1 MEETING 2 BEFORE THE 3 CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BOARD HEARING ROOM 11 2020 L STREET 12 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 THURSDAY, JULY 20, 2000 20 9:30 A.M. 21 22 23 24 Janet H. Nicol Certified Shorthand Reporter 25 License Number 9764 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii 1 APPEARANCES 2 MEMBERS PRESENT: 3 Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D., Chairman William Burke 4 Joseph C. Calhoun Dee Dee D'Adamo 5 C. Hugh Friedman William F. Friedman, MD 6 Matt McKinnon Barbara Riordan 7 8 STAFF: 9 Michael Kenny, Executive Director Mike Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer 10 Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer Kathleen Tschogl, Ombudsman 11 Kathleen Walsh, General Counsel 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii 1 INDEX PAGE 2 Proceedings 1 3 Call to Order 1 4 Pledge of Allegiance 1 5 Roll Call 1 6 Opening Remarks by Chairman Lloyd 2 7 AGENDA ITEMS: 8 00-7-1 Public Meeting to Consider a Draft Report: Planned Air Pollution Research Fiscal Year 9 2000-2001 10 Introductory Remarks by Chairman Lloyd 9 11 Staff Presentation Mike Kenny 10 12 Stephen Brown 17 13 Presentation by John Peters 21 14 Questions/Comments 30 15 00-7-2 Public Meeting to Present Information on 16 ARB's Statewide Toxics and Community Health Programs 17 Introductory Remarks by Chairman Lloyd 39 18 Staff Presentation 19 Mike Kenny 40 Linda Murchison 41 20 Public Comments 21 Paula Forbis 63 Carlos Porras 67 22 Questions/Comments 69 23 24 (continued) 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv 1 INDEX (continued) 2 PAGE 00-7-3 Public Meeting to Present Information on 3 the Status of the Implementation of the California Phase 3 Reformulated Gasoline 4 (CaRFG3) Regulations 5 Remarks by Chairman Lloyd 253 6 00-7-4 Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of 7 Proposed Amendments to the Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure - Asbestos-Containing 8 Serpentine 9 Introductory Remarks by Chairman Lloyd 75 10 Staff Presentation Mike Kenny 77 11 Carolyn Suer 79, 87 Melanie Marty (OEHHA) 83 12 Victor Douglas 93 Kathleen Tschogl 106 13 Public Comments 14 Jim Davis 116 Charles Rea 123 15 Paul Lessard 129 Wayne Bloechl 141 16 Daniel Ziarkowski 144 Larry Weitzman 145 17 Arnold Den 152 Michael Brady 154 18 Brian McDermott 157 Denise Jones 166 19 Jim Hatler 170 Larry Appleton 173 20 Virginia Crespo 175 Steven Proe 178 21 Melissa Vargas 181 Mark Pawlicki 184 22 Melinda Terry 190 Freda Pechner 192 23 Robert Reynolds 197 Julia Turney 202 24 Lance McMahan 204 25 (continued) PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 v 1 INDEX (continued) 2 PAGE Public Comments (continued) 3 Art Marinaccio 205 Joe Vargas 213 4 Bonnie Holmes Gen 215 Mark Harrison 218 5 Ron Churchill 225 Alice Howard 230 6 Janet Hathaway 232 Terry Trent 235 7 Raymond Oliva 236 Kevin Long 241 8 Questions/Comments 244 9 Adjournment 253 10 Certificate of Reporter 254 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Good morning. The July 20th, 3 2000, public meeting of the Air Resources Board will now 4 come to order. 5 We start off with the Pledge of Allegiance, and 6 would Dr. Friedman please lead us. 7 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Please join in. 8 (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 10 Will the clerk of the board please call the roll. 11 MS. KAVAN: Dr. Burke. 12 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Here. 13 MS. KAVAN: Calhoun. 14 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Here. 15 MS. KAVAN: D'Adamo. 16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here. 17 MS. KAVAN: Supervisor DeSaulnier. 18 (No response.) 19 MS. KAVAN: Professor Friedman. 20 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Here. 21 MS. KAVAN: Dr. Friedman. 22 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Here. 23 MS. KAVAN: McKinnon. 24 (No response.) 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: He's here. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 MS. KAVAN: Supervisor Patrick. 2 (No response.) 3 MS. KAVAN: Riordan. 4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. 5 MS. KAVAN: Supervisor Roberts. 6 (No response.) 7 MS. KAVAN: Chairman Lloyd. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Here. 9 I think Mr. McKinnon is on his way. 10 Three items I want to briefly cover today before 11 we begin the agenda. 12 The first item concerns diesel retrofits. 13 As you know, the transit rule we adopted in 14 February includes a provision for retrofitting all existing 15 diesel-powered public transit buses over the next five 16 years. 17 The $50 million diesel school bus clean-up program 18 approved by Governor Davis this budget year also has a large 19 retrofit element. 20 Finally, the draft diesel risk reduction plan 21 released by staff last week for public comment recommends a 22 comprehensive retrofit program for the 1.25 million on- and 23 off-road diesel engines in California. 24 Pretty ambitious target, but a needed one. 25 In fact, retrofit control technology is an PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 essential element of that plan, so there's actually a lot of 2 activity going on. 3 To bring some order to this process and increase 4 our chance of success, I asked staff to compile these 5 efforts into a single in-use diesel retrofit plan, and there 6 should be a copy in front of you today. 7 I have also created an International Diesel 8 Retrofit Advisory Committee to help identify diesel engine 9 types that have already been successfully retrofitted to 10 design demonstration programs where viability still needs to 11 be established and to advise us on the best way to implement 12 retrofits as rapidly and as effective as possible. 13 I'm pleased to announce that eight distinguished 14 experts in vehicle pollution have agreed to join the 15 committee. They are: 16 Lennart Erlandsson, manager of air quality 17 structural projects, MTC AB Sweden. 18 Dr. Axel Friedrich, head of Division of 19 Environment and Transport, Umweltbundesamt, which is the 20 German EPA. 21 Dr. Richard Gibbs, director, Bureau of Mobile 22 Sources, New York Department of Environmental Conservation. 23 And those of you who have been following the issue with the 24 order to retrofit buses in New York, Dr. Gibbs is playing a 25 fundamental part in that program. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 Dr. Timothy Johnson, manager, Emerging 2 Technologies and Regulations, Corning. 3 Glenn Keller, Executive Director, Engine 4 Manufacturers Association. 5 Dr. Robert Sawyer, as you all know, professor at 6 graduate school UC Berkeley. 7 Allen Schaeffer, currently with the Diesel 8 Technology Forum. 9 And Michael Walsh, international consultant on 10 vehicle pollution. 11 I have also discussed this with Dr. Burke, and he 12 will be appointing a representative from the South Coast, so 13 that in fact the South Coast districts and the ARB's efforts 14 will be well coordinated. 15 Along those lines, our respective staffs just got 16 together to talk about the school bus demonstration program 17 that is already underway. 18 To round out the committee, we will also be 19 seeking participation from other interested parties, 20 including environmental groups, fuel providers and engine 21 and equipment users. 22 Secondly, I'd like to report on two visits that I 23 went on this last month, and that was to share some 24 recollections of visits to Lake County and Owens Valley. 25 These are truly unique local air districts each in their own PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 special way. 2 Lake County, which I visited on June 28th, has the 3 distinction of being California's only 100 percent 4 attainment district, and they're very proud of that fact. 5 They in fact meet all the federal and state standards and 6 they have done that for ten years. And they are absolutely 7 committed to staying that way. It was actually very great 8 fun to share in the celebration of the anniversary as an air 9 district there. And again I was impressed by the commitment 10 from and the cooperation between the regulated community and 11 also the regulators. 12 Then on the other extreme, Owens Valley in the 13 Great Basin Unified Air District has one of the worst 14 particulate matter problems in the country and an extremely 15 challenging pollution source, a dry lakebed. However, they 16 are applying tremendous technical skills and resources to 17 the problem in coming up with truly innovative solutions. 18 I would recommend to the board if you're ever in 19 that area or want a tour, they've invited you down there to 20 look at that. 21 And my visit there on July 7th was very simulating 22 and informative and looking at the progress I think that, 23 Ms. Riordan, if you were there to see some of the salt 24 glasses, how that's emerging, and one of the facts that will 25 still remain with me is use of technology that from an PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 Indian satellite at 18,000 miles they could detect a leak in 2 the water pipe, two-inch water pipe from that thing. To me, 3 that was truly remarkable. But that was just one of the 4 examples where they're using some of the technologies. 5 And the other part I would mention to you all, you 6 see some of the EVs outside and I would encourage everybody 7 to go out and take a look at those. I think we've got some 8 of the Ford vehicles, we've got the Nissan hyper minis, 9 we've got the Toyota Econs. I thought looking from my 10 balcony that there may be a Prius out there. So it's pretty 11 exciting range of technology that we see and I encourage you 12 all to go out and see what's going on. 13 I think the last item is more personal and close 14 to home. Today is the final meeting that we will benefit 15 from Pat Hutchens' distinguished service as our board clerk. 16 Pat has decided to join the growing legion of happy, young 17 retirees who have the good sense to leave state service 18 while they can still thoroughly enjoy their leisure. I know 19 I speak for all of us when I say we're jealous, we will miss 20 you, and we wish you the best of luck. 21 I believe Mr. Kenny also has some remarks, and I'd 22 like to pass it to him at this time. 23 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like 24 to add a few remarks. 25 Pat has been the clerk of the board for over nine PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 years, and in those nine years, which are probably the 2 longest tenure for any clerk of the board, the board has 3 seen an incredible number of very controversial and 4 contentious items come before it. 5 One of the things that actually is always amazing 6 is how smoothly all of those different board items have run. 7 And really kind of the key behind that has been Pat. 8 It's amazing to sort of think about this entire 9 process that we have before us on a monthly basis, and the 10 complications that are essentially associated with it are 11 often not very visible. The main reason for that is kind of 12 the work that Pat puts in ahead of time. 13 And it's very hard work. All of us here at this 14 front table are very familiar with the logistics meetings 15 that she puts on. Those logistics meetings are really the 16 key for making sure that in fact what comes before you is a 17 smooth, clean, very informative presentation. Pat really 18 has been kind of the heart and soul behind that. 19 I also want to mention that Pat has been with the 20 state for over 34 years, I mean almost 35 years, and she has 21 spent a lot of time -- 22 MS. HUTCHENS: You had to bring that up. 23 MR. KENNY: I wasn't supposed to say that? She 24 started when she was ten. 25 And she's done great work throughout her history. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 She's been with the Air Resources Board since the 2 mid '80s and so she actually knows this board very well, and 3 she knows the work that this board does. 4 And she actually I think is looking forward to the 5 future in terms of probably having a little bit more relaxed 6 lifestyle and not have the contention and some of the issues 7 that we face on a daily basis. 8 The other thing I want to mention is that Pat was 9 the clerk of the board when the Environmental Policy Council 10 met, and so she was one of the key elements in terms of like 11 handling all the issues that arose before the Environmental 12 Policy Council, including the issues associated with MTBE, 13 and obviously that was a very difficult process. 14 And so I think it's really important that we 15 acknowledge Pat's contributions and her efforts and her hard 16 work and simply what I'd like to add is a very heartfelt 17 thank you. 18 Thanks, Pat. 19 (Applause.) 20 MS. HUTCHENS: Well, I don't do speeches, but let 21 me just say it's been a pleasure, and it's been very 22 interesting to watch the board in action over the years. 23 And I'm just glad that our air is in such good hands. 24 Thank you. 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, Pat. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 I must say, though, I don't know whether you 2 realize that in October we're meeting in Santa Barbara. You 3 might have held on a little bit longer. 4 MS. HUTCHENS: I went down for a site visit. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 6 We move on to the official agenda, and I would 7 like to remind anyone in the audience who wishes to testify 8 on today's agenda items to please sign up with the staff 9 outside the hearing room. 10 Also, if you have a written statement, please give 11 30 copies, if you can, to the staff. 12 The first item on the agenda today is 00-7-1, the 13 board's planned air pollution research for fiscal year 14 2000-2001. 15 The projects proposed in this report were reviewed 16 by the board's Research Screening Committee on May 26th. 17 I want to take this opportunity to welcome members 18 of the committee to the annual joint meeting. We will have 19 an opportunity to introduce you individually in a few 20 moments. 21 I also want to comment on the fact that we had a 22 very nice breakfast together this morning, so we got some 23 chance to talk informally. 24 As you know, this committee was established by law 25 to advise the board as we develop and implement our research PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 program and to recommend for approval the research proposals 2 that best serve ARB's needs and objectives. 3 This research plan is developed annually to ensure 4 that it reflects the board's current priorities. 5 At this point, I think I would like to turn it 6 over to Mr. Kenny to introduce the item and also to 7 introduce the RSC. 8 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of 9 the board. 10 Today we want to present for your consideration 11 the board's proposed research plan for the next fiscal year. 12 This research plan was developed over the course of 13 approximately ten months by the staff, with the assistance 14 of the Research Screening Committee. 15 We are very appreciative of the committee's 16 assistance. 17 At this point, though, I would like to introduce 18 Professor Hal Cota, who is the chairman of the Research 19 Screening Committee, and ask him to present the committee to 20 us and provide comments on this year's research highlights. 21 Professor. 22 DR. COTA: Thank you very much, Mr. Kenny. 23 Good morning, Chairman Lloyd and members of the 24 board. 25 It's a pleasure to join you again this year for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 our annual meeting. 2 First, I'd like to welcome back Bart Croes, back 3 to the Research Division, and thank him and his staff for 4 the efforts in providing the Research Screening Committee 5 with timely staff reviews. This helps our committee 6 evaluate research projects that come before us. 7 Let me now take the opportunity to introduce the 8 members of the committee. 9 I'll start with myself. I'm a professor of 10 environmental engineering at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. I 11 serve as director at USEPA's environmental training program, 12 whose mission is to train people who work for state, local 13 and federal regulatory agencies in air pollution control. 14 My main area of research interests is the chemical 15 engineering application of air pollution control. Currently 16 I'm involved in bioaerosol sampling methods. 17 I'd like to, since we're sitting in two locations 18 today, ask Mike at my right to go next and then John, and 19 they'll each introduce themselves. 20 DR. LIPSETT: Thank you, Hal. 21 I'm Michael Lipsett. I'm actually an ex officio 22 member of the committee. I'm a physician epidemiologist 23 with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 24 and responsible for doing air pollution epidemiology studies 25 and also for helping to develop the medical basis for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 California's ambient air quality standards. And hopefully 2 we'll begin to see some recommendations from our department 3 again for some of the standards. We're in the process of 4 reviewing, under SB 25, reviewing all of the ambient 5 standards to make recommendations for those standards that 6 do need to be revised over the course of the next few years. 7 I also teach epidemiology at UC San Francisco. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Is it right, Mike, that you are 9 also -- you have a law degree and a medical degree 10 doctorate? 11 DR. LIPSETT: Yes, that's correct. I don't flaunt 12 it. 13 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: It's a conflict. 14 DR. BALMES: I'm Dr. John Balmes. I'm a professor 15 of medicine at UCSF. I'm a pulmonary physician, chief of 16 the Division of Occupational Environmental Medicine at San 17 Francisco General Hospital. I do air pollution health 18 effects research both of controlled human exposure studies 19 where we put people in a chamber and look at acute effects 20 of air pollutants, and then I collaborate with 21 epidemiologists with regard to respiratory health effects of 22 air pollution. 23 DR. HILDEMANN: I'm Lynn Hildemann. I'm a 24 professor at Stanford University in environmental 25 engineering. I do research and teach in the area of air PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 pollution, and am especially interested in source emissions 2 and chemical characteristics of particulate matter. 3 DR. HOEKMAN: My name is Kent Hoekman. I've been 4 employed at Chevron for the past 20 years. I'm trained as 5 an organic chemist. Most of my work in the past 15 years 6 has been related to the impacts of fuels and emissions on 7 air quality. 8 DR. KOSHLAND: I'm Cathy Koshland. I'm a 9 professor at University of California at Berkeley in the 10 School of Public Health and Environmental Health Sciences, 11 and also in the Energy and Resources Group. And my research 12 areas are in toxic combustion byproducts, looking at the 13 ways in which toxic byproducts evolve and what kinds of 14 measures we can take to mitigate those within the combustion 15 process itself. I also have been involved in work in 16 industrial ecology and green design, linked to how we 17 utilize information about toxics in the design of new 18 processes and products. 19 DR. NAZAROFF: My name is Bill Nazaroff. I am 20 also on the faculty at the University of California at 21 Berkeley, where I am a professor in the College of 22 Engineering, the Department of Civil and Environmental 23 Engineering. And I serve there as the program leader in 24 environmental engineering. 25 My research interests are in the area of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 physics and chemistry of air pollutants, especially as those 2 affect human exposure, and I'm especially interested in 3 problems that occur in the indoor environment and what we 4 can do to mitigate exposures in that setting. 5 DR. WALTON: I'm Amy Walton, and I manage the 6 Environmental Technology Program at the Jet Propulsion 7 Laboratory. I guess my interactions with -- although I'm a 8 new member of the Research Screening Committee, my 9 interactions with the Air Resources Board go back to when I 10 was a student here in 1974, soon after it was formed, for a 11 summer, and that actually had put me on a trajectory where I 12 have been involved with environmental organizations and 13 technologies since. I look forward to working with you. 14 MR. ZELDIN: Good morning. I'm Mel Zeldin. I'm 15 an assistant deputy executive officer for Science and 16 Technology Advancement with South Coast AQMD. My 17 educational background is in meteorology. I also serve on 18 EPA's KSAC subcommittee on fine particulates, and the 19 Science Advisory Board's Ad Hoc Committee on Air Toxics 20 Monitoring. 21 DR. COTA: Another member of the committee could 22 not join us today. He is Forman Williams, professor of 23 engineering and physics and combustion at the University of 24 California San Diego. 25 He has conducted extensive research in the areas PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 of combustion and flame theory, and is an internationally 2 recognized expert in these fields. 3 As you've heard, the committee has a wide 4 technical background and has really tremendous experience 5 and expertise in health with the appointments, new 6 appointments, of Dr. Lipsett, and in indoor air quality 7 Drs. Hildemann and Nazaroff, and in economics Dr. Walton. 8 One of our important ongoing research projects is 9 the children's health study. We are all concerned about the 10 long-term health effects of children growing up in polluted 11 areas. 12 During the past year, additional results have come 13 in from this study, and the study actually was started nine 14 years ago in Southern California. Dr. John Peters from the 15 University of Southern California, and the principal 16 investigator of this study, is here today. He will update 17 us on the study's latest findings, following the staff 18 presentation. 19 Speaking on behalf of the committee, it's been a 20 pleasure to serve the board over the past year. The 21 expertise and dedication of the screening committee members 22 provide the staff and the board with the assurance that the 23 research projects brought before you have been peer reviewed 24 carefully. 25 Our committee has reviewed the research plan that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 you are considering today and we recommend that you approve 2 it. 3 I'd like to now turn the presentation back to 4 Mr. Kenny. 5 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Professor Cota. 6 One thing I would like to add is essentially the 7 invaluable service that the Research Screening Committee 8 does provide to this board. As you can see, it's a very 9 talented and very expert group of individuals in a number of 10 different fields. I think without them we would be at a 11 great loss. So I just want to really highlight the fact 12 that we really do rely upon them and depend upon them and 13 they perform actually fabulous work for us. 14 What I'd like to do now is actually describe the 15 research planning process a little bit and then we can move 16 to the research plan. 17 Briefly, the research planning process is as 18 follows. We have, throughout the board staff, research 19 teams that represent seven research categories in the plan. 20 These teams meet to develop and review staff research ideas 21 received from the public and submit priority projects to the 22 executive research review committee. This committee 23 consists of myself, Tom Cackette, Mike Scheible, Lynn Terry 24 and Bart Croes. 25 The task of the Executive Research Review PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 Committee is to decide which projects should be recommended 2 for funding. This year nine projects are recommended and 3 seven additional projects are recommended for funding if it 4 becomes available. 5 Research this year is focused on improvement of 6 emission inventories and exposure and health research. The 7 proposed extramural research budget for next fiscal year is 8 $3.9 million. The plan shows how the budget would be 9 allocated to the recommended projects in the various 10 research categories. 11 Another project I would like to mention that's not 12 included in the research plan, but is part of the total 13 research budget, is the study of portable classrooms we'll 14 be undertaking jointly with the Department of Health 15 Services. We hope to present this study proposal to the 16 board later this year. 17 Now what I'd like to do is introduce Dr. Stephen 18 Brown, and he will take us through next year's planned 19 research. 20 Dr. Brown. 21 DR. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. 22 Good morning, Chairman Lloyd, members of the 23 board, Chairman Cota and members of the committee. 24 We conduct a research program to support our clean 25 air programs in accordance with the California Health and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 Safety Code. The Mobile Source, Stationary Source, Planning 2 and Technical Support, and Research Divisions all work 3 together to design a research program, and each chairs one 4 of the research teams established by Mr. Kenny. 5 We also coordinate our research with the South 6 Coast Air Quality Management District and host a workshop to 7 solicit public comments. 8 This figure shows the Research Division budget, 9 which is just over $8 million. 10 As Mr. Kenny stated, the cost of the recommended 11 projects is about $4 million, representing about 50 percent 12 of the budget. 13 The remaining half of the budgets has three parts. 14 The first is a study of indoor environments and 15 portable classrooms to be conducted with the Department of 16 Health Services. 17 The second part is ongoing health studies, the 18 Children's Health Study and the Fresno Children's Asthma 19 Study. 20 The final part is the Innovative Clean Air 21 Technologies Program. 22 I would now like to give you an overview of how 23 the research program progresses. The projects that I will 24 mention are now in the conceptual stage. Once the research 25 plan is approved, these projects will be developed into PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 either requests for proposals or interagency agreements in 2 consultation with the Research Screening Committee. The 3 resulting proposals or agreements will be evaluated by staff 4 and presented to the Research Screening Committee for review 5 before they come to you for approval. 6 The report you received includes a summary, an 7 introduction that outlines the planning process, and 8 descriptions of the 16 proposed research projects. 9 As Mr. Kenny mentioned, this year we have nine 10 projects recommended for funding and seven projects that are 11 recommended if funding is available. 12 We have grouped the proposed project into research 13 categories as shown on this slide. Proceeding by research 14 categories, I will go through the nine recommended projects 15 for the year ahead. 16 Two projects are proposed in the first research 17 category, mobile sources. The first will examine variations 18 in source emissions and activity of the mobile source fleet 19 from weekday to weekend to help us understand why ozone is 20 higher on weekends in the South Coast air basin. 21 The second will measure emission rates and 22 activity associated with various evaporative processes for 23 off-road equipment, which are generally uncontrolled. 24 One toxic air contaminant project is proposed. 25 This project will develop a method to measure organic PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 compounds and particulate matter and evaluate whether 2 specific patterns of chemicals can be used as markers of 3 diesel and gasoline emissions. 4 There is one stationary source project. It will 5 develop an emissions test method for stationary and portable 6 engines. The population of these engines is estimated to be 7 over 25,000, and they are used in numerous applications such 8 as generation, pumping and emergency standby units. 9 This slide shows a portable engine that is used as 10 a generator. 11 Two regional air quality projects are proposed. 12 The first project will measure pollutants in 13 operating school buses and at school bus stops. This slide 14 shows the type of monitoring equipment that will be used in 15 the buses. The results from this study will be used to 16 identify children's pollutant exposure during school bus 17 travel. 18 The next project will improve our understanding of 19 personal exposure to particulate matter from outdoor and 20 indoor sources. 21 There is one economic project this year. This 22 project will estimate the economic benefits of air quality 23 regulations with a focus on jobs, businesses and growth. 24 The final project is in health research. It will 25 identify the mechanisms that cause or worsen the adverse PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 health effects of particulate matter. This slide is from 2 one of our ongoing research projects investigating injury 3 from particulate matter. It shows lung tissue in an animal 4 exposed to filtered air on the left, and a particle-exposed 5 animal on the right. Normal cells are green and injured 6 cells are red. Studies such as this have shown cell injury 7 from particulate exposure. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: What is the sort of particulate 9 loading for that? Is that a normal one or heavy? 10 FROM THE AUDIENCE: Moderate. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 12 DR. BROWN: This concludes my summary of the plan. 13 I would now like to introduce Dr. John Peters to update us 14 on findings from the Children's Health Study. 15 Dr. Peters received his medical degree from the 16 University of Utah and his master's of public health and 17 doctorate of science degrees from Harvard University. He 18 has been the principal investigator of this study since its 19 beginning in 1991. 20 Dr. Peters. 21 DR. PETERS: Thank you very much, Chairman Lloyd, 22 members of the board. 23 It is a scientific and professional privilege for 24 me to be here and tell you about the study that we've been 25 doing. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 And if all works well, there will be something on 2 the screen. 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Is your mike on, Dr. Peters? 4 DR. PETERS: Can you hear me? 5 I'm going to take a few minutes. About half of 6 the time I'll spend reminding everybody how we're doing this 7 study, and about half the time I'll take giving results that 8 have come from the study. 9 The first thing to note is that it is a study 10 conducted by the University of Southern California with some 11 help from others that you'll see in a moment, and supported 12 by the California Air Resources Board. 13 This I'm not going to go through this by 14 individual, but you can see that there are a large number of 15 people representing a wide variety of disciplines that have 16 been working on this project and make it possible to do what 17 we've been doing. 18 You'll also notice, if you look quickly, that 19 Helene Margolis and Dane Westerdahl from the Air Resources 20 Board have been working at the working level on this 21 project. 22 Some people don't realize that the 12 communities 23 in the Children's Health Study are in six counties over 24 quite a wide geographic distance with the center of where we 25 live right in here, going 200 miles in each direction to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 encompass the communities. And we had to do this, as some 2 of you remember, in order to get the full range of types and 3 levels of pollutant levels. 4 Now, just to remind you of what a lot of people 5 have known for 40 or 50 years, that Southern California air 6 pollution produces acute effects. 7 And what our study was intended to do -- next, 8 please -- is to determine whether chronic effects are being 9 produced. So that is the single most important part of the 10 project. 11 I remind you again it's a ten-year longitudinal 12 study based in schools. We are looking at exposure to air 13 pollutants in 12 communities, and there are three health 14 outcomes that are based on questionnaire information, 15 respiratory illnesses such as asthma and bronchitis, lung 16 function testing, which measures the capacity of the lung in 17 the growing children, and the school absence monitoring with 18 call-backs of parents to determine reasons for absences. 19 I'll tell you a little about each one of these 20 now. 21 Health assessments. Here is one of our subjects 22 blowing into a computerized barometer which measures the 23 capacity of the lung and the volumes of the lung and the 24 ability of the lung to exhale air forceably. 25 Next, please. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 The exposure assessment, just to briefly remind 2 you, we have one station per community. And I'll come back 3 to this in a moment, because this does not fully 4 characterize the exposure to all the individuals in the 5 communities. 6 We measure hourly ozone hourly NO2 and hourly 7 PM 10, and a special instrument was devised to measure two 8 weekly PM 2.5 with constituents, and two weekly acid vapor 9 concentrations, primarily nitric acid. 10 Exposure assessment at the personal level, again 11 acquired by questionnaire information. We want to know 12 where the children are, we want to know when they were 13 there, we want to know what they're doing as far as physical 14 activity exercise, and we want to know their residential 15 history. And all of this ties back to the ambient data 16 collected at the monitoring stations to give them the best 17 estimate we can of personal exposure. 18 Now, this is to remind you of the populations that 19 have been followed. The study began in 1993 with three 20 different age cohorts, age 10, 13 and 16. The intention was 21 to follow each one through high school. And this is 22 obviously the 16-year-old kids were followed for two years 23 and then they graduated. 13-year-old for five years and 24 graduated. The 10-year-olds we have just finished the 25 survey, average age 17 this year. There will be one more PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 year next year of data collection. 2 In 1996 we added 2,000 more children, 3 10-year-olds, and we will be following them with ARB support 4 through 2001 when they're age 15. 5 So I'll be talking about all those populations. 6 The first thing that I want to point out, and I 7 think this slide may not be totally clear, but the idea is 8 really quite clear, and that is that there are susceptible 9 subpopulations, not to surprise anybody, I think everybody 10 anticipated that, but this clearly demonstrates it. 11 Down here are non-asthmatic children and the 12 bronchitis rates in relation to pollution level. If 13 pollution is causing bronchitis, this line would be going 14 on. It doesn't cause bronchitis in non-asthmatics. 15 But look at the asthmatic children. We have a 16 very steep dose-response relationship with bronchitis and 17 bronchitic symptoms occurring in the asthmatics divided from 18 the rest of the population. 19 Another measure of bronchitis, phlegm production, 20 same sort of thing here. Non-asthmatics, nothing going on 21 down below. 22 So I think that's a very important finding and 23 certainly suggests that if we're going to protect the 24 population, we have to be thinking about the susceptible 25 subpopulation, and we may need to get down to levels lower PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 than currently exist to do that. 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Dr. Peters, you don't have the 3 PM 10. Would you expect any difference there for PM 2.5? 4 DR. PETERS: I'm going to show you a little bit 5 more with respect to a different measure of outcome. In 6 this case we're looking at one measure of pulmonary function 7 testing, how fast or how much volume you can blow out in one 8 second after taking a deep inspiration. What I'm showing 9 you here is the lung growth rate over a four-year period of 10 time by pollution level. 11 And the first thing that I want to show you is 12 that our leading candidate for producing health effects was 13 ozone, and there is no effect of ozone on lung growth rates 14 in the upper left-hand corner. 15 Now, that's in striking contrast to three other 16 pollution measurements, the PM 10 in the upper right corner, 17 the PM 10 minus PM 2.5 in the lower right-hand corner, and 18 NO2 in the lower left-hand corner, all with very very 19 similar results, almost identical results. So this was a 20 little bit of a surprise from our initial leading hypothesis 21 related to ozone. So it looks like NO2 and particles are 22 much more important in affecting the lung growth rate of 23 children in these 12 communities. 24 Now, as far as monitoring the acute respiratory 25 illness absence, I mention that we're looking at school PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 absences in schools and in calling back parents to find out 2 why the children are sick and what is wrong with them. I'm 3 just giving you one brief summary sentence here, and that is 4 that school absences are related to ozone exposure and they 5 increase as the ozone levels increase. 6 Next, please. 7 Now, the other thing that we thought was very 8 important, we have some children leaving the study. It's a 9 ten-year study and not everybody stays and we didn't expect 10 them to. We did follow up about a 180 children who had 11 moved to places in sufficient numbers that we could go find 12 them and measure them again. So we went to Seattle and 13 Portland and Phoenix and Salt Lake City and Las Vegas and 14 found 180 children, and we looked to see what happened if 15 they moved from more polluted to less polluted or less 16 polluted to more polluted, and the expected result occurred. 17 If you move from more polluted to less polluted there was 18 improvement in the lung function or the rate at which lung 19 function was being lost, and if you moved from less polluted 20 to more polluted it was worsening in the lung function 21 growth. 22 I think this helps add some important confirming 23 information to the measurements that were made on the 24 children that continued to live here. 25 Now, I wanted to point out something that I think PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 is very important, and that is this study was designed to 2 allow comparisons between and within communities. And what 3 I've shown you so far is really looking at comparisons 4 between communities, because we have only one monitoring 5 station and that's all we can do with that kind of data. 6 Within community comparisons we need to address 7 effects of personal exposure and local variation and things 8 like traffic patterns, traffic density, exposure to fresh 9 vehicle exhaust, might be very important and we are just 10 beginning to take a look at this issue and I'll just show 11 you a couple of things that emphasize the importance of this 12 approach. 13 Now, here's one of our communities, a map of one 14 of our communities showing five schools. This is San Dimas. 15 The red dots are the five schools in that community, high 16 school, middle school and three elementary schools. You can 17 see that if the laser pointer were working a little better 18 here's a freeway right here and there's one school very 19 close to the freeway. Here's another school close to the 20 freeway, more downwind. This is upwind. And then there are 21 couple of schools quite a ways away from the freeway upwind 22 and then one farther away from the freeway downwind. So you 23 can expect that the children that go to those schools might 24 have different local exposures. 25 And the next slide will show you that sorts of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 traffic density that exists in one of our communities. This 2 is Lompoc, one of our clean communities. There's at least a 3 ten-fold difference in exposure to traffic, to vehicle 4 exhaust levels according to traffic density by the schools. 5 So you can see that it's extremely important for 6 us to begin to understand what the children are exposed to 7 within communities. 8 And the point, the real point is that you can be 9 in one of the communities with very little pollution, 10 according to the ambient air monitoring station, and if you 11 live close to busy freeways you might be -- or busy roads 12 you might be exposed to more than somebody who is living far 13 from the busy roads in one of our more polluted communities. 14 So this is I think extremely important and we need 15 to get a better handle on this. 16 Next please. 17 Now, I've gone fast and I've told you quite a lot, 18 but for a ten-year study to be summarized in ten minutes is 19 not really easy, but here's what I think we've learned and 20 what we can go on at this point. 21 First point is that the study is not over, so that 22 none of the conclusions are final, but at the same time I 23 think we've got some very strong information that suggests 24 NO2 and PM and acid vapor are associated with slowed lung 25 function growth. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 And I might mention in response to Chairman 2 Lloyd's question that PM 2.5 did not seem to be any 3 different than PM 10 in these analyses. 4 And in the next point is children with asthma get 5 bronchitis when there is more PM or NO2. 6 Next point is school absences for respiratory 7 disease are associated with ozone exposure. 8 And the last point is the migration of subjects 9 has the expected effect on growth of lung function. 10 So as the study is being completed and as we 11 finish collecting the data, I think we'll have stronger 12 bases for inference and as we get a better idea of what's 13 happening within the communities, which I think is crucially 14 important, we'll have a better overall understanding of 15 what's happening to these children and what is producing the 16 effects that we're looking at. 17 Thank you. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed. 19 Board have any questions? 20 Dr. Friedman. 21 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: John, thank you very much. 22 I certainly think that what you showed us supports the 23 immense wisdom of the Research Screening Committee to 24 further spatially characterize the distribution of the 25 exposure distribution within communities and it should PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 substantially help in clarifying the major point that you 2 just made. 3 Thank you very much. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Other comments, questions? 5 I had a couple. 