25 along the way how we do sampling kinds of testing and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 142 1 monitoring to assure ourselves that the kind of 2 calculations we did to figure out what the return on a 3 particular practice would be and the matrix that Roger 4 Ison talked about. Here's what you can do for the 5 different commodities. That's our assessment today of 6 how much return there would be is borne out in the fields 7 and borne out by later monitoring that we might do. So 8 all of that will be going on. 9 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: And if the measure does 10 not result in the anticipated emitted emission reductions, 11 there is a requirement that would direct the district to 12 go back in and look at ways to basically give the rule 13 more teeth, if you will. And that -- the district always 14 has that authority, of course. The plan anticipates that. 15 And in the final analysis, of course, if the plan is not 16 achieving the emission reductions that it is supposed to 17 achieve, there's a mechanism in federal law to enforce a 18 review of the plan and a revamping of the rule, for 19 example. 20 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: I'd add, the 21 structure of the legal commitment is very specifically 22 tons that this Board would commit to deliver and that the 23 district would commit to deliver. So as Kathleen said, if 24 the outlined measures don't achieve them, there's still an 25 obligation for the state and local agencies to produce the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 143 1 required emission reductions. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Anyone else? 3 Supervisor Patrick. 4 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am 5 very much in favor of this plan. I was not able to be 6 here last Thursday when our Board voted on it because I 7 was gone. But I understand that my colleague from Kern 8 County, my alternate, did a fine job of asking questions 9 and was very knowledgeable about the plan. And as I 10 understand it, there was a lengthy bit of testimony. 11 There was a great deal of discussion by the Board members. 12 And I think that it's abundantly clear that this plan is 13 the beginning of how we're going to do it. And if this 14 plan doesn't do it, we're going make it stronger. This 15 Board is committed to making it stronger. Our Board, our 16 local Board -- that the San Joaquin Valley Air District 17 Board is going to make it stronger. We are going to clean 18 up the air, and we're going to be in attainment. 19 All of you are well aware by reading this plan 20 that in Bakersfield we're going to have to do a little 21 more than what's required in the plan. And certainly we 22 are committed to doing that. I'm not certain how yet, but 23 we want to do it. We want to do more in the near term. 24 And I think it's important that this plan is a plan that 25 focuses on near-term reductions. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 144 1 But I think that this plan moves us forward. And 2 we can say, you know, we shouldn't adopt it. Well, why 3 shouldn't we adopt it? What more do we need to put in 4 here? Let's come up with some positive and constructive 5 things. I, too, am concerned about the ammonia. But from 6 what I'm hearing, the state of the science is such that we 7 still have an awful lot more to learn about how ammonia 8 works in this Valley and in different parts of this 9 Valley. Because it's -- what works in Bakersfield may or 10 may not be working in Fresno. 11 So we certainly have our work cut out for us. 12 This plan is not going to be the easy road to making it 13 happen. I mean, there's an awful lot in here. We have a 14 lot of work cut out for all of us on this Board, the local 15 Board, local government, which is committing to surfacing 16 unpaved roads and road shoulders and so on and so forth. 17 It's going to be an expensive plan to implement. But the 18 primary thing, our responsibility and the responsibility 19 of the San Joaquin Valley Board is to protect public 20 health. And there is a commitment to doing that. 21 And if at some point in time we're not achieving 22 the goals that we need to achieve, then we're going to get 23 in there and we're going to dig a little deeper. And 24 we're going to be looking at ammonia. We're going to be 25 looking at the agricultural industry. