MEETING BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD HEARING ROOM CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 2020 L STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, JULY 25, 1996 9:30 A.M. Nadine J. Parks Shorthand Reporter PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii MEMBERS PRESENT John D. Dunlap, III, Chairman Eugene Boston, M.D. Joseph Calhoun M. Patricia Hilligoss John Lagarias Jack C. Parnell Barbara Riordan Ron Roberts James W. Silva Doug Vagim Staff: Jim Boyd, Executive Officer Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mike Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Mike Kenny, Chief Counsel Terry McGuire, Chief, Technical Support Division Linda Murchison, Chief, Stationary Source Emission Inventory Branch, TSD Richard Bode, Manager, Emission Inventory Methods Section Carolyn Lozo, Staff, TSD George Alexeeff, Ph.D., OEHHA Melanie Marty, OEHHA Judith Tracy, Staff Counsel John Holmes, Ph.D., Chief Research Division Bob Barham, Assistant Chief, Research Division Manjit Ahuja, Mgr., Emissions Control Technology Research Section, RD Harold Cota, Ph.D., P.E., Research Screening Committee Anthony Fucaloro, Ph.D., Research Screening Committee James Higdon, Ph.D., Research Screening Committee S. Kent Hoekman, Ph.D., Research Screening Committee James Ortner, Ph.D., Research Screening Committee Lynn Terry, Assistant Executive Officer Gayle Sweigert, Staff, Office of Air Quality and Transportation Planning Patricia Hutchens, Board Secretary Wendy Grandchamp, Secretary Bill Valdez, Administrative Services Division PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii I N D E X PAGE Proceedings 1 Call to Order 1 Pledge of Allegiance Led by Jack Lagarias 1 Roll Call 1, 2 AGENDA ITEMS: 96-6-1 Public Hearing to Consider Adoption and Amendments to Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Report Adopted Pursuant to Hot Spots Information & Assessment Act of 1987 Introductory Remarks by Chairman Dunlap 2 Staff Presentation: Jim Boyd Executive Officer 4 Carolyn Lozo Technical Support Division 6 Written comments entered into record with staff replies 22 Questions/Comments 28 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jeff Sickenger WSPA 48 Denise Jones California Mining Association 51 James Good, Esq. California Mining Association 53 Questions/Comments 55 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv INDEX, continued. . . PAGE AGENDA ITEMS: 96-6-1 (Direction to Staff by Chairman) 63 Questions/Comments 64 John Bobis Aerojet Corporation 65 Questions/Comments 68 (Direction to Staff by Chairman) 70 Questions/Comments 71 Bill McConaghie National Paint and Coating Assn. 72 Questions/Comments 73 (Direction to Staff by Chairman) 80 Questions/Comments 81 Closing Comments by Mr. Boyd 82 Record Officially Closed to Await Notification of 15-day public comment period 83 Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications 83 Questions/Comments 84 Motion by Lagarias by Adopt Resolution 96-41 88 Board Action 88 Presentation to Jack Lagarias Upon his Retirement from the ARB 89 Luncheon Recess 97 Afternoon Session 98 Announcement of Closed Session 98 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 v INDEX, continued. . . PAGE AGENDA ITEMS: 96-6-2 Public Meeting to Consider Draft Report: Planned Air Pollution Research: 1996 Update Introductory Remarks by Chairman Dunlap 99 Staff Presentation: Jim Boyd Executive Officer 99 Introduction of Members of the Research Screening Committee 100 Statement by Harold Cota, Ph.D. Chairman of RSC 102 Continued Introductory Statement by Jim Boyd 104 Ralph Propper Emissions Control Technology Research Section, RD 107 Questions/Comments 115 Entry of Written Comments into the Record 121 Closing Comments by Mr. Boyd 123 Motion to Adopt Resolution 96-42 125 Board Action 125 96-6-3 Public Meeting to Consider Update on Development of the PM10 State Implementation Plan Introductory Comments by Chairman Dunlap 126 // PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 vi INDEX, continued. . . PAGE AGENDA ITEMS: 96-6-3 Staff Presentation: Jim Boyd Executive Officer 126 Gayle Sweigert Office of Air Quality and Transportation Planning 127 Questions/Comments 144 Entry of Written Comments 163 Presentation to Jim Boyd Upon his Retirement as Executive Officer 164 Farewell Message by Mr. Boyd 166 Announcement of Appointment of Michael Kenny 172 Statement by Mr. Kenny 172 PUBLIC COMMENT: Lou DeBottari Mono County 173 Questions/Comments 1784 Direction to Staff 176 Adjournment 177 Certificate of Reporter 178 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 --o0o-- 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Will this, the July meeting of 4 the California Air Resources Board, please come to order. 5 Mr. Lagarias, would you lead us in the Pledge of 6 Allegiance, please. 7 MR. LAGARIAS: I'll be glad to. 8 (Thereupon, the Pledge of Allegiance was 9 recited by all in attendance.) 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Jack. 11 Will the Board Secretary please call the roll. 12 MS. HUTCHENS: Boston? 13 DR. BOSTON: Here. 14 MS. HUTCHENS: Calhoun? 15 MR. CALHOUN: Here. 16 MS. HUTCHENS: Edgerton? 17 Hilligoss? 18 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Here. 19 MS. HUTCHENS: Lagarias? 20 MR. LAGARIAS: Here. 21 MS. HUTCHENS: Parnell? 22 MR. PARNELL: Here. 23 MS. HUTCHENS: Riordan? 24 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Here. 25 MS. HUTCHENS: Roberts? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Here. 2 MS. HUTCHENS: Silva? 3 SUPERVISOR SILVA: Here. 4 MS. HUTCHENS: Vagim? 5 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Here. 6 MS. HUTCHENS: Chairman Dunlap. 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Here. Thank you. 8 We will hop right into our agenda, but I wanted to 9 share with my Board member colleagues and the audience, we 10 have some recognition that'll take place today, in that two 11 very important members of the ARB team will be moving on and 12 leaving us. And at the proper time in the agenda, we'll be 13 covering that. 14 So, I don't want anyone to think we weren't going 15 to take care of that business. 16 So, what I'd like to do at this juncture is lead 17 off with the first item, Agenda Item 96-6-1. And I'd like 18 to remind those in the audience who wish to present 19 testimony to the Board on any of today's agenda items to 20 please see the Board Secretary to left, and provide her with 21 20 copies of any written testimony, or to sign up so that we 22 might recognize you and give you an opportunity to speak. 23 The first item is a public hearing to consider the 24 adoption and amendment to the emission criteria and 25 guidelines report adopted pursuant to the Air Toxics Hot PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 Spots Information and Assessment Act. 2 This item is the proposed amendment to further 3 streamline the emissions inventory criteria and guidelines 4 for this air toxics hot spots effort. The Hot Spots Act, 5 which was enacted in 1987, requires California industries to 6 inventory their toxic air contaminants -- or emissions, 7 excuse me -- to notify the public of potentially significant 8 health risks, and to reduce the significant risk from 9 emissions. 10 The law required the ARB to adopt criteria and 11 guidelines specifying which California facilities were to 12 submit these inventory plans and reports, and how those 13 plans and reports were to be prepared. 14 The Board has amended these guidelines five times 15 since they were originally adopted in 1989 -- most recently 16 last May, as part of the Governor's regulatory improvement 17 initiative. 18 When the Board adopted the 95-96 fee regulations 19 for the hot spots program this past January, it agreed to 20 pursue a Phase 2 effort to further streamline these 21 requirements that the affected facilities must follow to 22 comply with the Act. 23 The proposal for us today considers changes to the 24 inventory guidelines, now that the program is coming to 25 fruition, to focus the update reporting requirements on only PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 the facilities and substances that are responsible for the 2 greatest risks and to exempt the facilities posing low risks 3 from further reporting. 4 The proposed amendments would also allow greater 5 flexibility for the local air districts and facilities in 6 meeting the reporting requirements, including integrating 7 hot spots reporting with other reporting programs whenever 8 possible to track facilities updates. 