6 Again, I'd like to reiterate Dr. Friedman's point 7 there again. I was pleased that I was a member of the RSC 8 when we approved this project. And Dr. Holmes and his staff 9 and Dr. Croes and all the people involved, I think, should 10 be delighted, and I think Dane and Helene on that is very 11 very good. 12 The other part that I think that reminds us that 13 the reason we're in the business of regulating air pollution 14 is for public health. So I had a couple of questions. 15 One, when you talk about the children being away, 16 you said for respiratory reasons, do you have any sort of 17 fine structure there, people suffering, they really can't 18 run around, they stay in bed, do you have any more 19 information of why they're away from school? 20 DR. PETERS: I think that it's pretty clear that 21 it discommodes the family considerably to have a child sick 22 and not able to go to school. I think we're measuring 23 fairly significant events by the school absence monitoring. 24 And it's also our -- I didn't mention this, 25 because it would have taken more time to develop the point, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 but when we're examining the children at school, we ask 2 about respiratory illnesses when they're at the school, and 3 they have them and they still come to school. 4 I have respiratory illness today. I came to the 5 board. If it had been worse I would have stayed home. 6 So I think that there are several different levels 7 of the severity, but the absence monitoring I think picks up 8 quite a severe case to keep somebody out of school. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Has anybody else seen this or 10 these -- 11 DR. PETERS: I don't think anybody else has tried 12 to do something quite like this. There's, I think, there's 13 confirming evidence with slightly different approaches. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: The other part you made there was 15 the fact that ozone wasn't correlated with lung function and 16 lung growth, I guess. I know you said that could be a 17 little bit surprising. Do you see ozone causing any other 18 health-related problems? 19 DR. PETERS: Well, the ozone was the chief culprit 20 in the school absences. 21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: No. Besides that. 22 DR. PETERS: Not from our study. I think it 23 certainly has acute effects. The question is -- 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: You don't -- 25 DR. PETERS: -- does that result in chronic PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 effects. 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: You don't see it trigger any 3 problems or anything? 4 DR. PETERS: No. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: The other one I think again we 6 mentioned earlier, it was raised recently that may be adding 7 a senior component to this would address the issue of 8 growing concern about the impacts on seniors as well as, 9 obviously, young people. And I think a number of us are 10 more concerned about that these days. And would you like to 11 comment on in terms of whether you could add a senior 12 component to that and do you have any feeling -- 13 DR. PETERS: I think it's a very good idea, but 14 it's a much more complicated issue than children, and that's 15 one -- that's the main reason we picked children, I think 16 that Air Resources decided to do children. They don't 17 smoke, they've been in one place, they're more likely not to 18 move around when they were young. 19 If we could find a bunch of senior people that 20 hadn't moved and had not had hazardous occupations and if we 21 could -- identifying a cohort of people to study would be 22 the biggest trick and if we could do that I think there 23 would be a lot of important stuff that we could learn. 24 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, if I might, I 25 think I've said this before, but I'm hoping just to remind PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 those who are involved in the study, I think it would be 2 fascinating in recognize the difficulty -- I recognize the 3 difficulty and perhaps the lack of financing, but to follow 4 these people along as they begin their young adulthood and 5 then somehow have enough to retest at some point in time, I 6 think it would just be a fascinating study to see how they 7 progress, particularly those who are non-asthmatic versus 8 the asthmatic and their new locations, because many of them 9 may change from the South Coast basin to another area. 10 And I just would wish that there was some way that 11 we could just follow enough to make it a credible, a valid 12 study, but that would give us a little idea about what 13 happens in as these people mature and what problems do they 14 face, and some of those issues that might again get to the 15 more senior population, but not -- they might be a little 16 bit easier to follow just because they've become part of the 17 study and there's a bit of pride, at least I know that in 18 the case of the school that's from the area that I reside, 19 and to see what would, might be the case. 20 DR. PETERS: I think that's a very good idea, and 21 you don't need to talk us into that. We're already thinking 22 a lot about that, especially my younger colleagues, who 23 might be able to follow these children to adulthood. 24 And there are plans being made to -- lot of 25 thoughts being made to do this. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 The other thing I might have say is that we have 2 not lost the children that graduated at age 18, we have not 3 lost, we're staying in contact with them. We send them 4 annual questionnaires, update information, so we are in 5 contact, even though physically hands-on we're not doing 6 anything with them. 7 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I'm pleased, because I 8 think that's going to bring some interesting results. 9 DR. PETERS: Thank you. 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I don't know, Mr. Kenny, since 11 you've got RSC here, Professor Cota and his staff would like 12 to make any comments on the studies since they are obviously 13 keenly involved with it. 14 DR. COTA: I'll say we definitely are pleased with 15 what you've done and the results that have come in. 16 John, did you have -- 17 DR. BALMES: I was just going to say the same 18 thing. It's really gratifying to see results of the study 19 being published now and will lead to future work as several 20 of the board members have already suggested. 21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Again, I think I'd just like to 22 comment again, just reinforce is the importance of 23 controlling pollution, the relationship with public health, 24 and as other debates progress in Washington about the need 25 for standards, some of the attack on the health basis of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 air quality standards, I think it's -- I think I'm 2 particularly proud to see that California is in fact 3 developing the database to make sure that we continue to 4 defend that approach and understand. So it's a great thing. 5 I think the other part of that is I think is the 6 whole issue, go back as the Research Screening Committee 7 introduced itself today, I'm delighted to see the caliber of 8 people that we have working with us both here and on the 9 SRP. And my mind goes back as we travel outside of 10 California, and it's the feeling that maybe what we're doing 11 in California is way out there. Again, I'm reassured not 12 only we're not way out there, we're in fact being extremely 13 responsive to protecting public health and we have the 14 technical and scientific data to back it up. 15 I'm tremendously proud to have us be part of this 16 overall program. 17 And, Dr. Peters, you and your colleagues, and I 18 know there are many there, are to be congratulated. And 19 again I really appreciate the work the RSC is doing and we 20 look forward to continuing a strong input from you. 21 And I'd also say I like the idea that with our 22 sister here with Mike Lipsett representing OEHHA, I think 23 this has also added a dimension to us that was necessary. 24 So with that, do any of the board members have any 25 other questions? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 DR. PETERS: Could I just add that I'm very very 2 grateful to the board and RSC for supporting this in the way 3 that it's been done. And it really has been a professional 4 highlight for me to be involved in the studies. It's been 5 really very exciting. And I think hopefully it's all going 6 to pay off as you've described. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: It really helps us, Dr. Peters, 8 when you actually bring something forward so when we go to 9 the Legislature asking for more dollars, we don't need to 10 convince them. We can all see the benefits of these 11 programs. 12 And Dr. Burke, a lot of this is in Dr. Burke's 13 district, sure is going to be extremely helpful. I guess 14 even getting up to San Luis Obispo and down to San Diego, so 15 there's a lot of interest there. 16 So if you had no other questions, I guess we don't 17 have any -- 18 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I just want to 19 clarify what are the counties, I think you mentioned six. 20 I'm really new on the board and I wasn't sure. I asked 21 Dr. Bill Friedman whether San Diego was included and he 22 wasn't certain. 23 DR. PETERS: San Diego, yes. Riverside, San 24 Bernardino, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo. 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Orange, Riverside. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 DR. PETERS: And Los Angeles. Got them. I think 2 that was six. Hope it was. 3 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: That was six. 4 DR. PETERS: At least. 5 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: One half of which was in the 6 South Coast. 7 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Thank you. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 9 Mr. Kenny, do you have any comments? 10 MR. KENNY: Nothing further. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Since this is not a regulatory 12 item, it's not necessary to officially close the record. 13 However, we do have a resolution before the board. 14 So if you'd take a chance to look at the 15 resolution, number 00-26, containing staff recommendations. 16 Do we have a motion and a second? 17 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: So moved. 18 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Second. 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Dr. Friedman, Professor Friedman 20 seconded. 21 All in favor say aye. 22 (Ayes.) 23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Unanimous. 24 Thank you very much. 25 And again thank you very much to all the Research PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 Screening Committee members. We appreciate it. 2 I know you've got a full day ahead of you now. 3 I guess we will wait for staff to change out 4 before we get on to our next item, which is on ARB's 5 statewide community health programs. 6 (Pause in proceedings.) 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Maybe we can continue on the next 8 item. This is agenda item 00-7-2, concerning ARB's 9 statewide community health program. 10 While the board deals with many technical 11 regulatory issues, our most basic objective is to protect 12 the health of all Californians. 13 To accomplish this objective we need to think 14 about the cumulative public health impacts of air pollution 15 in various communities and neighborhoods. In particular we 16 need to pay special attention to adverse effects on the most 17 vulnerable population, people in our state, children, 18 infants and the elderly. 19 It's hard to distinguish community health programs 20 from all other ARB activities since in a way virtually 21 everything we do ultimately affects one locality or another, 22 but when you step outside individual programs and 23 regulations, look at things from each community's point of 24 view, priorities may be somewhat different and the gap 25 between what we've accomplished and what we still need to do PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 takes on a new perspective. 2 I'm sure the entire board will be very interested 3 in hearing about staff's efforts in this area, as well as 4 how the ARB is preparing to meet this difficult challenge in 5 the 21st century. 6 Mr. Kenny, would you please introduce the next 7 item and introduce staff. 8 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of 9 the board. 10 The development of neighborhood and community air 11 pollution programs represents a new direction in the ARB's 12 approach to dealing with the effects of air pollution on 13 public health in California. 14 Traditionally, our air quality programs have 15 focused on the regional impacts of individual air 16 pollutants. For example, over the years there have been 17 many statewide or regional studies and plans aimed at 18 reducing ozone levels in the air, and its associated health 19 risks. 20 While this approach is essential for improving air 21 quality and attaining air quality standards, we can't lose 22 sight of the fact that Californians are exposed to a wide 23 variety of toxic air pollutants from numerous sources on a 24 daily basis. 25 The only way to address the overall impacts of air PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 pollution is to examine the cumulative effects of air 2 pollutants on individuals at the community or neighborhood 3 level. This approach will require a level of refinement to 4 the art and science of air pollution control not previously 5 attempted. 6 Our goal is simple, to reduce the overall hazard 7 posed by toxic air pollutants in the day-to-day lives of 8 Californians, whether that be outside, indoors or even while 9 they're driving their cars. 10 And with that, what I'd like to do is turn the 11 staff presentation over to Dr. Linda Murchison. 12 Dr. Murchison. 13 DR. MURCHISON: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. 14 Good morning, Chairman Lloyd and members of the 15 board. 16 I'm here today to share with you a new and 17 exciting program, one that is focused on California's 18 communities and the individuals that live in them. 19 This program represents a major addition to our 20 statewide programs. While we remain concerned with 21 statewide trends and risk reduction, we are now beginning to 22 study how multiple pollutants from multiple sources add up 23 to have a health impact on individuals in our communities 24 and especially on our children and the elderly. 25 Our goal is simple, to ensure that all individuals PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 in California, especially the children and elderly, can 2 live, work and play in a healthful environment, free from 3 harmful exposure to air pollution. 4 To accomplish this aggressive goal, we have an 5 aggressive new agenda which will consist of new, innovative 6 ways to assess the impact of air pollution on people. 7 Specifically, we are proposing to, for the first 8 time, look at cumulative impacts from all air pollutants and 9 all sources including neighborhood-size businesses; to 10 include the indoor air component in our assessment to 11 understand what people are exposed to; to develop new tools 12 and methods to assess cumulative impacts such as the 13 neighborhood scale emission inventories and air dispersion 14 and cumulative risk models; to implement micro scale 15 monitoring in selected communities to help us understand the 16 role of small neighborhood businesses; and, lastly, to begin 17 looking at cumulative risk reduction strategies, an approach 18 we have not previously taken. 19 All of our efforts will involve participation from 20 community leaders and concerned citizens, as well as 21 environmental groups, local air pollution control agencies, 22 the US EPA and the regulated industry. 23 Now that I've given you an overview of what this 24 new program is all about, I'd like to spend some time 25 discussing what the program consists of. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 This community health program is really comprised 2 of many different aspects of our work here at ARB and can be 3 divided into three general areas. 4 The first area is identifying and understanding 5 air pollution's health effects. ARB has a very active 6 research program underway to understand the health effects 7 of air pollution exposure, and many of these studies target 8 children, the elderly and other vulnerable populations in 9 our communities. 10 The second area is assessing public health risk in 11 individual communities. This area is the heart of the 12 program and will give us a better understanding of total 13 exposure of community residents to air toxics and other 14 pollutants from all sources. 15 The third area is reducing the public risk found 16 in the communities. The information we gain from the 17 community studies will help us select control measures and 18 strategies to reduce community exposures to air pollution. 19 The cornerstone of these efforts is the proposed plan to 20 reduce the health risk from particulate matter from diesel 21 engines. 22 I will now go into each of these areas in more 23 detail. 24 The first area I will discuss is the 25 identification of the health effects of air pollutants. A PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 number of studies are being conducted to help us understand 2 the link between air pollution and community health 3 problems. For example, the ARB's Children's Health Study is 4 assessing the health effects of long-term exposure of 5 children to Southern California's mix of air pollutants. 6 For this study, 5,000 children in 12 communities have been 7 followed annually for up to ten years. Results thus far 8 have shown a correlation between lower lung function and 9 poorer air quality. 10 Also, ARB's Childhood Asthma Study is about to 11 begin in Fresno. This project will focus on childhood 12 asthma and how air pollution exposures impact progression 13 and severity of asthma in children. One concern that is 14 addressed by this study is the possibility that short-term 15 responses to air pollution may worsen this disease with 16 time. 17 The ARB is also funding a study to look at the 18 effects of air pollution on the development and progression 19 of heart disease, particularly in the elderly. 20 Finally, the ARB, in coordination with the Office 21 of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, or OEHHA, will 22 review our existing air quality standards to determine 23 whether they protect infants and children. 24 The second area of our community health program 25 addresses how communities will be assessed in terms of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 air quality and risk for disease. 2 Our community assessment activities are grouped 3 into four components, which I'll discuss in more detail in 4 the following slides. These components are the neighborhood 5 assessment program, the community-based air toxic 6 evaluations, the children's environmental health program, 7 and indoor air and personal exposure programs. 8 Under the neighborhood assessment program, the ARB 9 is for the first time developing guidelines for evaluating 10 cumulative impacts in the neighborhood. These guidelines 11 will include technical tools for assessing cumulative 12 exposures in health risk that could be used in any community 13 statewide and will enable the ARB to identify sources of air 14 emissions and estimate the exposure to air pollutants and 15 associated risk. 16 Moreover this work will allow us to compare 17 exposures between communities within a region or statewide. 18 The guidelines and technical tools will help state, local 19 decision makers and citizens with better information on 20 neighborhood exposure and health risk. 21 The ARB's new community-based air toxic 22 evaluations will expand our ability to assess cumulative air 23 toxic exposures by building upon the tools developed under 24 the neighborhood assessment program. Community leaders, 25 local air districts and other stakeholders will be invited PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 to participate in the evaluation process. The evaluations 2 will include additional air monitoring data and community 3 level emission inventories, which will help fill in the gaps 4 in regional and statewide data. 5 Cancer risk and other health effects will be 6 evaluated and risk reduction strategies will be developed at 7 the state or local level. 8 Our first comprehensive community-based evaluation 9 is already underway in the Barrio Logan community of San 10 Diego, which is the pilot study for many of our community 11 health efforts. 12 An aerial photograph of this community is out in 13 the lobby and we invite you to stop by and visit that later 14 today. 15 Last year the ARB, in cooperation with the San 16 Diego Air Pollution Control District and the Environmental 17 Health Coalition, began a one-year monitoring project in 18 Barrio Logan in response to community concerns. We are 19 developing a complete neighborhood emission inventory of 20 known air toxics from all sources in the neighborhood to 21 determine the cumulative exposure and associated health 22 risks. 23 We are particularly concerned with situations as 24 shown in this slide where businesses are literally next door 25 to homes and schools and may pose significant risk to people PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 due to their close proximity. 2 The emission information gathered from this study 3 will be used to model the air quality of the neighborhood 4 and to determine the cumulative risk impact of residents of 5 this community. The Barrio Logan project is an excellent 6 example of how the community and government agencies can 7 work together to address community-level issues. 8 The US EPA has recognized the Barrio Logan project 9 as being at the cutting edge of community-based evaluations, 10 and has recently designated it as a federal interagency 11 environmental justice demonstration project. 12 The children's environmental health program was 13 established by Senate Bill 25, which was authored by Senator 14 Martha Escutia. This program to protect children from 15 environmental hazards is administered by the ARB and OEHHA. 16 Under this program, we will be reviewing all health-based 17 ambient air quality standards to determine if they 18 adequately protect the health of children and infants. 19 Standards will be revised if they're found deficient. 20 We will also be evaluating our monitoring network, 21 and as part of the evaluation expand the network into six 22 communities near schools, day care centers and recreational 23 facilities which may be impacted by sources such as 24 industrial facilities or high traffic areas. 25 Next year OEHHA will identify five toxic air PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 contaminants that may cause infants and children to be 2 especially susceptible to illness. 3 Beginning in 2004, OEHHA will evaluate 15 4 additional toxic air contaminants annually, and provide 5 threshold and non-threshold exposure levels. 6 And finally the ARB is embarking upon a review of 7 our air toxics control measures to assess the need for 8 revising existing measures in order to protect children and 9 infants or to develop new control measures for toxic air 10 contaminants which currently have no controls. 11 Indoor air is also a critical component of the 12 community assessment activities. The ARB has funded many 13 studies on indoor air pollution and personal exposure to air 14 toxics. Examples include studies that have looked at 15 activity patterns and breathing rates of children and at air 16 toxics and particulate matter exposure in residences. 17 Of particular significance was the study to 18 determine exposure to air toxics from major roadways and in 19 vehicles traveling on the roadways. 20 Starting later this year, the ARB will begin 21 studies to examine the environmental conditions within 22 portable classrooms and children's exposures during school 23 bus commutes. 24 Recognizing the importance of indoor air 25 pollution, the ARB will be looking at regulatory options for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 controlling certain indoor sources of air pollution. For 2 example, particle board and plywood can be significant 3 sources of formaldehyde exposure. 4 The third major area of our community health 5 program deals with risk reduction. The ARB is working to 6 reduce health risks that affect communities, both through 7 our statewide air toxic control efforts and through 8 community and local businesses assistance and education 9 efforts. 10 And for the first time the ARB will be looking at 11 innovative approaches and strategies to reduce cumulative 12 risks in the community. 13 I would like to present some examples of our risk 14 reduction efforts. 15 Particulate matter in diesel exhaust is the single 16 most significant source of air toxic exposure and risk in 17 California's communities. We estimate that 70 percent of 18 the statewide cancer risk from toxic air contaminants 19 identified by this board is due to diesel particulate 20 matter. 21 The children in our schools, parks and even 22 residences are exposed daily to diesel exhaust from school 23 buses and from trucks on nearby streets and freeways. 24 The ARB is now focusing its regulatory efforts on 25 seeking ways to reduce this risk and has developed a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 statewide plan to reduce the health risk from diesel 2 particulate matter. 3 The key elements of the diesel particulate matter 4 reduction plan are to clean up existing engine emissions by 5 up to 85 percent through engine retrofits; to adopt 6 stringent new engine standards that will reduce particulate 7 matter emissions by over 90 percent; to develop cleaner 8 diesel fuels by lowering the sulfur content of diesel fuel; 9 to protect new and effective advanced technology emission 10 control devices on diesel engines; to promote alternative 11 fuels for centrally fueled fleets; to substitute electric 12 vehicles for diesel fueled support equipment at airports; 13 and finally to work with the agricultural community to seek 14 ways to convert agricultural water pumps in the Central 15 Valley from diesel to electricity. 16 In addition to diesel exhaust control, the ARB has 17 proposed two asbestos control measures. The first measure 18 would prohibit the use of asbestos-containing materials on 19 unpaved roads. Your board will hear this proposal later 20 during today's meeting. 21 Second, the ARB is developing a control measure to 22 reduce exposure from asbestos quarries and from 23 construction-related activities in areas with naturally 24 occurring asbestos. This control measure will be brought to 25 your board later this year. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 Your board has recently adopted two control 2 measures that will have an effect on community health. 3 First, the board adopted a measure to eliminate 4 the use of toxic chlorinated solvents in automotive consumer 5 products such as brake cleaners used by the 25,000 6 automotive repair and maintenance shops in communities 7 across the state. 8 We found that approximately 50 percent of the 9 small businesses operating in the Barrio Logan study area 10 were automotive repair shops. 11 Last month, as part of our effort to reduce 12 smog-forming emissions from consumer products, the board 13 prohibited the use of toxic chlorinated solvents in aerosol 14 adhesives and paints. 15 At this point I'd like to briefly summarize a 16 number of the other programs that the ARB has in place that 17 have a significant impact on the air quality in communities. 18 Governor Davis provided $50 million in the 19 2000-2001 state budget to provide funds to purchase new, 20 lower emission school buses and to install particulate 21 matter control devices on existing diesel buses. These 22 upgrades will reduce exposure of school-age children to 23 toxic diesel particulates and other pollutants. 24 The ARB is also implementing the Carl Moyer 25 program, a $50 million program that provides grants to cover PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 the incremental costs of replacing or rebuilding heavy-duty 2 diesel engines with new, cleaner technology engines. 3 We are also working with the communities to set up 4 training programs that help community residents make clean 5 air choices that minimize their own personal exposure. For 6 example, the ARB's indoor air pollution program provides 7 public education materials that show how making good, clean 8 air choices on household products can improve indoor air 9 quality and reduce overall exposure to air toxics. 10 In addition, we are providing information to local 11 decision makers so reasonable decisions can be made on 12 issues such as placement of parks and schools to avoid 13 examples like this one shown on the slide before you, a 14 playground next to a railyard. 15 We are quickly moving ahead with many aspects of 16 this program. As you can see, many of the different 17 components of the community health program are on a short 18 time frame and are scheduled to be completed in the next two 19 to four years. Those short-term components include the 20 diesel risk reduction plan, the neighborhood assessment 21 program guidelines, the Senate Bill 25 children's exposure 22 monitoring, and the community toxics evaluations. 23 Much of the work will continue through the next 24 eight years, including the diesel control measures and the 25 review of air toxic health values and air toxic control PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 measures under Senate Bill 25. 2 Finally, let me summarize how all the pieces of 3 this community health program fit together. 4 As you have seen, the community health program is 5 comprised of many different aspects of our air quality 6 program, which can be categorized into three major areas. 7 We are continuing our efforts to identify the 8 links between air pollution and health effects. 9 We are assessing individual California communities 10 to determine the cumulative effects of exposure to multiple 11 pollutants. 12 We are looking at cumulative risk reduction 13 strategies for reducing public health risk, including 14 working with the communities to provide better information 15 on community health concerns. 16 All of these pieces are essential in their own 17 right, but together they make up the new community health 18 approach that will protect our children and other vulnerable 19 populations that live in our communities. 20 Let me conclude by saying that the ARB is working 21 to aggressively implement a community health program whose 22 goal is to provide clean air communities for our children, 23 the elderly and all Californians. 24 Thank you. 25 We'd be happy to answer any questions at this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 time. 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you, Dr. Murchison. 3 Any questions, comments from the board? 4 Dr. Burke. 5 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Can you fill me in on the 6 airport, what we're doing with airports as it relates to 7 on-site suggestions or rules that we make? 8 MR. KENNY: Actually If I could try to address 9 that, Dr. Burke. 10 We actually have been negotiating with the Airline 11 Transport Association for the last several months. Our goal 12 there is move as much of the ground support equipment that 13 they're using to service the airplanes, whether they're 14 cargo or passenger planes, toward electricity. We are 15 basically in the midst of still doing that. We are having 16 some difficulties with them. Their preference is not to go 17 quite as far with electric applications as we would like 18 them to go. 19 We also do recognize that there probably will be 20 some need for continued use of some diesel equipment. Our 21 view there, though, is that in fact that diesel equipment 22 needs to be changed over to the cleanest possible diesel 23 equipment utilizing low sulfur diesel fuels as soon as 24 possible and we are talking about time frames for that. 25 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: The first thing I did when I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 was appointed to AQMD in the South Coast was I asked the 2 chairman, John, who is the chairman? Hank, Hank Guida, if I 3 could form an ad hoc airport committee to pursue some of 4 this stuff. 5 We have the biggest problem, we have some of the 6 most unique circumstances. At LAX, for example, the on-site 7 equipment is in fact a major contributing factor to it being 8 a hot spot in our main study. But there are other 9 contributing factors around airports. Are we dealing with 10 some of those other contributing factors like taxi cabs, for 11 example? 12 MR. KENNY: We actually haven't at this point in 13 time looked at taxi cabs. I think what we will be doing is 14 essentially looking at all sources. I think that was really 15 kind of the key thing we were trying to convey with this 16 message. 17 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Because, and I notice, but I 18 don't think it's too far to extrapolate LAX and San 19 Francisco airport, because they have a similar design if you 20 look at it, both on the public side and on the aircraft side 21 of the utilization of buses to bringing in car rental 22 customers and hotel customers and all those kind of 23 services, which impact also the air quality at major 24 airports. 25 MR. KENNY: With regard to those kind, that kind PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 of transportation, the bus services that are provided, we 2 actually have made comments generally with regard to all 3 airports whenever they're doing any kind of work that in 4 fact we do strongly recommend that they go toward 5 alternative modes of transportation or alternative modes of 6 fueling for those particular types of transportation 7 mechanisms. 8 And so for example in Sacramento we've seen that 9 happen. Actually we have seen that happen at LAX. We've 10 seen that happen in Ontario. A lot of the airports are 11 essentially hearing from us on that issue. 12 I would also comment with regard to sort of the 13 main vehicle that is used at the airports, the airplanes 14 themselves, we're involved with the FAA in terms of what 15 they're doing with regard to setting standards for emissions 16 on aircraft engines, because we don't have a specific 17 authority ourself to do that, but the Federal Aviation 18 Administration does. However, they are not probably as 19 aggressive as we would like them to be and so we are trying 20 to participate in that process and convince them to move 21 faster and farther. 22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think glacial speed is probably 23 an overestimate. 24 MR. KENNY: Glacial is an overestimate. 25 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: One thing that I would PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 suggest to our people, I found that by some -- Mel Zeldin 2 was here earlier, I don't know if Mel is still here or not, 3 but Mel and I ran a study together on the areas of the 4 airport which are encapsulated by structures. And what got 5 me started on this was when I was a young kid and I came to 6 California, for some quirk all the sky caps -- was not a 7 quirk. All the skycaps were black. But the quirk was that 8 in LAX it seemed like most of them were from the Midwest and 9 I knew just an enormous amount of them because some of them 10 were from Cleveland and some of them I got to know because I 11 traveled so much. And I watched them all die over the last 12 20 years, every single one of them. There's not one of 13 those guys left alive. So I knew that there was a problem 14 in LAX that exceeded the normal death rate for individuals. 15 Well, after I made myself an enormous pest, I 16 discovered that LAX was designed to have ventilation systems 17 from the lower level and move the exhaust out through the 18 upper levels of the driving ramps. The systems were put in, 19 but plugged because of economic costs, when the airport was 20 constructed. So they're there. They're there right now. 21 And they're, believe me, they're looking into this moment 22 opening them and starting the motors to withdraw all that 23 exhaust, I would hope. 24 Because if I was a family member of someone who 25 had died of cancer in conditions like that, with someone PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 knowingly increasing the risk of polluting air in there, I 2 would make the ramparts lawsuits look like nothing. 3 I say all that to say that at every major airport 4 in California we have some kind of double-deck system, 5 basically. We have it in San Francisco, we have it at 6 Orange County, we have it in LA. 7 And because of what I found out in LA, I just 8 wondered if our people here at ARB could look into the 9 possibility of was those structures designed for 10 ventilation, has that ventilation been utilized or is it 11 like LAX, been not utilized because of economic reasons. 12 The only other thing I'll share is that are we 13 doing anything in conjunction with this with the harbors? 14 MR. KENNY: With the harbors, we are doing work 15 also. We've been working with US EPA to essentially try to 16 develop emission reductions at the harbors. The primary 17 jurisdiction there often is with US EPA, so we're trying to 18 convince them to move along, and again we're trying to push 19 that forward. So there are efforts underway. Specifically 20 I can't recall very much of that at the moment. I'll be 21 happy to look into it and get back to you. 22 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Thank you. 23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Couple of points. After I was 24 appointed about a year ago I called together a meeting of 25 all the airports in California to take a look at that issue, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 because we still do have a lot of complaints about airports. 2 So from that we ran the issue with the FAA. We have an 3 ongoing working relationship with the federal agencies, but 4 they're clearly moving very very slowly, but they are also 5 not very happy when we try to get into that. 6 The other part I see happening here is that on all 7 these expansions what's happening is that they really can't 8 get emission reductions, so the private sector is being 9 forced into putting these new technologies, and importantly 10 paying for them too. 11 So I think anything we can do, as you suggest, to 12 accelerate that and understand it better will only help the 13 citizens. I agree with you. 14 Yes, Mr. McKinnon. 15 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah. It has occurred to 16 me, I have lots of experience at working around the airports 17 of this state and ports of this state, and thinking about 18 neighborhoods, and I also have spent a great deal of time in 19 Barrio Logan. 20 In thinking about what occurs in communities 21 around airports and ports, I just want to comment that in 22 the report placing diesel as a top kind of priority makes 23 tremendous amount of sense to me, because typically what 24 happens around ports and airports is a lot of transportation 25 in and out of the airport of goods moved, moving often on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 trucks with diesel. 2 And so it strikes me that among all everything 3 else we described as we talk about how the problem moves out 4 into the neighborhoods surrounding, I think we're hitting 5 the nail on the head. 6 Now, that doesn't mean that we don't move 7 cautiously. I don't think we want to make California into 8 an island separate from the rest of the country, but I think 9 as we move forward, transit bus rule, we start in that 10 direction. 11 I think that that is certainly an area where we're 12 going to continue to help neighborhoods. 13 And so I appreciated that part of the report. 14 MR. KENNY: If I can add one thing to that. 15 I think you have before you the diesel control 16 plan, for want of a better term at the moment, that we 17 actually announced last week, and the effort there is really 18 to focus on diesel engines in the State of California, 19 whether it's on-road, off-road, stationary or mobile, and 20 look at those existing engines and identify ways to reduce 21 the risk associated with them, and that will be a very 22 comprehensive effort that the staff will be spending a lot 23 of time and lot of resources on, because we do think in fact 24 there's a huge value in doing that. 25 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Mr. Chairman. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. 2 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I think this is a new 3 direction the board is taking in that we're now beginning to 4 place or stress the need to place emphasis on localized air 5 quality problems. And I think it's something that's long 6 overdo. 7 And I would like to see the staff come back to the 8 board on a regular basis to give us a progress report on 9 things that they are doing in an effort to get at these 10 particular problems. We're talking about the airports, 11 we're focusing on diesel technology, but there are other 12 sources around, and different communities, and I would like 13 to see a report back to the board. I'm not sure if it ought 14 to be annual basis or what, but something ought to be done, 15 some requirement that they come back to the board reporting 16 on the progress we're making in an effort to get at these 17 community air pollution problems. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Good idea. 19 MR. KENNY: We're happy to do that. 20 From a timing standpoint, what I guess I would 21 suggest is we do it probably on an annual basis. I think 22 that is probably the best way of going. 23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 24 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: This is my last comment on 25 the subject. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 I know that the federal agencies move slower than 2 glaciers. But there seems to be from our experience little 3 chinks in their armor or places where you can't move the 4 whole block ice, but sometimes you can move a chip here and 5 a chip there and sometimes that makes the block. 6 I know that the aircraft engine certification is 7 an issue which probably will not be solved in Dr. Friedman 8 or my lifetime, so we'll probably have to do the lung thing 9 ourselves. 10 But there are, for example, in the harbors there 11 is, you know, I think a quirk in the law and, you know, 12 Ms. Walsh could probably have her staff address this, that 13 would allow when a vessel is tied to the shore and using 14 their auxiliary generator for power in dock, I'd bet a 15 dollar that that comes under our jurisdiction. 16 MR. KENNY: I think you're right. 