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 145 1 When I compare this plan to the plan that was 2 adopted in 1997, there's absolutely no comparison in the 3 two. This is based on sound science. All the science 4 that has gone on in the last six years is in this plan. 5 And what our CRPAQS study -- I'm looking at Karen -- what 6 our CRPAQS study shows us, we're just going to keep adding 7 to this plan and strengthening this plan. 8 And so I don't think that this Board has any 9 choice but to move forward with this plan. And I do not 10 see that as a rubber stamp. I see that as a commitment to 11 clean air in the Valley. And our constituents expect 12 nothing less. So this is the document that's going help 13 us get there. And because there are points all along the 14 road at which we look and reevaluate, I'm confident that 15 we're going to get there with this plan. 16 And so I want to thank our district staff, ARB, 17 EPA -- everybody's worked together on this. And so I'm 18 very, very comfortable with this plan, and I think that 19 the people of the San Joaquin Valley should be very 20 comfortable with this plan that it's going move us 21 forward. 22 Those are my comments, Mr. Chairman. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 24 And again, we really appreciate the efforts of 25 staff, both sides, bringing this forward. I would also PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 146 1 like to say any plan is not perfect. I think we recognize 2 that. I think staff recognizes that. From the testimony 3 today, I think we recognize that. But on the other hand, 4 I think there's a good start here. There's clearly a huge 5 difference in the commitment to what I've seen in the time 6 I've been Chair here to move ahead. 7 I think it's important to base this on sound 8 science. My question to the staff to come back in the 9 nearer term on ammonia is based on the desire to make sure 10 that if there are things we can do, we don't have to wait 11 for perfect science when there's stuff we can do there. 12 But that, as I said, is in conjunction with D.D. and the 13 Ag Advisory Committee so we understand the issues. 14 I'm really heartened by the commitment here. 15 Clearly, we have some issues that have been brought up 16 today. We'll see how they play out. And we clearly have 17 to do our work, as was indicated. And so we have a lot to 18 do, looking at the off-road rules from the EPA as well as 19 the on-road, the heavy duty, as well as the work we can 20 do. 21 So, again, I also support the plan and look 22 forward to its evolution. And I think it's incumbent upon 23 us to be looking very closely, because we will be looking 24 at the ozone plan next month, so these do fit together. 25 So some of the issues we have not addressed today will be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 147 1 addressed at that time. I don't know -- maybe we'll be 2 back here for the ozone plan. I don't know what staff's 3 thinking. So we'll be back here very shortly. Some of 4 the comments today we've not been back, maybe you've seen 5 too much of us lately. 6 But, again, I think we feel the obligation. And 7 we also feel, again, driving down the Valley as I did a 8 month or so ago and driving down yesterday, one recognizes 9 what a resource we have and a wonderful area and the 10 challenge we have to provide clean air for the citizens 11 here. And the health data we're coming up with from our 12 studies, as pointed out today, makes this, in fact, 13 imperative that we do our work and rededicate ourselves to 14 help in whatever way we can. 15 Ms. D'Adamo. 16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Yes. I'd just like to make 17 a few brief comments. 18 Supervisor Patrick, I agree with absolutely 19 everything you said. This is a big step forward, and our 20 work is not finished. We've got a long way to go. But I 21 think it would be a mistake to reject it. I think it 22 would be going backwards, not forward. And we're all 23 committed. We know EPA is committed. We know the 24 district's committed. 25 And I would really like the compliment those that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 148 1 were here today. Unfortunately, we had that break and a 2 lot of people had to leave. But I've been a resident of 3 the Valley for some time, and the time is really right for 4 change here. And even though the various stakeholders 5 don't agree a good part of the time on how we're going to 6 get to the solutions, we are finally getting that dialogue 7 that has been missing here for quite some time. And we've 8 got a number of processes that are under way. I really 9 appreciated working closely with the ag community and wish 10 to compliment the environmental community as well. I 11 personally haven't worked as close with that stakeholder 12 group, but I live here. I read the papers. And I think 13 it's important -- your work from the environmental 14 perspective is very important to keep the pressure on all 15 of us to do our jobs. And I think that this document is 16 an excellent work product. 