9 So, at this point, I'd like to ask Mr. Boyd to 10 introduce this item and begin the staff's presentation. 11 MR. BOYD: Thank you, and good morning, Board 12 members and staff, and to the members of the audience. 13 We're at a point in this program where we can look 14 back and realize that much has been accomplished since we 15 began this program several years ago. In doing this 16 evaluation, we looked at the program's requirements, 17 reevaluated where we should focus our efforts, and looked at 18 where additional opportunities exist to streamline the 19 requirements and reduce the burdens on California's 20 regulated community. 21 Today's focus is on streamlining the emission 22 inventory reporting and update requirements that are 23 provided under the hot spots program. 24 The current emission inventory criteria and 25 guidelines specified the types of facilities that must PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 report and update their emissions, or they are to specify 2 the types of emissions data to submit, specify appropriate 3 methods for quantifying the emissions, and include the list 4 of substances that are to be reported. 5 Today's proposed amendments by staff to these 6 reporting requirements represent the second phase of what is 7 a two-phased streamlining effort to reduce the program's 8 costs to the affected facilities. 9 As you know, last January, your Board approved the 10 hot spots fee regulations for fiscal year 95-96, reducing 11 the fees to be paid by many facilities and eliminating fees 12 entirely for many lower risk facilities. 13 Today's efforts included the proposed amendments 14 to the emissions inventory criteria and guidelines which you 15 have before you. Additional amendments to the fee 16 regulation for fiscal year 96-97 are scheduled to come 17 before you later this fall. 18 In developing this proposal, we focused on 19 streamlining the program to the greatest extent possible, 20 while still maintaining its public health benefits. We have 21 worked very closely with interested members of the public, 22 the regulated community, various health and environmental 23 organizations, local air districts, the California Air 24 Pollution Control Officers Association, CAPCOA, and with our 25 sister agency, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 Assessment in developing these amendments to the reporting 2 requirements. 3 And I would note that Mr. George Alexeeff of the 4 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is seated 5 at the staff table today to answer any questions that may 6 arise that are appropriately addressed to OEHHA. 7 With that brief introduction, I'd now like to ask 8 Ms. Carolyn Lozo of the Technical Support Division to 9 present to you our proposed amendments to the emission 10 inventory criteria and guidelines. Ms. Lozo? 11 MS. LOZO: Thank you, Mr. Boyd. 12 Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, my 13 presentation today will discuss the staff's proposal that 14 the Board amend and further streamline the emission 15 inventory criteria and guidelines regulation and report for 16 the air toxic hot spots program. 17 I will begin my presentation with a short overview 18 of today's proposal, then I'll describe the amendments 19 proposed in the staff report. I'll conclude with a 20 description of modifications we are proposing today. 21 The hot spots program has benefited both the 22 California public and California businesses. It has 23 resulted in one of the most comprehensive databases of toxic 24 air emissions anywhere in the country. This information has 25 increased our understanding of the types of sources of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 greatest concern, and it has helped us to set priorities for 2 reducing risks and protecting public health. 3 In large part due to this program and the 4 information it has made available, many California 5 businesses have voluntarily reduced their emissions of toxic 6 substances. 7 We are aware of voluntary reductions of at least 8 two million pounds from California businesses during the 9 past several years. Specifically, the Air Toxics Hot Spots 10 Information and Assessment Act of 1987 and its subsequent 11 amendments establish a program to quantify the routine 12 emissions of air toxics from California businesses and 13 industrial facilities. 14 The Act requires the ARB to adopt criteria and 15 guidelines which specify which California facilities must 16 submit air toxics emission inventory plans, reports, and 17 updates to the plans. 18 They also specify how reports are to be prepared 19 and who is to submit updates. 20 The emission inventory criteria and guidelines 21 regulations, which contains these procedures, was first 22 adopted by the Board in 1989. The regulation has been 23 amended five times, mostly recently this past May as part of 24 the Governor's regulatory improvement initiative. 25 At that time, the Board amended the guidelines to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 move them out of the Code of Regulations and into a report 2 incorporated by reference into the Code of Regulations. No 3 substantive changes were made to the guidelines as a result 4 of this restructuring. 5 Today's proposed amendments are the second phase 6 of a two-phase effort to streamline the hot spots program. 7 The first phase culminated in last January with the Board's 8 approval of the fee regulation for fiscal year 95-96, which 9 reduced the State's costs, reduced the fees paid by 10 facilities, and exempted some facilities from fees all 11 together. 12 Today's proposal, which implements part of the 13 second phase of the effort, further streamlines the emission 14 reporting requirements. The rest of the second phase will 15 be amendments to the fee regulation for fiscal year 96-97, 16 which we will bring before the Board in September. 17 I'll now briefly outline the goals in developing 18 today's proposal. The goals of today's proposed amendments 19 to the emission inventory criteria and guidelines are to 20 maintain the program's ability to protect the public health 21 while further streamlining the program. 22 The proposal would focus the reporting 23 requirements on facilities and substances which pose the 24 greatest health risks, while it would exempt lower risk 25 facilities from further reporting. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 It would allow greater flexibility for local 2 districts and facilities to meet the reporting requirements, 3 and it would move the program toward a baseline or 4 maintenance resource level. 5 At this time, I'd like to summarize current 6 emission inventory criteria and guidelines and the 7 amendments to it, which are proposed in the staff report. 8 Briefly, the current emission inventory criteria 9 and guidelines regulation and report does the following: It 10 specifies the types of facilities that must report and 11 update their air toxics emissions. It specifies the types 12 of emission data that must be reported. It is establishes a 13 schedule for reporting. It specifics methods for measuring 14 and estimating emissions, and it lists the substances which 15 must be reported. 16 The current regulation divides the list of 17 substances into two groups for reporting purposes -- one 18 group for which emissions must be quantified and a second 19 group of substances of lesser concern for which only use or 20 production must be reported. 21 Turning now to the amendments to the criteria and 22 guidelines which are proposed in the staff report. The 23 proposed amendments were developed with extensive input from 24 the public, industry, environmental and health groups, local 25 air pollution control and air quality management districts, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, 2 CAPCOA, and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard 3 Assessment, OEHHA. 4 The staff held nine public consultation meetings 5 throughout the State and numerous meetings and 6 teleconferences with a district working group and an 7 industry and environmental working group. 8 I will now discuss what the amendments proposed in 9 the staff report would do. The proposed amendments include 10 revisions to exempt from update reporting those facilities 11 which pose little or no risk, to integrate 2588 updates with 12 other district programs, to remove certain substances from 13 reporting, as well as add a few new ones; to reinstate 14 exempted facilities which undergo significant changes, and 15 several other revisions which I'll discuss in a moment. 