17 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Let me tell you, you know, 18 you get some of those super tankers in there running those 19 generators, it's just an enormous source. So I think that 20 to help move the glacier along, maybe we should nip at the 21 edge of the glacier a little bit. 22 MR. KENNY: What we'll do is we'll make sure we 23 look at that and we'll get back to you on that. 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thanks. Any other comments from 25 the board? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 Again, I'd like to thank the staff for putting 2 together an excellent presentation, very comprehensive, very 3 good. 4 I guess I'd like to call the first witness at this 5 time. We have two witnesses. 6 Paula Forbis from the Environmental Health 7 Coalition, and then Carlos Porras from the Communities for a 8 Better Environment. 9 MS. FORBIS: Good morning. Thank you very much. 10 My name is Paula Forbis. I'm with the Environmental Health 11 Coalition from San Diego. 12 I'd like to express our support for the report 13 that's in front of you and the programs that your staff has 14 outlined. 15 EHC and residents of Barrio Logan and some of the 16 surrounding communities have been working, looking at issues 17 of air toxics for many years now, and I think the general 18 response that we're hearing from community residents now is 19 that finally someone is listening to their concerns. 20 We've been very pleased to participate with ARB 21 not only in establishing the monitoring at Memorial Academy 22 in Logan Heights, but also in the first efforts of the 23 neighborhood assessment program in doing a very 24 comprehensive inventory of the toxic sources in that 25 neighborhood. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 So I'm here today to commend your staff taking a 2 critical first step, and, like you're acknowledging, this is 3 really a paradigm shift from previous regulation of toxics 4 on a industry-by-industry, pollutant-by-pollutant basis. 5 And I can't stress enough too the importance to 6 local residents of looking at toxics the way their lungs are 7 incorporating them on their being exposed to multiple 8 pollutants every day from a myriad of sources, and it's very 9 very critical that the regulatory structure reflect that. 10 In addition, we're hopeful that this program not 11 only will lead to better understanding of the problems 12 facing our communities, but also to real risk reductions and 13 real solutions to those problems. 14 I want to call to your attention to a few that we 15 are most heartened by, certainly diesel reductions are very 16 important to us, as many of the businesses in Barrio Logan 17 have very extensive warehousing and trucks that are coming 18 down neighborhood streets. It's not big corridors that are 19 nearby to communities, it's the street that's in front of 20 someone's house. 21 We're also heartened that there's a working group 22 being established, and we're hoping that this group can 23 proceed quickly to identify risk reductions strategies. We 24 can't wait for perfect scientific data or perfect 25 information or until we have the resources to monitor PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 everywhere before we start looking at real risk reductions 2 efforts in these communities. 3 We're also hoping that ARB will persist in its 4 work with local agencies to look at the land use patterns 5 that they are setting up and the implications for air 6 pollution and public health. The facility that was shown to 7 you on the photo in the staff presentation is located there 8 absolutely legally. 9 And a recent study by the San Diego Redevelopment 10 Agency identified that not only are the vast majority of 11 toxic sources in the businesses using hazardous materials in 12 the area, not only are they located there legally and in 13 compliance with the zoning code, they're also very high 14 percentage of them located within a hundred feet of 15 someone's home. 16 As you can see in the case of the plater that was 17 up on that picture, many of them are within feet or inches 18 of someone's home. 19 So it's critical that the local agencies begin to 20 look at the land use patterns that they are setting up. 21 Many of these were established several decades ago, and are 22 continuing to have lasting impacts on these communities. 23 Finally, we're also hopeful that ARB can persist 24 in its compliance assistance program, not only for local 25 businesses, but also working with local air districts to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 ensure that their enforcement programs are in compliance and 2 public complaint programs are adequate to address the real 3 compliance problems that are going on in some of these 4 neighborhoods. 5 And again no one understands the need for 6 compliance from these facilities better than the family that 7 is living a few inches from the nearest plater. 8 We also appreciate these efforts, because we think 9 that they reflect a more proactive approach to resolving 10 these issues. Again, in order for communities to be 11 protected, we need to have a fundamental shift in the 12 regulatory paradigm under which toxics are regulated. We 13 need to go from the industry-by-industry, 14 pollutant-by-pollutant approach to a community-based and 15 community-level approach. 16 We also need to move from permitting new sources 17 without a complete understanding of the existing conditions 18 in a community to a structure that seeks to prevent 19 pollution before it occurs and seeks to reduce existing 20 toxics level to the maximum extent possible. 21 We think that your staff has presented to you a 22 program which takes some important first strides in those 23 directions and we hope that you will give them your full 24 support. 25 Thank you very much. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 2 Comments from the board? 3 Thank you. 4 Next is Carlos Porras. 5 MR. PORRAS: Good morning. Thank you, Chairman 6 Lloyd, and members of the board. I am Carlos Porras, 7 executive director of Communities for a Better Environment. 8 My office is in Huntington Park, California, down 9 in the Los Angeles area in what is known locally as the 10 Alameda Corridor, one of the most extremely industrialized 11 regions in the country, the most densely industrialized 12 region in the country, similarly with the same problems of 13 transportation corridors and industry, and a very 14 significantly impacted community. 15 So I think that the importance of this program 16 that has been presented to you here is very significant to 17 our communities and in particular I think that it has also a 18 direct relationship. I was very pleased to have been here 19 for Dr. Peters' presentation to you earlier, because I think 20 we can make some direct correlations to the work that 21 Dr. Peters is engaged upon and in his research there with 22 some of the impacts that we're talking about in the 23 implementation of this program. 24 And I'd like to mention one key point that I think 25 has a direct natural extension of something that Dr. Peters PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 was pointing out with the impacts of pollution to children, 2 children's health and school-based research there. 3 There is another linkage that goes beyond the 4 absences, and it is educational achievement levels of 5 children in polluted environments. And I think that is 6 something that is also going to start to begin to show its 7 relevance to the policies and the regulatory arena. 8 And I will be glad to see that we start producing 9 more, making that relationship, the educational achievement, 10 because that is where the cycle of poverty begins. 11 So I do want to emphasize and underscore for you 12 the fact that we would like to have more of your support for 13 the staff to go even further, to ask and request that you 14 seek out Governor Davis for more funding for some of this 15 work. There's never enough funding for all of the work that 16 needs to be done, and we need a little bit more investment 17 from the state in that area as well. 18 We would like to see that the program expand also 19 to be inclusive of people in those communities and take 20 those, that community assessment a little bit more embraced 21 with the communities themselves. 22 And so we are very supportive of the ARB's 23 attempts to pursue these programs and would like to see you 24 support them as well. 25 Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. Thank you 2 for drawing that relationship to absenteeism and then 3 potential performance. I think that's a very important 4 aspect you drew attention to there. 5 Yes, Professor Friedman. 6 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Maybe I misheard you, 7 but I thought you were suggesting there ought to be a 8 broader inquiry into the correlation not just of air 9 pollution in these communities and absenteeism, but 10 performance when they're in school. 11 MR. PORRAS: Correct. 12 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Are you referring to 13 performance as it relates to absenteeism? 14 MR. PORRAS: We are currently -- I say we -- I am 15 part of a collaboration with some other academic 16 institutions, and I mentioned this to Dr. Peters, because 17 we've also worked with his center from time to time, but we 18 are currently in the process of publishing a report using 19 the state's new achievement testing and correlation to toxic 20 release inventory facilities and show a direct relationship 21 to actual learning disabilities and lower achievements in 22 the state's testing. 23 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Is there some way to 24 break out the extent to which absenteeism is a factor in 25 that versus the effects of air pollution on mental agility PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 or ability? 2 MR. PORRAS: I think for purposes of -- well, 3 for -- 4 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I assume that's what 5 you were referring to. 6 MR. PORRAS: I think the research will indicate 7 the broader mental, rather than the break-out of the actual 8 absenteeism. 9 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Is that something 10 that's part of our Children's Health Study currently? Is 11 that proposed? 12 MR. PORRAS: I have agreed to refer the paper to 13 Dr. Peters, who said he found it interesting as well, and 14 he'll be looking at that, I think. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Dr. Burke. 16 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: I can't tell you how happy I 17 am to see you here today, because it's been a long fight and 18 it's a long road to go. 19 But I think that you -- Board Member Calhoun just 20 two minutes before you walked to the microphone was talking 21 about the impact not only on all communities by the Alameda 22 Corridor, but even his community is where he lives, you 23 know, rich people down there, all that oil money is at, but 24 is, you know -- and this is a very tough subject for me 25 because it's politically my household is divided on this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 issue. So, you know, it makes it real tough to get dinner 2 when you're opposed to it. 3 But I think it is probably a prototype projects 4 which will be executed throughout the state, because if in 5 fact it works, I have a sneaking suspicion it's going to 6 work, whether I like it or not, we need to look at the 7 long-range forecast of the impact on all communities. 8 Carlos' community is one community, and one that 9 I'm very sensitive to, and care about, but, you know, 10 project like Alameda Corridor when you start moving that 11 much dirt and have that much diesel exhaust in one spot for 12 the length of time it's going to take to build that thing, 13 it affects everybody in this room. 14 So I think we need to really look if there is 15 another project in this state comparable in scope and 16 dimension to the Alameda Corridor, I think that ARB should 17 be right in there on top of it and make sure that -- and I'm 18 sure that you've been working with us in the South Coast, 19 but I'm not sure that we -- and this is a self-criticism -- 20 that we did everything that we should have done to protect 21 the citizens in that particular project. 22 But thanks for coming up and bringing your 23 expertise to the board. 24 MR. PORRAS: Thank you. 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Again, when I went down with the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 mayor of Huntington park after she had come up here and 2 drawn our attention to some of the issues, the concern with 3 the diesel trucks from the ethanol distribution, went down 4 and flew over that area and over the tremendous expansion 5 going on at Long Beach, it's really scary to see what's 6 going to happen. I agree, I don't know what we're going to 7 do in terms of -- hopefully, I guess we'll consolidate a lot 8 of that traffic into cleaner transportation, but it's 9 something is obviously should be watched carefully. 10 Mr. McKinnon. 11 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Hi. I think right at the 12 tail end of your remarks you had a comment about the 13 inclusiveness of process, and I kind of wanted to flesh out 14 from you what may be the problem, and then what you would 15 propose is the solution in terms of the inclusiveness of the 16 process of looking at community health. 17 MR. PORRAS: The problem is I think a lack of 18 money to do everything that should be done, that could be 19 done. And so it's not a problem of not -- of the program 20 not having addressed it, but in the neighborhood impacts 21 assessment stakeholder meeting going into the communities 22 and meeting with people in the communities, I think is 23 something, a participatory way of getting firsthand 24 information. 25 There's several other things that I've been PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 talking to some staff about the utilization of. For 2 example, we have a air bucket sampler that we utilize in 3 various parts of our projects where community members 4 themselves take air samples of the air in different 5 communities and that could complement in some way the 6 monitoring program that is in place. 7 Certainly, I think one of the difficulties that 8 agencies run into is never having enough money to do enough 9 monitoring and enough comprehensive grid of monitoring. So 10 I think it's more a problem of resources of putting more 11 investments into the monitoring and into the community 12 meetings and reaching out to those communities. 13 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Thank you. 14 MR. FLETCHER: If I may comment on that for just a 15 minute. We completely agree with this concept and -- excuse 16 me, I'm Bob Fletcher, with the Planning and Technical 17 Support Division. 18 And one of the things that both Mr. Porras and 19 Ms. Forbis are doing that are really exceptional are 20 involving the community. They're essentially going into the 21 community and training people within the community, and as 22 we go through our community health site selection process 23 and the SB 25 site selection process, we're really looking 24 for that sort of community involvement, because it helps us 25 greatly as we go into the communities. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 When we went down into the Barrio Logan area and 2 were walking the streets a month or so ago, we had a 3 community member with us on the teams, and that is 4 incredibly effective when you go in cold into a business 5 when you have a community representative there. 6 So we're really looking for those sorts of 7 partnerships as we develop this program. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. Thank you 9 very much. 10 I guess, Mr. Kenny, do you have any other comments 11 from staff? 12 MR. KENNY: No, I don't. 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: One of the things I was reminded 14 about, by the way, is that as we discussed airports, I think 15 it might be interesting if staff would explore having 16 another meeting on airports that we had about a year ago to 17 get an update of that, because I think it is true as we 18 discussed earlier, it's a statewide problem. We're all 19 expanding, we see more and more hold-ups with aircraft, more 20 and more of the idling there. And again some of the 21 measures are very common in terms of deployment of 22 technologies and in terms of encouraging the oil fuels or 23 electric vehicles and what not, that may be an appropriate 24 deployment for those, so maybe if staff could look into 25 that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 MR. KENNY: All right. 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I guess since this is not a 3 regulatory item it's not necessary to officially close the 4 record, so with that I guess we'll thank you all and we will 5 move on to the next item. 6 Thank you very much, Dr. Murchison. 7 We're going to change the order here. The next 8 item we're going to take is the asbestos item, so we'll take 9 just a couple of minutes here while we change staff. 10 We will then go through the staff presentation and 11 then we will probably adjourn for lunch for about half an 12 hour before taking testimony, so it gives you an idea where 13 we're going. So the next item is the asbestos item. 14 (Thereupon a short recess was taken.) 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I would like to start this item. 16 This is agenda item 00-7-4. 17 As I mentioned, we skipped the cleaner burning 18 gasoline and we'll go back to that. 19 This is a public hearing to consider proposed 20 amendments to the asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measures. 21 Asbestos is one of those substances we need to be 22 terribly cautious about since its effects are irreversible 23 and deadly. 24 We've found that to be true for workers' exposures 25 and now take great precautions to avoid that in terms of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 worker exposures. 2 We have also struggled as a society to clean up 3 after prior building use, without making the problem any 4 worse, and we've all, I think, faced that issue in terms of 5 our homes. 6 As we've found with this rule, we've even had to 7 contend with the challenge of naturally occurring asbestos 8 in our environment that can be every bit as harmful. 9 The Airborne Asbestos Toxic Control Measure was 10 first approved by the board in 1990. Over the last several 11 years, staff has determined that the current measure is not 12 adequately protecting public health. And, accordingly, 13 today we are considering what further measures we could take 14 in exposures from unpaved roads. 15 I'm aware of the key issues here, the amount of 16 time that staff has taken, the amount of comments that have 17 been generated both from the public and from the industry 18 side here, and we recognize the tough issue that's before 19 us. 20 I would also like to acknowledge and express my 21 appreciation to Dr. Jim Davis, the state geologist of the 22 Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 23 and his staff for assisting ARB staff in the development of 24 this control measure. 25 I think I understand the staff relied on the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 department's professional judgment and expertise to a great 2 extent in updating the rule, and we certainly couldn't have 3 done it without you. 4 We very very much appreciate that. 5 Mr. Kenny, will you please begin the staff 6 presentation. 7 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of 8 the board. 9 In April 1990, the board approved the Asbestos 10 Airborne Toxic Control Measure which prohibits the use of 11 serpentine material on unpaved surfaces if the asbestos 12 content is greater than five percent. 13 Since then, additional information from ambient 14 monitoring and modeling studies indicate that the current 15 control measure is not fully protective of public health. 16 In March 1998, The Sacramento Bee ran a series of 17 articles showing elevated asbestos emissions and risk from 18 activities that disturbed naturally occurring asbestos in El 19 Dorado County. 20 As a result, concerns were raised by members of 21 the public regarding their exposure to asbestos in El Dorado 22 County. 23 A task force consisting of representatives from 24 state and federal and local agencies was formed to look into 25 these health concerns. Staff issued a report with their PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 findings and recommendations. One of the findings suggested 2 that El Dorado County lower the current five percent 3 asbestos limit for serpentine used in surfacing 4 applications. 5 Last fall, the El Dorado County board of 6 supervisors considered a county ordinance to lower the 7 allowable asbestos content of serpentine materials below the 8 five percent limit. 9 However, the board of supervisors did not approve 10 the proposed ordinance. It was felt it would be more 11 appropriate for this to be addressed at the state level. 12 As a result, we initiated our efforts to update 13 the ATCM. 14 The Airborne Toxic Control Measure, or ATCM, for 15 unpaved surfaces is the first part of a two-part proposal. 16 The second part is an ATCM that will address 17 asbestos emissions from quarrying, construction and grading 18 activities. We plan to present this proposal for your 19 consideration later this year. 20 The staff proposal would minimize asbestos 21 emissions from the use of asbestos-containing material on 22 exposed surfaces. 23 Staff believes that this proposal represents the 24 best available control technology. 25 As part of the staff presentation, we will be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 presenting changes to the proposal outlined in the initial 2 statement of reasons. 3 These changes reflect ongoing outreach efforts to 4 both the affected industry and the public. 5 I would now like to have Ms. Carolyn Suer and 6 Mr. Victor Douglas of the Stationary Source Division present 7 the proposed amendments to the Asbestos Airborne Toxic 8 Control Measure. 9 During the staff presentation, Dr. Melanie Marty, 10 chief of the Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Branch of the 11 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, will make 12 a few remarks on asbestos health effects. 13 Ms. Suer. 14 MS. SUER: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. 15 Good morning, Chairman Lloyd and members of the 16 board. 17 Today we are doing a three-part presentation. I 18 will provide you with background information on the asbestos 19 issue and basis for the staff's proposed provisions to the 20 current Airborne Toxic Control Measure. 21 When I get to the health effects portion, 22 Dr. Melanie Marty, of the Office of Environmental Health 23 Hazard Assessment, will also provide some information. 24 My colleague, Victor Douglas, will then present 25 the proposed amendments we released in the staff report in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 June, and changes to the June staff proposal that we believe 2 will make this a better ATCM, based on the comments we've 3 received. 4 Victor will also present information on the 5 impacts of our proposal, the key issues of the proposal, how 6 we've outreached to the stakeholders, our future activities, 7 and, finally, staff recommendations. 8 Before I start, I would like to acknowledge the 9 help of two state agencies with this effort. 10 The Department of Conservation, Division of Mines 11 and Geology has provided invaluable help to the staff in 12 educating us about the geology of naturally occurring 13 asbestos. 14 In addition, I would like to recognize the help 15 from Dr. Melanie Marty and her staff at OEHHA. The ARB 16 looks to OEHHA for guidance on matters related to health 17 issues. 18 Asbestos is a term used to describe a group of 19 mineral fibers commercially valued for their durability in 20 flame retardant properties. 21 Asbestos actually belongs to two mineral groups, 22 serpentine and amphiboles. 23 Within these two mineral groups, there are six 24 different types of asbestos. 25 The serpentine mineral group has only one asbestos PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 form, chrysotile. Chrysotile fibers often have a curved 2 appearance. 3 There are five amphibole asbestos forms. Of the 4 five amphibole forms, tremolite and actinolite are the ones 5 you are most likely to occasionally find naturally occurring 6 here in California. Amphibole fibers are often straight and 7 needle like. Shown here is a photo of tremolite asbestos 8 fibers. 9 Chrysotile is the most common form of asbestos 10 found in California. 11 Of the amphibole forms, tremolite and actinolite 12 are the most prevalent. 13 Where do we find this asbestos in California? 14 Predominantly in ultramafic rock, of which serpentinite, a 15 serpentine rock, is a subset. 16 Ultramafic rock is an iron- and magnesium-rich 17 igneous rock that may become partially or completely 18 serpentinized. It usually contains chrysotile, but it may 19 also contain tremolite or actinolite or it may have no 20 asbestos. 21 Areas containing ultramafic rock including 22 serpentine are identified on geologic maps as ultramafic 23 rock units. There are samples of various ultramafic rocks 24 displayed in Ziploc bags on the table behind you. 25 We also have some rock samples in plastic PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 containers that we picked up in El Dorado County, in which 2 you can clearly see the chrysotile and tremolite asbestos 3 fibers and how easily this material crumbles. 4 It is important to understand the relationship 5 between serpentine and ultramafic rock. Our current 6 regulations only apply to serpentine rock. However, 7 partially serpentinized ultramafic rock may also contain 8 asbestos. It may not be as identified by some as 9 serpentine, and as such may have not been subject to the 10 current regulation. 11 Further, the Department of Mines and Geology has 12 identified ultramafic rock, including serpentine, as the 13 rock types more likely to contain asbestos. 14 Other rock types may contain asbestos, such as 15 limestone, but due to the geologic history of California 16 this is a pretty rare occurrence. 17 The Division of Mines and Geology has developed 18 and will soon release a map showing the ultramafic rock 19 units in the state. There is a copy of the map on the easel 20 at the front of the -- behind you, actually. The ultramafic 21 rocks units are shown teal in color. Shown on the slide is 22 a reverse negative of that map with the white areas being 23 the ultramafic rock units. 24 These units comprise roughly 1.4 percent of the 25 total surface area of the state. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 The ultramafic rock units are distributed 2 throughout the state, occurring in 42 counties. However, 3 the Sierra foothills and coastal mountain regions of the 4 state are primarily where these rocks are found. 5 As you can see, much of this rock is found in the 6 northwestern corner of the state, which includes some very 7 remote regions. 8 The ARB identified asbestos as a toxic air 9 contaminant in 1986 at the recommendation of OEHHA and the 10 scientific review panel. All six forms of asbestos were 11 identified. This is consistent with the United States 12 Environmental Protection Agency, which has also listed all 13 mineral forms of asbestos as a hazardous air pollutant. 14 When the board identified asbestos as a toxic air 15 contaminant, they also found that there is no identified 16 threshold exposure level below which no adverse health 17 effects are anticipated. 18 I'd now like to turn the presentation over to 19 Dr. Melanie Marty, who will briefly address the health 20 effects of asbestos. 21 DR. MARTY: Good morning. I'm Melanie Marty from 22 the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 23 Most of the information we have on health effects 24 of asbestos is derived from looking at occupationally 25 exposed people and studying disease in those individuals. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 Occupational exposure to asbestos is associated 2 with asbestosis, which is a lung disease. It's 3 characterized by fibrotic scarring of the lung, shortness of 4 breath, can be progressive and fatal. 5 In addition, pleural abnormalities, that is 6 abnormalities of the tissue that lines the lung and chest 7 wall, have been observed in people occupationally exposed to 8 asbestos. 9 Asbestos is associated with lung cancer in workers 10 and this is synergistic with smoking. 11 And finally mesothelioma, which is a cancer of the 12 tissue lining the chest and abdomen, is observed in people 13 occupationally exposed to asbestos. 14 Next slide, please. 15 There are reports in the literature of health 16 effects in individuals who are not occupationally exposed. 17 In particular mesothelioma pleural abnormalities and 18 asbestosis have been described in household contacts of 19 asbestos workers. That is, the family. And in people 20 residing near mines and near asbestos processing plants. 21 There are also a number of published reports in 22 the literature of elevated rates of mesothelioma and in some 23 cases lung cancer in areas of Greece, and Turkey and New 24 Caledonia, where there are substantial quantities of 25 tremolite asbestos in the soil. Many of the individuals who PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 came down with mesothelioma actually used the material to 2 whitewash their homes. It was a common practice. 3 Next slide, please. 4 There is ample evidence that all forms of asbestos 5 are capable of causing both lung cancer and mesothelioma. 6 The International Agency for Research on Cancer, Cal EPA's 7 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, the US 8 Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute of 9 Occupational Safety and Health, the Consumer Product Safety 10 Commission and other regulatory bodies classify and/or 11 regulate all forms of asbestos as human carcinogens. 12 Next slide, please. 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Dr. Marty, did you participate in 14 the SRP process on identifying asbestos as a TAC? 15 DR. MARTY: Peripherally. My staff did do the 16 work, my current staff now. 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: You are fully familiar with that? 18 DR. MARTY: Yes. 19 The toxic air contaminant report describes 20 carcinogenic potency for both mesothelioma induction and for 21 lung cancer induction. 22 The potency is essentially a descriptor of the 23 relationship between exposure and response, which in this 24 case would be tumor incidence. 25 At the time we did not derive separate potency PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 factors for the individual forms of asbestos, although 2 potency may vary by fiber type. 3 There are worker data which suggest a higher 4 potency for amphiboles for mesothelioma, but about equal 5 potency for lung cancer. 6 Next slide, please. 7 In terms of the exposure response, most 8 asbestos-associated cancers are related to the intensity and 9 the duration of exposure. However, importantly, there are 10 reports in the literature of mesothelioma in people with 11 relatively short-term exposures on the order of days to 12 months. This is indicative of possibly intensity being more 13 important than duration or it could be indicative of a wide 14 range of susceptibility in the human population to 15 mesothelioma induction by asbestos. 16 We often get the question, well, what does it look 17 like in areas where there's a lot of asbestos in the soil. 18 Mesothelioma rates in the California Cancer Registry, and 19 that's a database of all tumors diagnosed in California, are 20 reported into this database. 21 Anyway, for El Dorado County, mesothelioma rates 22 are elevated, but the problem is you can't separate 23 potential occupational exposures in those individuals with 24 the currently available data. 25 In addition, epidemiology of environmental PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 exposures is really quite difficult. You generally have 2 lower levels than occupational, so you need a much larger 3 sample size to actually see the disease. 4 In addition, there is a long latency time for all 5 cancers and in particular for mesothelioma between when 6 you're exposed and when you actually get the disease. It 7 can be for mesothelioma between 20 and 40 years. So this 8 complicates studying a population in any given place. 9 Next slide, please. 10 In summary, all forms of asbestos are human 11 carcinogens, capable of inducing lung cancer and 12 mesothelioma, short-term episodic exposures can cause 13 cancer, and exposure of the general public to 14 asbestos-containing dust should absolutely be minimized. 15 Thank you. 16 MS. SUER: Thank you, Dr. Marty. 17 Next slide. 18 How does the asbestos get into the air? Basically 19 any activity that breaks up asbestos-containing rocks and 20 creates dust is a potential source of asbestos emissions. 21 Unpaved roads, driveways and parking lots that have asbestos 22 containing rock are good examples. 23 Other sources of asbestos are activities such as 24 construction and grading or quarrying in ultramafic rock 25 areas. The staff is currently developing a measure to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 address asbestos emission from these sources. 2 The ARB adopted a control measure to reduce 3 asbestos emissions from unpaved surfacing applications in 4 1990. That regulation, which is in effect today, limits the 5 asbestos content of serpentine material used for surfacing 6 to five percent or less. 7 The ATCM addresses only serpentine material used 8 for surfacing applications. 9 As I mentioned previously, ultramafic rock that is 10 partially serpentinized may also contain asbestos. 11 Due to the subjectivity in identifying this 12 partially serpentinized material of serpentine, it may not 13 be addressed under our current regulation. 14 Other key components of our regulation include the 15 requirement to test material using Test Method 435, and 16 noticing provisions to inform the user of the asbestos 17 content of the material and also requirements for the 18 retention of receipts. 19 The board's authority to adopt a statewide control 20 measure is contained in state law. That law requires the 21 ARB to adopt control measures to reduce emissions of toxic 22 air contaminants with no identified threshold levels like 23 asbestos to the lowest level achievable through the 24 application of best available control technology. The law 25 also requires us to evaluate the availability and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 suitability of alternatives. 2 Others have also taken action to protect public 3 health from asbestos emissions. Two local air districts 4 comprising four counties adopted more stringent local 5 controls after we adopted the ATCM in 1990. Lake County air 6 Quality Management District and the North Coast Unified Air 7 Quality Management District, shown highlighted here, have 8 adopted limits of one percent asbestos. 9 In addition, the US EPA restricts the use of mine 10 tailings that have an asbestos content of greater than one 11 percent for use on road surfaces. 12 We are also aware of several counties in 13 California that have policies that restrict the use of 14 asbestos-containing material by their public works 15 departments, such as Mariposa and El Dorado. 16 The next portion of my presentation will present 17 the basis of why we are proposing changes to the current 18 control measure. 19 Based on information that has been developed since 20 1990, we know that asbestos emissions from unpaved surfaces 21 are still occurring at levels that present potentially 22 significant risks. As such, we do not believe that we have 23 controlled asbestos emissions to lowest level achievable, as 24 is required by state law, and no longer consider the current 25 control measure to represent best available control PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 technology. 2 While the current control measure has resulted in 3 reductions in potential exposures to asbestos emissions, we 4 now believe that revisions are necessary. 5 It is also state policy to promote the use of 6 pollution prevention. The staff used the proposal before 7 you today as a pollution prevention measure by promoting the 8 use of less hazardous materials for use in surfacing. 9 I'll briefly summarize the information that has 10 led the staff to believe that additional steps can be taken 11 to achieve lower emission levels. 12 The staff looked at the information regarding risk 13 from unpaved roads. We looked at air monitoring that has 14 been done since 1990, and also modeled the emissions. What 15 we found caused concern. There are a wide range of risks 16 associated with asbestos emissions from unpaved surfacing. 17 The risk can vary tremendously due to factors which 18 influence the monitoring or models, such as the vehicle 19 speed, asbestos content of the road material, number of cars 20 driving on the road, and the distance from the road. 21 However, all of the results showed the potential 22 for significant exposures when the asbestos content of the 23 road material was five percent or less. 24 The ARB has monitored for asbestos in the air at 25 over 60 sites in the past two years, primarily in El Dorado PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 County, but also Placer and Nevada Counties. 2 We considered about half of these sites to be 3 background, meaning there were no known asbestos-emitting 4 sources nearby. Much of the time we found no airborne 5 asbestos. 6 However, when we sampled near sources that create 7 dust and had asbestos-bearing rocks, such as roads in 8 quarries, we found higher ambient asbestos concentrations at 9 these sites. The associated average risk levels were 10 typically in the range of 10 to 50 in a million, with some 11 individually higher readings. 12 We also looked at monitoring studies that were 13 done specific to roads. Here we found risk ranging from 15 14 to a thousand in a million when the asbestos content of the 15 road material was below the current regulated level. 16 In 1992, the ARB published the California 17 Serpentine-Covered Roadway Asbestos Model, known as 18 CALSCRAM. CALSCRAM is based on a US EPA road model which 19 the ARB refined and improved through contract. 20 We used this model to predict annual average 21 asbestos concentrations that are more representative of 22 long-term exposures using a variety of assumptions. 23 The results told us that near roadways containing 24 five percent or less of asbestos the risk could be 25 significant. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 Some of the results are shown here on the slide. 2 For example, at roadways with one percent asbestos, the 3 model predicted risk at a distance of 50 feet from the road, 4 of 25 cases per million for lung cancer, and 45 cases per 5 million of mesothelioma. 6 These studies, in combination with the monitoring 7 results, showed the potential for significant exposures and 8 led the staff to believe that revisions to the current ATCM 9 were necessary to ensure public health protection. 10 Our goal here today is to do just that, to ensure 11 public health by further reducing exposures to airborne 12 asbestos from surfacing applications. 13 That brings us to the next part of our 14 presentation on our proposed amendments to the ATCM. 15 However, before we get to the actual proposal, 16 since the ATCM applies to surfacing applications, I would 17 like to clarify just what are surfacing applications and 18 what are not. 19 Surfacing applications do not apply just to roads. 20 It can be essentially any surface where the material is 21 applied and may be left uncovered and subject to 22 disturbance. It can be the application of materials on road 23 shoulders, driveways, playgrounds, trails, parking lots and 24 decorative uses in landscaping. 25 Shown here is a road leading to a day care center PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 in El Dorado County. As a result of some monitoring we did 2 near that day care, the owners voluntarily resurfaced the 3 road with non-asbestos-containing material after we met with 4 them and explained the monitoring results which had showed 5 elevated concentrations of asbestos in the air. 6 What unpaved surfacing is not are typically 7 applications where the rock is covered, such as drain rock, 8 road base materials or fill. However, there are some 9 nonsurfacing applications where the rock is not covered, 10 such as riprap, the rocky seal on waterways and for soil 11 stabilization on hillsides, as you see here. 12 I'd like to now turn the presentation over to 13 Mr. Victor Douglas to present the details of the proposed 14 amendments. 15 MR. DOUGLAS: I guess I can still say good 16 morning. Good morning, Chairman Lloyd and members of the 17 board. 18 I will begin my segment of the presentation with 19 the staff's proposed revisions. 20 I will follow the discussion of the proposed 21 revisions with the impacts of the proposal, the key issues, 22 a summary of the outreach efforts, planned future activities 23 and finally our recommendations. 24 In June we released proposed revisions that 25 prohibit the use of asbestos-containing materials for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 exposed surfacing applications. 2 Our proposal contained an explicit prohibition for 3 serpentine rock and included a limit for ultramafic rocks in 4 other asbestos-containing materials. 5 The limit we have chosen is the current limit of 6 detection for Test Method 435, which is 0.25 percent. We 7 considered this level as a practical prohibition for 8 asbestos. 9 As you recall, state law requires us to reduce 10 emissions to the lowest level achievable to prevent 11 endangerment of public health. 12 Our changes were made for consistency and clarity. 13 However, based on discussions with the Division of Mines and 14 Geology, Caltrans, industry and the public, since the 15 release of the June proposal, we are recommending additional 16 changes that will improve the control measure. 17 We are presenting modified revisions to the staff 18 report proposal today, which tie the applicability of the 19 control measure to the materials extracted from ultramafic 20 role units as identified on Division of Mines and Geology 21 maps. Under this change, serpentine rock will no longer be 22 prohibited, but will have to be tested, just as the control 23 measure requires for ultramafic rock. 24 We are also seeking to improve the proposal by 25 adding and clarifying the exemption and definitions and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 providing flexibility by allowing a reduced testing 2 frequency for those quarries that have a history of 3 non-detectable asbestos. 