17 I really disagree with the concerns that have 18 been raised about us rubber stamping this. We didn't just 19 see this plan today. This has been a very lengthy 20 process, and I know staff has worked tirelessly on this 21 plan working closely with the air district, and they had 22 had quite a lot of input going into this plan, and I know 23 just from the various conversations I've had with 24 Ms. Witherspoon and Ms. Terry. So I wouldn't call it a 25 rubber stamp at all. Maybe I'd feel differently if this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 149 1 was the first time we saw it here today and staff didn't 2 have any input at all, but they have, and we'd just like 3 to compliment everyone for being involved in this process 4 and look forward to the next step. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 6 More comments from my colleagues? Any more 7 comments from staff? 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: None at this 9 time. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Since this is not a 11 regulatory item, it's not necessary to officially close 12 the record. On the other hand, we do have two resolutions 13 before us so I'd like my colleagues to take a few moments 14 to review the resolutions -- two resolutions and then we 15 have the attachment that was provided for us. I would 16 entertain a motion on -- 17 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Mr. Chairman. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes. 19 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I would like to move 20 Resolution 03-14. 21 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Second. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: All in favor say aye. 23 (Ayes) 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: All against? 25 Was that the -- both of them? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 150 1 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I would 2 like now to move Resolution 03-15. 3 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Second. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That's the second one 5 committing us to the actions. 6 All in favor of that say aye. 7 (Ayes) 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Anybody against? No. 9 Thank you very much. And thank you, staff. 10 We'll take a moment before we turn over to the 11 last agenda item today, and that is the update on the 12 Central California ozone study, CCOS, to reduce the air 13 quality monitoring. 14 Before we move on to the next agenda item, I 15 would just like to acknowledge Resident County Supervisor 16 Judy Case. And sorry we didn't recognize you before, but 17 if you'd like to say a few words, please do. 18 SUPERVISOR CASE: Thank you. For the record, my 19 name is Judy Case. I'm Fresno County Supervisor. And I'm 20 the one in Fresno county who serves on the San Joaquin Air 21 Pollution Board. 22 This is my fifth year as a member of that Board. 23 And I can tell you our Board is very much engaged in 24 cleaning up the air. I'm a long-time Valley resident from 25 birth to today. So that's pretty long term. I think it's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 151 1 really important we continue to proceed and continue to 2 work together. We really want to work with you and work 3 with the EPA because I have a little touch of asthma. I 4 know I have family members with a touch of asthma or 5 worse. But we need to go in a manner that actually looks 6 at basing it on good science, basing it on an economic 7 model that's going to allow businesses to stay in the San 8 Joaquin Valley. We suffer with a very high level of 9 unemployment, and I think that's a critical issue to us in 10 balancing our various issues. 11 But I want to thank you today for your hard work, 12 and I look forward to working with you as we move forward. 13 And we have another plan that will be coming your way 14 soon. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed. 16 Thanks for your hospitality. 17 As I mentioned, we have an update on CCOS, the 18 Central California ozone study. It provides new 19 information at a critical time for the San Joaquin Valley 20 and neighboring districts, all of which will be updated in 21 ozone state implementation plans over the next year. 22 Since we're here in Fresno, today's presentation 23 will focus on the study as it relates to the San Joaquin 24 Valley ozone SIP, which we'll be addressing later this 25 year. Air quality modeling as reported is a required PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 152 1 element of all federal SIPS, and California has invested 2 substantial resources in efforts to improve the models 3 that are used. Of course, the bottom line is that we use 4 the best science we have when it comes time to meet the 5 Clear Air Act deadline. 6 I also want to recognize that the Central 7 California ozone study is a collaborative effort by ARB, 8 the air district, and industry to better understand the 9 ozone problem in the region. 