16 The proposed amendments would streamline the 17 reporting requirements by defining categories of facilities 18 that are exempt from further reporting; that must continue 19 to submit full update emissions reports; and that must 20 submit only minimal status updates for tracking purposes. 21 It would allow flexibility by permitting 22 integration of this program with other reporting programs, 23 where possible, to minimize duplicating reporting 24 requirements. 25 We believe that the proposed amendments to the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 reporting requirements will exempt 40 to 50 percent of the 2 core facilities from the program; that is, approximately 3 2100 facilities would no longer have to report toxic 4 emission inventory data. 5 These exemptions, plus our proposal to integrate 6 this program with other reporting programs, will save 7 California facilities in excess of one-half million dollars. 8 This is in addition to the $15 million saved due to the 9 streamlined amendments adopted by this Board in 1993, when 10 the requirements for reporting were last addressed. 11 The proposal will divide facilities currently in 12 the program into three levels based on the health risk. 13 Working with the districts and OEHHA, we developed cut 14 points based on risk to create these three levels using 15 values consistent with those used by most districts and 16 recognized by other environmental health entities. 17 For facilities that have completed their initial 18 reporting requirements, the proposal would base the 19 categorization on a risk assessment result, if a health risk 20 assessment had been done, or on the facility's 21 prioritization score if a risk assessment was not done. 22 Prioritization scores would be established by a 23 district following the procedures such as those described in 24 CAPCOA facility prioritization guidelines. 25 We propose two cut points to categorize facilities PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 into the three levels. The proposed update categories are 2 described in the new two slides. 3 A facility would be a low level facility and, 4 therefore, exempt from further reporting if either of the 5 following were true: One, if a health risk assessment was 6 not required and the facility's prioritization score is less 7 than 1 for both cancer and noncancer health effects; or, 8 two, the district and OEHHA approved health risk assessment 9 for the facility shows a total potential cancer risk of less 10 than one case per one million persons, and a total hazard 11 index of less than .1 for both chronic and acute effects. 12 Although the facilities that will be exempted will 13 represent many different types of facilities, those that 14 fall out in the greatest numbers are facilities that are 15 categorized in groups, such as fabricated metal products, 16 electronic and other electrical equipment; electric, gas, 17 and sanitary services, and chemical and allied products. 18 A facility would be a high level facility if its 19 prioritization score is 10 or greater, and a health risk 20 assessment was not done, or if the approved health risk 21 assessment shows a total potential cancer risk of 10 or 22 greater, or if the total hazard index is 1 or greater. Any 23 one of these would categorize the facility as high level. 24 We are also proposing a special condition for 25 facilities that emit specified quantities of the federally PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 designated hazardous air pollutants, or HAPs. We're 2 proposing that any facility that emits five tons or more per 3 year of any individual HAP, or 12.5 tons per year combined 4 total of HAPs would not be exempted as a low level facility 5 even if it scores in risk for low level. 6 Such facilities would instead be tracked through 7 the minimal effort of the intermediate level. This 8 provisions helps ensure that facilities that emit large 9 volumes of toxics, which may affect many people, wouldn't be 10 exempted, but rather would continue to be tracked. 11 A facility would be an intermediate level facility 12 if it is neither low level nor high level. Intermediate 13 level facilities would be required to continue a minimal 14 reporting effort, because they have the potential to become 15 high level sources. 16 Now, I'll describe the current and proposed 17 reporting requirements associated with the three levels. 18 Currently, high level facilities prepare complete 19 hot spots updates every four years. We are proposing that 20 they could continue to do these updates or, as an option, 21 they could substitute an emission update that the facility 22 is doing for a risk reduction audit and plan if one was 23 required for the facility under other provisions of the 24 program. 25 For intermediate level, we are proposing that they PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 could continue to do the two-page form or, as an option, 2 districts could track the activity through other programs, 3 such as the combined criteria pollutant and toxics emission 4 inventory program or through permit evaluation for new and 5 modified sources. 6 This would avoid duplication of reporting by 7 allowing the integration of hot spots reporting requirements 8 with other district reporting programs if specified criteria 9 are met. 10 Low level facilities which must currently complete 11 an abbreviated summary form would be exempted form further 12 update reporting. Examples of facilities that will benefit 13 from the proposed streamlining are an electric motor 14 manufacturing facility in Colton which changed its coating 15 processes to lower its emissions of metals, resulting in a 16 prioritization score of .3, and also a large bag 17 manufacturing/commercial printing facility in Chino, which 18 changed to waterbased inks in its printing processes to 19 lower its prioritization score to .2. 20 The proposal includes other special conditions for 21 exemption. One of these would use the de minimis throughput 22 levels for several classes of facilities that are 23 established -- that were established by the Board this past 24 January to exempt facilities from paying fees under the hot 25 spots fee regulation for 95-96. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 We are proposing to allow de minimis facilities to 2 be deemed as low level and exempt them from reporting 3 requirements as well. The five categories for which de 4 minimis levels were approved last January are facilities 5 whose primary activities are defined as print shops, 6 wastewater treatment plants, crematoria, boat or ship 7 building or repair, and hospital or veterinary clinics with 8 an ethylene oxide sterilizer. 9 Screening risk assessments are another option. We 10 propose that a district or a facility with district 11 concurrence may conduct a conservative risk assessment using 12 screening air dispersion modeling and other health 13 protective inputs that satisfy provisions in a new Appendix 14 F of the guidelines. 15 If the results show potential -- total potential 16 cancer risk at the point of maximum impact of less than one 17 case per million persons and a total hazard index of less 18 than .1, the facility could be designated as low level and 19 be exempted from further update reporting. 20 The proposed amendments also include provisions 21 for increasing the level of a facility's category if 22 significant changes occur that warrant concern to public 23 health. 24 There are certain conditions that would trigger a 25 facility's reinstatement or entry back into the program. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 These includes changes regarding new substances, new health 2 effects values, closer receptors, and improved estimated 3 methods. 4 The proposed amendments would also allow districts 5 and facilities the option to evaluate and track changes in 6 facilities' activity levels, as part of the permit process 7 for new and modified sources, to determine whether there is 8 any need for reinstatement of previously exempted 9 facilities. 10 Finally, criteria are proposed for districts to 11 deny an exemption if they determine there are factors that 12 warrant concern to public health. 13 The hot spots statute mandates the Air Resources 14 Board to include substances from a list -- from a number of 15 other lists onto the hot spots list. Previously, the 16 guidelines grouped the substances into two groups for 17 reporting purposes. 