4 Our basic approach is to expand the requirements 5 of the control measure by restricting the use of any 6 material for surfacing that is extracted or quarried from a 7 designated ultramafic rock unit, of which serpentine is 8 included. 9 The asbestos content limit is being lowered from 10 five percent to a non-detectable level, which is defined by 11 Test Method 435 as 0.25 percent, before it can be supplied 12 or used for surfacing applications. 13 The identification of ultramafic material is tied 14 to the Division of Mines and Geology maps. If material 15 extracted is extracted from ultramafic rock unit, it is 16 subject to the regulation. 17 We have a few of the maps on exhibit here in the 18 room, including the recently released updated one for El 19 Dorado County, labeled as Exhibit B and C. These maps show 20 the ultramafic rock units usually in deep purple or green. 21 In order to ensure that the list of geologic maps 22 attached to the proposal remains current, we are asking the 23 board to allow the executive officer of the ARB to amend the 24 list of maps as new maps are updated or become available. 25 Surfacing material is not subject to the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 regulation if it originated outside of an ultramafic rock 2 unit except in some special situations. 3 Material outside of an ultramafic rock unit may 4 become subject to the proposed regulation if the air 5 pollution control officer requires material to be tested or 6 the material is identified through a geologic evaluation as 7 ultramafic rock, or any material that the quarry operator 8 knows to be ultramafic rock, serpentine or to be 9 asbestos-containing material. 10 The proposed amendments now prohibit the use, 11 sale, supply, application of restricted material unless it 12 has been tested and found to have a non-detectable asbestos 13 level. 14 I would like to clarify, however, that you can use 15 restricted material, regardless of the asbestos content, for 16 nonsurfacing applications such as fill or drain material, 17 riprap or for soil stabilization. 18 However, a warning notice must be provided to the 19 end users of this material to ensure that the material is 20 not used for unpaved surfaces and to inform the end user of 21 the possible exposure to asbestos. 22 The recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 23 the current measure were revised to be consistent with the 24 inclusion of ultramafic rock and other asbestos-containing 25 materials. As in the existing ATCM, the proposed amendments PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 require that the supplier provide and retain receipts with 2 information about the material and to make the receipts and 3 testing results available upon request. 4 We also expanded the warning requirements to 5 include ultramafic material. 6 The proposal allows the use of Test Method 435 or 7 an alternative asbestos bulk test method approved by the 8 executive officer of the ARB. 9 The proposal also offers flexibility that is 10 provided through exemptions. 11 The proposed amendment to the asbestos ATCM 12 contains several exemptions. The six listed here were 13 originally contained in the 1990 ATCM. These exemptions 14 were modified to make them consistent with the current 15 approach to the proposal. 16 Five exemptions were added under the proposal and 17 several of these would be provided at the discretion of the 18 air pollution control officer. 19 Based on discussions with Caltrans, we proposed 20 that roads located at active construction sites be made 21 exempt from the surfacing prohibition. These roads would 22 have to be covered or paved by the conclusion of the 23 project. The exemption would not apply to temporary roads 24 for public use. 25 The staff also proposes providing an exemption for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 riprap, which is the large-size rocks used for stabilization 2 of shorelines and levees. 3 An exemption for limited access surfaces was 4 added. This exemption would apply to inclined surfaces of 5 20 percent or more where public access is unlikely, provided 6 the setting is not zoned residential or commercial or 7 recreational. 8 Another exemption was added for the use of 9 ultramafic rock for surfacing a remote location. A remote 10 location is defined as an area that is at least one mile 11 from the nearest receptor, such as residents, businesses, 12 schools or campgrounds. This exemption would be provided 13 only if alternative material was not available. In order to 14 allow the exemption, the air pollution control officer must 15 consider public comments and require permanent signs giving 16 notice of the potential for asbestos exposures. 17 In today's proposal we have added a requirement 18 that any material used on remote roads must have an asbestos 19 content of one percent or less, but provisions -- but with 20 provisions to go up to five percent with the approval of the 21 air pollution control officer. 22 The proponent would also have to reapply for the 23 exemption at least once every three years. 24 Finally, we are proposing an exemption to allow a 25 geologic evaluation of property to be conducted to determine PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 the rock types present. This evaluation must be supplied to 2 the air pollution control officer who may then exempt the 3 quarry operation from the requirements of the regulation, if 4 the quarry is determined to be in a non-asbestos bearing 5 rock. 6 Changes are also proposed to improve the test 7 method provisions. In June we added a provision to this 8 section that allows the alternative test methods to be used 9 if approved by the executive officer of the ARB. 10 Today we propose adding additional flexibility to 11 the testing provisions by providing a mechanism for reducing 12 the frequency at which material would need to be tested. 13 This reduction in testing frequency would provide relief to 14 quarries whose materials show a consistent history of 15 non-detectable asbestos. 16 We also propose to reinstate the provision that 17 allow for the averaging of multiple test results when 18 testing a single volume of material. 19 I would now like to discuss the impacts of the 20 proposed amendments, including those changes proposed today 21 by staff. 22 The proposed amendments reflect the best available 23 control technology and will reduce the public's exposure and 24 the associated health risk to asbestos emissions from 25 unpaved surfaces. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 The staff anticipates only minimal adverse 2 environmental impacts. Staff has prepared an air impact 3 analysis showing the expected increases in miles driven by 4 diesel trucks would be less than 500 miles per day, which is 5 quite small when compared to -- when you compare it to 6 the --I'm sorry -- 30 million miles that diesel trucks are 7 driven each day in California. 8 Some air quality impacts may actually decrease. 9 Many of the alternative surfacing materials are more durable 10 and therefore would not need to be replaced as frequently, 11 resulting in reduced miles driven in the future. 12 Some air quality impacts may actually decrease. 13 Many of the alternative surfacing materials -- I'm sorry. 14 As we have mentioned, the proposal is also consistent with 15 state policy for pollution prevention and as less hazardous 16 alternative materials are available. 17 The amendments are expected to affect less than 18 ten percent of over 200 quarries operating that sell 19 surfacing material in California. 20 We have identified approximately 30 mines and 21 quarries operating in ultramafic rock units based on 22 information provided by the Division of Mines and Geology. 23 Staff contacted each of these quarries by phone 24 and were able to determine that only 17 of these were 25 actually producing crushed stone for sale for surfacing. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 The other quarries were either closed, producing sand and 2 gravel in an alluvial deposit, or were not producing 3 aggregate for sale. The 17 affected quarries produce less 4 than one percent of the total aggregate produced in 5 California. 6 These 17 quarries would be required to test 7 surfacing material at an estimated cost of 6 to 10 cents per 8 ton. Based on the information we received, we also believe 9 that three of these quarries where surfacing material is at 10 least 25 percent of their gross sales may be significantly 11 impacted unless they can find nonsurfacing uses for the 12 material that can no longer be sold for surfacing 13 applications. 14 Because alternative materials are available at 15 similar cost, homeowners and resellers are not expected to 16 incur increased costs, except possibly for additional 17 delivery fees if the material is not available from the 18 nearest quarry. The staff estimates that increased costs 19 will be at most ten percent. 20 There will be some increased costs to districts 21 because more facilities need to be inspected, and increased 22 staff time will be needed to review exemption applications. 23 Also, some districts may need to rescind the 24 current asbestos measures and either implement and enforce 25 the proposed amendments or adopt a measure of their own. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 While we have involved the stakeholders and made 2 several changes based on their input, there remains issues 3 that will be raised here today. I'd like to take a moment 4 to summarize the key issues. 5 The first ongoing issue is debate on the health 6 effects of asbestos. Specifically, that chrysotile is not 7 harmful or that it is less harmful than other forms of 8 asbestos. 9 As you have heard earlier from Dr. Marty, we 10 disagree and believe that all forms of asbestos are harmful. 11 Some are questioning the basis for the staff's 12 proposal. We believe that there is sufficient basis based 13 on the monitoring and modeling information presented to you 14 earlier that exposures to asbestos from unpaved surfaces 15 still occur at levels posing significant potential risk. 16 The data support the need for the proposal to minimize 17 exposures to asbestos emissions. 18 An issue has also been raised regarding the 19 inclusion of ultramafic rock in our ATCM. Based on 20 information that the Division of Mines and Geology, which 21 identifies ultramafic rock and serpentine as the rock types 22 more likely to contain asbestos, we feel it is important to 23 expand our control measure to include ultramafic rock. 24 Other issues primarily involved impacts to the 25 industry. Industry contends that there is a shortage of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 aggregate material in many parts of the state and that this 2 measure will exacerbate that shortage. Since the regulation 3 impacts less than one percent of the aggregate produced each 4 year in the state, we do not believe that the regulation 5 will have a significant impact on aggregate supplies. 6 Some operators have said that there will be a 7 severe financial impact on their business. Staff recognized 8 that there are economic impacts, but believe that only a few 9 quarry operators may suffer significant impacts if they 10 cannot find nonsurfacing uses for their asbestos-containing 11 material. 12 Issues regarding Test Method 435 have also been 13 raised regarding the adequacy and appropriateness of the 14 method. Test Method 435 has been used successfully for over 15 ten years and the staff proposal includes provisions which 16 allows the use of alternative methods if approved by the 17 ARB. 18 The development of the proposal before you today 19 has been done in an open public process where we have 20 involved all stakeholders. 21 To help inform the public regarding issues about 22 naturally occurred asbestos, we have undertaken a variety of 23 actions, including the development of a Web site which is 24 viewed by over 900 visitors a month, issued a series of six 25 informational fact sheets on naturally occurring asbestos, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 and released a school advisory to over 1200 school 2 superintendents across the state in cooperation with the 3 Department of Education. 4 In preparation of this proposal, staff conducted 5 three public advisory meetings, met with citizens' groups, 6 industry associations and representatives, participated in 7 public forums and formed a standing state agency work group 8 to coordinate the state's activities related to naturally 9 occurring asbestos. 10 Finally, I would like to mention future activities 11 that the staff has planned to provide for the implementation 12 of this control measure. 13 If the amendments to the ATCM are adopted, we 14 intend to work closely with the local districts and the 15 Division of Mines and Geology in the implementation phase of 16 the ATCM. 17 The staff will also continue to work with other 18 state agencies, such as the Office of Planning and Research 19 and Development, the Office of Planning and Research, and 20 the Department of Real Estate to ensure that future projects 21 give necessary consideration to naturally occurring asbestos 22 during the CEQA process and in disclosures in real estate 23 transactions. 24 We will also work with the Division of Mines and 25 Geology to update maps in the six districts. These efforts PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 will include assistance to districts in identifying and 2 evaluating quarries that are affected by the ATCM. This 3 includes those in ultramafic rock units and any other that 4 are outside of the geographic units. 5 Staff will also work with the Division of Mines 6 and Geology and the districts to develop guidance for 7 implementing the amended ATCM, including information on how 8 to use the maps. 9 As mentioned earlier, the staff is also developing 10 a measure to address asbestos emissions from construction 11 and quarrying operations. Many of the emissions from 12 construction and quarrying operations are already controlled 13 by local district regulation, in particular those related to 14 fugitive dust and particular matter. 15 The staff will review the existing regulations and 16 incorporate best management practices into the new measure. 17 The staff recommends that you adopt the amended 18 Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure with the staff's 19 changes after releasing the revised proposal for a public 20 review and a comment period, and authorize the executive 21 officer of the ARB to amend the list of geologic maps as 22 additional maps or new maps become available. 23 This proposal reflects best available control 24 technology and is consistent with the state's policy to 25 encourage pollution prevention through the use of less PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 hazardous materials. 2 This concludes the staff's presentation. Thank 3 you. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 5 Madam Ombudsman, would you please describe the 6 public participation process that occurred while this item 7 was being developed and share any concerns or other comments 8 that you may have with the board at this time. 9 MS. TSCHOGL: Mr. Chairman and members of the 10 board, I'm pleased to discuss the outreach efforts for this 11 ATCM. 12 This proposal has been developed with input from 13 US EPA, local air pollution control agencies, state 14 agencies, industry and other stakeholders. 15 In October 1999, staff began developing the 16 current asbestos ATCM to ensure that stakeholders were 17 included in the process and the evaluation effort. Staff 18 held three workshops, as you heard, in Sacramento. All 19 workshops were held in Sacramento because the potentially 20 affected parties are located in the Central and Northern 21 California areas. 22 Staff held the first workshop in November 1999 and 23 the second and third were held in February and May of this 24 year. 25 On average, more than 50 people attended each PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 workshop. Approximately 200 people were included in the 2 mailing, which comprised representatives from 3 environmentalists' groups, industry, local, state and 4 federal governments, and citizens from the potentially 5 impacted areas. 6 Staff participated in more than 500 telephone 7 calls with citizens and industry representatives. 8 Staff also had individual meetings with several 9 industry representatives, citizens' groups, and state and 10 federal agencies, and attended many field trips to rock 11 quarries. 12 In addition, staff actively participated in four 13 steering and advisory committees. They are the Asbestos 14 Task force, the State Agencies' Asbestos Workshop, the US 15 EPA and State Agencies' Asbestos Work Group, and the ARB Air 16 District Asbestos Working Group. 17 On June 2nd, 2000, staff released the board 18 hearing notice and staff report. Copies of the staff report 19 were mailed to just under 200 people. Additionally, the 20 notice, staff report and appendices were made available on 21 the ARB's Web site. These items were also made available on 22 CD-ROM. 23 Also, since June 2nd, staff has continued to 24 dialogue with all interested parties regarding their issues 25 and concerns. These conversations have contributed to many PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 changes the staff have included in today's proposal. 2 In closing, the outreach effort I've just outlined 3 indicates that ARB staff has made a conscientious effort to 4 reach out to all affected stakeholder groups and interested 5 parties. 6 You will soon hear that not all parties are happy. 7 However, it is my conclusion that the proposed 8 regulation that lies before you resulted from an open, 9 inclusive and thorough dialogue process. 10 Thank you. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 12 Do the board members have any questions at this 13 time? 14 Yes, Professor Friedman. 15 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I have a quick 16 question, clarification. 17 One of the points made -- and by the way, I 18 congratulate you, as Dr. Bill Friedman said, in having such 19 youthful eyes and eyesight, because you were operating in 20 the dark, that lamp. Well done. 21 You have the modeled risks, basis for revision 22 modeled risks chart, which shows that under CALSCRAM and its 23 modeling, actually the US EPA model, the risk at one percent 24 asbestos content within five feet is 50 for lung cancer and 25 95 for mesothelioma. If we reduce that content to below .25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 or one-fourth of one percent, if I understand the proposal, 2 to below a non-detectable level, then am I correct that the 3 risk remaining would still be within 50 feet -- within five 4 feet it would still be 12 and a half, or 24, depending on 5 the disease, in a million, and at 50 feet it would be eight 6 or 11? 7 MR. DONOHOUE: Right. It would be around in the 8 range of six to 12. 9 Dan Donohoue, chief of the Emissions Assessment 10 Branch, Air Resources Board. 11 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: So there would still 12 be a remaining risk of some sort? 13 MR. DONOHOUE: Yes. 14 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I wouldn't want to be 15 one of the 12 or 13 out of a million. 16 MR. DONOHOUE: Yes. 17 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: We're going as low as 18 we can detect with current testing methods? 19 MR. DONOHOUE: Correct. And that's based on the 20 model concentrations and, you know, there are a lot of 21 factors that play into that, the vehicular traffic on the 22 road, the asbestos content of the material on the road, the 23 numbers of days of precipitation, you know, the types of 24 vehicles on the road, all those things are factors that come 25 in. But, yes, those are the modeled values. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: And that's based on 2 observed and experienced transport to the extent to which 3 once in the air it stays in the air for a time. 4 MR. DONOHOUE: Yes. These are based on standard 5 Gaussian type modeling approaches that have been used. 6 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Thank you. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. A question. When you 8 mention Gaussian, I didn't think Gaussian did very well at 9 five feet. 10 MR. AMES: Good morning. I'm Don Ames with the 11 Stationary Source Division. 12 Chairman Lloyd, what we did was develop an 13 improved model. EPA had a very crude model for asbestos on 14 roadways, so in the early '90s we had a research project to 15 take that EPA model and refine it and improve it and then 16 field test that model. So that's what this is based on, 17 that experience of having an improved road model specific 18 for asbestos on roadways. 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: So actually you've got the model 20 and then you took the data, evaluated the model and improved 21 it? 22 MR. AMES: Okay. 23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I've got much more confidence. 24 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I'm still confused. This 25 is not a direct extrapolation. You can't measure anything PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 below .25 percent. So the incidence of lung cancer should 2 be the same as it is in the general population. I mean, you 3 talking -- you can't draw the curve down to zero through 4 .25. It's no different than the general population, just 5 because you can't measure it. So it's not 12 per million, 6 it's whatever it is in the general population. 7 MR. AMES: From that perspective, that is correct. 8 What this is using is a standard health risk assessment 9 procedures that we and EPA do, which is linear dose 10 extrapolation for carcinogens. 11 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Okay. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 13 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Now I'm confused. So 14 what I'm hearing now is that once you go down below a 15 detectable level and prevent any discernible or detectable 16 level, whatever remaining risks there are for these 17 diseases, are those not because of the surface and the area, 18 at least not proven? 19 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: You couldn't tell whether 20 there was any asbestos involved at all below .25. 21 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: You can't tell 22 there's any cause? 23 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: That's right. 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: It might be zero. 25 DR. MARTY: This is Melanie Marty from OEHHA. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 The risk assessment models are looking at added 2 risk above background. And you are absolutely correct, you 3 would never be able to measure that in an epidemiology 4 study, and it's the same for probably most of the 5 carcinogens that this board regulates. 6 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: But as long as you 7 can still detect some level, suppose the proposal were to 8 reduce it down to .5, or one-half of one percent, then 9 presumably, because you can detect some level, there would 10 be some extrapolation? 11 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Yes. Finite. 12 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: There would be some 13 causal relationship, at least predictable. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 15 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Very different kind of 16 area. 17 There was some discussion of surveying of quarry 18 operations. And I'm interested in whether or not you 19 surveyed quarries where they're producing not for sale, but 20 for use on their own land. Were they at all included in 21 that? 22 MR. AMES: Mr. McKinnon, what we did was we worked 23 closely with Mines and Geology to identify all quarries that 24 were potentially be exposed -- subject to this regulation, 25 and we contacted each and every one of those, so if they PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 have a permit, those should have been the ones we called. 2 If they're operating with a permit through Mines and Geology 3 Mining Board. 4 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: So permitting was the 5 basis of determining -- 6 MR. AMES: If they're in Conservation's database. 7 In that instance, I know we have one letter in the record 8 from such an owner, so presuming that owner has a permit, 9 and I would expect that they would have been on one of the 10 many calls we made. 11 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Do you know offhand or 12 does anybody here know if you're operating a quarry for your 13 own use are you required to be permitted? 14 MR. VENTURINI: Mr. McKinnon, most quarries, my 15 understanding, are required to have permits. 16 In addition, it's my understanding that the 17 majority, virtually all the districts, whatever quarries 18 they have, they have local permits. Most of the districts 19 have requirements for dust mitigation steps and so forth on 20 the quarries. 21 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Okay. I have kind of 22 another area of different area of questioning, and that is 23 related to kind of worker health and safety. 24 And maybe this is really dealing with the other 25 half of this regulation we're going to consider later, but PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 one of my concerns in looking at where we're headed, we're 2 saying we don't want to use this rock gravel on surfacing 3 operations, but it might be okay to use in aggregate. 4 And like I said, this may be later discussion, but 5 I'm very very interested in if we have aggregate distributed 6 in concrete all over California, and we have people buy 7 concrete in aggregate and put it in their backyards and put 8 it in either professionally or home handyman style, and then 9 later we're tearing it up and tearing it out, what kinds of 10 exposures come from our spreading it around? Maybe they're 11 very small. I mean, it occurs to me that that's a 12 possibility. But that's a question that occurred to me, 13 frankly, yesterday, or I would have handed it off some time 14 sooner to you. 15 MR. VENTURINI: Mr. McKinnon, I'm Peter Venturini, 16 chief of the Stationary Sources. 17 I think your question is a very good question. 18 One of the things we did learn that in many cases 19 the type of rock that we're talking about does not meet 20 specifications for the type of aggregate that, for example, 21 my understanding, Caltrans would use. They have very high 22 specifications. But there could be uses in other areas, and 23 other counties. 24 One of the things we intend to do at the next 25 phase or measure is take a look at this, particularly where PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 you're coming back in, as you mentioned, and tearing up the 2 concrete or asphalt to see what may be appropriate to 3 address that. 4 I think the other thing I'd like to say in terms 5 of the staff is we tend to follow the implementation of this 6 measure very closely to see how it's working in practice, 7 how some of the special provisions are being addressed and 8 dealt with to assure ourselves that we are maximizing the 9 protection of the citizens that may be potentially exposed 10 to asbestos. 11 But to address your specific question, we tend to 12 look at that type of situation in the next phase. 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any other questions from the 14 board? 15 Thank you very much. 16 What I'd like to do at this time is take a 17 half-hour break promptly. I would like to adjourn for 18 lunch. And we will reconvene at 1:00 o'clock. 19 And we have a large number of witnesses, about 30, 20 so we're going to be limiting the time here, probably to 21 around three minutes each witness in order to cover this 22 here, because we'll have questioning on top of that. 23 So 1:00 o'clock promptly, please return. 24 (Thereupon the lunch recess was taken.) 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I would like to continue the 3 hearing on the asbestos on unpaved roads issue. 4 And I would like to call the first witness, 5 Dr. Jim Davis, with the state geologist, and then we have 6 Paula Forbis and then Charles Rea. 7 Dr. Davis. 8 DR. DAVIS: Thank you. Good afternoon. It's a 9 pleasure to have an opportunity to address the board on the 10 important subject of naturally occurring asbestos. 11 My organization, Division of Mines and Geology, is 12 in the Department of Conservation, and the role of Division 13 of the Mines and Geology is essentially the state geological 14 survey of California. 15 So we are not a regulatory unit. We provide basic 16 information on the geology of the state. 17 And I'm going to call your attention to a couple 18 of the exhibits that you see there, just to explain some of 19 products that we provide. 20 The first one on the left, Exhibit A, is a colored 21 geologic map that has about fourscore different geologic 22 rock types that are shown in color code at a scale of one 23 inch equals about four miles. This scale is what we would 24 call a regional scale. 25 And that map was put together about 20 years ago, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 covers the Sacramento area to the east. And it was 2 basically a compilation of map work at larger scales, more 3 detail, put together at this regional scale, and it's 4 superseded an older regional map of that type. There was 5 some field checking associated with that, but when we do 6 regional work we're usually putting together a compilation 7 because the area to be covered is so large. 8 Now, the map to the right of that is Exhibit B and 9 that is a derivative map. A derivative map is produced for 10 a special purpose, and that means that you have something in 11 mind that you want to highlight. That map was put together 12 after we interacted -- the Department of Conservation 13 interacted with the Asbestos Task Force, which was organized 14 several years ago. 15 And the recommendation of the task force was that 16 the Department of Conservation produce a map that shows in 17 western El Dorado County the occurrence of rocks that are 18 the most likely to be asbestos bearing. 19 I won't go into the definition of the rock unit, 20 which we call ultramafic, which includes several different 21 types of rocks that we would give scientific names to, but 22 they're aggregated there. 23 That map was put together by my staff using GIS, 24 geographic information system, computer technology, which 25 allowed my staff to overlay about 21 different geologic maps PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 that have been produced earlier and consider the geology of 2 ultramafic rocks as it was presented and soils associated 3 with ultramafic rocks as they were presented there. 4 This was a pilot project. The pilot project is to 5 see how useful a compilation of this kind would be, how 6 useful a map of naturally occurring asbestos rock would be. 7 And so that was released as part of an open file 8 report, which described the geology of the area, but 9 concentrated on the practical use of that map. 10 And among the uses of maps of that kind are 11 land-use decision making. So the county which has land-use 12 decision-making responsibilities was very interested, and 13 the citizens of the county were very interested in that map. 14 It's been out for about two months. It's been very well 15 received. And we are interacting with the residents and the 16 local government on implementing its use there. 17 However, in the same process we began to interact 18 with the Air Resources Board staff and it was clear that 19 there were some aspects of producing maps of that kind that 20 would be of value in the kind of regulation you've heard 21 about this morning. 22 So in addition to that map, we have Exhibit C, at 23 least I assume it's Exhibit C, although the title is bent 24 over, and that is a statewide map. And those of you who are 25 as far away from it as I am will see that there are some PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 aquamarine patches that are illustrated on that map and that 2 is what constitutes the distribution of about within about 3 42 of our counties of some mappable occurrence of ultramafic 4 rock at a scale that can be illustrated at one inch equals 5 12 miles, approximately one inch equals 12 miles, which is 6 the scale of that map. 7 That map is helpful then in getting a statewide 8 perspective of where these types of rocks are. It is still 9 in the final peer review stages and will be released as a 10 publication from our organization shortly. 11 Now, I believe that the association we've had with 12 the staff of the Air Resources Board has been something that 13 has been a useful thing to do from their point of view, and 14 we have strived to be as helpful as we can in assisting them 15 in dealing with the geology of the state and its 16 relationship to the occurrence of the asbestos. 17 In order to accomplish this pilot project, which 18 as I described, the two derivative maps are a pilot project, 19 I have made a temporary assignment of working on this 20 program from the regular assignment of a very small staff 21 area, which we call mineral hazards. In the past that group 22 has worked on the distribution of the radioactive gas 23 radon, the occurrence of mercury in water supplies, and the 24 occurrence of arsenic. And we have other plans for that 25 unit, but we have been concentrating on asbestos for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 approximately the last year with the small effort. 2 And I think the other thing I would say is that we 3 have experience and responsibility in showing what we call 4 geologic hazards. We map the faults of the state that are 5 active. The statute that we operate under requires me to 6 zone active faults so that structures for human occupancy 7 will not be placed on them. We zone areas of ground failure 8 and earthquake-induced landsliding from earthquakes. So 9 we're bringing that experience to bear in dealing with this 10 hazard. 11 I expect that we will probably be developing a set 12 of guidelines for the use of the map, like Exhibit B, so 13 that that can be a guide to the people who want to use the 14 map, either as homeowners, as local government or as 15 consulting geologists who are doing special studies at the 16 request of local government for developers. 17 Thank you. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, Dr. Davis. 19 Thank you for the cooperation of you and your 20 staff, as I indicated. 21 Questions from the board? 22 Mr. McKinnon. 23 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Are there any major gaps 24 of information on the map? Is the map fairly representative 25 or are there areas that haven't been looked at yet? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 DR. DAVIS: The areas that are shown as ultramafic 2 maps all have -- ultramafic occurrences on the El Dorado map 3 or the state map have evidence of ultramafic rocks being 4 present. 5 The degree of which the boundaries are well 6 defined varies depending on who was doing the mapping and 7 what the purpose was for doing the mapping. 8 I should also point out the reason we've not 9 mapped serpentinite, which is a rock you've heard about, 10 that does contain serpentine mineral, is because geologic 11 maps very rarely concentrate on showing the distribution of 12 serpentinite. It's aggregated together with ultramafic 13 rocks, because it's an alteration of ultramafic rock, there 14 are gradations between the fresh rock that hasn't been 15 altered and the altered rock which is serpentinite, that 16 would be very difficult to show, particularly at these 17 regional scales. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. 19 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: So in the areas that are 20 blank, and it doesn't show any mapping of ultramafic rock, 21 it's fairly reliable that there isn't any there and it isn't 22 a question that that just hasn't been mapped? 23 DR. DAVIS: It's not a question that it hasn't 24 been mapped. It is a question -- we make no -- in science 25 we make no categorical statements. So I invite you -- and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 that doesn't mean we're weaseling, we're trying to be 2 precise. So I invite you to look at the legend. 3 But the area there that's white, for instance, on 4 Exhibit B, says that there may be local occurrences that are 5 so small they can't be shown at the scale, and that scale 6 map is one inch equals about 1.6 miles. So it's possible 7 that there are occasional purposes, locations where there 8 may be small amounts as an accessory or subordinate mineral 9 of, say, serpentine minerals or asbestos minerals. 10 But that is something that we have not mapped so 11 detailed that we can pick those areas up and show them in a 12 regional map. 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 14 And you will note that I didn't keep Dr. Davis to 15 three minutes, but I thought it was important because of his 16 work with staff that we understand fully what they were 17 working on. 18 But now I would like the timekeeper to institute 19 three minutes. 20 We have Paula Forbis then Charles Rea and Dr. Paul 21 Lessard. 22 Paula. 23 She's gone? Then Charles Rea. 24 Paula, as I understand from my notes here, was 25 supporting the regulation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 MR. REA: Thank you. My name is Charlie Rea. I'm 2 the assistant executive director at the Construction 3 Materials Association of California. We are a trade 4 organization representing the aggregate and ready-mix 5 industries in Northern California. 6 As you might guess, our members produce the rock 7 products that go into building, making asphalt and concrete, 8 building roads, lot of other uses too, like roadbase, 9 decorative uses, erosion control. 10 I want to just acknowledge at the outset that we 11 understand this is a sensitive, important issue and the 12 board needs to take appropriate measures to protect the 13 public health. 14 Also, I want to acknowledge that Peter Venturini's 15 office for all their efforts to meet with us and give us 16 various versions of the regulation and discuss a lot of 17 things. I think we kind of reached a point where we had to 18 agree to disagree on a few things, and I want to take a few 19 moments to review those. I think I'll have a few people 20 follow me that will amplify some of these issues too. 21 As far as our underlying concerns, we're looking 22 at this, following this closely in part because it's trying 23 to address a control measure for a naturally occurring 24 substance and we think how it's dealt with here may affect 25 future proceedings that would be of interest to us. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 And I think that in general our view of this 2 regulation, we believe the board is being proposed with an 3 approach that is it's the most cautious probably regarding 4 public health. It's certainly hard to argue that this 5 proposal will not -- it will certainly reduce emissions and 6 can't argue with that. 7 I think our concern is whether this is the 8 necessary approach or these measures are all necessary and 9 particularly whether all the relevant studies and data and 10 information have really been compiled to present us with the 11 ability to analyze what would be the best control measures. 12 I think we think this is important too, because we 13 think there's some requirements in the law and the safety 14 and health code that need to be followed. I don't believe 15 those necessarily have been in all instances. 16 Finally, I think the way it's structured is if we 17 feel like that it's because it broadens the scope of the 18 current measure that our producers would be put in a 19 position to trying to prove a negative, that they do not 20 have the rock types or asbestos that is of concern. 21 Briefly just three main points. 22 One of the concerns is with addition of ultramafic 23 rock. In our view this greatly expands the scope of ATCM. 24 It also brings in a substance that is more rare for the 25 occurrence of asbestos. And we think that particular PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 concern is that reading through the initial statement of 2 reasons that there's not a lot of justification for the 3 inclusion of ultramafic rock. There aren't the data on 4 number of miles of road paved with ultramafic rock. There's 5 not enough data on the number of mines that produce it. 6 There's not enough information on roads that are paved with 7 it, what the asbestos content level is, what the emissions 8 are and how this proposal would reduce those or does not 9 quantify how it will reduce those emissions. 10 I think there's probably a lot of agreement that 11 serpentine contains asbestos, but I think that's where it 12 ends. It's more problematic with ultramafic. And that's a 13 main concern of ours. 14 Secondly, on serpentine we're concerned that -- 15 again, when I say serpentine, I mean lowering the content 16 level from five percent to .25, we're concerned that again 17 the staff, the studies and data information has not been 18 collected. We view this as something that was supposed to 19 be done over the past ten years. In fact I think the board 20 actually directed that more data be collected in 1990. 21 Again, it should have in our view followed the 22 requirements of the safety and health code that more data be 23 obtained and really be done in a systematic and more 24 controlled circumstances. 25 Third, just like to mention that we think the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 testimony -- 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: That third and lastly, because 3 you're well over your time. 4 MR. REA: I'm sorry. 5 Third, these other changes make the test method 6 more problematic and we'll have someone talk about that. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I heard one of your association 8 is going to talk about the testing method. 9 MR. REA: Yes, exactly. 10 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Mr. Rea, one question. 11 You mentioned there's not enough data to support 12 the conclusion of ultramafic rock. What additional data 13 would you like to see the staff gather in order to support 14 that? 15 MR. REA: I think the safety and health code has 16 about seven or eight things that are supposed to be looked 17 at and reported on. And I'd say if someone could go out and 18 count the -- find where there are really roads where there 19 is ultramafic rock, you know, determine what the content 20 level of those roads, whether they're emissions coming off 21 there that are of concern, that type of information. 