10 As I mentioned earlier this morning, thank you to 11 the people involved. 12 The result of this study will be included as part 13 of the public process as San Joaquin Valley Air District 14 developed its ozone SIP. Again, I think this is an 15 outstanding example, probably -- not probably. There's 16 nowhere else in the world where an air quality model of 17 this complexity and this size -- geographical size and 18 this amount of data has been developed. So I think this 19 has been developed right here, I think, is a real tribute 20 on the combined efforts of all the people involved and to 21 our staff who are working on this. 22 So with that, I'd like to turn it over to 23 Ms. Witherspoon to begin the staff presentation. 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, 25 Chairman Lloyd and members of the Board. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 153 1 The Central California ozone study was conducted 2 during the summer of 2000 concurrent with the particulate 3 matter study we discussed as part of the Valley's PM10 4 plan. This timing allowed us to make the most of the 5 available resources. 6 The study measured surface and a lot of data 7 throughout Central California over a large multi-district 8 region, the air pollution episodes that occurred during 9 the time frame of the study that provided a rich database. 10 Our challenge now is to incorporate the new information 11 provided by the field study along with other updated 12 information into the SIP development process. 13 Air districts have the lead in developing SIPS at 14 the local level, but ARB is a very active partner in the 15 technical work. And most importantly we're partners in 16 terms of identifying new air quality strategies for the 17 emission sources under our jurisdiction. As the technical 18 foundation for the SIP is being developed, ARB staff is 19 also preparing a proposed state element for the San 20 Joaquin Valley's SIP for ozone. 21 Mr. John Damassa, Chief of the Modeling and 22 Meteorology Branch, will now begin the staff presentation. 23 MODELING AND METEROLOGY BRANCH CHIEF DAMASSA: 24 Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon. 25 Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 154 1 Board. 2 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 3 presented as follows.) 4 MODELING AND METEROLOGY BRANCH CHIEF DAMASSA: As 5 indicated, my presentation today will be about the Central 6 California ozone study and the use of its air quality 7 modeling results. 8 --o0o-- 9 MODELING AND METEROLOGY BRANCH CHIEF DAMASSA: 10 During my presentation I will provide background 11 information on the study, describe the field measurement 12 component, summarize the improvements of the CCOS efforts 13 over those of previous studies in the region, and provide 14 the status of ozone modeling using the CCOS data. 15 Finally, I will close with a brief summary. 16 --o0o-- 17 MODELING AND METEROLOGY BRANCH CHIEF DAMASSA: 18 The CCOS field measurement program took place over a 19 four-month period during the summer of 2000 from mid-June 20 to mid-October. Enhanced routine monitoring took place 21 throughout the four-month study period. That is, the 22 routine monitoring network was upgraded and expanded to 23 continuously sample air quality and meterological data, 24 both at the surface and below. 25 In addition, on days when high ozone levels were PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 155 1 forecasted to occur, additional measurements were taken. 2 These additional measurements included aircraft flights 3 and a balloon launch to measure the ozone levels above the 4 surface. These data, along with the analysis results 5 derived from the data, are providing the technical and 6 scientific foundation for the upcoming state 7 implementation plan for the San Joaquin Valley and other 8 air districts in the broader region. 9 --o0o-- 10 MODELING AND METEROLOGY BRANCH CHIEF DAMASSA: 11 CCOS was sponsored by and was directed by a partnership 12 between public and private sectors. The study is directed 13 by a Policy Committee, chaired by Supervisor and ARB Board 14 member Barbara Patrick. The Committee includes each of 15 the air districts in the region, the U.S. EPA, California 16 Energy Commission, and a number of industry 17 representatives. A Technical Committee provides 18 recommendations to the Policy Committee on both study 19 design and data analysis projects. As the study moves 20 into the data analysis phase, the focus of the Policy 21 Committee has been to ensure timely results for use in the 22 SIP process. 