18 Appendix A-1 includes the substances of most 19 concern for which emissions must be quantified. Appendix A- 20 2 includes the substances of less concern for which 21 facilities must report only use or production. 22 Today's proposal would amend the list of 23 substances to further streamline the list and focus 24 reporting on the more important substances by moving over a 25 hundred substances that are not expected to be of concern as PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 airborne emissions from the existing list to a new Appendix 2 A-3 for which reporting would not be required unless a 3 facility manufactures the substances. 4 We are proposing to remove acetone all together 5 from the hot spots list, because it was removed from the 6 toxic air contaminant list by the Board this past June. 7 We are also proposing to add new substances to the 8 list as shown on the next slide. 9 Twelve new substances have been added to other 10 lists, which the hot spots statute mandates be added to this 11 list, since the last time the guidelines were updated. 12 In addition, 20 specific species are proposed to 13 be added, because they are included in the ARB's source 14 test methods. These substances have been reported for 15 several years and are included in the sources, yet they were 16 not -- yet they were not added to the substance list in the 17 past. 18 The proposed amendments would revise the format of 19 the report to make it easier to use. The report format that 20 the Board adopted at the May 30, 1996 hearing allows greater 21 flexibility now that the guidelines are a report 22 incorporated by reference to the Code. 23 The proposal would order the sections into logical 24 chapters and include a how-to-locate table and other 25 explanatory material. We propose to make the report PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 available on the Internet for convenience to users as well. 2 Criteria are proposed which would allow districts 3 and facilities the option to evaluate new facilities through 4 the permit process for new source review. The amendments 5 would consolidate the Appendix E-1 and E-2 classes of 6 smaller facilities -- those emitting less than 10 tons per 7 year of criteria pollutants. 8 We propose to eliminate many of the former E-2 9 classes and set a lower threshold for all classes which 10 remain in Appendix E. This threshold would improve the 11 program's efficiency by ensuring that new facilities which 12 pose low risk will be excluded before getting into the 13 program. 14 The proposal would also provide a mechanism for 15 districts to require reporting for specific facilities, 16 which have emissions or release characteristics that may 17 pose concern for public health, without requiring all 18 facilities of that class to report. 19 Several other minor revisions are also proposed to 20 clarify and improve the regulation. We propose to revise 21 the values for the degree of accuracy for reporting each 22 substance, which are listed in Appendix A-1, to be 23 consistent with the relative toxicity of each substance. 24 We propose to allow facilities to use a number of 25 emission factors derived from hot spots source tests, which PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 the ARB has compiled and developed through a research effort 2 into a database, instead of costly source testing by the 3 facilities if certain criteria are met. 4 We propose to clarify the provisions regarding 5 designating confidential and trade secret data. We propose 6 to update the definition section to reflect new terms used 7 in the guidelines report and to update the reference to a 8 San Joaquin Valley rule used to define the facility 9 boundaries. 10 We propose to streamline the reporting formats by 11 simplifying simple -- by specifying simple generic formats 12 for acceptable data submittal. 13 Also, as I mentioned earlier, we propose to 14 include a new Appendix F, which contains criteria related to 15 screening risk assessments used to designate exemption 16 thresholds. 17 This completes the summary of the proposed 18 amendments in the staff report. 19 Now, I will turn to a few additional revisions 20 that the staff is recommending be made to the proposal, as 21 presented in the staff, based on the need for clarification, 22 for corrections, or a few comments we have heard. 23 The staff is recommending that the Board approve 24 several additional modifications beyond those in the 25 published staff report. The staff's proposed additional PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 modifications are shown in today's handout packet that was 2 given to Board members, and is available on the table 3 outside of this room. 4 These are mostly clarifications and corrections 5 without substantive effect. Originally, the staff 6 recommended that Appendix B-2 and Appendix C be contained 7 under separate cover. 8 However, now the staff recommends that they be 9 consolidated back into the report. We are making the 10 proposed change because of public comments expressed to the 11 Board at the May 30th hearing on the regulatory improvement 12 initiative item to make the guidelines report as easily 13 accessible and simple to obtain as possible. 14 Also, in response to public comment, we are 15 proposing that one additional substance, saccharin, be moved 16 to the Appendix A-3 list of substances which are not of 17 airborne concern and need not be reported. 18 Several other updates, corrections, and 19 clarifications are also proposed to the report. For 20 example, we propose to add an entry for the Mojave Desert 21 Air Basin within the South Coast District for Riverside 22 County to reflect the recent Board-approved boundary 23 changes. 24 We propose to update the references of several 25 reports to reflect the current versions of analysis methods. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 Also relevant to today's proposal is pending 2 legislation that, if enacted, would amend the air toxic hot 3 spots statute. Assembly Bill 564, authored by Assemblyman 4 Cannella, has been passed by the Assembly and is moving 5 through the Senate. 6 If enacted, it would amend the hot spots statute 7 and would provide many of the same types of streamlining 8 provisions as those proposed by the staff for the emission 9 inventory criteria and guidelines report. 10 In its current form, the proposed legislation is 11 quite similar in concept to the proposed amendments to the 12 criteria and guidelines report before you today. 13 But there are differences in the specific language 14 of provisions in several areas. AB 564 would exempt some 15 facilities from the program using prioritization scores 16 only. The staff's proposal today would exempt some 17 facilities from update reporting using threshold criteria 18 based on scores, risk assessments, and other de minimis 19 provisions, under the authority provided by the statute for 20 the Board to specify the procedures for emission inventory 21 reporting updates. 22 If AB 564 were enacted, as currently constituted, 23 some adjustments to today's proposal would be needed to 24 specifically exempt some additional facilities from the 25 program and make other conforming changes. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 Such changes would include allowing exemptions for 2 facilities emitting HAPs if exempted under AB 564. 3 The proposed legislation contains criteria for 4 reinstating exempted facilities if changes occur. The 5 concepts are very similar, but the particular language 6 differs somewhat from the criteria in the proposed 7 guidelines report and may necessitate changes for 8 conformity. 9 Similarly, the proposed legislation contains 10 criteria for utilizing the district permit process as an 11 alternative evaluation mechanism to hot spots requirements 12 as does the staff's proposed report. Again, the concepts 13 are very similar, but the particular language differs 14 somewhat and may necessitate changes for conformity. 15 This completes the summary of the staff's proposed 16 revisions to the original staff report proposal. 17 I will now summarize the comments received during 18 the public comment period. We received nine letters 19 concerning the staff's proposal. 20 We received a written comment regarding the 21 proposal from Brithinee Electric, a small firm in Colton, 22 California. The letter supports the staff's efforts to 23 streamline the program. 