22 I think, as I said too, we don't think the 23 occurrence of asbestos is that common in ultramafic rock. 24 We also think there's a lot of concern about how you 25 really -- what is ultramafic rock. We get a lot of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 different opinions from our producers. 2 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Staff have any comments to 3 make regarding that? 4 MR. AMES: Yes. I'd like to respond briefly. 5 As you heard from Dr. Davis, that the current reg 6 has somewhat of a loophole in it in that serpentine is most 7 frequently not identified as such on the maps. So we think 8 it's important to close that loophole that's in the current 9 regs. 10 Secondly, if you look at the legend on the map 11 that's been recently produced by DMG, it does say that 12 ultramafic is including serpentine are the rock forms most 13 likely to contain asbestos, so we are relying upon the 14 expertise of Mines and Geology on this matter. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 16 Ms. D'Adamo. 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I was going to wait to hear 18 from the other witness on this, but perhaps in the interest 19 of time if we could have legal staff respond to the concerns 20 raised about the Health and Safety Code. I understand that 21 there's a couple of different interpretations of that. And 22 then if perhaps future witnesses could respond to any 23 continuing concerns they have in light of the legal staff's 24 interpretation. 25 MS. WALSH: Right. The commenter is correct that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 statute does outline a number of areas of information that 2 should be looked at by staff and included in the staff 3 report, if that information is -- or to the extent that 4 information or data is reasonably available. 5 And I think staff's position is that we in fact 6 did look at all of those categories of information and to 7 the extent that information is available it has been 8 reflected in the staff report and is staff's position that 9 that data that is available does support the recommendation 10 that staff has made. 11 This is a matter of a disagreement about whether 12 the data that's available justifies the decision, and 13 certainly reasonable folks can disagree on that point, and 14 that's part of what we're here for today for you folks to 15 hear that information and make a final decision about 16 whether the information does support the recommendation. 17 As I indicated, it is staff's opinion that it 18 certainly does. 19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Is there a different 20 threshold requirement that perhaps was required on the 21 initial listing of asbestos as a toxic air contaminant as 22 compared to what's required to implement additional control 23 measures? 24 MS. WALSH: There's not a different standard. The 25 standard is whether the information presented, whether the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 record includes substantial evidence to support any decision 2 that's made by the board. 3 In this case with respect to the control measure 4 itself, the statute does cull out and specifically direct 5 the board to collect certain types of information about 6 emissions, about the available controls and the like, again 7 to the extent that information is reasonably available, and 8 to use that information in making your decision and making a 9 determination as to whether there is substantial evidence to 10 support the staff's recommendation or any other action that 11 you might decide to take. 12 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Thank you. 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 14 Next is Dr. Paul Lessard. 15 DR. LESSARD: Good afternoon. My name is Dr. Paul 16 Lessard. I work for Granite Rock Company located in 17 Wastsonville, California. We mine granite primarily for use 18 in asphalt and concrete. 19 My background is I have a doctorate in physical 20 chemistry as well as a bachelor of science in environmental 21 toxicology from University of California at Davis. 22 I'd like to describe two issues that I have, as 23 does the CMA, Construction Materials Association of 24 California, with the currently proposed regulation. 25 I'd like to speak to the method, the testing PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 method 435, and then I'd like to say a few words about the 2 exposure assessment that's used to quantify the risk from 3 the asbestos-containing road materials. 4 First of all, I'd like to point out that the 5 method 435 that was developed in 1990 is clearly -- was 6 clearly not developed for ultramafic rock testing. It's 7 called the determination of asbestos content of serpentine 8 aggregate. This method was never developed and was never 9 intended as a means for measuring asbestos in ultramafic 10 rocks. 11 The method also has within it a requirement for a 12 sampling frequency. There's a couple different options, 13 depending if it's a road or a field or a pile of rocks. 14 If it's a pile of aggregate rocks, the requirement 15 is for one test, one composite sample to be collected for 16 every 1,000 tons of aggregate. That data, that sample must 17 be collected and then sent to a lab for analysis by method 18 435. Typically, analysis takes between four and five days, 19 unless a request is made specifically for a rapid turnaround 20 where perhaps the analysis can be made within a 24-hour 21 period of time, but then you pay twice as much. 22 In our industry, the aggregate piles are very -- 23 they change on a daily, on an hourly basis. We're loading 24 rail cars, we're loading trucks, we're loading different 25 vehicles for distribution to different points to different PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 contractors to different places. So it's very difficult 2 from a logistical point of view on how to track a sample 3 that would be collected and then a period of four or five 4 days would lapse, that material may already be in somebody's 5 sidewalk in place in the jobsite, so that presents a very 6 difficult situation for our industry. 7 The other point I'd like to make is the next two 8 points are points that were raised by the Air Resources 9 Board's consultant, RJ Lee Group. This is the lab that is 10 on contract with Air Resources Board to analyze the 11 method -- excuse me, to analyze the samples that they've 12 made reference to. 13 There's a document that was presented in 1990 14 testimony that points out that a false positive can be -- 15 can arise from the method from the antigorite fiber, can be 16 mistaken for a chrysotile fiber, so there's a potential for 17 overreporting the actual numerical, the actual quantity of 18 asbestos. 19 Now, this is very important because we're down at 20 the very lower limit of the testing method. We're at the 21 detection level, the lowest amount that can be detected in 22 the sample. So that's one concern we have. 23 But the bigger concern we have is that the 24 uncertainty goes up exponentially as you go down to fewer 25 samples detected, fewer fibers detected in the sample. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 Now, in the ARB method it points out that at five 2 percent, which again this is what the method was developed 3 originally to analyze for, the five percent asbestos 4 content, at five percent the uncertainty is plus or minus 5 two percent. That means if I -- if the lab tells me it's 6 five percent, it could be three percent, it could be seven 7 percent. 8 However, when you get down to the detection limit, 9 the uncertainty goes through the roof. According to a memo 10 by RJ Lee Group submitted in 1999, at the detection limit 11 the uncertainty skyrockets to over 200 percent. 12 Next I'd like to quickly say a few words about the 13 exposure assessment. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Time is well up. Summarize in 15 one sentence what you're going to say. 16 DR. LESSARD: I'm just going to say that the 17 exposure assessment study on the unpaved roads relies on a 18 number of studies that we do not consider representative of 19 true situations. In two of the studies there were nine and 20 16 percent asbestos in the roadway in the base material. 21 This clearly is greater than the five percent that is 22 currently regulated, so I consider that nonvalid. One was 23 based on a Bee newspaper study that had a single sample. 24 The other was used near a quarry entrance. This doesn't 25 seem to be representative of an unpaved road to me. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 And therefore I'd like to pose the question is how 2 representative are these six studies that are outlined in 3 Table 3 of the initial statement of reasons. 4 Thank you. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Staff want to comment? 6 MR. DONOHOUE: Yeah. I guess I'd like to first 7 respond to a couple of concerns raised with method 435. 8 Method 435 is basically you crush up rock and you 9 use optical properties and morphology to look at that, the 10 material left, to determine where there are asbestos 11 bundles. 12 The point raised about the accuracy of the method, 13 the information there is correct from 1990, although we have 14 had considerable experience since then. In fact, in 1999 we 15 went and did a round-robin set of testing with alternative 16 labs, looked at bulk samples ranging from .1 to 1.2 percent. 17 The bottom line on that was that the minimum detection level 18 at the minimum detection level at the 95 percent confidence 19 limit, the results would be for 0.25 percent is plus or 20 minus .14 percent. So basically you're looking at if the 21 sample was in the .25 range, your range of results would be 22 between .1 and .4. 23 So we are not dealing with plus or minus two 24 percent on each side of that. We're dealing with a pretty 25 tight band based upon additional round-robin testing. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 134 1 The issue with concern that was raised in 1990 2 with the actinolite and the possibility of a false reading 3 on that, subsequent information has allowed us to identify 4 that there is a significant enough difference between the 5 index of refraction between those two and with the effects 6 of the morphology of those bodies, and those have not proved 7 to be issues or problems that we think exist with the 8 current test method. 9 The test method has been used for soil samples, 10 rock samples, of all various types and we believe 11 successfully used in that application. 12 Let's see. Oh, the frequency at which that 13 sampling must occur, you need to take a sample, one every 14 thousand tons of material. 15 The individual mentioned that you don't know 16 whether it's in a sidewalk. You need to -- we need to be 17 careful that what we're talking about here is only that 18 material that goes out for unpaved surfaces that needs to be 19 tested. If it's put in concrete or asphalt, that's not a 20 situation where you have to hold the material for testing. 21 And the other thing is that the requirement for 22 testing, one for testing every thousand tons is a 23 requirement that exists in the current regulations, so 24 people have been dealing with this issue, quarries that have 25 had to do testing, have been dealing with this issue. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 135 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 2 Dr. Friedman. 3 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I have a question. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. 5 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: It seemed to me one of the 6 points he made about the test method itself was developed 7 for I guess serpentine rock, and it's not -- but my question 8 is is it applicable to ultramafic? 9 MR. DONOHOUE: The basic test method is basically 10 involving taking a rock and crushing it up and looking for 11 asbestos bundles. And we have used it on soil samples, on 12 different types of rock where you end up having -- we've 13 used it on limestone, those type of things. So it's the 14 microscopic technique associated with that has been used for 15 about a hundred years in the mineralogy field. The crushing 16 technique also has been around. So we don't see an issue 17 associated with the difference between serpentine or 18 ultramafic rock. It's good for rock samples. 19 MR. VENTURINI: Mr. Calhoun, I'd just like to add, 20 staff can correct me if my understanding is incorrect, but 21 it's my understanding that the bulk sampling method and so 22 forth is based on ASTM methods for sampling and handling 23 aggregates, so we believe this method is applicable to just 24 about any basic rock type. 25 MR. DONOHOUE: That's correct. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 136 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo. 2 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I'm fine. I was 3 going to ask, but he answered it. 4 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Is there any difference in 5 as a practical matter between serpentine and ultramafic in 6 terms of the frequency of asbestos fines? 7 Let me tell you what I'm getting at here. 8 Is it possible for a quarry that has ultramafic, 9 not just at an individual site, not to have asbestos, and 10 would it be possible to make a determination that this 11 specific quarry should be exempt without having to go 12 through the testing methods for every thousand tons? I 13 thought there was an exemption and as I read through this 14 I'm not finding that exemption very clearly. 15 MR. DONOHOUE: With response to your question, 16 when we originally did the first version of the ATCM, you 17 saw a situation where we were proposing to prohibit 18 serpentine. 19 Basically, with response to the question, you can 20 find both ultramafic rock and serpentine rock that do not 21 have asbestos content in those. 22 There is a provision within the regulation that 23 allows for testing to change the frequency. If you have a 24 whole series of non-detects that are available, you can 25 change the frequency at which you do your testing. So PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 137 1 there's that available. 2 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: So the series of 3 non-detects would be required and that would be under the 4 sampling frequency that would allow the APCO to make a 5 determination that -- 6 MR. DONOHOUE: Yes. There's actually two things. 7 There's one that the providing the information with respect 8 to non-detects would allow the APCO to make a determination 9 that we're going to change the frequency rather than, say, 10 every thousand tons to every 5,000 or greater. 11 The other thing is that there's a provision within 12 there that allows for an alternative method, and so there 13 may be a situation where somebody wanted to use, say, an 14 alternative technique, they wanted to look at core samples 15 or something like that, they could come forward, propose an 16 alternative type of either method for doing the sampling or 17 plan for doing the testing, that is available in there by 18 allowing for an alternative technique approved by the Air 19 Resources Board with respect to the test method. 20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: As a practical matter, 21 let's say that I have a quarry that I think falls within or 22 would eventually fall within this category, I'm average in 23 size, I don't know if there's such a thing as an average 24 size, but how long is it going to take for me to go through 25 this process of an alternative sampling frequency and how PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 138 1 much would it cost? 2 MR. VENTURINI: Ms. D'Adamo, let me address that. 3 First let me indicate that from our assessment we 4 believe there are something on the order of 17 quarries that 5 we believe would -- are in these ultramafic rock units that 6 currently provide crushed material for surfacing that would 7 be affected. 8 There are far many more quarries than that in the 9 state. 10 We did provide a provision to allow -- to 11 recognize that there may be ultramafic rock areas where they 12 may not be in the presence of asbestos and we wanted to 13 provide a mechanism to basically not be subject, if it was 14 determined. So what we have in the regulation is basically, 15 and staff may have to help me here, a provision that is 16 looking at historical records that are available, or some 17 additional testing, I believe, for two years of data that 18 would demonstrate there's a history of non-detects. 19 Then based on that data, the APCO could be 20 presented with that information. Then the APCO could then 21 extend the amount of the frequency of testing to the amount 22 of material up to a hundred thousand ton units. 23 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: So probably a two-year 24 period? 25 MR. VENTURINI: That's what we suggested. Either PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 139 1 historical data or, say, if it's new quarry two years' worth 2 of information. 3 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. Now, maybe either 4 staff or the witness could answer this, how often would the 5 thousand tons have to be tested? How often would that occur 6 and what would the cost be? I'm just trying to get an idea 7 of what would be required of someone who thinks they might 8 be able to fall within this exemptions. 9 MR. VENTURINI: When we do our testing, we have to 10 go out to labs as well, and our costs is -- what is it? 11 MR. DONOHOUE: Six to ten. 12 MR. VENTURINI: Six to ten cents a ton, so for 13 every thousand tons that's six to -- it's about one percent 14 of the cost of the material, basically, is the cost of the 15 testing. 16 So if someone, say, had to test 100,000 tons of 17 material over this period of time, what would be that, six 18 to ten thousand over that period of time for testing. 19 But the testing is roughly one percent of the cost 20 of the material. 21 DR. LESSARD: It's hard to say what an average 22 quarry size is, but you know rock is pretty heavy, so a 23 thousand tons is a pretty small pile. 24 Put another way, it's about what 50, $60 per 25 analysis, I would guess, street price. I would guess an PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 140 1 average quarry would be doing it three to four times a day 2 at a thousand tons frequency. 3 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Do you have ultramafic at 4 your quarry? 5 DR. LESSARD: Not as far as I know. I'm in a 6 potentially ultramafic zone. 7 MR. VENTURINI: What I'd like to add as well, 8 we've had quite a discussion with folks about the test 9 method, and one of the things we do in the measure is we 10 provided flexibility that would allow a quarry to come in 11 and provide us with an alternative test method that we would 12 evaluate, and if we found it to basically do the job, we 13 would accept that. 14 And I know one of the issues that has been raised 15 is that maybe instead of a thousand ton unit, they might 16 start with a larger unit. We think we can work with them 17 to, you know, have an alternative method that might start 18 with a larger pile or a larger increment and then adjust the 19 sampling so they wouldn't have to do thousand ton units. 20 The other thing I think I need to explain is there 21 may be a perception that you have to have, although you have 22 to test every thousand tons, you don't have to create 23 separate thousand-ton piles, which in simple terms is about 24 ten train carloads is about a thousand tons. If you, say, 25 have a 5,000-ton pile, you don't have to break that up into PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 141 1 five different piles. You can go out and basically visually 2 kind of break it up and then take samples from each of the 3 five segments and then sample those and then average the 4 results. So we don't want you to think you got a 20,000-ton 5 pile, you got to go in and break it up into 20 different 6 piles. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 8 Next is Wayne, I think it's Bloechl. And then 9 Daniel Ziarkowski, and then Larry Weitzman 10 MR. BLOECHL: Good afternoon, chairman and members 11 of the board. My name is Wayne Bloechl. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Sorry for messing that up. 13 MR. BLOECHL: It's a common thing. 14 I'm Wayne Bloechl. I'm representing the 15 Construction Materials Association of California. 16 My background is I hold several degrees from 17 University of California Santa Cruz. At this time I'm 18 topped out at master's, but I'm working towards a Ph.D at 19 some point here. 20 Anyway, my background also is in my master's 21 degree I worked extensively on petrology, in fact that's my 22 speciality. Petrology is identifying minerals, mostly 23 optically under the microscope. 24 And as a side bar, I will say that being a 25 competent petrologist is very difficult. It takes a lot of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 142 1 practice. An average geologist who does not do that sort of 2 thing is not typically a good petrologist and therefore 3 cannot identify minerals very specifically. 4 So let me start with a few points. 5 Rocks, first of all, are composed of minerals, and 6 I hear a lot of banter back and forth about terminology 7 here, and I just want to clarify a few things. 8 Serpentine is a group of minerals. It's the group 9 composed of several minerals -- excuse me. Little nervous 10 here. I'm usually out in the field. 11 Chrysotile is one and antigorite and lizardite are 12 other forms of serpentine or members of the serpentine 13 group. 14 Serpentinite is a rock composed of several or one 15 of the serpentine minerals, as well as other minerals. 16 Chromite, for instance, magnetite, things like that. 17 And ultramafic rock must be composed of one or two 18 minerals for the most part that come from the mantle, very 19 rare at the earth surface. 20 So we're talking about limited number of rocks. 21 There are igneous rocks. All the textbooks that I 22 have, everything I've looked at, an ultramafic rock is 23 strictly an igneous rock. It is not an alteration product 24 of an igneous rock. 25 Therefore, serpentine, which is not really a rock PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 143 1 or mineral, it's a group, is not part of an ultramafic rock. 2 It's part of an altered ultramafic rock. 3 And that may seem to be arguing a little minor 4 point, but this is what petrologists do. We argue these 5 because specifically to be specific, you have to be 6 specific, for lack of a better term. 7 Sorry. A little nervous still. 8 So what we're talking about with serpentinite and 9 the amphiboles, they're not ultramafic rocks. They're 10 metamorphic rocks. Whether they're completely altered to a 11 new type of rock or whether there is a mixture of the old 12 type and the new type is something that has to be looked at 13 by a competent petrologist. 14 Just because you have an ultramafic rock does not 15 mean that there is serpentine in it, whichever form of 16 serpentine you happen to be talking about. 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Your time is up there. 18 MR. BLOECHL: All right. Okay. I would just like 19 to make a couple really quick comments. 20 First of all, the maps that we have been looking 21 at here are, and it's already talked a little bit, the scale 22 is just completely wrong for mapping small associations of 23 serpentine minerals in ultramafic rocks. You can literally 24 walk five feet away from an ultramafic rock and hit a vein 25 of asbestos and then five more feet there's nothing. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 144 1 So it really needs to be looked at in much more 2 detail in a case-by-case basis probably rather than a 3 blanket approach, which is handcuffing the entire industry. 4 One other really quick point is here's a couple 5 examples of ultramafic rock. There is no fibrous material 6 in either of these. Both of these came from one of the 7 purple sections on the map. Okay. 8 These things are very solid. You can grind them 9 up. You will find no fibers. 10 They, on the other hand, are very different from 11 this, wrapped up nicely, don't worry. This is chrysotile 12 asbestos. This is soft, fibrous, hairy looking and it is 13 not an ultramafic product. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 15 Questions from the board? 16 Thank you. 17 Daniel Ziarkowski, from our colleagues here at the 18 Department of Toxic Substance Control. 19 MR. ZIARKOWSKI: Hello. Thank you for giving me 20 the opportunity the address the board. 21 Our director, Ed Lowry, has sent a letter to 22 Chairman Lloyd. 23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: We appreciate it very much, by 24 the way. 25 MR. ZIARKOWSKI: We're urging and stressing that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 145 1 for you folks to adopt this control measure. We think that 2 any effort to reduce the public's exposure to naturally 3 occurring asbestos is worthwhile and a prudent measure. 4 That's all I have to say. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 6 And thank Ed for his letter, director. Appreciate 7 it very much. 8 Any questions, comments from the board? 9 Bonus points for that, by the way. 10 Next is Larry Weitzman and then Arnold Den and 11 then Denise Jones. 12 MR. WEITZMAN: Thank you for giving me my three 13 minutes, although I do have barrels of ink to write about 14 this. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: We've seen some of it. 16 MR. WEITZMAN: Yes, I know you have. 17 This regulation is based on a health risk from 18 environmental exposure to asbestos. And now I contend that 19 you have no data whatsoever relative to the environmental 20 exposure as shown in your big green thick book, that there 21 is a health risk to the levels of asbestos, mainly 22 chrysotile, that's all you have ever found, and there is a 23 distinction between chrysotile and amphibole asbestos, 24 whether this board or what you ever listen to says. There's 25 a huge body of work in the scientific community that says PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 146 1 chrysotile and amphiboles are two different types of 2 asbestos. I know the science is an issue here, but this 3 whole regulation is based on a science which may be 4 incorrect. 5 Now, you have the ability to go out and do a study 6 in the area where your data was taken, called El Dorado 7 County. They've been mining that county for 150 years. 8 They've actually mined asbestos in that county back in the 9 1920s. And they've been using serpentine rock ad infinitum 10 for that period of time. 11 What is the disease level relative to that 12 activity? 13 I challenge you that you'll find no environmental 14 disease relative to that exposure. And in fact there's a 15 claim that there's 23 meezo cases in El Dorado County for 16 the last ten years. 17 If they are from environmental exposure, any 18 epidemiologist worth of salt would find, well half-half to 19 be men, half-half to be women. Well, in fact of those 23 20 cases, they are predominantly men and they're predominantly 21 men, if you look at their occupation, that were doing 22 high-risk level types of employment, pipefitters, US Navy, 23 mine workers. 24 So there is no environmental study to show there's 25 a health risk in El Dorado County. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 147 1 Now, I know somebody, one of your scientists stood 2 up and said, well, yeah, we have an environmental study from 3 environmental exposure. It's in Greece. It's just like El 4 Dorado County. That's comparing apples to chrysotile, 5 actually, because the Masalvo study, which by the way has 6 been questioned by a scientist named Bazus in Lancet in 7 1986, the people washed their clothes it in, they brushed 8 their teeth with it and the soil was laden with tremolite. 9 In all of your studies and air sampling you have 10 yet to find a tremolite fiber in the air. So that's not a 11 comparable study. And your scientists should be ashamed of 12 themselves for doing that. 13 All the major studies you have are in the body of 14 work relate to your occupational exposure where people are 15 exposed to thousands and hundreds of thousands of times the 16 exposure dosage here, and it's not linear, contrary to what 17 you want to believe. That's also scientifically shown. 18 For time continuum of many many higher hours than 19 these episodic exposures over a dusty road, in those studies 20 you can't find one pure chrysotile study to show that any 21 disease was caused by the chrysotile. In fact it was 22 probably caused by the amphibole contamination of those 23 studies, and most of them were amphibole. 24 I challenge this board to take your green book, to 25 take that book you have with all your data, and before you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 148 1 pass this Draconian measure such as what you're going to do 2 that's going to cost millions and millions of dollars to the 3 California people and citizens and taxpayers, that you take 4 that green book and have it studied, have your data studies, 5 have what data you have studied by the foremost 6 epidemiologist regarding the subject in the world, 7 Dr. Corbin McDonald, Dr. Malcolm Ross, the leading thoracic 8 surgeon in the country, professor emeritus from Harvard, 9 Dr. Enz Genzler, Dr. Robert Coleman, professor emeritus of 10 Stanford in geology, Dr. Doug Ladell, professor emeritus 11 from McGill University in Canada, Dr. Michelle Kamu, 12 professor at McGill University in Canada, and Dr. Ed Ilgrin, 13 a noted expert as well. Why don't you have this book, 14 before you pass this Draconian measure, why don't you have 15 this analyzed and see what other people have to say. You've 16 got a biased, one-sided view here and these studies you use 17 are biased. 18 In fact, one of your people that you've cited to 19 me before in the past is a Dr. Allan Smith. Now, Dr. Smith 20 produced a paper that the chrysotile is the main cause of 21 pleura mesothelioma. He tries to demonstrate that. 22 Well, not only has his paper been criticized 23 widely in the scientific community, Dr. Smith testified 24 under oath, testified under oath, that he makes 30 percent 25 of his income as a plaintiff's expert in asbestos PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 149 1 litigation. He is hardly hardly independent. 2 I can say the same about Dr. Shankar making money 3 as a plaintiff's expert. 4 And your own physician, Dr. Michael Lipsett, 5 admitted to me, that, yes, Dr. Smith's paper was an advocacy 6 paper. 7 You need to have an independent review of the data 8 before you pass a Draconian measure. It's in the interest 9 of the people of California. 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 11 Questions from the board, comments from the board? 12 Dr. Feed man. 13 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I'm just curious if 14 you would, sir, what is your occupation or profession? 15 MR. WEITZMAN: I have a rather varied list. I'm a 16 graduate of UCLA in 1968 with a major in accounting. I have 17 a jurisdoctorate from Loyola in 1960. I have been a member 18 of the bar for 33 years and I practice -- 19 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Do you represent -- 20 does your practice bring you into this area? 21 MR. WEITZMAN: I have no ax to grind other than 22 seeking the science. I have no asbestos clients. I have no 23 anti-asbestos clients. My main time is spent writing and 24 researching and finding the truth. 25 I have a fairly significant scientific background, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 150 1 because it's my avocation to study that issue, and find the 2 truth. I want to know what the truth is. I don't want to 3 know what some people -- I want to know the data, and the 4 data doesn't support what you're doing here. The data does 5 not support what you're doing and I challenge -- 6 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I heard that. I just 7 asked you about your background. 8 MR. WEITZMAN: Well, there you go. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 10 I'm going to change an order here. 11 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I have a question. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. Sorry, Ms. D'Adamo. 13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I have a question of staff. 14 Wasn't peer review done at one point, maybe not 15 perhaps on what's being proposed, but several years back? 16 I thought just for the record. 17 DR. MARTY: This is Melanie Marty from OEHHA. 18 Peer review was done on the initial risk 19 assessment in 1986 by the Scientific Review Panel on Toxic 20 Air Contaminants. 21 They again looked at the issue in 1990, the issue 22 of relative potencies of the different forms of asbestos, 23 and agreed again in 1990 with what had been done already. 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes, Dr. Friedman. 25 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: It's unfortunate that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 151 1 Mr. Weitzman's certainty is as probably incorrect as his 2 assertions of us being incorrect on every piece of data 3 being incorrect. 4 But from reading his writings, it's very clear to 5 me that he would be absolutely positive, irrespective of his 6 position. 7 The bottom line is that while there may be 8 differences in the neoplastic effect of different types of 9 asbestos, all types of asbestos have been shown to be cancer 10 provoking. 11 And it makes no difference to me whether one form 12 is more conducive to producing mesothelioma or that lung 13 cancer, because there is no question that asbestos is a 14 toxic contaminant, and that it creates an outcome that 15 causes death. And whether the death occurs 35 years later 16 and whether it's dose related or whether it's episodic, and 17 indeed it is episodic, despite his writings, in a number of 18 patients that I know personally, as well as my colleagues 19 know, it doesn't make any difference. 20 Ask the person with cancer whether he's been 21 exposed to asbestos once or to a lifetime, occupationally or 22 nonoccupationally. 23 So the issue is not whether we're going to turn 24 the world upside down and now declare that asbestos is not 25 toxic. It is. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 152 1 And there are certain specific problems in 2 measurements and so forth and so on, but our job is to 3 protect the public health, and the public health is best 4 served by getting this material away from kids and away from 5 adults. 6 And it's not best served by ranting and raving 7 about studies and people in various places who may or may 8 not be interested in re-proving that asbestos is toxic to 9 animals and to man. 10 Enough said. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, 12 Dr. Friedman. 13 Next we have Arnold Den, then we've got a change 14 here. We've got Michael Brady and then Brian McDermott. 15 MR. DEN: Good afternoon. My name is Arnold Den. 16 I'm the senior science advisor with the EPA Region IX 17 office. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Good to see you. 19 MR. DEN: I'm here to take a different view than 20 the previous speaker. 21 First of all, EPA would like to commend the CARB 22 staff's efforts with these amendments. And we did submit a 23 letter of support for the amendments. 24 I like to raise three important points, and they 25 relate to the chrysotile issue. And the position I'm taking PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 153 1 is not only EPA's position, but it's actually a US position 2 taken in response to a Canadian suit against the French who 3 want to ban asbestos, and it's actually an event occurring 4 with European Commission, and the US submitted a third-party 5 submission. 6 The points I want to reiterate is that chrysotile 7 is a toxic component. It presents a serious health risk 8 when exposed to it. 9 We classify chrysotile, as well as other forms of 10 asbestos, as a known human carcinogen, which means we have 11 definitive human, not only rats and mice, but human evidence 12 that chrysotile, as well as the other forms, cause cancer. 13 The other aspect is there's ample evidence that it 14 causes nonmalignant diseases, particularly the respiratory. 15 So our position is chrysotile, as well as other forms, are 16 toxic. They need to be regulated. 17 The other aspect in terms of regulation, when you 18 look at the federal community, we regulate chrysotile. We 19 don't make a difference between chrysotile and amphiboles. 20 They're all lumped together. The quantitative nature of the 21 risk game doesn't allow us to do that. 22 But chrysotile is a serious health hazard from our 23 perspective and the US. 24 One other point, and there was some of the 25 questions earlier on road testing, actually EPA Region IX PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 154 1 has done a study called the Diamond 20 Study where we 2 actually put monitors next to the road 75 feet and 150 feet 3 away, and this was on two different serpentine unpaved 4 roads, and ran vehicles at different speeds. Our risk 5 assessments were as high for a kid riding a bike along that 6 road and getting the dust cloud, was as high as one in a 7 hundred to one in a thousand. 8 So those are serious risks and it's not model 9 data. It's actually monitored data. So we don't have to 10 debate which model in that game. 11 Again, from the previous speaker and our efforts, 12 we have in the past paved roads that had serpentine under 13 the Superfund program. We feel -- and that's why we support 14 this rule, that Superfund is not to be used as a public 15 works program, and it's best for the state and locals, as 16 what's happening here, to regulate. 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 18 Any questions? 19 Thank you very much. Thanks for coming. 20 We have Michael Brady. 21 MR. BRADY: Chairman Lloyd, members of the board. 22 First of all, thank you for letting me go out of order. 23 I'm here on behalf of CMAC, who had three speakers 24 previously. 25 I wanted to return for just a moment to process on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 155 1 some of the issues that the board members were discussing 2 and I'd like to give CMAC's position on some of those. 3 As your counsel pointed out, the Health and Safety 4 Code, California Health and Safety Code, does have detailed 5 provisions regarding the process the board must go through 6 before adopting ATCM. 7 Boiled down, these provisions essentially require 8 cost-benefit analysis. 9 The risk of a given air toxic contaminant is 10 initially assessed and then a control measure is proposed 11 and staff has to determine what the impact on industry will 12 be. 13 The end result of that process is you, the board, 14 are then able to determine the best control method out 15 there. 16 It's our position that the process has not been 17 followed throughout, and therefore you're deprived of your 18 opportunity to select what is the best control measure. 19 As counsel correctly stated, the standard is 20 reasonably available information. 21 Our position here, incapsulated, is that there is 22 reasonably available information out there that staff has 23 not yet gathered and I'll give you a good example. 24 Ultramafic rock is a sore point here, obviously. 25 Ultramafic rock in the initial statement of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 156 1 reasons, all the data supporting that regulation comes from 2 serpentine. This morning we were told there are 17 3 aggregate facilities in ultramafic rock deposits. That 4 information is not contained in the initial statement of 5 reasons. 6 In the initial statement of the reasons, staff 7 said -- staff did not identify any specific quarry 8 operations in ultramafic rock which were providing aggregate 9 for surfacing. 10 Now, since June 2nd, when this came out, and July 11 20th, obviously staff has done some of the homework and 12 found that there are operations in those deposits. 13 What we would like to see staff do is go in and 14 gather the rest of the information to justify the measure, 15 if it's justifiable for the regulation of ultramafic rock. 16 Let's see. I wanted to respond to two questions, 17 Mr. Calhoun and Ms. D'Adamo. 18 You asked what CMAC would propose as far as 19 additional work with regard to ultramafic rock. 20 A good starting spot would be looking at the 21 studies that were done with regard to serpentine, sampling 22 on roadways that are paved with non-serpentine ultramafic 23 rock and determining if there are asbestos emissions from 24 that, from those surfaces. That would help provide the 25 initial baseline. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 157 1 Ms. D'Adamo, you were asking about the exemption 2 in the proposed ATCM whereby an operation in a given 3 ultramafic deposit could essentially opt itself out of the 4 control measure. 5 While that might make sense, it runs contrary to 6 the Health and Safety Code, which calls for you, the board 7 and staff, to identify the problem and then proscribe how 8 that problem can be controlled, as opposed to shifting the 9 burden to the industry, saying you prove to us that there's 10 not a problem here. That burden shift is not authorized 11 under the Health and Safety Code. 12 I realize I'm running up to my three minutes, and 13 I thank you for the opportunity. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Thank you. 15 Any questions? 16 Thank you very much. 17 Next we have Brian McDermott, who I understand has 18 got some time constraints here. And then Denise Jones and 19 then Jim Hatler. 20 MR. McDERMOTT: Hi. I'm from the government and 21 I'm here to ask for your help. 22 My name is Brian McDermott. I'm the deputy 23 director of public works for Siskiyou County Road 24 Department. 25 Siskiyou County is located in the true north of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 158 1 California on the I-5 corridor on the Oregon border. 2 Although geographically we're one of the largest counties in 3 the state, population wise we're one of the smallest, less 4 than 50,000 people. So it's a very rural setting. 5 I'm a registered civil engineer in the State of 6 California and I'm charged with maintaining about 1400 miles 7 of road for the county residents, and we need a lot of 8 gravel in order to do that. We maintain and operate several 9 gravel pits in the county. Unfortunately, the one and only 10 pit in the western portion of our county has been identified 11 as a serpentine pit. We have been testing it. It does fall 12 within the existing thresholds, but all of our uses will be 13 forbidden if the new regulations take place. 