23 --o0o-- 24 MODELING AND METEROLOGY BRANCH CHIEF DAMASSA: 25 Now I'd like to talk with the CCOS field measurement PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 156 1 program for field study. The field measurement program 2 last took place in Central California in 1990. The 1990 3 SARMAP field study represented the state of the science at 4 that time. However, since that time, monitoring 5 technology has improved substantially and we have learned 6 a great deal from the previous study. CCOS builds and 7 improves upon the previous 1990 SARMAP study in several 8 ways, which I will talk about shortly. 9 The ozone study was conducted in parallel with 10 the California regional particulate matter air quality 11 study, or CRPAQS, a year-long study of particulate matter 12 also conducted in Central and Northern California. 13 Conducting the ozone study in parallel with the PM study 14 allowed us to make the maximum use of available resources. 15 CCOS was designed to capture high ozone events or episodes 16 suitable for both one hour and eight hour ozone planning. 17 However, the near term efforts are focused on the eminent 18 one hour ozone plans in the region. 19 --o0o-- 20 MODELING AND METEROLOGY BRANCH CHIEF DAMASSA: 21 This figure shows the CCOS modeling domain which is the 22 largest domain shown in the figure. Also shown are the 23 SARMAP modeling domain, which was used to support the 1994 24 ozone SIP for the San Joaquin Valley and the Sacramento 25 area ozone study modeling domain, which was used to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 157 1 support the 1994 ozone SIP for the Sacramento area. 2 As you can see, the CCOS modeling domain is 3 substantially larger and more comprehensive than previous 4 modeling domains facilitating use of the CCOS modeling and 5 data analysis to support all ozone plans in the region. 6 It is important to note that although the CCOS 7 modeling domain extends into Southern California and 8 outside the state, the field monitoring program was 9 concentrated in the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valley, the 10 San Francisco Bay Area, and coastal areas from San Luis 11 Obispo County north. And those areas are the primary 12 areas of focus for the CCOS modeling. A separate field 13 measurement program took place in Southern California in 14 1997. In those, data are being used to support modeling 15 for that portion of the state. 16 --o0o-- 17 MODELING AND METEROLOGY BRANCH CHIEF DAMASSA: 18 The following few slides show the detailed monitoring that 19 took place during CCOS. This figure shows the monitoring 20 network of surface air quality sites. The smaller reddish 21 circles represent the routine monitoring network, while 22 the larger green circles show the locations where CCOS 23 provided supplemental monitoring. There were 24 approximately 130 surface air quality sites in the CCOS 25 region during the field measurement program. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 158 1 This figure shows the surface meterological 2 monitoring network of routine and supplemental CCOS sites. 3 Approximately 250 meterological sites were operating 4 during the CCOS field study. 5 --o0o-- 6 MODELING AND METEROLOGY BRANCH CHIEF DAMASSA: 7 The routine monitoring network has only a few upper air or 8 aloft monitoring sites. However, ozone chemistry and 9 transport can occur both at the surface and aloft. 10 Therefore, CCOS was designed to significantly enhance the 11 upper air meterological monitoring network, as shown in 12 this figure. 13 --o0o-- 14 MODELING AND METEROLOGY BRANCH CHIEF DAMASSA: As 15 I indicated previously, aircraft flights took place on 16 days when high levels of ozone were forecast to occur. 17 These flights were designed to capture air quality 18 information aloft and near the edges of the modeling 19 domain. This figure shows some of the many flight paths 20 which were flown during morning on episode days. 21 --o0o-- 22 MODELING AND METEROLOGY BRANCH CHIEF DAMASSA: 23 The extensive monitoring network resulted in a substantial 24 improvement of the sheer volume of data collected. The 25 1990 SARMAP field measurement program took place over a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 159 1 two-month period and resulted in approximately 3 million 2 hourly average data values. In contrast, CCOS lasted four 3 months and resulted in 27 million hourly average data 4 values, or nine times the volume of data collected as 5 during the 1990 study. As you might imagine, significant 6 resources have been expended and continue for quality 7 assurance of those data. 8 As shown on the slide, 27 continuous upper air 9 meterological monitoring sites were in place during CCOS, 10 versus only seven during the 1990 study. Since these 11 instruments provide data at the surface analogue on a 12 continuous basis, they generate substantial amounts of 13 data and are largely responsible for the differences in 14 the number of data values between the two studies. 