24 We received a letter from William Walker, Director 25 and Health Officer of Contra Costa County Health Services PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 Department. Mr. Walker supports the staff's proposal and 2 specifically states he supports the staff's proposal to 3 allow districts to bring in unique facilities and to include 4 major HAPs facilities. 5 We received a letter from the Western States 6 Petroleum Association, WSPA, stating that they appreciated t 7 he staff's efforts in addressing concerns over the 8 development of the regulation, and that they generally 9 support the staff's proposal. 10 They did, however, request two additional changes. 11 WSPA representatives are here today and plan to testify, so 12 I will not try to paraphrase the letter. 13 We received a letter from New United Motor 14 Manufacturers, NUMMI, who recommend that the provision to 15 include major HAPs facilities be removed, because it is 16 counter to the intent to base the program on health risk 17 assessments. 18 The staff believes that these sources retained 19 under the HAPs provision are large volume emitters of toxic 20 pollutants, whose emissions are spread over large geographic 21 areas and consequently expose large numbers of people. 22 Although the calculation of the risk at the 23 closest receptor is low, large numbers of people may be 24 exposed. 25 In addition, we are attempting to encourage the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 U.S. EPA to recognize that California has a comprehensive 2 toxic air pollution control program, of which the hot spots 3 program is an important element. 4 We are also working with the U.S. EPA to encourage 5 them as they develop the mandated residual risk program to 6 recognize that the hot spots program is an acceptable 7 alternative, thus avoiding the imposition of additional 8 federal requirements. 9 We believe that our efforts will be enhanced by 10 demonstrating that we have a robust program. 11 We received a letter from the California Mining 12 Association, CMA. While they support much of the proposal 13 to streamline the program, they have strong concerns about 14 the section to allow -- to allow districts to bring in 15 unique facilities that pose concern to public health. 16 CMA is here to testify today, so again, I will not 17 paraphrase their comments. 18 We received a letter from the Environmental Health 19 Coalition in San Diego. They raise concerns about whether 20 the program, as defined by the staff's proposal, will still 21 meet the intent of the Act to identify hot spots, whether 22 low level facilities could pose risk, either cumulatively or 23 individually, whether the sections to bring in unique 24 facilities or to reinstate facilities are strong enough,and 25 whether the integrity of the toxic program would be lost. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 They also raise concerns about environmental 2 justice, stating that air toxic emissions disproportionately 3 impact low income communities. 4 Although we understand and appreciate their 5 concerns, we believe the staff proposal provides a good 6 balance between public protection and providing regulatory 7 relief to California facilities that are not posing high 8 risks. 9 Through this program, we have developed a 10 comprehensive database that now allows us to make sound 11 decisions as to which facilities are of greatest concern. 12 In addition, the data has been used to prioritize and 13 identify significant risk facilities. 14 There are procedures in the Act that require the 15 significant risk facilities to notify the public. Our 16 recommended changes today are to the update requirements and 17 address who should continue to update. 18 Low level facilities would be exempt from update 19 reporting because the data indicates they do not pose a 20 risk. 21 In addition, we have provided flexibility in the 22 proposal for a district to deny an exemption or reinstate an 23 exempted facility specifically to allow for those situations 24 where a facility either changes its conditions or if the 25 district believes that in culmination -- in cumulation with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 other facilities, it poses significant risk. 2 Rather than deny exemptions to all facilities, the 3 staff's proposal allows the districts who are most familiar 4 with their industries to identify those unique facilities 5 using specified factors that may be of concern. 6 Concerning the environmental justice issue, the 7 letter implies that low level facilities in low income 8 communities would be exempt. The proposal to exempt 9 facilities is based on prioritization scores or risks 10 regardless of the location of the facility. 11 Risk assessments take into account proximity to 12 the nearest receptor. If a facility poses a high risk at 13 the nearest reception, it is not exempted under this 14 proposal. 15 We received a letter this morning from Aerojet. 16 They support the intent of the amendments to streamline the 17 reporting requirements. However, they are concerned about 18 language to incorporate by reference the CAPCOA 19 prioritization guidelines in the risk assessment guidelines. 20 Aerojet is here today to testify; so, again, I 21 will not paraphrase their comments. 22 We received a comment from the Environmental 23 Defense Center. While they support the need to streamline 24 reporting, they are opposed to the staff's proposal to 25 exempt low level facilities from reporting. They believe PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 low level facilities should continue to report, and that ARB 2 should continue to collect data to support a comprehensive 3 emission inventory. 4 We believe that after having collected information 5 for several years, we now have a comprehensive inventory. 6 That has allowed us to identify where to best focus our 7 efforts and resources. 8 We believe we can best protect the public by 9 concentrating and collecting additional data on facilities 10 that pose the greatest concern. In addition, as explained 11 previously, we have provisions for bringing unique 12 facilities -- bringing in unique facilities and for denying 13 exemptions. 14 We received a letter from the California Trade and 15 Commerce Agency this morning. Most of their comments seem 16 to concern procedures on how the proposal is presented. The 17 comments address the following concerns: 18 Proposed regulatory tests -- proposed regulation 19 text references to Section 17 CCR 93300.5 needs to be added. 20 Changes from the previous regulatory text need to be clearly 21 indicated. Addition of substances to Appendix A needs to 22 clearly indicated. Incorporation by reference of appendices 23 needs to be clarified. 24 We will make changes, as necessary and 25 appropriate, in proposal language to address these comments PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 as part of the 15-day notice procedures. 2 Some changes indicated in these comments have been 3 included in staff's suggested changes proposed here today. 4 This concludes the discussion of the proposed 5 amendments to the emission inventory criteria and guidelines 6 report. 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very well. Thank you. Mr. 8 Boyd, do you have anything else to add? 9 MR. BOYD: Not at this time, Mr. Chairman. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. We have five witnesses 11 that have signed up to testify before the Board. Before we 12 hear from them, do any of the Board members have any 13 questions of staff? 14 Yes, Dr. Boston. 15 DR. BOSTON: Could you describe the process to me 16 whereby a low level emitter that may be in close proximity 17 to other low level emitters may have a cumulative effect? 18 Who is to monitor that? And if there's no reporting from 19 those low level emitters, how are you going to track it? 20 MS. MURCHISON: I'll try to answer that a little 21 bit. Maybe, Richard, you can help. 22 My name is Linda Murchison. There are a couple 23 provisions in the regulation that are in there specifically 24 to address that point. 25 First of all, once we've identified who the low PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 level emitters are, the district does have the option to 2 deny an exemption if they feel that there are reasons to do 3 that. And there may be any of a number of reasons, one of 4 which might be that facility, in combination with other 5 facilities, poses a cumulative risk. 6 That was put in there specifically for that 7 purpose. 