14 We estimate fair market value of about a little 15 over $500,000 worth of material remaining in that pit. 16 And I would agree with your staff's analysis that 17 it will cost us about $60,000 a year to replace that 18 material with commercially available material. To us, 19 $60,000 a year is a significant strain on our budget. We 20 already are trying to deal with dwindling budgets year after 21 year, so if we can't find that money, then some of that work 22 may not get done, which could cause some safety concerns in 23 our county. 24 I've been trying to work with your staff trying to 25 figure out a safe, yet effective way to utilize the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 159 1 remaining material in our pit. And I think that it's very 2 reasonable if we were to be allowed to use the material as 3 shoulder backing. And so that you know exactly what I mean, 4 typically on a rural road we will have 32 feet of gravel 5 edge to edge and we will surface the center 24 feet. We try 6 to keep up to four feet of unsurfaced gravel outside the 7 pavement. The traffic doesn't drive on it. It's just out 8 there to support the pavement so the traffic doesn't break 9 it down. There should be no reason for fugitive dust to be 10 caused by traffic staying on the roadway, yet off of the 11 unpaved shoulders. 12 To my knowledge, none of the studies that you've 13 heard about today, or at least none of them that I've heard 14 about, have ever been done on a surfaced roadway seeing 15 whether or not traffic and the wind caused by the vehicles 16 causes fugitive dust. And that's in essence what you're 17 going to forbid in Siskiyou County. 18 I think I'm a common sense sort of guy that that's 19 a regulation that we can live with. We can utilize the rest 20 of the material and Siskiyou County is not going to be 21 coming back to the State of California saying are you going 22 to pay us this $500,000 for the material that you've made 23 actually useless. 24 And in fact we own this pit and probably if this 25 regulation went through it would become more of a liability PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 160 1 for the county than anything else because what else are we 2 going to do with it? 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 4 Dr. Friedman. 5 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Yeah. I like to ask staff 6 what is the difference between his request and using the 7 material to hold a hillside or something like that? 8 MR. DONOHOUE: There is an exemption in the 9 regulation that would allow for the use of material on 10 limited access surfaces, and basically what we're talking 11 about there, one of the requirements would be it would be a 12 20 percent grade. In those cases when you're putting the 13 material on a grade like that, we think it's very unlikely 14 that you would have vehicular traffic or pedestrian traffic 15 on, so that material really isn't going to be subject to 16 abrasion and crushing. So that's the main difference. 17 The other thing with that exemption it also 18 requires that that exemption could not be used in 19 residential and commercial areas. So we're kind of 20 restricting that to areas out away from where you would not 21 see traffic on that, because of the slope and generally the 22 size of aggregate that would be used for slope 23 stabilization. So that's the difference. 24 MR. VENTURINI: If I could amplify a little bit, 25 please. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 161 1 We've had some discussions with Mr. McDermott 2 after we were aware of their concern and staff went up to 3 visit the county. And I guess the dilemma that we have is 4 if you allow this material on the shoulder, shoulders are 5 driven on, people will walk on shoulders, so you have the 6 opportunity for disturbance. 7 Now, one interesting thing we found in talking to 8 other counties is a number of counties will not use asbestos 9 on surfacing even if it's going to be paved, because of 10 concerns with the workers that are using the material and so 11 forth. 12 But our basic dilemma here with the request is 13 that disturbance of the shoulder, cars driving on the 14 shoulder, pulling off the road because of whatever, that 15 will disturb the material, kick some of it onto the road so 16 you have a source of asbestos exposure. 17 Also, we would expect that the material at the 18 county's quarry could still be used for nonsurfacing 19 applications to the extent the county has nonsurfacing uses. 20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Ms. Riordan. 21 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Help me again. What was 22 the width of the pavement that you were going to put on this 23 road? 24 MR. McDERMOTT: Normally we would have two 12-foot 25 lanes, so we would have 24 feet on each side, and 32 feet PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 162 1 overall would allow four feet of gravel shoulders on each 2 side. 3 If I might add, this particular pit we use it as 4 pit run material. We do not manufacture it. We don't crush 5 it. We don't create artificial fines. It's a very coarse, 6 hard rock. Normally we would use the finer material when we 7 build the interior of the roadway so the graders can grade 8 it back and forth and compact it properly. We try to use a 9 very coarse material on the shoulders. 10 We don't see a lot of traffic driving on our 11 shoulders. When staff was up, I drove intentionally off on 12 the shoulders on several occasions. It doesn't appear to 13 cause dust. It doesn't appear to break down. 14 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Those roads that you want 15 to cover with this kind of material, what's the frequency of 16 use of those roads? I hear the staff, and what they're 17 saying, you know, with the road that has a high usage, 18 conceivably get into some difficulty, but let's say some of 19 these roads that you may have to deal with are really low 20 usage. Do you have any of those? 21 MR. McDERMOTT: All of our roads, probably by your 22 standards, there's not a lot of usage. We measure that in 23 what's called ADT, or average daily traffic. And, yes, some 24 of our roads you may see ten vehicles a day using them. 25 And certainly most all of our roads, I venture to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 163 1 guess, that are still unsurfaced, of our 1400 miles of road, 2 we have about 550 miles that are still unsurfaced. 3 Fortunately most of them aren't in the western half of the 4 county, which is where the serpentine occurs. 5 I would guess that the average daily traffic on 6 all of those roads is well less than hundred vehicles a day. 7 We do try to make improvements to our system and 8 pave a few new miles of road every year and normally it's 9 where we get the complaints and it's where the people are 10 living and they're tired of having an unsurfaced road in 11 their background. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Yes. 13 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: May I just follow along to 14 the staff. 15 Would there be any opportunity to work with the 16 county to look for some -- what we would agree to mutually 17 as a remote road. 18 Now, I can understand where you can't use, make an 19 exception for some of these that have high utilization, but 20 I mean truly a remote road. 21 I come from San Bernardino County, and I can't 22 begin to tell you how many unsurfaced miles of road that we 23 have to maintain, so I have a perspective of what is an 24 unused road. 25 But would there be any opportunity to work with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 164 1 this county? 2 MR. DONOHOUE: In our initial discussions and 3 subsequent work on that, we looked at trying to craft 4 something like a low traffic volume, low speed, low density 5 high elevation type of things. In going through those 6 things, you come to a situation where you go if we allow it 7 here, how do we not allow at someplace else and how do you 8 come up with enforceable provisions, how do you limit how 9 many cars go on that road. 10 We couldn't come up with a technical and practical 11 way to do that. So that was the dilemma that we came up 12 with trying to come up with technical solution. 13 The other thing you need to be aware of is that a 14 mile from this quarry there is an alternative 15 non-asbestos-containing source. Now, it's not owned by the 16 county, so there's where the cost of $60,000 per year over 17 the next six years comes in, but, you know, even with the 18 exemptions where we would allow somebody else to do it in a 19 remote location, it has to be where there's not an 20 alternative source available. 21 So technically we just -- 22 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: You looked at it and it did 23 not seem feasible? 24 MR. DONOHOUE: The only other provision, there 25 could possibly be a provision where there would be some way PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 165 1 of providing an equivalent emission reduction. The state 2 law does allow the air pollution control district to provide 3 an air toxic control measure that would result in an 4 equivalent emission reduction. And so if we were trading 5 off shoulders maybe for paving, existing unpaved serpentine 6 roads, there might be some way to do that, but that would 7 probably be the only thing I can think up right now. 8 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo. 10 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I think that's worth 11 exploring, have the two of you discuss that, this concept of 12 tradeoffs, especially if you have unpaved roads with 13 serpentine. 14 MR. McDERMOTT: We discussed it briefly just 15 before the meeting began and I am willing to consider that, 16 yes. 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Maybe a good idea if you continue 18 that discussion. 19 MR. McDERMOTT: The only other thing I wanted to 20 add, and I did present several copies to your staff before I 21 came in, but our board of supervisors passed a resolution 22 number 99-8 and it encouraged state agencies when they're 23 going to pass regulations such as this that will affect the 24 citizens of Siskiyou County to come up and talk to our 25 board, explain to our citizens what's happening and so PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 166 1 forth. 2 So I was asked to bring copies of that resolution 3 along and pass it on to you. 4 I don't think a lot of people in Siskiyou County 5 know about this and know what is going on, because again in 6 the western half of our county there's a lot of serpentine 7 rock, a lot of people have it on their driveways, it's in 8 their backyards, it's all over the place. 9 And so if there was a way for staff to come up and 10 go to one of our boards and make the meetings, make a 11 presentation, I'm sure it would be greatly appreciated. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 13 Any other comments? 14 Thank you very much. 15 We have Denise Jones and Jim Hatler. 16 MS. JONES: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, 17 I'm Denise Jones. I'm the executive director of the 18 California Mining Association. We represent about 80 19 percent of the minerals produced in the State of California. 20 We in 1990 were supportive of the ATCM that you 21 are currently proposing to change today and we agree that 22 you need to address this public health issue. 23 However, we do have some significant concerns 24 about the proposal that's before you. And we have 25 participated. I'm sure the staff is getting a little bit PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 167 1 sick of seeing us. We're here at every workshop, we've 2 submitted written testimony, we've come for meetings, we've 3 taken them on mine tours. 4 And we are committed to continue that dialogue for 5 as long as it takes and we appreciate their support in 6 working with us. 7 But we think there are some problems that need to 8 be fixed. 9 Initially, we believe the separation of the ATCM 10 between the surfacing portions and the mining and 11 construction portions is not an appropriate action for this 12 board to take. We believe if you're going to adopt an ATCM 13 that addresses construction and mining activities, you need 14 to do it at the same time you're dealing with the surfacing 15 activities, because you are unable to quantify the long-term 16 economic and environmental effects by separating these two 17 pieces. 18 It would be as if you're asking us to evaluate one 19 portion of a project and then come back and deal with a 20 second portion later. You're not addressing the long-term 21 economic and environmental impacts by separating these two 22 things out, and we actually didn't think you can do and stay 23 in compliance with the provisions of CEQA. 24 I represent, in addition to aggregate producers, I 25 also represent the only working asbestos mine in the United PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 168 1 States and we have worked very closely with them to ensure 2 the protection of both the workers at that mine and the 3 citizens around that area. 4 And we'd certainly like to take you there if 5 you're ever interested in taking a look. 6 I'm going to touch a few points from my letter 7 that was submitted most recently. 8 We talked about the separating of that ATCM. We 9 think you need to combine those and we think you have the 10 time to address this issue in a thoughtful manner by putting 11 both the ATCM on the surfacing and the surface mining and 12 the construction together into one proposal so that you'll 13 understand the long-term impacts. 14 There's no way for you to reasonably determine 15 what alternative sources of material are out there if you 16 are then four, six months from now going to further restrict 17 mining operations by an additional ATCM. You haven't 18 identified the long-term environmental impacts of this 19 proposal. 20 And I laid out in our letter what I think is that 21 every citizen needs 8.75 tons of aggregate material. 22 And in El Dorado County there is the potential 23 that they're going to have to import all of that material. 24 The only available source for them after 2005 is going to be 25 Yuba County. You're going to be bringing in dozens and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 169 1 dozens of truckloads of material from Yuba County through 2 the Sacramento area and up into El Dorado County and you 3 have not quantified the diesel or NOx emissions that are 4 going to be emitted based on that, having to import that 5 material. 6 In addition, we do not think the specifics of the 7 exemption criteria that you've outlined are enough to give 8 us any safe harbor. They're very broad. There's no time 9 lines with respect to when the APCO can act. There's no 10 specific criteria under which they can act and we think it's 11 so broad that there's really no opportunity for an operator 12 to get out of this ATCM and to be able to stay out of it. 13 Finally, and I'll complete that we did have an 14 issue with respect to the scope of the process and the 15 expansion of it. The staff draft that was released this 16 morning takes care of the concerns with respect to that. 17 And we'd ask that you send this back to the staff 18 for a little bit more work. And we're committed to work 19 with you to make this happen in a timely manner. 20 Thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 22 Ms. D'Adamo. 23 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Question of staff, if staff 24 would be willing to work with Ms. Jones on perhaps 25 establishing guidelines for the APCOs to give folks out PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 170 1 there a better sense of other alternatives that they might 2 have in qualifying for the exemption. 3 MR. VENTURINI: Ms. D'Adamo, absolutely one of the 4 things we would like to do is work with districts, the 5 affected parties, to prepare appropriate implementation 6 guidance that would assist and provide some consistency and 7 uniformity amongst the districts on how the reg is actually 8 used in practice. We're more than happy to do that. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 10 Anybody else? 11 Thank you. 12 Then we have I think Mr. Hatler. 13 We're getting increasing requests to go earlier, 14 so soon we'll have everybody early, so one way, by the way, 15 of satisfying all these requests, if people come in under 16 three minutes then in fact we will have no problems. 17 MR. HATLER: Thank you, Dr. Lloyd, members of the 18 board. 19 I own a quarry in Tuolumne County, ironically 20 enough it's Sierra Rock Products, not affiliated with 21 anybody in El Dorado. 22 We crush about 300,000 tons a year. 23 The point that I would like to make that I haven't 24 seen come up so far is the testing method. 25 There's serpentine all around inside my quarry PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 171 1 within its boundary. We've been crushing the material known 2 as gabbro, which does not have asbestos. 3 In all of the estimates that have -- I have heard 4 today, they are looking at eight to ten cents a ton for 5 testing the material. 6 My particular situation I make an excellent 7 product and it travels for hundreds of miles, literally. 8 And I rarely have more than three or four hundred tons on 9 the ground, even though I produce over a thousand a day. 10 So what I would like to ask the board to consider 11 is that, since I'm not crushing serpentine for surfacing, to 12 allow for testing drill holes in the quarry itself. 13 Seems to me that if you would take an aerial 14 photograph of anybody's quarry and section it off, do the 15 drill cuttings, with the knowledge and support of your local 16 air pollution control board to make sure that you're not 17 doing something, they can even test the samples randomly 18 themselves or pick them out, we don't have a problem with 19 it, you can effectively test a couple hundred thousand tons 20 in a short period of time. That would not interrupt the 21 flow of material from your crusher. 22 In my operation if I was to have to move the 23 material from under the belt, off to the stockpile and hold 24 it for a few days while the stuff is done, on top of the 25 eight to ten cents a ton you would also have to include the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 172 1 loader and the operator and somebody else to make sure that 2 the piles don't get mixed up. If you're in a small area, 3 that's kind of a hard thing to do. It would make it very 4 difficult. 5 So basically I just would like you to consider 6 that as an alternate testing method. You're looking at a 7 considerable amount of money. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Staff have any comment on that? 9 MR. AMES: Yes. We've talked with Mr. Hatler, and 10 we believe that he has a proposal that's very workable as 11 long as the principle of unbiased random sampling is met, 12 that test is met. And from preliminary discussions it looks 13 very promising and we want to continue the dialogue and we 14 believe we can accommodate his need. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Sounds good. 16 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Our chair needs to 17 absent himself for a few minutes. He's asked me to 18 continue. 19 So out of order, because of a family emergency, I 20 hope you'll all indulge him, Larry Appleton, we'll take him 21 next. Mr. Appleton, are you still here? 22 Followed also by Virginia Crespo, who has a 23 similar time constraint, and then we'll resume the normal 24 list. 25 Mr. Appleton. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 173 1 MR. APPLETON: Yes. My name is Larry Appleton, 2 Hanson Aggregates. 3 I had a prepared statement, but I've learned so 4 much today that I'm going divert from it. You all have 5 copies of the letter, I assume. 6 What I'm going to say next is going to be easily 7 understandable. I was involved ten years ago in the 8 original drafting of this asbestos control measure. We went 9 through the same arguments, the same discussions. It was 10 adamantly presented to us that serpentine is the bearer of 11 asbestos, nothing else. There was no questions about that. 12 Department of Mines -- Division of Mines and Geology 13 verified that. That was ten years ago. 14 I didn't hear anything today that changes my mind. 15 I heard Mr. Davis talk about mapping ultramafic rock and I 16 heard him say that serpentinite was a subset of the 17 ultramafic. And the reason they're using ultramafic mapping 18 is because there's not enough serpentine to map. So since 19 they already have the ultramafic maps, and serpentine occurs 20 as a part of ultramafic rock, they have maps now that they 21 can use as a guide. It has nothing to do with asbestos. 22 And as far as these maps, it talks about the 23 geologist using as one and 250,000 scale map to determine 24 whether you're within this zone. Excuse me, unit. They got 25 a nice new term now. It's a GURU. GURU is geographic PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 174 1 ultramafic rock unit. 2 Now, out of 240 or 50 thousand scale map, if you 3 got a 40-acre quarry, a 40-acre quarry is a quarter mile on 4 a side, that's 1320 feet. On that particular map, if you 5 try to plot that quarry, it's six-hundredths of an inch on a 6 side. I can't see that. I question the validity of any 7 data using a map of that scale on any size quarry. 8 The rest of it's in my letter. 9 What I would like to urge you is to take this back 10 to serpentine -- oh, I did want to add, the first draft of 11 this one was obvious that they wanted to expand. They were 12 using the term to expand, I'm talking about expand the 13 coverage. 14 They used the term in a first draft, asbestos 15 parent minerals as being part of it and then asbestos parent 16 mineral was defined as any mineral with a potential, 17 potential, to contain asbestos. Any mineral has the 18 potential to contain asbestos. Therefore they have got 19 every rock in the state. 20 They dropped this, and then they replaced it 21 ultramafic, which is just as confusing and just as 22 all-pervasive. 23 I urge you to reject this measure, send it back 24 for a rewrite, and conform with the serpentine one we 25 already have with a few minor modifications. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 175 1 That should cover the issues. 2 Thank you. 3 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Thank you, 4 Mr. Appleton. 5 Any questions? 6 Our next speaker is Virginia Crespo. 7 MS. CRESPO: Thank you for letting me go now. 8 My name is Virginia Crespo, and I'm president of 9 the Taxpayers Association of El Dorado County. 10 We have been involved in this for, oh, probably at 11 least a year. In fact, we were one of the first groups that 12 was asking this to be looked at as a statewide issue rather 13 than just an El Dorado County, because it does concern 14 almost the entire state. 15 We would like to reiterate our firm stand against 16 the proposed regulation changes for asbestos airborne toxic 17 control, as was expressed in our November 15th of last year, 18 January 31st and May 22nd letters. 19 We've been at all of the public hearings. 20 Once again I want to reiterate that there is no 21 new scientific evidence to justify the proposed changes. 22 When we were asking for you to look at this, we 23 were asking for you to look at new reasons why the 24 regulations should be changed. 25 There has been no study to assess the magnitude of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 176 1 the cost impacts. 2 Some of the things that haven't been addressed by 3 anyone, as far as I can tell, are the road paving of 4 existing serpentine roads and the probable lawsuits that 5 will come about because of that. 6 And the widespread property devaluation that will 7 occur. 8 Neither the Air Resources Board nor any other 9 responsible agency has conducted peer-reviewed 10 epidemiological research that would justify these proposed 11 changes. And it's unconscionable to foist the extreme costs 12 on El Dorado County and other counties without justifiable 13 health or public safety rationale. 14 And I'd like to make very sure that if I thought 15 in any way that there was new evidence supporting this, I 16 would be standing up here in favor of it. 17 But I think that adopting these changes will just 18 fan the flames and intensify the media-induced fear and 19 hysteria of the public, which I see on a daily basis, 20 regarding the state rock of California. 21 Thank you. 22 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Thank you. 23 Questions? 24 Mr. McKinnon. 25 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: You lost me. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 177 1 My understanding of your testimony is that it was 2 a major enough issue that it needed to be moved from the 3 county to the State of California, but you don't think we 4 should do anything. 5 MS. CRESPO: I think that there have -- I think 6 that it is a statewide issue. There is, was in 1990, laws 7 that were passed, and I thought that if there was new 8 evidence or new studies that said that it should happen, 9 that there should be changes, but I haven't seen anything in 10 the huge stack of paper that has new things. Everything 11 says, well, back in '86 and '90. 12 And these same proposals were made back then, and 13 you chose not to do them, for the most part. 14 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I've been around about a 15 year, and more than that entire year I've been following 16 events in El Dorado County and news coverage in El Dorado 17 County, and there have been numerous suggestions that 18 there's a problem in El Dorado County. And I think you 19 alluded that you were around that set of issues in El Dorado 20 County, and I think you alluded that it was a problem and 21 then -- 22 MS. CRESPO: No, I did not -- excuse me. 23 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: When this board begins to 24 work on that problem -- I guess I'm going to back off, 25 because I think I shouldn't be arguing with you. You came PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 178 1 down here to testify and that's right on, but -- 2 MS. CRESPO: If you had read the previous letters 3 that I had had in much more detail outlined some of the 4 things that happened in El Dorado County. And, you know, 5 I'm not going to sit here and read this whole stack of 6 papers, but I did -- if for some reason you don't have a 7 copy of it -- 8 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: We have them. Thank 9 you. 10 MS. CRESPO: There were circumstances that 11 happened, but I do not particularly think that this is a 12 serious problem in El Dorado County. 13 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Thank you very much. 14 We'll resume our list. Mr. Steven Proe. P-r-o-e. 15 I hope I pronounced that. 16 Melissa Vargas. 17 MR. PROE: Good afternoon, board members, and 18 staff. 19 I would agree with the previous speaker that there 20 certainly is a serious problem in El Dorado County and I'd 21 like to thank the board and staff for the efforts that they 22 have in bringing this issue to the light, and also a means 23 to control the problem. 24 One of the problems, at least, that we have in El 25 Dorado County, we have more than just an asbestos problem in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 179 1 El Dorado County. 2 The talks so far today is how much it's going to 3 cost me, and with the County of Siskiyou where they say it's 4 going to cost me $60,000 a year, I'm going to put it into a 5 very -- 6 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Cost you, I'm not 7 sure. Could you just clarify what cost me -- 8 MR. PROE: No. Cost Siskiyou County $60,000 a 9 year to replace their already built-up pile of serpentine 10 that may or may not contain asbestos, as far as I know. 11 The issue especially on the $60,000 is I have a 12 school bus stop next to me. I have two school sites within 13 three miles of the crow flies. Our school district in its 14 infinite wisdom, has used serpentine rock with asbestos in 15 it at the school sites. It has been tested by your staff. 16 It has been tested by me. I have sat at these school sites 17 when the big buses and the small buses come in and these 18 children and their parents sit there, open field, no 19 asphalt. Especially the big buses. Now, these children are 20 coming off or getting on. May have air breaks on them. Big 21 tires and also the release valves that I think we've all 22 heard when they go (makes sound). 23 When you are sitting there and you watch the 24 children, the youngest children are the receptors, they're 25 the ones that are going to be affected most, and for the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 180 1 longest. You sit there, you see these air discharges, the 2 buses even stopped. And the big cloud comes out from 3 underneath the bus and gets the children. And these 4 children get on these buses at least twice a day at one 5 stop. If they happen to be at the school, and it's also on 6 the serpentine material, then they're at least four times on 7 the bus. 8 Now, we're talking about incidents that they're 9 within, shall we say inches or right on top of it, when this 10 comes up from below them. Nothing has to be moving when 11 these air discharges happen or even the buses when they are 12 moving at a very slow rate of speed. 13 And I'm standing there with the district school 14 administrator and pointing this out to him and he says we 15 don't have the money to fix it. 16 But we do have the money to treat these people and 17 to watch the kids basically being infected or ingested with 18 these particulates, and their mothers that are waiting for 19 them, because it's all soccer mom type of thing where I'm 20 at, and this is every day of the week at their school and 21 summer school. 22 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Can you please 23 conclude. Your time is -- 24 MR. PROE: Yes, sir. I'm done. Thank you. 25 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Proe. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 181 1 Ms. Vargas. Melissa Vargas. 2 MS. VARGAS: Good afternoon. I would like to 3 present these additional petitions and documents from 4 individuals who are not able to be at today's meeting 5 because of work obligations as part of the record in support 6 of your staff's recommendation of the revisions to the ATCM 7 93106. 8 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: You can hand those to 9 our clerk, if you will, please. 10 MS. VARGAS: Thank you. 11 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Thank you. 12 MS. VARGAS: Honorable board members, my name is 13 Melissa Vargas. I'm here before you on behalf of Citizens 14 for Cleaner Air, Residents Against Asbestos, in support of 15 your staff's proposed revisions to the ATCM 93106. 16 ARB's mission is to promote and protect public 17 health, welfare and ecological resources through the 18 effective and efficient reduction of air pollutants while 19 recognizing and considering the effects on the economy of 20 the state. 21 In reviewing the facts that have led the CARB to 22 revise the current ATCM, one can clearly ascertain, and 23 indeed there is ample justification for staff to propose 24 necessary changes in order to fulfill the objectives 25 mandated by the board. These significant facts include PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 182 1 numerous air monitoring at various locations in El Dorado 2 County and Placer County that have produced results that in 3 some cases have resulted in the issuance of Prop 65 notices. 4 Please keep in mind that these notices were issued 5 to our families, schools and even a day care. 6 The argument that the responsibility of deciding 7 what is essentially is in the best interest of residents 8 that reside in the jurisdiction of a county should be left 9 up to the decision makers of the county, can easily be 10 dismissed by examining the prime examples of what happens to 11 residents when they leave these decisions to the board of 12 supervisors, or even their own environmental management 13 director. It's kind of like playing lotto. You win if you 14 live in Mariposa County, but, boy, you lose if you live in 15 El Dorado. 16 Allegations of a crippling effect to the mining 17 industry if the board decides to adopt staff's proposed 18 recommendation is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. 19 Serpentine mining accounts for less than one 20 percent of all mining products within the State of 21 California. 22 For the California Mining Association, the 23 Builders' Association and all these other associations to 24 infer that pollution will increase if the board approves 25 staff's revisions to the regulation is nothing more than PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 183 1 pure conjecture and speculation guided by vested interest in 2 the industry, not by actual facts. 3 It is a known scientific fact that the denser air 4 has the ability to hold more particles in the air column. 5 Therefore, by applying simple logic, denser air 6 has the potential to hold asbestos particles in the air 7 column for longer periods of time, thus increasing the 8 probability that a greater distribution of the population 9 will be inhaling asbestos fibers for longer periods of 10 time. 11 And, finally, you have industries, some 12 individuals and even professionals that have no expertise in 13 the subject of asbestos making statements that would have 14 you all believe that there is no scientific evidence to 15 support the very well-known fact that all asbestos is 16 considered a carcinogen. 17 New testimony and documentation has been presented 18 in 1999 to the -- submitted by the United States of America 19 stating that very fact. 20 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Your time is expired. 21 MS. VARGAS: Can I just close? 22 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: One sentence. 23 MS. VARGAS: Okay. We, the people, your largest 24 number of constituents, what we are asking for is not 25 unreasonable. We are asking for the right to be able to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 184 1 breathe air that is not contaminated with asbestos. Please 2 support your own staff's recommendations. 3 And thank you for your time. 4 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Thank you. 5 Mark -- I'm sorry. Melinda Terry and Mark 6 Pawlicki, followed by Freda Pechner. 7 MR. PAWLICKI: Melinda asked that I go first. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: You're Mark? 9 MR. PAWLICKI: Mark Pawlicki. 10 Thank you, board members. I'm Mark Pawlicki. I'm 11 employed by Simpson Timber Company. I'm a registered 12 professional forester and today I'm representing the Forest 13 Resources Council. 14 We are an association of four timberland companies 15 that collectively own and manage about a million acres of 16 timberland in California. 17 Our primary business is timber production. 18 However, we build and maintain a significant amount of roads 19 in our lands, in use of and management of our resources. 20 Most of our roads are rocked from rock sources that are on 21 our own land. We generally do not buy or sell rock. 22 In the timber harvesting planning process, which 23 is a regulated aspect of our operation, which is regulated 24 by the Department of Forestry and Board of Forestry, the 25 Department of Forestry and also the Department of Fish and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 185 1 Game commonly require us to rock our roads to protect 2 aquatic resources from dust and siltation going into aquatic 3 reservoirs or rivers. 4 In addition, we quite often will use dust 5 abatement procedures like oil or lignin sulfate or water. 6 Now, if we were to be required to rock our roads 7 on one hand by one government agency and then be sort of 8 prohibited or restricted by another government agency, would 9 be finding ourselves in a bind. We might have to go 10 hundreds of miles for other rock sources, uneconomical in 11 our situation. 12 Now, having said all of that, much of our land 13 base falls under the exemption category that's provided in 14 the proposed regulations. 15 However, there are several aspects of that 16 exemption that I think I'd like to comment on and I think 17 some improvements could be made in the regulation that would 18 significantly help us. 19 For example, most of our roads are isolated, they 20 are gated, they do not have homes, but occasionally there 21 are some homes when we have interspersed ownership. We 22 think that the exemption including where there are homes, 23 first of all, we're not sure whether one mile whether that 24 applies to -- the definition of isolated road talks about 25 whether there's a home within or residence within one mile, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 186 1 then that doesn't fall in the exemption anymore. We're not 2 clear if it's just that mile or if it's the entire road. I 3 think a clarification on that would be helpful. 4 Also if we are doing a dust abatement procedure in 5 the area of that residence we think that that should help 6 qualify it for an exemption in this category. 7 Also, there are many of our roads are low usage 8 and we suggest that, you know, roads that have dust 9 abatement or low usage be considered an exemption category 10 as well. We think that the dust abatement process is 11 designed just to do just that, it will in fact not only keep 12 the dust down, but as well as any other materials that might 13 pose a health hazard. 14 Our second thing is that since we're not really 15 buying or selling rock, we think that the way the rules read 16 now we were exempt from the provisions of section B. When 17 you look at section 8 in the rules they say section B won't 18 apply if you're exempt. 19 We think that section D also should be eliminated, 20 because that's just a recording and recordkeeping 21 requirement and if we're not buying or selling this 22 material, it seems to us to be a burden that we would have 23 to absorb that which really would have no benefit. 24 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Is the red light on, 25 can you tell? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 187 1 MR. PAWLICKI: It's just now on, yes. 2 My last thing is section 8 B 3 doesn't make a lot 3 of sense to us. That's the one where it talks about in 4 order to draft these regulations the XO would take public 5 input and we'd have to post signs. As I said, most of our 6 roads are isolated, they're gated and that provision to us 7 just doesn't make any sense to have to post signs in those 8 cases or even take public comments. 9 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Any comment from the 10 staff or questions? 11 Mr. McKinnon, did you want to wait and let the 12 staff respond first? 13 MR. DONOHOUE: With respect to the issue about 14 remote location, you know, particularly with the use of dust 15 abatement, that's something that we could certainly work 16 with the group on. 17 The issue of low usage is a little bit more 18 problematic in particular from an enforcement standpoint. 19 But so there are some areas there which we can work with. 20 With respect to the recordkeeping requirements, 21 again that's something that we could look at in a little bit 22 more detail, assuming the fact that they are producing their 23 own rock and it's not for sale and use there. 24 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Mr. McKinnon. 25 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: You answered almost PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 188 1 everything I was going to ask except the question about the 2 one-mile distance. If you're talking about a road that may 3 be 25 miles long, and I actually in reading all the 4 materials and in doing the briefing never contemplated that 5 we would have a single landowner that did their own quarry. 6 I didn't even think about it. And frankly I know, Mark, and 7 it just didn't come across or I would have asked you 8 earlier. But if in a 25-mile road there's a house somewhere 9 out in the middle of that road, are we talking about that 10 part of the road that's a mile from the house or we talking 11 about the whole road? 12 MR. DONOHOUE: In our concepts in drafting this, 13 we were looking at where is the section of the road in 14 relation to the house. I mean, so what I'm thinking here 15 with respect to dust abatement, there may be some mechanism 16 where the dust abatement portion could be that that's within 17 a mile of that house and then the other section of the road 18 that are not within that type of distance, you may be able 19 to use the rock as is from that. 20 But I think we're going to need to explore this a 21 little bit further. 22 To the extent that they're gated I'm not 23 completely sure what that means. Does that mean that it has 24 very limited access, only specific type of access. Those 25 type of things would be considerations that we would like to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 189 1 know about too. 2 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: If I can actually, I'd 3 like to direct, Mr. Pawlicki, what are the kind of 4 variations with the gated roads? 5 MR. PAWLICKI: There are several different 6 variations, but generally speaking most industrial 7 timberland landowners, such as my company, has roads that 8 are permanent roads that we have a locked gate near a main 9 access highway, typically, and those roads are not used by 10 the public for the most part. And we bring our log trucks 11 and maintenance crews through them on a locked gate basis. 12 Occasionally, though, we have situations where 13 there is an intermittent landowner and those are the ones 14 that pose kind of the question I sort of got a little bit 15 confused about here, when we have those situations. 16 But by and large our lands are off limits to the 17 public and that was why I brought up the issue of regulation 18 writing and why the posting and all that doesn't seem to 19 make a whole lot of sense. 20 So we have a couple different scenarios, but I 21 think the vast majority is not accessible to the public. 22 MR. JENNE: Most of these suggested revisions are 23 technical changes where we could work on them during the 24 15-day notice. We can try to refine some of the definitions 25 we have on the remote location and some of the language to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 190 1 try to see if there's something we can do on it. 2 MR. PAWLICKI: I appreciate that very much. 3 If I can just respond to Mr. McKinnon's question 4 earlier this morning about private land rock pits, are we 5 permitted or not, the answer is if it's associated with a 6 forestry operation with timber harvest plan, it's adjacent 7 to a road, the rock pit is not permitted, so that was why we 8 probably missed that category earlier. So if that answers 9 that. 