15 --o0o-- 16 MODELING AND METEROLOGY BRANCH CHIEF DAMASSA: 17 CCOS has also resulted in many improvements to the 18 emission inventory. The on-road and off-road inventories 19 are based on the latest emission factors as well as the 20 latest activity and population data. The on-road 21 inventory also utilizes local traffic count data. 22 Biogenic or natural emissions are estimated using a 23 comprehensive GIS-based approach. 24 --o0o-- 25 MODELING AND METEROLOGY BRANCH CHIEF DAMASSA: PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 160 1 Extensive quality checks have been made of facility, 2 staff, and location data for large point sources in the 3 region. In addition, the latest data on growth and 4 control have been incorporated into the inventory, and a 5 significant amount of day-specific information has been 6 collected and is being used for many source classes. 7 Emission estimates for a number of source 8 categories have been improved, including consumer products 9 and paint. Finally, the latest information is being used 10 on the chemical composition source emission. 11 --o0o-- 12 MODELING AND METEROLOGY BRANCH CHIEF DAMASSA: 13 The immediate focus is on the use of the CCOS modeling 14 results in the San Joaquin Valley ozone SIP, which is 15 expected to go to the district Board in December 2003. 16 Other SIPS in the region will be in 2004, as shown in this 17 slide. 18 --o0o-- 19 MODELING AND METEROLOGY BRANCH CHIEF DAMASSA: 20 Ozone modeling using the CCOS data and improvements is 21 currently in progress. The July 30th through August 2nd 22 episode is being developed and modeled to support the 23 upcoming San Joaquin Valley SIP. The peek observed one 24 hour ozone measurement in the region during the episode 25 was 151 parts per million. For reference, the national PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 161 1 one hour ozone standard is 120 parts per million. Peek 2 ozone levels in the San Joaquin Valley over the past three 3 summers have ranged from approximately 150 to 160 parts 4 per million. Thus, we believe that the July/August CCOS 5 episode will serve as a good basis for the upcoming 6 attainment demonstration. 7 --o0o-- 8 MODELING AND METEROLOGY BRANCH CHIEF DAMASSA: 9 This slide summarizes the peek ozone levels in the region 10 for the primary CCOS episodes of July 30th through August 11 2nd. Shown are the peek, second highest, and third 12 highest one hour ozone measurements for the Bay Area, 13 Sacramento area, and San Joaquin Valley. As shown in the 14 figure, all three areas experience ozone levels in excess 15 of the national one hour ozone standard of 120 parts per 16 million. 17 The 151 parts per million level ozone level in 18 the San Joaquin Valley was the highest level measured in 19 the CCOS region during this episode. 20 --o0o-- 21 MODELING AND METEROLOGY BRANCH CHIEF DAMASSA: As 22 I indicated previously, air quality modeling of the 23 July/August CCOS episode is under way. The historical 24 episode has been modeled, and an evaluation is in progress 25 to verify that the model adequately reproduces historical PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 162 1 conditions. This evaluation consists a number of checks, 2 including a comparison of model predictions against 3 observations, checking the emissions and meterological 4 inputs for reasonableness, and statistical and graphical 5 checks for model inputs and outputs. 6 We anticipate that preliminary modeling results 7 will be available in early August and that final modeling 8 results will be available in early September. Final 9 modeling will include upwind reductions. 10 --o0o-- 11 MODELING AND METEROLOGY BRANCH CHIEF DAMASSA: 12 I'd like to conclude my presentation with the following 13 summary of point. The upcoming one hour ozone SIP for the 14 San Joaquin Valley will utilize the July 30th through 15 August 2nd, 2000, CCOS episode. The staff believes that 16 use of the CCOS data and air quality modeling will provide 17 the best possible science in support of the ozone plan. 18 Previous modeling simulations using the 1990 episode have 19 shown the need for substantial new reductions by 2010. 20 And we have seen nothing so far that would lead us to any 21 alternative conclusion. Finally, the preliminary modeling 22 results in August will provide a range of emission 23 reduction targets for NOx and VOCs and will help target 24 the final attainment strategy. 25 Thank you, and that concludes my presentation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 163 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, John. 2 Again, I think there's a few models that have 3 greater expectation than this model. So the advance 4 billing is certainly very great. So no pressure intended. 