8 Another provision that we have is what we call the 9 unique facilities provision. And that was a provision that, 10 if a facility does not trigger any of the other criteria in 11 the regulation to come in, the district may, if they have 12 reason and justification to do so, bring in individually 13 unique facilities to consider them for analysis, such as 14 cumulative risk. 15 It's really the responsibility of the district to 16 identify those. Many of those facilities are tracked 17 through other programs, perhaps permit programs -- a 18 program such as the criteria pollutant program. So, they 19 have information on those facilities from other sources. 20 It is ultimately the responsibility of the 21 district. There are other situations where, if a facility 22 undergoes changes, the facility has some responsibility to 23 notify the district. But primarily, the district would 24 bring those in for that purpose. 25 DR. BOSTON: It seems like that requires awfully PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 close observation by a district inspector, or whoever, to 2 watch those facilities and know if they're changing their 3 habits or their production. 4 Do they have that ability to do that? 5 MR. MC GUIRE: Dr. Boston, there is another -- I'm 6 Terry McGuire. There is another factor that we think 7 provides a good cushion. 8 As you recall, we're worried mostly about the high 9 risk facilities whose risks are above 10 in a million. But 10 we still require facilities that go down to one in a million 11 to give us regular updates at least to clearly notify the 12 district whenever they make a change that would 13 substantively increase their risk. 14 So, in effect, what we have is reporting from 15 facilities whose risks are one or greater. And we believe 16 that if you had even two or three of those sources, your 17 likelihood of still kicking the combined risk up over a risk 18 of 10 is not likely, unless it was something so conspicuous 19 that we think a district should be able to pick up. 20 If you had four or five sources located together, 21 certainly we think that the district would be able to pick 22 that up without being notified from the source. 23 DR. BOSTON: Okay. May I ask a question of Dr. 24 Alexeeff. I see him there. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 DR. BOSTON: I'll put him on the hot spot a little 2 bit. 3 If these toxic emissions have been downclassified 4 by air pollution control people, how do you track those 5 substances to see that they're not possibly a groundwater 6 contaminant or maybe affect some other branch of your 7 responsibility? 8 Do you do that? 9 DR. ALEXEEFF: My name is George Alexeeff from the 10 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 11 Well, in the risk assessment process that 12 facilities have undergone, there are provisions to look at 13 the risk from the emissions of the facility and how those 14 emissions could impact other pathways of exposure. And 15 those are taken into account in the risk assessment process. 16 For the circumstance where someone may be moving 17 emissions -- I don't have a specific example, but it sounds 18 like your hypothetical situation -- air emissions to water 19 emissions. 20 DR. BOSTON: Right. 21 DR. ALEXEEFF: Okay. There are, of course, other 22 programs, such as water and hazardous waste. One of the 23 issues that we are internally working on in our strategic 24 plan in our office is to try to come up with a more 25 comprehensive approach so that all the programs will be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 looking at how their activities affect other activities, so 2 that we won't have a situation where someone is maybe not 3 emitting things in the air but is now putting it in the 4 water until they're caught in the water, and then they're 5 putting it in the waste. 6 And we're trying to let someone look at what is 7 the best way to deal with their emissions in the most health 8 protective way. 9 So, that is something -- that kind of 10 comprehensive approach hasn't been developed yet in the 11 nation. But I think that's the kind of thing that most 12 people are trying to think -- what's the best use of 13 existing resources for a facility so that they can be, you 14 know, most responsible. 15 And from a public health point, what's the best 16 way so we don't overcontrol them in one way and actually 17 force them to do something that's not publicly health 18 protective. 19 DR. BOSTON: So, when our rules are passed, they 20 are inspected by your department and passed on as probably 21 not contaminating the groundwater or. . . 22 DR. ALEXEEFF: Yeah. Well, when we review the 23 risk assessment, we do review the issues that have been 24 raised with regards to contaminating other pathways, such as 25 water or other, you know, soil, whatever there might be that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 could be of concern. We do review that as the risk 2 assessment. 3 DR. BOSTON: Okay. Thank you. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Lagarias. 5 MR. LAGARIAS: Under the list of 12 new substances 6 that you propose to add, am I correct in understanding you 7 also wish to add additional substances that have been 8 monitored in our air quality monitoring network? 9 MR. BODE: My name is Richard Bode, and what we 10 are adding are compounds that have already been -- actually, 11 they've been monitored through the source tests, the 12 emission source tests that have been conducted by 13 facilities. 14 And the source test methods themselves always 15 required those new substances -- basically PAHs, dioxins, 16 furans -- to be reported through the source test program. 17 They weren't on our original list of substances, though. 18 So, all we're doing here is adding those substances to our 19 list so they can be -- data's already available and can be 20 added to our databases. 21 MR. LAGARIAS: Are those substances ones that have 22 been identified as hazardous air pollutants, or have any 23 health risks associated with them? 24 MR. BODE: For the dioxins and furans, they have. 25 Actually, about, I think, eight of those dioxin/furans are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 actually just subtotals. They're actually totals of the 2 different dioxin/furans isomers themselves. But they have 3 been identified as toxic air contaminants. 4 And the PAHs themselves were added on to there. 5 They always have health effects. That's the reason they 6 were added on. They've all been added on to the A-1 list. 7 MR. LAGARIAS: I notice these new substances are 8 sort of exotic. And I just wonder what they are or where 9 they're coming from. Something like 2,3-Dibromo-1-propanol, 10 iron pentacarbonyl. That's more than a mouthful. Is that 11 something you find in the atmosphere? 12 MR. BODE: Yes, it is. And actually, when we 13 reviewed the list of substances -- and, as you are aware, 14 the substances we added come from a variety of about seven 15 different lists of substances. And through our review, 16 initial review, we found that there were actually more than 17 a hundred new substances that might have come on that we 18 actually might have added. 19 But through that review, we found out that only a 20 handful actually had either health data or had evidence that 21 it was an airborne problem or emitted into the air in 22 California. 23 And so, those 12 actually were added to the A-1 24 list specifically because they were airborne and had health 25 values. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 MR. LAGARIAS: Thank you. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Now that Mr. Lagarias is 3 leaving, Mr. Parnell, you're going to have to ask those 4 types of questions. 5 (Laughter.) 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: We're looking to you, Jack. 7 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: You better study, Mr. 8 Parnell. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Supervisor Roberts. 10 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If 11 I could go back to the question that Dr. Boston was asking, 12 with respect to perhaps an area that has a number of 13 facilities in it, none of which are required to have 14 reports. 15 As I understand it, then, the district can choose 16 not to exempt based on -- is there specific criteria? 