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 11 Melinda Terry, and then Freda Pechner, and then 12 Robert Reynolds. 13 MS. TERRY: Good afternoon. Melinda Terry. I 14 represent the California Forestry Association and my members 15 are industrial forest landowners. We have a little bit more 16 than three million forested acres in the state. 17 And as Mr. Pawlicki mentioned, we are just hoping, 18 I think, to really work with the staff on how this 19 regulation is finally implemented, because we certainly as 20 secondary activity of harvesting timber is building roads. 21 Some are permanent, but a lot of them are temporary, and 22 that's the other thing to keep in mind is that some of them 23 are temporary. They are prohibited from the public from the 24 most part, they're private roads and they're used seasonally 25 for the most part as well. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 191 1 Again, as he mentioned, the reason we are rocking 2 these is for another purpose, and that is to meet and 3 protect the fisheries and meet water quality standards by 4 both the federal and state water boards so those are the 5 other things. 6 And as you mention, we do do dust abatement during 7 activities as part of our permit for harvesting the timber, 8 and the review team in looking at the timber harvest plan 9 because there is road building. 10 The Division of Mines and Geology is one of the 11 review agencies that looks at our timber harvest plan, so I 12 feel a little bit better and look forward to the opportunity 13 to try to work out these fine details. 14 Thank you. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 16 A question, Dr. Burke. 17 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Do you allow the public to 18 hunt on your lands? 19 MS. TERRY: Some companies do. It's not very 20 often of the most part, most don't, certainly during the 21 operation season too, that would be hazardous and dangerous. 22 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Deer hunting season most of 23 the -- 24 MS. TERRY: Some do, some do not. 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 192 1 Next is Freda Pechner. 2 MS. PECHNER: Good afternoon. My name is Freda 3 Pechner. I represent some serpentine quarry rock owners. I 4 also live in the County of El Dorado in Garden Valley, and I 5 live on an unpaved serpentine rock covered road, and I am 6 not worried. 7 There have been some allegations, some statements 8 about Health and Safety Code. I think it's important that 9 there be specifics at this hearing. 10 Health and Safety Code section 39660 requires the 11 ARB to evaluate health effects and it's particularly 12 important that there be an external scientific peer review 13 of any proposed regulations. 14 If the ARB complies with Health and Safety Code 15 section 57004, that constitutes compliance with 39660, but 16 there are still requirements for an independent scientific 17 peer review. 18 The last time that was done, and the only time 19 that was done, in 1986. And Mr. Jenne was kind enough to 20 fax that to me just a couple of weeks ago. 21 Therefore there has been no external scientific 22 peer review that has been done for the proposed regulation, 23 and it's our position as a matter of law that the board 24 cannot make any new regulation until they comply with the 25 mandate of the statute. It is not a discretionary duty that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 193 1 is required. It is required. There has to be science and 2 independent external peer review of the proposed regulation. 3 That has not been done. 4 There has been a substantial number of other 5 studies that have been done. 6 In 1992 the federal OSHA decided that there was a 7 distinct difference between types of minerals and in fact 8 decided to no longer regulate the non-asbestos form of some 9 of the minerals that you've heard about today. 10 They're instead regulated as particulates not 11 otherwise regulated, things such as dust. If it's 12 non-asbestos formed, it is not considered to be the same 13 health hazard. 14 I haven't heard any distinction that's made and 15 that report can be found at the Federal Register volume 57, 16 number 110, June 8, 1992, at pages 24, 310 and further. 17 And in 1999 the federal OSHA also again looked at 18 this issue and decided that respirable dust could have some 19 higher limits. 20 The federal government has evaluated this and has 21 specifically given us numbers of fibers in various studies. 22 In fact, the federal agency for toxic substances and disease 23 registry tells us that OSHA has established a limit of 24 200,000 fibers that can be ingested on a daily basis in the 25 workplace. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 194 1 You can drink seven million fibers of asbestos and 2 not have any adverse health consequence, and that's what the 3 federal government tells us. 4 The studies that have been done that see some kind 5 of problems were done on injecting asbestos into animals. I 6 can assure you, we don't inject the stuff into anybody and 7 we advise all of our customers not to eat it as well. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think your three minutes is up. 9 MS. PECHNER: There is science that is available. 10 There are studies that have been done. And I think that 11 it's required that this type of thing be looked at, and 12 we're certainly willing to cooperate and having that process 13 go forward. 14 Thank you. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Comments from the staff. 16 MR. JENNE: The peer review statute that was 17 alluded to is Health and Safety Code section 5704 and that 18 section contains very specific language stating that air 19 toxic control measures are exempt from those peer review 20 requirements for ATCMs. The reason for that exemption is 21 that the process is structured so that the peer review of 22 the scientific portions of an ATCM performed by the 23 Scientific Review Panel is part of the identification phase. 24 So we disagree that there's any legal problem with 25 what we've done here. We think the peer review requirements PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 195 1 are satisfied. 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I thought the SRP process was 3 pretty thorough, and I also heard today the federal 4 government say that there was a major concern. 5 MS. PECHNER: There was a major concern. The 6 federal government promulgated regulations over various 7 periods of time and in 1992 and in 1999 they revisited the 8 issue and in May 1992 they took several days' worth of 9 testimony from many noted scientists on this issue and that 10 is why they came to the conclusion that there is a distinct 11 difference in types of asbestos, asbestos form versus 12 non-asbestos form. 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Which part of the federal 14 government you talking about? 15 MS. PECHNER: OSHA. OSHA did it. And they 16 followed on what MSHA had done that looks at mining safety 17 and health. 18 And as far as my research has been able to 19 determine there hasn't ever been a single employee of any 20 rock quarry in the United States that has ever filed any 21 kind of claim for a disease connected with asbestos exposure 22 at any time. And I've communicated with attorneys that are 23 not only in the United States, but I've also talked to 24 attorneys in Australia, New Zealand and Canada about this 25 issue. If it's a health issue, I certainly don't want to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 196 1 risk the lives of my children, and that's why I went a 2 little bit further to actually read a lot of these studies 3 and read things to learn about the aspect ratio of the 4 asbestos form of the fiber stuff that -- I am not a science 5 person, so it was really hard for me to go through it, but 6 that's what I was able to look at. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Fortunately we have Dr. Friedman, 8 who obviously has spent quite a few years in the health 9 communities. 10 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I just say, I'm really 11 glad that your children are not drinking asbestos. 12 MS. PECHNER: I think that's a good idea as well, 13 but the government says that you can and have up to seven 14 million fibers and not worry about it. 15 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: We don't drink with our 16 lungs. And we don't drink -- 17 MS. PECHNER: That's probably why it's okay. 18 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: And we don't drink with 19 our pleura and all you need to see is one patient with lung 20 cancer and mesothelioma, whether they go to a lawyer or not. 21 That's no critical test of whether something is a 22 carcinogen, that the people get sued. 23 MS. PECHNER: Well, of course. 24 But if the federal government tells us that 25 200,000 fibers can be in the air -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 197 1 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: The federal government do 2 not say that there is a specific quantitative relationship 3 between the number of fibers and the onset of cancer, nor do 4 they tell you because it's not certain exactly which fiber 5 is carcinogenic. 6 MS. PECHNER: Well, actually, they do. 7 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: So whatever it is you're 8 quoting -- no, they don't. 9 MS. PECHNER: Yes, they do. 10 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Thank you very much, 11 but -- 12 MS. PECHNER: You're very welcome. 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Our next speaker is Bob Reynolds. 14 Then Julia Turney and then Lance McMahan. 15 MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you, Chairman Lloyd and board 16 members. 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Welcome, Bob. And again I 18 enjoyed my time. I hope you heard me say this morning thank 19 you and your colleagues up there for our visit. 20 MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you. Everyone is really 21 impressed with your chairman, by the way, and we appreciate 22 it. He came to our clean air celebration. That's why we 23 prefer our county to be green and not yellow when you put it 24 on the slide. 25 But nevertheless I'm here today -- and I want to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 198 1 take my three minutes to do two things. 2 The first one is to encourage you to act today. I 3 was here ten years ago I was an ARB employee. I think I was 4 working for Peter. Jumped to Air Pollution Association, 5 which is the predecessor to the Air Waste Management 6 Association. 7 I feel for Dr. Friedman to have the listen to the 8 idea is asbestos harmful or not. That argument got over 9 about the same time the tobacco argument got over. Don't 10 listen to it. It's nonsense. 11 That's me personally speaking. Okay. 12 If anyone has read the literature can't reach that 13 conclusion, then they're not reading the literature. 14 Second thing I wanted to say to you is that we 15 tried to talk the ARB, a previous board, into going back to 16 one percent in 1990. Kind of got tried of trying to talk 17 them into it. Wrote several letters and decided we'd do our 18 own program. We do have both Phase 1 and Phase 2 in the 19 county. It's not wonderful. We need improvements. We 20 went to our board and said want further than the state, went 21 to our board saying we haven't got all the sources, but 22 we've got the easy sources. We can go forward. We can do 23 some smart things. One of them was quite putting it down on 24 roads. 25 As Peter, I'm sure Mike is used to, every time you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 199 1 sent out a school advisory, they get very angry about it, 2 write you a letter back saying don't send them to our 3 schools, inspect our schools, make sure they don't use this 4 stuff. That's a reasonable thing for any public servant to 5 do. And that's been our approach since '92. 6 Now, in the particular case I need to be honest 7 with you, tell you I tried -- if you read our staff report, 8 which Peter said he accepted, I'm sorry I put your letter in 9 there saying you accepted what we did, it took about four 10 months for the ARB to go along with program. The federal 11 government did go along with the program, did testify at the 12 hearing. We tied it to what's called NESHAPs. 13 One of the things that bothers me when I get up 14 here and I hear this economics, you guys have an idea how 15 much money we're spending keeping asbestos from renovation, 16 demolition, from getting loose in the environment, from 17 keeping it out of the landfills, taking it, like in Lake 18 County take it all the way up to Anderson. This makes no 19 sense. Economically this is the thing you've got to do. 20 You want to change something, go back and change 21 that. Makes a lot more sense than this. 22 Now, in our case we went with one percent and it 23 worked out, people are accepting it, and I hear these 24 arguments, I'm really glad they're not arguing. It is 25 touchy. People do get emotional over this and they'll PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 200 1 continue to get emotional, especially Realtors. They will. 2 So there's going to be some pain for all of us. But the 3 truth of the matter is you need to go forward. 4 And so the first thing I want to say is listen to 5 your staff, except for one item that I want to mention 6 later. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Somehow we knew there was a but. 8 MR. REYNOLDS: Do go forward. Just one other 9 little thing. I heard you guys arguing about distinguishing 10 chrysotile, actinolite, if you read that little report 11 that's attached to you, it's on page two of the testimony 12 that was given to you, right there at the start, it tells 13 you how you can do it. One is parted and the other is 14 parallel. It's real simple, it just doesn't happen to be in 15 method 435. You can use oils. There's just all kinds of 16 solutions to these problems. It's just that we can get it 17 all together at one time and move forward and my comment is 18 you need to move forward, whether you got it all together or 19 not. 20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: You've got your three minutes. 21 MR. REYNOLDS: The one thing we did ask you to do, 22 it's a map back here, as part of our program we spent about$ 23 20,000, which is a lot of money for us, spent two years, we 24 remapped our county and we'd like to include it 25 specifically. And the wording is right here. Include PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 201 1 specifically in appendix A under the local geographic maps. 2 And we just don't want to go backwards. That large-scale 3 map you're talking about, it's really interesting to see 4 what happens, it misses because I guess the body is too 5 small. It misses a body that exists in the incorporated 6 city and it also puts some bodies where they don't belong. 7 If you read the testimony there's also references that are 8 more recent, including the serpentinite soil survey and it's 9 worked out great for us and I just ask that you do that. 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: That's it. 11 MR. REYNOLDS: That three minutes? 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. 13 MR. REYNOLDS: I speak for the board, I do want to 14 mention that there's a board letter here supporting this. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 16 Staff. 17 MR. VENTURINI: Let me briefly -- 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Can we get to agreement with Bob 19 here? 20 MR. VENTURINI: I would hope so. 21 I have had several discussions and e-mail 22 exchanges with Bob. What I explained to Bob is that with 23 respect to his map, I think it's important that we have a 24 process to include other maps because we're basically 25 relying on the Division of Mines and Geology. And we have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 202 1 asked the Division of Mines and Geology, Dr. Davis and his 2 staff, to take a look at the map. I'm certain Bob and his 3 staff did a very good job on the map, but I think it's 4 important to have this process. We've asked Division of 5 Mines to take a look at it. 6 And also Bob has sent a letter to Dr. Davis asking 7 them to look at it. 8 Since we have to go through a 15-day process, we 9 will indicate that Lake County has asked for their map to be 10 included and we expect that Mines and Geology will be okay, 11 then we will add it and then we will have a process if 12 someone else wants to include some map. 13 MR. REYNOLDS: Can I just comment back. We're in 14 agreement with most things, so I don't want to argue with 15 Peter, but the bottom line it's a better map, you're 16 replacing it with a worse map, it's bad government, don't do 17 it, use our suggested language. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I'm sure you'll hear, Bob, if 19 this doesn't work out. 20 Thank you. 21 Julia Turney, Lance McMahan and then Art 22 Marinaccio. 23 MS. TURNEY: Good afternoon, board members. My 24 name is Julia Turney. I work for Caltrans in the Department 25 of Transportation in the environmental program. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 203 1 I want to thank ARB staff very much for taking the 2 time to respond to our questions and comments on the 3 proposed rule, and have a couple of requests in terms of the 4 process of implementing this rule. 5 The new ATCM requires the use of receipts when 6 transporting material on roads, and we would request that 7 there be consistent implementation of this rule, that the 8 receipts are uniform in nature and that they are accepted by 9 the local air control management districts and pollution 10 control districts statewide so that we do not have a great 11 variety in how these receipts are required to look. 12 The other request that we have is that the new 13 ATCM gives authority to the APCOs for requesting additional 14 geologic evaluations of areas for serpentine and 15 asbestos-containing materials. We would like to see a 16 consistent and scientific-based rationale behind those 17 additional requests on the part of the districts and the 18 pollution control areas. 19 We propose that we would be glad to work with the 20 air board in putting consistent documentation and 21 requirements together. 22 And thank you very much. 23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you for your testimony. 24 Staff want to respond? 25 MR. VENTURINI: Just briefly. We're more than PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 204 1 happy to do that in part of our implementation guidance. 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. Thank you. 3 Lance McMahan. 4 MR. McMAHAN: Good afternoon, Chairman Lloyd, 5 members of the board. Thank you for the opportunity to 6 speak today in support of the proposed ATCM, 7 I started working on this about three years ago 8 and realized the history on this project was tremendous. 9 There's a lot of work in 1990, or work leading up to the 10 decision in 1990, to go to a five percent limitation, which 11 I think, as we all know, got us nowhere. 12 There is probably many more miles of 13 asbestos-paved roads now than there were then. 14 And I want to thank the staff for working hard on 15 this to make this a reality. 16 The only cautionary note I would say is that I 17 hear a lot of exceptions and other things that might be 18 interpreted as loopholes working their way through the 19 process. Some of them seem very straightforward and useful. 20 Others not so. I'm not going to go to any details on those 21 in the minute and a half I have left except to say that it 22 took us ten years to get here from our last iteration, and I 23 would hope that in the year 2010 we're not doing this again 24 because we simply missed everything or missed something of 25 significant importance or we allowed something to take place PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 205 1 that we really shouldn't have. 2 With that, I'm going to answer any questions you 3 might have. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 5 Questions, comments? 6 Thank you. 7 MR. McMAHAN: Thank you. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I appreciate your participation 9 in working through the process. I remember seeing you 10 there. 11 MR. McMAHAN: Very helpful process. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 13 Art Marinaccio, Joe Vargas and then Brian 14 McDermott, then Bonnie Holmes Gen. 15 MR. MARINACCIO: Yes. The name is Art Marinaccio. 16 I live in Shingle Springs. The spelling is incorrect. It's 17 a-c-c-i-o on the end. 18 I have done -- I'm a real estate agent in El 19 Dorado County and have done quite a bit of land use work and 20 have -- and this issue I have been a consultant for Sierra 21 Rock, as well as a couple of the other quarries, and have 22 been involved in looking at this issue, have been involved 23 with it generally for quite a while. 24 And quite honestly, I mean although I could 25 probably speak for an hour, I have only a couple minutes, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 206 1 and I'd like to hit on couple of issues that I think are 2 critically important for you to understand. 3 Number one, the process in 1990 that resulted in 4 the five percent rule and the ARB 435, the staff report for 5 that document is just as valid today, I believe, as it was 6 in 1990. 7 And quite honestly the staff was unable to make 8 their case in 1990 that lower than five percent was 9 necessary to protect the public health, and I don't believe 10 they've come up with any new information to date that would 11 indicate another standard is more -- is justified. 12 There was a comment in that report suggesting that 13 perhaps it would be a good idea to look at a rule where 14 serpentine was not allowed to be used on surfaces, high 15 traffic on paved surfaces, where the material was subject to 16 abrasion and then by addition of non-serpentinite material 17 over the years the problem would resolve itself. 18 And quite honestly, any rule that you would put in 19 place beyond that simple change, I think is unjustified and 20 quite honestly unnecessary. 21 When El Dorado County started dealing with this 22 issue because of a handful of people, two of whom had 23 purchased properties adjacent to existing quarries and were 24 trying to shut them down, there was a lot of political 25 stirring made. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 207 1 There were members of your staff that came into El 2 Dorado County and quite honestly urged El Dorado County to 3 adopt rules that were different than your board adopted. 4 With the admonition from our board that told them 5 that if El Dorado County staff went to another jurisdiction 6 and gave an opinion different from that adopted by El Dorado 7 County's board, that they would probably be fired for it. 8 But other than that, the suggestion was that this 9 was a statewide issue, that the issues were complex, they 10 were confusing and quite honestly the science was not as 11 well developed as they thought it should be to justify the 12 action. 13 They asked your staff to go back and develop 14 whatever new science was necessary to justify a different 15 result than in 1990. 16 What's your staff is asking you today is to 17 effectuate a different political result with the same exact 18 information. And quite honestly, I don't think that it's 19 justified. 20 And two things that I think are critically 21 important in that effort, one is the financial information. 22 As to the financial effect of imposing this 23 regulation, I think the work that was done is wholly 24 inadequate. I think quite honestly estimating that only an 25 additional 500 miles a day of truck traffic would be caused PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 208 1 by this is completely unrealistic of the realities in El 2 Dorado County. A great portion of El Dorado County will be 3 left with no material, and it will have to be trucked either 4 out of Sacramento or probably from Marysville. If you look 5 at what the state Mining and Geology Board recently did on 6 reassessing Sacramento's market area for aggregate, they're 7 quite acknowledging the fact that they're going to be out of 8 aggregate too and it's going to have to come a long way. If 9 what you were saying this morning, that trucking is 10 important to you as an air pollutant, then you need to 11 seriously look at that. How far are we going to truck 12 aggregate in this state and meet our air requirements. 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think your time is at three 14 minutes. 15 MR. MARINACCIO: Well, one thing I want to say 16 real quickly has to do with 435 and the .25 limit for 17 testing. One of the things that was said at the state 18 Mining and Geology Board having to do with a number of 19 different carcinogens was the fact that the propensity was 20 to be dropping the limit to the non-detect limit, because of 21 new technology was allowing you to find lower and lower 22 concentrations of material, therefore the amount of material 23 that -- the amount of contaminant that was allowed was being 24 dropped lower and lower because of new technology. 25 In this case we have no new technology. When you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 209 1 need to look very seriously at is ARB 435. The material is 2 ground and they count 400 bits of data. The identification 3 of one thing that may be asbestos puts you at .25. 4 So that's -- this is not new. This is the old. 5 And quite honestly the way they're interpreting the data 6 that your quarry must be constantly counted as the highest 7 amount ever detected, if you had a material that was 8 completed devoid of asbestos and you had one asbestos fiber 9 off a brake shoe on one truck, you would be an asbestos 10 quarry, and quite honestly I think the sense of that is just 11 not there. 12 I think these measures are overly Draconian and I 13 think quite honestly if your staff has always expressed the 14 interest in shutting down the serpentine quarries in the 15 state and if you're willing to budget the money to acquire 16 those properties, then that's quite fine, if that's -- 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 18 Any comments, questions? 19 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Am I correct that the 20 CALSCRAM update of the US EPA asbestos model was done 21 recently? 22 MR. DONOHOUE: That was done in 1992. 23 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Was that after you 24 adopted the five percent threshold? 25 MR. DONOHOUE: Yeah. That was after the 1990 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 210 1 amendments. 2 MR. VENTURINI: Also, Professor Friedman, over the 3 last two years we did a lot of the intensive monitoring in 4 El Dorado and adjacent counties. 5 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Did your own 6 monitoring? 7 MR. VENTURINI: Yes. 8 MR. DONOHOUE: At 58 different sites, 9 approximately 500 samples at those sites, so that monitoring 10 data is real key to looking at what the actual risk is. 11 That's a key to what we're proposing now. 12 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: In a word, what did 13 you determine? 14 MR. DONOHOUE: More than one word. When you're 15 near sources that have asbestos in it and it gets disturbed, 16 you see markedly elevated concentrations of asbestos in the 17 ambient air. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes, Mr. McKinnon. 19 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I keep hearing references 20 to shutting down a whole industry. Can you repeat for me 21 the number of potential quarries, how many quarries there 22 are in the state and how many we believe to be affected in 23 the areas? 24 MR. DONOHOUE: We identified, on 2000 Census 25 Bureau data, around 230 quarries that provided material for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 211 1 surfacing in California. Of those, we were able to identify 2 that there were 30 operations in ultramafic rock areas. And 3 of those, when you take out sand and gravel operations, 4 which have an exception, and mineral processing, gold mines, 5 we identified that there were 17 quarries that were 6 providing surfacing materials in California. Of those, we 7 think that there are seven of them that probably -- that 8 either we don't know what the asbestos content of the 9 mineral is, or we think it's over the .25. 10 So we think that there are seven quarries that the 11 surfacing material is going to be regulated. 17 quarries 12 that would have to test the material, but seven that are 13 going to need to find -- that are going to be restricted in 14 their ability to offer that material for surfacing 15 applications. 16 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: So out of 230, 17 are 17 going to have to test. Of them, about some number less than 18 that may have to go find alternatives? 19 MR. DONOHOUE: Right. Of the aggregate supplied 20 out there, we're not impacting 99.4 percent of it. We're 21 dealing with something that's six-tenths of a percent less 22 than one percent of the aggregate market out there. 23 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Just to follow on, 24 you mentioned there are three that you identified, three 25 quarries? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 212 1 MR. DONOHOUE: Yes. 2 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: That may have 3 economic impacts. How does that relate to the seven? 4 MR. DONOHOUE: We don't know for sure on the four 5 of them, but from the standpoint of whether they're greater 6 than the -- whether their material exceeds the .25. 7 What we did in looking at those, we did identify 8 that there were three quarries that more than 25 percent of 9 their overall production went to surfacing. And because of 10 that, and because we had information based on past testing 11 that they were probably over the lower detection limit, then 12 we said that 25 percent market, if they can't find an 13 alternative use for that, drain rock, those type of things, 14 then we would believe that those would be significantly 15 impacted. 16 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: There could be more, 17 though, but in your opinion as best you know now, there 18 couldn't be much more than four more quarries? Is that what 19 you're saying? 20 MR. DONOHOUE: Certainly on the far end it 21 couldn't exceed 17, because I mean for what's happening 22 right now. Of those other, we do have some test data that 23 suggests they're not. So it's somewhere in that range 24 between around seven is what we think are actually going to 25 be impacted. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 213 1 There is going to be cost associated with the 17, 2 because they are going to have to spend six to ten cents per 3 ton for the testing. 4 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Thank you. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 6 Joe Vargas and Bonnie Holmes Gen and Mark 7 Harrison. 8 MR. VARGAS: Honorable Chairman Lloyd and fellow 9 board members. My name is Joe Vargas. 10 Before a product is distributed to the public, the 11 food, drug and cosmetic administration requires industry and 12 manufacturers to have supporting test studies that assures 13 that the product is safe for consumers. 14 We have systems in place that assures cosmetic and 15 medical products, food and drugs are tested before they are 16 released for consumer consumption. 17 Could you imagine if manufacturers and industry 18 were able to release their safe products such as drugs to 19 the public, before they had any studies to support their 20 claims that their product is safe? 21 What you have been told by people representing big 22 vested interest, manufacturers of a known toxic substance, 23 is essentially let us continue to sell this material to 24 consumers while you, ARB, continue to study the problems 25 associated with using our product. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 214 1 It's ridiculous if you stop and think about it. 2 You already know this material is toxic. Why should my 3 family be used as part of a sample population for the 4 benefit of industry to have the right to sell the material? 5 Would you want your family to be used in this 6 cheap manner? I don't believe so. 7 Your staff has already conducted numerous testing 8 in the foothill regions with results that have triggered 9 Prop 65 notices. 10 The monitors were placed around unpaved roads, 11 around an operating serpentine mining operation, which 12 resulted in high asbestos readings. It doesn't take a 13 rocket scientist to figure out that if you crush this 14 material, via cars driving over the gravel and crushing the 15 material, construction sites breaking it up to build new 16 homes or mining operations crushing this material, to know 17 that asbestos fibers are going to be released in the air. 18 The Health and Safety code 4001 adoption and 19 enforcement of rules and regulations, section A and B, in 20 brief say that you as a board shall provide for the 21 prevention of air pollution episodes which cause health 22 risks or damage to the property of a significant number of 23 persons. 24 You are obligated under your own rules and 25 regulations to prevent the continued release of this known PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 215 1 toxic substance. 2 We are not here to discuss the toxicity to 3 asbestos. Science has already proven that all asbestos 4 causes cancer. Period. End of discussion. 5 We are here today because specific findings have 6 already been made to support your own staff recommended 7 revisions to the ATCM 93106. 8 We have a problem and the problem will only 9 increase exponentially with time, while exposing our 10 families, unless you take us into the new millennium and 11 approve your own staff's recommendations -- excuse me, 12 recommended revisions to the regulations. 13 Thank you very much for your time. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 15 Questions or comments? 16 Thank you. 17 Bonnie Holmes Gen and Mark Harrison and then Jill 18 Engelmann. 19 MS. HOLMES GEN: Chairman and members of the 20 board, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I will be 21 brief at this late hour of the day. I'm Bonnie Holmes Gen. 22 I'm with the American Lung Association of California. 23 And we are here today to support the proposed 24 regulations that's before you today and to say we appreciate 25 the staff's work on this issue and the well-documented body PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 216 1 of information on the extent of asbestos naturally occurring 2 in different rock types. 3 And we are of course naturally very extremely 4 concerned about this issue due to the serious implications 5 for lung disease and lung cancer. 6 As was presented today, there is no safe level of 7 exposure, as Dr. Marty mentioned today. 8 And we are again here to support the proposal to 9 say that we appreciate that the air board has taken very 10 seriously its statutory mandate which says that the board 11 must reduce public exposure to toxic substances such as 12 asbestos to the lowest level possible and we appreciate that 13 you're trying to take this regulation to the lowest level 14 possible to protect the public health. 15 I do want to say that we have concerns about the 16 number of exemptions that were retained in the regulation 17 and added to the revised regulations and especially we are 18 concerned about the exemptions for roads and quarries, roads 19 at quarries and mines, asphalt and concrete and temporary 20 roads. It does seem that given the very serious lung health 21 impacts of exposure, even relatively short-term exposure, 22 that the Air Resources Board should take another look at the 23 long-term public health impacts and occupational exposures 24 related to these exempted uses. Especially we are concerned 25 about the potential for exposure when surfaces that are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 217 1 exempted, and concrete especially are ripped up and replaced 2 and we're wondering how the public is going to keep track of 3 these exempted surfaces that may change ownership or uses 4 over time and pose greater risks in the future. 5 So we do think that the board and staff should 6 take another look at some of these exemptions. 7 And I appreciate there's been some discussion, I 8 think earlier in the board, which indicates that you may 9 take another look at some of these issues, especially as 10 Mr. McKinnon raised the concern about aggregate containing 11 asbestos and the long-term public health implications of 12 that aggregate being used around the state. 13 We urge you to evaluate these health concerns and 14 to come back as soon as possible with some more information, 15 at least before the next part of the regulation is adopted 16 on construction and quarry. 17 Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 19 Ms. D'Adamo. 20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Yes. I had a question 21 about a point that Ms. Holmes Gen raised, and that is roads 22 located at quarries or mines. I was on a tour just 23 yesterday and saw, well, several instances in which there 24 were residences, I imagined, occupied by workers or security 25 guards, and I don't see anything in here under the exemption PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 218 1 about dust mitigation measures. Perhaps that's going to be 2 discussed as part of the October -- 3 MR. VENTURINI: The addressing quarries and the 4 construction activity will be part of the next phase. 5 Also, many quarries are already required to 6 practice dust mitigation practices in the state. So the 7 fact that we haven't addressed it in this measure, and it 8 will be in the next, doesn't mean that quarries aren't now 9 required to care to implement very effective dust mitigation 10 practices already. 11 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: So it would just be a 12 requirement that would be imposed upon them by the air 13 pollution control district? 14 MR. VENTURINI: Currently. 15 And our intent is we visited a number of quarries 16 and some of the quarries we visited have very effective dust 17 mitigation practices in place. They use dust suppressants 18 and so forth. So our intent is kind of take a look at what 19 some of the better practices are and frame them so we have 20 some statewide consistency in terms of minimum practices in 21 quarries. So we'll be looking at that in the next measure. 22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 23 Next, Mark Harrison, Jill Engelmann and then Alice 24 Howard. 25 MR. HARRISON: Thank you very much. Good PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 219 1 afternoon. I'll also be brief. 2 Since 1990 serpentine has been regulated as an 3 unpaved surfacing application and right now the standard 4 stands at five percent. 5 Staff is recommending moving to a non-detection 6 limit. I'm not going to talk about that. 7 I think there's substantial questions, given the 8 information of the ISOR as to whether or not you have the 9 data you're required to balance as set forth in the Health 10 and Safety Code, but what I would like to actually ask a 11 question, if I'm permitted, of staff, is as respects 12 non-serpentine ultramafic rock, which is really a large 13 expansion being proposed in this ATCM, and the ISOR you 14 state that you're aware of no quarries producing 15 non-serpentine ultramafic rock. And then today you said 16 you're aware of 17. 17 Out of those 17, have you assessed whether what 18 the asbestos content in any of those quarries? 19 MR. DONOHOUE: The 17 quarries that we talked 20 about are quarries located in the ultramafic rock units as 21 identified on the Division of Mines and Geology map. 22 We do have information on some of those quarries 23 with respect to previous testing that has been done. Some 24 of those have shown that based on previous testing are less 25 than the .25 percent. Other ones we see values greater than PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 220 1 the .25 percent. 2 MR. HARRISON: Were those serpentine quarries or 3 non-serpentine ultramafic? 4 MR. DONOHOUE: The issue that keeps coming up and 5 it's really tough is that when you start -- basically 6 ultramafic rock goes through a metamorphosis process to come 7 into serpentine. One of the loopholes that's really existed 8 here is that when you talk to different geologists they're 9 going to call things slightly different because it's pretty 10 easy when it's a hundred percent unaltered ultramafic rock, 11 or when it's a hundred percent serpentine, but there's 12 actually gradations in between, all the way in between. 13 If you even look at -- so in some cases when it's 14 50 to 60 percent serpentinized ultramafic rock is when 15 people say, well, that's serpentine. But it really varies 16 and it's very subjective. 17 You know, so when you look at what we've done here 18 or how we've approached it is that's been the issue right 19 there. You can't necessarily say this is all serpentine or 20 this is all ultramafic rock. It's some gradation in between 21 those two and that's really one of the basis for moving to 22 the broader category of ultramafic rock, because it includes 23 that, we believe, the way it's set up it includes the 24 varying degrees of serpentinization that's occurred. 25 MR. HARRISON: I understand that rationale. I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 221 1 appreciate that. 2 Based on that statement, I think it's mandatory 3 that you exclude ultramafic rock from the regulation, and 4 this is the reason. 5 If indeed that's the case, that there has been a 6 problem identifying serpentine in the last ten years, since 7 the ATCM has been in effect, then you must have evidence of 8 that before you broaden your net that widely. I think that 9 this board would be well advised to focus in on the rock 10 that it's well acknowledged as the host rock and one that I 11 always thought was really quite identifiable as the 12 appropriate target for regulation. The question then comes 13 what is the appropriate target and you've been suggested 14 non-detect, other people have said five percent is too low. 15 But really it's the broadening to ultramafic rock 16 that is troublesome. You have no evidence before you in the 17 ISOR as to if any roads in the state are paved with 18 non-serpentine ultramafic rock. You have no data on the 19 costs of this ATCM to any, not one, non-serpentine 20 ultramafic quarry. 