5 MODELING AND METEROLOGY BRANCH CHIEF DAMASSA: 6 None taken. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: But I think it's a great 8 study, and I'm looking forward to that. 9 Any questions or comments from my colleagues? 10 Thank you very much? We have -- 11 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I just might say, 12 Mr. Chairman, when we did this in Southern California, it 13 was very exciting. But this obviously is a much more 14 intense study. So I'm a little bit jealous. And maybe 15 you should all come back down south after you finish this 16 one. 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We'll be there in 18 September. 19 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Anyway, I appreciate what 20 you've done. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We'll have to remind Dr. 22 Burke that San Joaquin is leading in the modeling arena. 23 We do have someone signed up here. I don't quite 24 understand -- Saffet Tannikulu. Is such a person here? 25 He has left us. He has left the Air Board. But if he had PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 164 1 the courage to come down and face the Board, I'll give him 2 time. 3 MR. TANNIKULU: Thank you, Dr. Lloyd and members 4 of the Board. I will be brief. My name is Saffet 5 Tannikulu. I'm with the Bay Area Air Quality Management 6 District. I need to get used to that. 7 Our district has great interest in and 8 expectations from the CCOS. From the beginning of the 9 study, the Bay Area has participated in CCOS activities. 10 We have members in the Board Technical and Policies 11 Committees. We contributed about $1.3 million toward the 12 field program. We're participating in analysis and 13 modeling effort that John Damassa described. Our goal is 14 to provide the best technical information to decision 15 makers in developing SIPS and related regulations. 16 While we are working closely with ARB and the 17 Technical and Policy Committees over the largest CCOS 18 domain, we also pay attention to complexities in the Bay 19 Area. As you know, the San Francisco air basin has 20 complex meterology and emissions. Therefore, more 21 detailed analysis and high resolution modeling is needed 22 there. Our in-house modeling team and also our contractor 23 are studying the details of meterology emissions and 24 information in the Bay Area, and we're using one kilometer 25 for resolution as opposed to four kilometers for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 165 1 resolution that CCOS is using. 2 We have established a Modeling Advisory Committee 3 to review our work. And the members of this Committee 4 consist of representatives from ARB, neighboring 5 districts, U.S. EPA, NPC, and industry. As part of our 6 work, we are reviewing and analyzing CCOS data from the 7 larger domain. We believe the CCOS will greatly benefit 8 from our participation on the large domain CCOS effort as 9 well as the Bay Area focused study. 10 We're committed to supporting CCOS and 11 collaborating with ARB, neighboring districts, and CCOS 12 participants. This is a challenging project. Thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Thank you again 14 for your work at ARB. We miss you here. 15 Let me get something straight. Are you saying 16 that you're also overviewing the CCOS modeling that the 17 staff is doing? 18 MR. TANNIKULU: We are participating in the CCOS 19 effort, and also we are taking the CCOS effort -- 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: But you got an independent 21 review advisory group reviewing your modeling. 22 MR. TANNIKULU: Yes. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Are they also reviewing CCOS 24 modeling as well as what we're doing? 25 MR. TANNIKULU: I believe so. About 80 or 90 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 166 1 percent of the members are the same. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So why do you feel it's 3 necessary to have a separate group on behalf of the Bay 4 Area to review the work that we're doing jointly? It 5 implies that there's some distrust. 6 MR. TANNIKULU: Well, as I mentioned, our purpose 7 is to look at Bay Area specific issues. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: No. I understand that for 9 the Bay Area and why you need a resolution there. You've 10 clearly gone through the Bay Area school. So I understand 11 that issue. But the issue where we have in common here 12 about looking all at this whole CCOS region, there's an 13 implication here, well, you know, we're team players but 14 we're not. Because I don't see the San Joaquin having a 15 same separate modeling group to do the same thing. 