17 MS. MURCHISON: Yeah. We actually do list a number 18 of things that a district may take into account -- available 19 health data, changes in operation. A clustering of 20 facilities is the one that people tend to focus on. That 21 is, if you have a number of low risk facilities all sitting 22 on the same street corner, one on each corner, then in 23 cumulation, perhaps they pose a significant risk to the 24 public; whereas, individually, they may not be. 25 There may be a good example where a district PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 chooses to bring in those low level facilities specifically 2 for examining that type of risk. 3 We did it that way, because we felt that rather 4 than bring in all low level facilities statewide, that we 5 wanted to allow the districts to custom design, if you will, 6 the program where we exempted below a level, they were 7 comfortable. But if there were specific conditions that 8 they were aware of, they could go in and pull in those 9 individual ones and examine those clusters on an individual 10 basis rather than force all those low level facilities 11 statewide to come into the program. 12 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: And I don't have any 13 disagreement with putting everybody through the ringer, so 14 to speak. But, I guess, two questions. 15 If something like that were to come into being, 16 where is the district going to actually get the information 17 that they have that situation existing? 18 What's being described, it sounds like there's 19 kind of a loose, not organized, pieces of information 20 floating around, and somehow a district has got to put it 21 all together to understand -- 22 MS. MURCHISON: Okay. Maybe -- 23 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: -- that they actually have 24 that occurring in a particular area. 25 And I'm not thinking of the four gas stations on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 four separate corners, but I'm thinking of -- I can think of 2 one specific example in San Diego, where we've got a lot of 3 chemical and industrial facilities within -- right in the 4 middle of a residential community. 5 And it's not clear to me how a district's going to 6 pick up and know what they've got with respect to what's 7 being used there, and in the fact that that presents some 8 type of a unique situation which they wouldn't want to have 9 exempted. 10 MS. MURCHISON: Well, one good example -- let me 11 just back up a little bit. Under the current language of 12 the Act, all facilities that are greater than 10 tons of a 13 criteria pollutant must come in and report at least once in 14 this program. 15 And the Board itself has identified classes of 16 less than 10 ton facilities that must come in. So, for the 17 core facilities in this program, everybody will go through a 18 plan report once. 19 What we're addressing today are update 20 requirements; that is, who must continue to update that 21 information. So, the district will have information from 22 the original, if not a couple, submittals from these 23 facilities. And with that information, they'll be judging 24 whether or not they're high level, intermediate, or low 25 level. So, they will have some information on the facility. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 Let's say, for example, they identify of 2 facilities as low level and are trying to make a decision as 3 to whether or not to exempt them under that basis. They may 4 want to take into account other circumstances before 5 granting that exemption. 6 So, they do have some information from the 7 original plan -- the plan and report submittals. 8 Plus, as I mentioned, I think, a little bit 9 earlier, there are other programs that these facilities 10 report under as well. 11 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: And these facilities will be 12 required to file a report covering any change? 13 MS. MURCHISON: That's right. That's one of the 14 things that triggers the reinstatement. If a facility 15 changes its operations, adds a process, has a additional 16 substances that they had not reported on, those are all 17 criteria that a district may choose to reinstate the 18 facility back into the program. 19 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: An what option is there if a 20 district decided to maintain an exemption, but a community 21 didn't feel very comfortable with that? What options do 22 they have then? 23 MS. MURCHISON: You mean if they allow the 24 exemption initially? They still have an option to bring 25 that facility in later if they find additional information PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 that would cause concern. 2 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: But there's no appeal to this 3 Board or anywhere else on behalf of a community if they felt 4 the district perhaps wasn't listening? 5 MS. MURCHISON: I don't believe we've really 6 written in kind of an appeal process. Mike, can -- maybe 7 you can address that. No, not really. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I have a question, if I may 9 interject? 10 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Go ahead, Mr. Chairman. 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Would new facilities coming in 12 under the cumulative scenario, would they have to file the 13 paper work? In other words, how would the new ones be 14 captured? 15 Let's say you had two service stations or 16 something, use that example. And two more came in over a 17 period of years. Would they then be required to file some 18 paper work as it relates to this program? 19 I know they'd be regulated under other programs 20 that the local district would have. 21 MS. MURCHISON: Right. Yeah. The new facilities 22 would be subject to the original requirements of the Act. 23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 24 MS. MURCHISON: In other words, if they were -- 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: So, they have to -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 MS. MURCHISON: -- greater than 10 tons, they 2 would come in. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. 4 MS. MURCHISON: If they were less than 10 tons, if 5 they were on the Appendix C, then they would come in. 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. 7 Mr. Kenny? 8 MR. KENNY: In response to Supervisor Roberts' 9 question, we do not have an appeal procedure, but I'm going 10 to refer to Judy Tracy, who has worked on this extensively, 11 and I think she can provide a little more information than I 12 can. 13 MS. TRACY: I'm Judy Tracy with the Legal Office. 14 The factors are specified in the proposal about how the 15 district would make a determination about whether it was 16 appropriate to either deny an exemption for the facilities 17 or to get further information in the cases of changes in the 18 facilities. 19 And those factors are things like proximity to 20 receptors, and emissions, and the toxicity of the emissions, 21 natural substances, and the like. 22 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: I understand that. And I 23 guess I was taking it one step further and posing the 24 question, if there was disagreement after those factors were 25 looked at, what options are there. And I guess what I'm PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 hearing is that there aren't any. 2 MR. SCHEIBLE: Well, Supervisor, I don't believe 3 there are any in the regulation. If a citizen brought that 4 to our attention, then we'd have to go and talk to the 5 district to make the information available and deal with 6 them through that process. 7 But there's not a formal legal process where we 8 could come and receive an appeal as far as I know. 9 MR. KENNY: That's correct. There isn't. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Supervisor, just generally, 11 would you suggest that that be something that ought to be 12 considered? 13 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: It's something that I think 14 would give me a little bit more comfort. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: One of the things -- I mean just 16 on the surface -- that we've tried to do is push down some 17 of that responsibility to local districts, while providing a 18 working framework. 19 And I have quite a bit of confidence in the local 20 districts. I mean, for example, in your board, I know that 21 you chair that board, and you're going to make people 22 listen. So, I'm not as concerned about that, about the 23 accountability at the local level. I think it's there. 24 What concerns me a bit is that well-meaning folks 25 would come up to Sacramento to try to get us to take some PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 kind of action -- that we're not really equipped and the law 2 doesn't provide for -- to require locals to do something. 