21 So that rationale in the abstract makes sense, but 22 given the strictures based on your decision making, the 23 balancing and the Health and Safety Code, which requires you 24 to balance effectiveness against cost, with non-serpentine 25 ultramafic costs, you don't even know if there's a problem PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 222 1 with it. 2 So it is an area that may merit further study and 3 I think the trade associations and the owners of the 4 quarries would be a perfect resource for ARB staff, and I'm 5 sure they'd be happy to work with them. 6 But I mean I can say unequivocally there's no data 7 before you in the ISOR that there is a problem with the 8 non-serpentine ultramafic rock. 9 Any questions on that? 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 11 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I'd like the staff to 12 respond to that. 13 If I understand it, I don't know how he's using 14 non-serpentine rock, but as I understand it, you have said 15 that there's plenty of data showing that there is asbestos 16 in ultramafic formations, and that it occurs in connection 17 with the metamorphization of that rock into eventually 18 serpentine and at anywhere at some points in the process. 19 And what you're -- what we're after is asbestos, 20 and I don't care if it's ultramafic or serpentine or where 21 it is, but apparently the data shows that it occurs in 22 ultramafic formations. Is that right? 23 MR. SCHEIBLE: Yes. The logic would be if the 24 state geologist, or there was any source out there, that 25 could tell us exactly where asbestos naturally occurs in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 223 1 California we'd go with that. 2 We had gone previously with serpentine, because 3 where there's serpentine it's very likely to be asbestos and 4 maybe quite considerable asbestos. 5 We now found through this process that in order to 6 be sure that we're finding the asbestos, we have to go and 7 call it ultramafic and when you look there, then you will be 8 looking in the places where you may find serpentine and you 9 may find asbestos in that serpentine. So we needed to widen 10 the definition in order to make sure that we could identify 11 the problem. 12 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Let me ask you this, 13 because I'm not a scientist, but does asbestos occur 14 naturally outside of what is called serpentine? 15 MR. VENTURINI: Yes. I think we had extensive 16 discussions with the state geologist and their staff. Maybe 17 it will help if we take a look at their maps, this map that 18 Dr. Davis presented today. It basically says guide for 19 ultramafic rocks in California, areas more likely to contain 20 naturally occurring asbestos. 21 So the advice we received from the state geologist 22 was we needed to look at ultramafic rock areas, and that's 23 their best recommendation to us, advice to us, on where 24 you're likely to find asbestos. 25 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: But I guess that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 224 1 doesn't completely answer the question. Do you ever find 2 serpentine outside of ultramafic rock? 3 MR. VENTURINI: I don't believe so since -- 4 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: So serpentine is 5 within ultramafic -- 6 MR. VENTURINI: It's a subset. 7 MR. SCHEIBLE: There are situations where material 8 was washed down from other places and become a contaminant 9 so -- 10 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: But that came from 11 ultramafic -- 12 MR. SCHEIBLE: Let's say very very seldom. 13 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: The question still is 14 since our goal is to rid society of the curse of asbestos, 15 is where does it exist. And if it exists only in serpentine 16 and that can be defined, then frankly I think he's got a 17 point. 18 If on the other hand there is a risk, a realized 19 risk, foreseeable risk, according to science, sound science, 20 that there is asbestos that could occur outside of what 21 people would all agree is serpentine, some process of 22 serpentinization, or whatever this is, where there's a 23 metamorphosis occurring, I just want to get the record clear 24 on that from staff. 25 MR. SCHEIBLE: Can we have Mr. Churchill, whose PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 225 1 opinion is probably worth more than ours on this one. 2 MR. CHURCHILL: My name is Ron Churchill. I'm the 3 senior geologist with the Division of Mines and Geology and 4 I prepared two of the maps up there. 5 Perhaps I can shed a little bit more light on this 6 ultramafic rock serpentinite issue. 7 It is very complicated, and as Dan Donohoue had 8 mentioned earlier, it's not complicated when you have the 9 pure end members, but you do have this continuous gradation 10 between the two end members, and it does vary between 11 geologists how they would actually make a call. If 12 something is 40 percent, unaltered ultramafic rock, and 60 13 percent serpentine, likely as not that would be called a 14 serpentine. If it's 45 percent serpentine and 55 percent 15 ultramafic rock, you know, what is it called then? That 16 will vary from geologist to geologist. 17 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: When does the 18 asbestos arise? 19 MR. CHURCHILL: Asbestos, chrysotile asbestos -- 20 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: As best as you can 21 tell us. 22 MR. CHURCHILL: Chrysotile asbestos is a 23 serpentine mineral, and it does not occur outside of 24 serpentine rock. Other asbestos types, the amphibole 25 asbestos types can occur in serpentinite rock and it can PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 226 1 occur in other rock types as well. 2 The best we know right now in California is that 3 the amphibole asbestos types, tremolite and actinolite, 4 which are believed to be the most common, are generally 5 associated either in or along the margins of ultramafic 6 rock. 7 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Before it becomes 8 serpentine? 9 MR. CHURCHILL: It may or may not actually be 10 serpentine. 11 MR. HARRISON: If I might say, Professor Friedman, 12 your task, although that would be a good goal, is not to rid 13 the goal of asbestos. It's to have a control mechanism 14 that's effective based on how much it will reduce emissions 15 versus its cost. Because if that were the case, instead of 16 regulating perchlorethylene in dry cleaners, you'd just ban 17 the substance. So it's very important the relative rate of 18 occurrence of serpentine of asbestos in non-serpentine 19 ultramafic rocks. 20 What I'm saying, since serpentine is acknowledged 21 as the host rock -- 22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think we've heard what you had 23 to say. 24 MR. HARRISON: One last point if I may. Since 25 we've heard that it is the host rock and that there's no PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 227 1 data on how often we're likely to encounter it in 2 non-serpentine ultramafics, it's an area that merits further 3 study. 4 I will note in 1990 -- 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think that's -- 6 MR. HARRISON: In 1990, to end, I appreciate your 7 indulgence very much, Mr. Chairman -- the ARB staff said 8 staff has evaluated all sources of asbestos in the state, 9 and determined that most of these sources are already 10 regulated. For this reason, the board determined that it 11 was appropriate to concentrate its rulemaking activities on 12 the control of asbestos emissions from asbestos-containing 13 serpentine and there's been nothing presented to this board 14 to indicate that it's appropriate to broaden it. 15 Thank you very much. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 17 I think again staff have written things many times 18 in the past, we all get updates on those. I'm not convinced 19 by that one. 20 Thank you. 21 Yes, Ms. D'Adamo. 22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I have a question of 23 Dr. Churchill. 24 What you just outlined was the various categories 25 of certain types of rocks, ultramafic and serpentine. Okay. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 228 1 Are you aware of or have you provided studies that 2 analyze the issue of varying degrees of the different types 3 of asbestos that could be found in either substance? 4 MR. CHURCHILL: I guess I'm not sure what you mean 5 by varying degrees of asbestos. You mean percentages? 6 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: You've indicated that is it 7 tremolite, that the veins of the tremolite could be found in 8 ultramafic rocks. You have that information based upon 9 personal knowledge or are there studies that indicate -- 10 MR. CHURCHILL: Yeah. There's a lot of 11 information in our historical publications out of our 12 office, for example, of asbestos mineral resources or 13 potential resources in the state. A lot of this was 14 published prior to 1965. 15 But in the information provided there on the 16 occurrences for variety of asbestos deposits and tremolite 17 deposits, the majority of the occurrences are in near the 18 margins either within ultramafic rocks or just right along 19 the margins with other types of rocks. And these ultramafic 20 rocks may be serpentinized, probably more often than not 21 they are serpentinized or will be recognized as true 22 serpentinite, but there are occurrences in other rock types. 23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 24 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Are there places where 25 there are large deposits of ultramafic rock where there is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 229 1 no asbestos? 2 MR. CHURCHILL: That's an interesting question 3 that I've considered and also talked to a lot of people 4 about. It's when you're looking at very trace levels such 5 as this 0.25 level, things like that, that's very difficult 6 to say. The ultramafic rocks themselves, because the 7 environment that they format is quite a bit different than 8 where they're exposed at the earth's crust are almost always 9 at least slightly altered. And slightly altered means very 10 small amount of serpentinite in them. Some of the world's 11 big deposits that produce products that are basically pure 12 minerals like olivine is a principal mineral in this kind of 13 rock and it has a lot of applications. They produce that in 14 a few places in the world from very pure deposits. Even 15 those deposits have almost one percent of that olivine 16 converted to serpentine. 17 So there's always a little bit of potential to be 18 able to -- you really can't from maps or from literature 19 point to a particular body of this kind of rock and say with 20 certainty there's absolutely no asbestos in it at trace 21 levels. 22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 23 Next is Jill Engelman. 24 (Member of audience makes a comment.) 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. Thank you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 230 1 for letting me know. 2 Alice Howard, Janet Hathaway and then Terry Trent. 3 MS. HOWARD: Alice Howard. I have previously 4 submitted written comments. 5 This whole thing started in El Dorado County and I 6 speak as a resident of El Dorado County and a representative 7 of the El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth. No 8 relation to the El Dorado County Taxpayers. And of the 9 Maidu Group of the Sierra Club, which covers El Dorado and 10 Amador Counties. 11 We support your proposed regulation at the 12 25 --.25 percent level. 13 We remain concerned that the emphasis upon 14 serpentine and ultramafic rocks. It's not the providence of 15 any of the tremolite that I have seen in El Dorado County, 16 and it is not so mapped on the Sacramento sheet of the 17 geologic atlas of California. I haven't yet seen the new 18 Department of Conservation maps, but from everything I read 19 on the Web site, they appear also to emphasize serpentine 20 and ultramafic, plus what I've heard here. 21 A long time ago I got this bulletin, number 173, 22 from 1956, of what was then called the Division of Mines. 23 Under tremolite it says common as a metamorphic 24 mineral in schist and chrysaline limestones, occurring as 25 white or gray, long prismatic and fibrous aggregates, often PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 231 1 as asbestos. 2 There are 19 counties listed here of various 3 occurrence, not one of them is El Dorado County, where we 4 know now in 2000 that tremolite is also found. 5 So I presume that would be a much longer list 6 today. But nevertheless it's not ultramafic. 7 I'm not sure quite what to do about that, because 8 it does present a real regulatory problem, I understand, but 9 you haven't been addressing it and that bothers me. 10 Now, as for the need for control, I've lived in El 11 Dorado County for seven years. I live about two to three 12 miles as the crow flies from one of the more notorious 13 quarries in the county. I have twice ordered loads of rock 14 for my own use. I got a load of serpentine once, though I 15 had specifically asked for limestone, for very good reasons. 16 I knew that there was asbestos in serpentine. I didn't 17 realize it was serpentine until the second load was 18 delivered, which was truly limestone, and I saw them side by 19 side. 20 Fortunately my use was largely underground and 21 there's only about one square yard of exposed crushed 22 serpentine. 23 But in the last year, and I remind you that it was 24 two years ago that the story broke in El Dorado County, in 25 the last year I have watched a new home where the owners PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 232 1 have paved their driveway with crushed serpentine. And I 2 drive by it every time I go out from my house. 3 Now, I don't know whether this was because of 4 ignorance on their part or because they have been deluded by 5 the pseudo science that appears in the local newspaper or 6 just what. 7 But you plainly need to do something to prevent 8 these kinds of occurrence from continuing. 9 So in summary we do strongly support this proposed 10 changes to the ATCM and I thank your staff for their hard 11 work and I thank you all for your great patience through 12 this long day. 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 14 Next is Janet Hathaway, then Terry Trent, then 15 Raymond Oliva. 16 MS. HATHAWAY: Good afternoon, Chairman and 17 members of the board. 18 I'm very happy happen to be before you. 19 I'm Janet Hathaway with the National Resources 20 Defense Council. 21 And I definitely am appreciative of the 22 opportunity to speak with you, but also extremely grateful 23 for the hard work of the staff, because I think this is one 24 of the prime examples of just how careful and deliberate the 25 staff is at trying to strike a balance that is judicious and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 233 1 appropriate between costs and health benefits. 2 Although I certainly think that a regulation to 3 reduce the staff is necessary, I think the staff has 4 demonstrated that there are continuing risks, and that best 5 available control technologies could further reduce the 6 risk. 7 I do think that are in fact too many exemptions 8 and two of the exemptions concern me, especially. 9 The exemption that allows the continued use of 10 these kinds of both asbestos-containing rocks and concrete 11 in Portland cement and asphalt is very problematic for the 12 very reasons that Mr. McKinnon outlined earlier, and that is 13 that while solidified surfaces are not going to have a lot 14 of fibrous dust initially, over time these do degrade, and 15 they are taken out by workers. And in fact what we're doing 16 is deferring a problem to a future generation that we could 17 avoid. And it does seem to me imprudent to continue the use 18 of asbestos-containing materials in these substances in 19 concrete. 20 Secondly, the remote location exemption, although 21 it has been tightened to a certain extent, I think we need 22 to remember that what is remote today is not going to 23 continue to be remote. This is a state that is growing so 24 rapidly, and we are certainly going to see populations 25 developing in areas that right now are quite remote. And it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 234 1 seems to me prudent that that exemption be monitored. There 2 may need to be better notice provisions and recordkeeping 3 provisions associated with it, so that even if you are 4 continuing the use of some of these materials that are 5 potentially hazardous that at least you have awareness of 6 where they are. 7 And I would just urge that the board consider that 8 this truly is a effort to balance all the concerns that 9 you've heard. 10 I think that, quite frankly, it's amazing to me 11 that people are debating the health risks of asbestos. Even 12 episodic exposures are known to cause deadly diseases. You 13 know, I think some of us know people who have had 14 mesothelioma or who have died from it, so it's quite amazing 15 that this is still a debate. 16 But the fact that it is I think just shows that 17 there are big financial interests that are concerned that 18 any regulation may infringe on their benefits, and quite 19 reasonably they want to see costs examined. 20 I think costs have been examined by the staff as 21 best they can. It's very hard to anticipate all the 22 possible quarry situations, but I do think the board has had 23 presented to them good information about why the risks are 24 still too high and why it is important for us to stop using 25 this material in surfacing applications. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 235 1 So again I just am grateful for the opportunity 2 and I'd be happy to answer any questions if you have any. 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, Janet. 4 Questions, comments? 5 Thank you. 6 Next is Terry Trent, Raymond Oliva and then lastly 7 Kevin Long. 8 MR. TRENT: Ladies and gentlemen of the board, my 9 name is Terry Trent. I'm here representing myself. 10 I am a past president of El Dorado County. I have 11 lost, essentially lost two family members to cancer and 12 asbestosis since encountering tremolite asbestos 14 years 13 ago in El Dorado County. 14 I just wanted to reiterate what Lance McMahan had 15 spoken to you. I would like you all to be very careful and 16 to make sure that we do this correctly. 17 I would also like to point out that if you would 18 take a look at the western news, newspaper article from 19 yesterday from US EPA coordinator, Mr. Paul Pernard, in 20 Libby, Montana, which you will find that much of what has 21 been done with this new regulation is already obsolete. 22 Over the next six months everything that's being done with 23 the current regulation, and I'm speculating about the second 24 part of the regulation, will be found to have been obsolete. 25 Not because chrysotile is not carcinogenic, because PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 236 1 chrysotile is a far less carcinogenic than amphibole 2 asbestos is. 3 Thank you very much. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 5 Raymond Oliva. 6 MR. OLIVA: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the 7 indulgence of the board to allow me to speak for three 8 minutes and 46 seconds. I'm Italian and that's difficult 9 for me to say in less time than that, but I've worked hard 10 to reduce down my statement. 11 I'm not a scientist. I'm a citizen. 12 Mr. Chairman and members of the board, my name is 13 Raymond Oliva, and I stand before you representing a group 14 of residents from El Dorado County, Lake Tahoe, San 15 Francisco, and Alameda, who could not attend because they 16 cannot afford to take the time from work. 17 I also stand before you representing Carol Ann 18 Oliva, my wife, who died earlier this year, but who worked 19 tirelessly in the background and it is in her spirit that I 20 speak to you. 21 We have worked hard on these issues for several 22 years at great personal and financial costs and time. 23 We support the efforts of the board on the part of 24 the ARB to reduce the levels of exposure from the current 25 level of five percent to 0.25. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 237 1 We are aware, all too well, of the lobbying on the 2 part of the vested interests which not only have been 3 directed towards ARB, but elected representatives and this 4 board. They have the money and the resources to do this, 5 while we in the community cannot match the dollars and 6 resources they have committed to defeating the ARB 7 recommendations. 8 Who does the citizen turn to when they need help? 9 We turn to you. It is your role to help protect us and the 10 health and the environment. That is your main function. 11 On March 17th in the AP, the head of Mine Safety 12 Health Administration, Mr. McAteer, stated, quote, in 1989 13 the agency tried to bring the asbestos exposure limits down 14 to OSHA safer standards, but the industry flooded MSHA with 15 opposition to the agency's proposal. The efforts to prevent 16 the new standard were pretty much made by the same people 17 making the same statements they made in defending Libby, 18 Montana. 19 Our asbestos isn't bad asbestos, and these fibers 20 are too short or the wrong shape to be harmful. We could 21 have done more, said Mr. McAteer. We should have done more 22 and we didn't. Close quote. 23 In the same AP news release, Dr. Carol Jones, who 24 helped construct the OSHA standard stated, quote, when you 25 have a carcinogen like asbestos, you want no exposure at PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 238 1 all, close quote. 2 We're hearing the same basic arguments again. We 3 need more studies. We need more time. In the meantime we 4 continue to breathe this material. 5 When a substance is a proven carcinogen, the 6 appellant, me, should not and usually does not have the 7 burden of proof. Science has already proven the carcinogy 8 of all asbestos fibers and this has been recognized by 9 nearly all national and international regulatory agencies 10 who have done risk assessments and toxicity reviews. The 11 exception being Canada and the mining vested interests. 12 Those are the two exceptions. 13 The industry has had enough time. If the industry 14 had proof that contradicted the United States findings which 15 were just released in May, and the health organization and 16 state and federal agencies and the European Union, we would 17 not be having this discussion. They don't have the proof. 18 More time is totally unacceptable to those who are exposed 19 to this on a daily basis, and who watch the greatest 20 receptors in the world, the children, being exposed to it. 21 We seem to forget we are also talking about 22 children, who are the greatest of receptors and the greatest 23 risk to this carcinogen. 24 Dr. Gerald Abraham stated it has been previously 25 shown and published that even products such as sand, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 239 1 children's play sand, which have less than one ppm asbestos, 2 may have hundreds of thousands of free fibers per gram, and 3 that such products can result in airborne fiber levels 4 greater than the occupational allowable standards. 5 El Dorado in 1989, quote, risk management has 6 determined that a potential health risk is associated with 7 the use of aggregate material containing asbestos fibers for 8 road base. Therefore for the protection of the county 9 maintenance employees, the use of this material for parcel 10 map access roads and road widening is unacceptable. No 11 aggregate shall contain greater than one percent, close 12 quote. 13 It is now zero percent and has been for some time. 14 As a father, I have to make decisions which will 15 affect the health of my family, the same as all of us in 16 this room do. What would you do to protect your family? 17 Who among you are or anybody in this room can tell me how 18 many fibers my grandchild can breathe in from the carpet in 19 our house or in a home or driving down an unpaved road or by 20 some of these quarries? 21 The use of Superfund money in 1989 on 6.5 miles of 22 road because of the asbestos health risk should give you 23 some indication. 24 Nobody can tell me, the United States in their 25 third-party written submission documented May 28th, quote, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 240 1 chrysotile is a carcinogen. In view of the United States, 2 chrysotile asbestos is a toxic material that presents a 3 serious risk to human health. Chrysotile asbestos is no 4 less toxic than other forms of asbestos, close quote. 5 Finally, the Europeans stated in their directive 6 banning chrysotile asbestos, no threshold level, and they 7 have banned it all, no threshold level of exposure has been 8 identified below which chrysotile does not pose a carcinogen 9 risk. 10 The federal EPA, Department of Health Services, 11 Department of Toxic Substance Control, OEHHA, Department of 12 Education, the vast majority of the people, and the list 13 goes on, supports what the ARB is trying to do. They all 14 say the same thing. No exposure is the best. Reduce it. 15 Stop having us drive on these roads and be exposed to this 16 material. 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 18 MR. OLIVA: It has taken far too long to get to 19 this step. Please approve the recommendation by the ARB. 20 Dr. Lloyd, thank you very much for your 21 consideration. And the board thank you for your time. 22 If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer 23 them. 24 None? 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 241 1 Our last witness is Kevin Long. 2 MR. LONG: I'll be very brief. My name is Kevin 3 Long. I'm a resident of El Dorado County. I lived up there 4 for approximately five years now after having moved up from 5 the Bay Area after perusing some ARB report regarding ppm 6 counts in the air quality, so that I could allow my wife to 7 breathe a little easier. The air in the Valley was making 8 sick. Lo and behold, I live in the serpentine belt of El 9 Dorado County. 10 I had a landscaper deliver a load of road base to 11 my property and what he brought me was a dump truck full of 12 crushed serpentine. I fired the landscaper and am in the 13 process of paving over that access road. 14 I'll be brief in my comments. I just want to ask 15 you to support your staff recommendation for two real basic 16 reasons. 17 Number one, contrary to what CMAC would have you 18 believe in their 30-page dissertation that they submitted to 19 you, your staff has complied and has met the Health and 20 Safety Code standards. 21 Your staff did evaluate adequate data and there is 22 substantial evidence for supporting this, the regulation 23 that's recommended. 24 On the one hand the CMAC brief does admit that the 25 standard suggested, that you should substantially deviate PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 242 1 from the Health and Safety Code standards and they also 2 admit that your decision cannot be an abuse of discretion. 3 However, your process of going through this 4 proposed regulation and adopting this ATCM will not be a 5 arbitrary and capricious decision on your part. The 6 likelihood of it being overturned in litigation if I were to 7 flip a coin today would come up in your favor more than half 8 the times I flipped it. 9 CMA is wrong on the other hand to suggest that it 10 is a strict compliance standard. It can't be a balancing 11 and a strict compliance standard. You have room here 12 through this process to adopt your staff's recommendation. 13 I urge you to do so. 14 We have been down this road before in El Dorado 15 County and unfortunately that road too often has been paved 16 with asbestos. 17 In the 1980s the EPA came out in their moon suits 18 and they paved over a road and they found 20 to 30 percent 19 asbestos levels. 20 Certain quarries attempted to reopen to resell 21 that type of product, the same source as that EPA Superfund 22 site. We battled to keep those quarries from reopening. 23 Gravel pits are informally operated wherever 24 people decide they need to dig out gravel for personal use 25 and sometimes they then try to turn those into commercial PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 243 1 quarries. 2 Unfortunately, the current reg does not protect us 3 at a current five percent level without an adequate 4 mechanism for enforcement. 5 We still see this rock spread all over the county. 6 It's being paved on driveways, as Alice Howard testified 7 today. 8 The state citizens are entitled to a real and 9 equal protection under state regulation. 10 The ARB has a duty and a mandate to protect the 11 citizens of the state, of the counties. 12 One county standard should not differ from 13 another. 14 At the February meeting in this room, I listened 15 to the representative from Lake County, who I heard again 16 today, address how their county was able to address the 17 needs of its citizens and it's not killing them. It's not 18 killing their citizens either. 19 The only way to protect the consumer/citizen is to 20 adopt this regulation that drives the threshold down to the 21 testing minimum. This is because serpentine type aggregate 22 is so pervasive in this state and so easily and cheaply 23 used, the citizens will use this cheap and easy product 24 unless they are protected by this regulation. 25 This product needs to be taken off the shelf. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 244 1 Thank you. 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 3 That concludes the public testimony. 4 Mr. Kenny, do you have any other comments? 5 MR. KENNY: No, I don't. 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think I will now close the 7 record in this agenda item. 8 However, the record will be reopened when the 9 15-day notice of public availability is issued. 10 Written or oral comments received after this 11 hearing date, but before the 15-day notice is issued, will 12 not be accepted as part of the official record on this 13 agenda item. 14 When the record is reopened for a 15-day comment 15 period, the public may submit written comments on the 16 proposed changes, which will be considered and responded to 17 in the final statement of reasons for the regulation. 18 Before opening up to discussion among the board 19 members, are there any ex parte communications to be 20 disclosed? 21 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Mr. Chair, I'll start out. 22 Yes, I had a conversation with Janet Hathaway of 23 the Natural Resources Defense Council on July 14th regarding 24 the rural exemptions and her concern that they were 25 overly -- that there were too many exemptions. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 245 1 I also today had an ex parte conversations with 2 Mark Pawlicki of Simpson Timber; John Kohegan, also with 3 Simpson; Paul Lessard of CMAC, actually of Granite Rock. He 4 represented CMAC today. And Linda Falasco, also of CMAC. 5 And all of the conversations with them were, how 6 do I put this, much less information than those individuals 7 actually provided here at the hearing. So there's nothing 8 additional. 9 Thanks. 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo. 11 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Yes. I had a meeting 12 yesterday with three individuals, yesterday the 19th, with 13 Charles Rea, with the Construction Materials Association of 14 California; Linda Falasco with the Construction Materials 15 Association of California; and Denise Jones with the 16 California Mining Association. All three were present at 17 the same time and their comments mirrored the testimony that 18 they provided today. 19 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: None. 20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Okay. None. Discussion from the 21 board. 22 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, if I could 23 lead off maybe to say that I feel very comfortable with what 24 staff is proposing. I think there were some small issues to 25 deal with during the 15-day comment period, particularly on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 246 1 some of the timber issues and the roads, et cetera, but I 2 feel very comfortable and would like to see us approve this 3 as it is presented to us today with those small items to be 4 worked out. 5 And I think there was one on a quarrying issue, if 6 the core drilling and the testing of those cores, I think 7 that's a very legitimate request, and again something I 8 think can be worked out in the 15-day comment period. 9 MR. KENNY: Actually, if I can just comment on the 10 last one, with regard to the testing and the core drilling, 11 the rule right now provides for alternative testing methods 12 and I think that's one we want to look at because it 13 probably does -- it sounds like it's one that actually makes 14 sense. 15 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yes, I think so. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes, Professor Friedman. 17 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I share those views 18 and I won't extend that beyond that except to say that I too 19 think that the alternative testing procedures to be 20 developed in connection with further discussions with those 21 regulated, I trust staff will, as it always has, try to be 22 as creative, as flexible, consistent with our objective, 23 which is clearly stated and reflected in these rules. 24 And we don't want to impose undue burdens or cost 25 on legitimate business activities and or on consumers who PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 247 1 end up having to pay for them if the business is still in 2 business. And we don't want to put businesses out of 3 business. 4 But we do have an obligation to protect the public 5 health. 6 I am totally comfortable. I have no question. 7 And I know Dr. Bill Friedman, who had to leave, would hit me 8 hard if I felt differently. 9 And I have had indirectly some experience with 10 mesothelioma. 11 So I have no doubt that asbestos is a terrible 12 terrible thing when it gets into the lungs, especially in 13 the young or the elderly. And so we have an obligation to 14 do something about it. 15 And I think this is a responsible, thoughtful, 16 very carefully crafted approach that the staff has presented 17 and it's got the flexibility built into it, as you noted. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo. 19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Yes. I would just like to 20 ditto what Professor Friedman just said. 21 And on the point of the staff working with -- 22 well, I imagine you meant working with the industry and 23 others, but I just wanted to reiterate that I think it would 24 be important to have some guidelines for the air pollution 25 control districts so that individual quarry operators could PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 248 1 pretty much rely on their association to provide the 2 information to them and then pretty much just have a blanket 3 alternative methods so as to lessen the burden on industry. 4 One of the things that I'd like to see us 5 exploring further, I know it's just a limited part of the 6 state, but what Siskiyou County brought up. I'd like for us 7 to explore options that would actually give areas such as 8 Siskiyou County the incentive to pave over roads and it 9 sounds like because of the situation, the unique situation 10 that they have in trying to find a way to work within the 11 regulation, that there may be a way to actually accomplish 12 or for them to meet this regulation and at the same time 13 pave over some roads. So that's something that I'd really 14 like to see us perhaps explore further. 15 This is a new issue for me, and I was just really 16 surprised about the existence of it when I first came on the 17 board, and I think that there's probably quite a few 18 citizens share that sentiment in hearing about it, so I 19 think we need to do a better job of public education going 20 to Siskiyou County and other areas to try and avoid the 21 situation that we have in El Dorado with some of the 22 divisiveness that exists. I think there may be ways to work 23 together with the communities to pave over some of the roads 24 and live within the confines of the regulation. 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 249 1 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I guess the first thing 2 I'd like to comment on is that kind of the discussion around 3 the timber areas. And, you know, kind of long roads that 4 are private roads with gates and that we look at, you 5 know -- and I think you agree at looking at doing something 6 with that. 7 And clearly I think Janet Hathaway made this 8 point. It's that we have to think about how this place is 9 going to be used maybe some day if it's sold and that kind 10 of thing. And that should be some of the discussion. 11 But there are clearly areas of this state that are 12 really a long ways away from any population centers and to 13 the extent that the people who own it and work there can get 14 through this without endangering people. 15 Now, one thing I want to be real clear about is if 16 we worked that out, it certainly does not relieve a timber 17 company of their responsibilities as an employer if workers 18 are being exposed to large amounts of asbestos. So I think 19 I would hope that near where workers work that they don't 20 use the asbestos, the serpentine, they use something else. 21 But given the rural nature, I think it is good to 22 work something out specific to there. 23 And quite frankly today I wish we had heard more 24 testimony from the 17 and 7 and the 2, because a lot of what 25 we heard today was argument about whether or not asbestos of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 250 1 one kind or another was dangerous and a lot of argument that 2 was really not based upon specifics. 3 And I think that as we go down this road we need 4 to work out if there are specific impacts and there are 5 something we are doing that's onerous specifically to people 6 who have businesses, we need to figure out routes to work 7 that out if it can be worked out. 8 With that said, I think that the process of if 9 there's no serpentine, no asbestos found, and having fewer 10 and fewer tests required is a good approach. This core 11 sample approach where maybe you can get a lot of it done at 12 once is a great approach. 13 And certainly I would think and -- I would think 14 that if it turns out that someone operates a quarry and they 15 never find asbestos there for some long period of time, we 16 should hear from them here, and there should be some thought 17 put into how we remove them from the testing process. 18 So I think that pretty much covers it. 19 I think that you had a difficult issue and there 20 are certainly strong feelings all over it, and I certainly 21 feel strongly that the public deserves to be protected from 22 asbestos fibers. 23 So I can live with it, given a couple of those 24 things to be worked out. 25 Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 251 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I would just like to add a few 2 words. 3 I agree very strongly with my colleagues. I 4 appreciate all the work the staff has done on a very tough 5 issue over a long period of time. 6 I also appreciate again if we look at the 7 statewide basis, but clearly we focused a lot on El Dorado 8 County and I also realize the tough issues there because 9 we've had businesses operating out there and then we've had 10 residents move into the community. So that obviously leads 11 to some conflicts when it becomes known that we have 12 asbestos-containing rocks there. 13 On the other hand, I think it would be completely 14 irresponsible for us, knowing what we know, not to alert the 15 public and not to in fact control the exposure there. 16 If we don't know all the answers, I don't know in 17 this case that this board has ever regretted actually -- and 18 you can't know all the information before you proceed, and 19 so I'm very comfortable here. 20 On the other hand I think the comments we made 21 back to staff to continuing to keep us abreast of things and 22 if there are areas where we can work more closely to follow 23 those. 24 I think as -- I think as Professor Friedman said, 25 as you always do, very confident of that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 252 1 But I was disappointed today to hear some of the 2 issues discussed vis-a-vis the health effects and I think 3 that Dr. Friedman rightly put all his weight behind that to 4 really say that that's not an issue. And once the SRP has 5 identified that way back we shouldn't be trying to 6 investigate it. People's health, people have the right to 7 know, they have the right to be protected from that. 8 So again I applaud the staff. It's a tough issue 9 and I appreciate all the people coming today and providing 10 us this information for us. 11 I realize there's a lot of affected parties here 12 and it's not easy, as you say, to look at when industries 13 are active out there, but also when public is impacted. 14 It's my mind it's no question that we should take 15 action in this case. 16 I look for someone to move. 17 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: So moved. 18 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Second. 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: All in favor say aye. 20 (Ayes.) 21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any negatives? 22 (No response.) 23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed. 24 I guess we've got a quorum here. 25 I'd like to again thank the staff. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 253 1 I'd like to thank Dr. Melanie Marty for all your 2 continuing help from OEHHA. And thank you very much. 3 And for our colleagues of the state geologist, 4 thank you very much indeed. 5 What we are going to do at this stage, by the way, 6 we are going to hold over agenda item 00-7-3 to the next 7 board meeting. 8 So with that, I would like to officially close the 9 July 20th meeting of the Air Resources Board. 10 (Thereupon the meeting was adjourned 11 at 4:25 p.m.) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 254 1 CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 2 3 I, JANET H. NICOL, a Certified Shorthand Reporter 4 of the State of California, do hereby certify that I am a 5 disinterested person herein; that I reported the foregoing 6 meeting in shorthand writing; that I thereafter caused my 7 shorthand writing to be transcribed into typewriting. 8 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 9 attorney for any of the parties to said meeting, or in any 10 way interested in the outcome of said meeting. 11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 12 this 30th day of July 2000. 13 14 15 16 Janet H. Nicol 17 Certified Shorthand Reporter License Number 9764 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345