16 MR. TANNIKULU: It is not our intention -- 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: It may not be your intention, 18 but the implication it's the -- I'm getting that 19 impression. So maybe you should carry that back to some 20 of your colleagues that maybe we need to look at that 21 carefully. Because I don't think that's the intent. I 22 hope it's not the intent. But when you've got independent 23 advisory groups going in, we'll have the battle of the 24 models again. And that doesn't help us. 25 MR. TANNIKULU: I thought Bay Area thought it may PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 167 1 be a way of looking at in-depth issues in the Bay Area but 2 we're team player and -- 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: No. I agree with you 4 completely on the Bay Area, looking that the segment. 5 When you said you're going to have the same group looking 6 over the whole model, as if implying now you're looking at 7 how appropriate is the model for San Joaquin -- we already 8 have a group doing that. That was my concern. Any 9 other -- thank you, and we miss you. 10 MR. TANNIKULU: Thank you. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So again, thank staff very 12 much, and we're very really look forward to that program. 13 So seeing nobody signed up for the open comment period, 14 with that, I'd like to bring the June 26th meeting of the 15 California Air Resources Board to a close and thank our 16 host for excellent facilities for today. Thank my 17 colleagues. And I guess with the understanding we'll be 18 back down here for the ozone plan. 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes. We don't 20 know the exact month, but we try to adopt the local 21 districts plan in the local districts. 22 We do have a long meeting in July. We just want 23 to prepare you. We did pull for availability on Friday to 24 do a two-day meeting, and because we don't have a quorum 25 on Friday, we're going to have to run long on Thursday. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 168 1 So if you will be prepared to take very late planes out on 2 Thursday, we'll be able to get through our substantive 3 calendar in July. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Because one item -- that's a 5 discussion of the report on 2076. 6 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: At the moment we 7 have four items which are each three to four hours long. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think we ought to think 9 about that seriously. I have to take a very, very late 10 plane or stay overnight. 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We did put on 12 Friday availability, but we couldn't get a quorum, which 13 is why we're looking at well into the evening on Thursday. 14 If that changes -- if telling you that changes some of 15 your plans and we could have a Friday quorum, please 16 communicate that to Charlotte. 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Matt was saying maybe if 18 it's in Monterey. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: But it is in Sacramento. 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: It's in 21 Sacramento at the moment. But if you want me to look at 22 alternative locations -- 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, you have a train. I 24 think if there's some commitment, we'll have a quorum on 25 Friday. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 169 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We have the major 2 industries and their ability to get there too, the trash 3 truck rule, the diesel fuel rule, the fee rule, and the 4 petroleum dependence report. Each one of those is about 5 three hours. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That's the report we're 7 talking about putting Les out of business. He's not 8 listening. We're discussing a report next month which is 9 going to put you out of business. Thank you very much. 10 (Thereupon the California Air Resources Board 11 adjourned at 1:55 p.m.) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 170 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 I, TIFFANY C. KRAFT, a Certified Shorthand 3 Reporter of the State of California, and Registered 4 Professional Reporter, do hereby certify: 5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 6 foregoing hearing was reported in shorthand by me, 7 Tiffany C. Kraft, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the 8 State of California, and thereafter transcribed into 9 typewriting. 10 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 11 attorney for any of the parties to said hearing nor in any 12 way interested in the outcome of said hearing. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 14 this 8th day of July, 2003. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR 24 Certified Shorthand Reporter 25 License No. 12277 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345