3 And there might be extreme examples where that 4 might be proper. But I can't think of any offhand. But 5 maybe I'm missing something here. 6 MR. BOYD: Supervisor Roberts, the long history of 7 California air pollution control law is that the locus of 8 responsibility for things like this was placed at the local 9 level. 10 The Board has general oversight responsibility. 11 Traditionally, if citizens complain about an issue or 12 someone complains about an issue that's being handled at the 13 local level, as referenced earlier, it's been the practice 14 of the Board staff for years to try to work the issue out 15 with the local district to try to have them address the 16 issue. 17 And I guess the people's redress is just to appeal 18 it to, again, to perhaps the local board -- using, as they 19 have often and always, the power of the Press to bring 20 attention to the issue. 21 But the law has been -- and California has been 22 very jealous of where the responsibility lies and has, in 23 these instances, been very careful in seeing that the 24 responsibility is vested at the local level with only 25 persuasive power of the Air Resources Board, but not a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 statutory responsibility to hear appeals. 2 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Yeah. I guess I would have 3 taken more comfort in something a little stronger than that, 4 Mr. Boyd, even being in a position to chair one of those 5 local boards. 6 And it isn't something that I'm assuming that it's 7 going to be used frequently. But, as we're making these 8 changes, as we're streamlining, as we're opting out a lot of 9 things out of this program, I have some concerns. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: On that point, what might be a 11 benefit - I think we've visited this issue, revisions to 12 this program, some half a dozen times in the last six or so 13 years. So, it's not unusual for us to take this up yet 14 again. 15 I'd like to, if it's okay with my Board member 16 colleagues, assign Mr. Kenny and the team to work on perhaps 17 scenario planning on how, given a situation outlined by 18 Supervisor Roberts, how it could be dealt with most 19 effectively currently, relative to having an appeal process 20 to us, whether or not we have the legal authority, Mike, to 21 deal with this through our interpretation of the statute. 22 And then come back to us, would you, with your assessment on 23 how best to provide for coverage of this issue? 24 MR. KENNY: We can look into the issue and provide 25 scenarios that Supervisor Roberts has raised -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 2 MR. KENNY: -- and see if there is a way to 3 legally address it. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Now, the only caution, 5 Ron, that I would have is just that I would hate to have us 6 become some kind of an appeals board and have all the local 7 districts -- perhaps some people felt they'd been alienated 8 or not heard, and they would -- 9 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Yeah. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: -- all be brought up here. 11 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: I don't want to see every 12 case that comes before a local board. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. 14 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: But somehow I'd feel more 15 comfortable -- 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 17 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: -- if there's something 18 stronger than us calling and saying, "How's everything going 19 down there?" 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. 21 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: A public relations approach 22 to it. 23 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I want to 24 underscore what you just said, because I have a little 25 different view, I think, than Supervisor Roberts. I really PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 feel very strongly that it should be handled at the local 2 level. 3 First of all, it seems to me they do understand 4 best what is occurring in that particular area. I have 5 always felt local boards to be very, very, very responsive, 6 because they are somewhat on the line politically for those 7 decisions that are made by the staffs at the local district. 8 9 And so, my, I guess, historic perspective is that 10 they are perhaps even more moved by local concerns than we 11 at the Air Resources Board, as we overlook some broader 12 issues, that most local districts -- and I would have to be 13 shown one that wasn't as responsive as I think you're 14 thinking about, because they usually are very responsive. 15 MR. BOYD: One last comment to maybe give some 16 comfort to Supervisor Roberts. I don't think history has 17 shown that the Air Resources Board staff, while, you know, 18 walking softly, does carry a big stick and haven't been 19 pansies about bringing the issues forward. We've succeed, I 20 think historically, in handling it in a quality way. But I 21 think the world knows that we do walk into the arena; that 22 there is some horsepower there that can be brought to bear. 23 And, as Supervisor Riordan's pointed out, history 24 has shown a high level of desire to cooperate on the part of 25 local government. So, we really rarely have had a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 confrontation to even draw you individually into most of the 2 issues. 3 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I didn't, in 4 any way, shape, or form, mean to suggest that this Board has 5 been -- behaved as pansies. 6 (Laughter.) 7 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: What I would simply suggest-- 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Process? 9 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: I was speaking of process. I 10 have some particular concerns. I have some concerns about 11 special interests and how they operate at a local level that 12 I think sometimes transcend the issues and the solutions. 13 And I'd feel better if that unofficial big stick somehow was 14 maybe acknowledged as a part of this. 15 And I think your direction to Mr. Kenny would be a 16 good one. 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you for that, Ron. We'll 18 ask Mike to put together some scenarios for us to look at 19 it. As a Board, I don't think we need an item. And we can 20 then, after we get a chance to talk to you, Mike, about it, 21 can decide whether it's a Board agenda item. 22 With that, Mr. Lagarias has been patient and has a 23 question. Jack? 24 MR. LAGARIAS: I don't know if it's a question or 25 a comment. But since this is my last Board meeting, I think PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 it's appropriate that I be a little philosophical about this 2 particular issue. 3 When the Hot Spots Act was first passed, we had -- 4 really had no knowledge about whether or not there were hot 5 spots in the State, or how hot they were, or where they 6 were. So, this was really a survey program. 7 And after a number of years, we got a report. And 8 we were fortunate enough to find out that there weren't very 9 many hot spots in the State, and that by forcing industries 10 to look at their operations they did a lot of corrective 11 actions to get out from under this requirement. 12 And there were about, as the staff reported, about 13 two million pounds reductions in emissions as a result. 14 But, as we continue, we have established a bureaucracy, and 15 it goes on. We're not looking at hot spots now. Maybe we 16 should call it the "warm spots" and "tepid spots" act as 17 well. Because this is what we're looking at. We're 18 downgrading it. 19 But we have accomplished the main purpose, which 20 is, are there any hot, dangerous areas in the State that 21 need attention. 22 We have looked at them and I think this program 23 has been very successful. But we ought to take a good look 24 at how much further we want to go with this type of 25 operation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Good point. 2 MR. PARNELL: I'd like to second his remarks. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mr. Lagarias and Mr. 4 Parnell. 5 What I'd like to do then, if there are no other 6 pressing questions, is call the witness list forward. And 7 if you'd come up as I call your name and have the others 8 kind of queue up behind you -- Jeff Sickenger from WSPA, who 9 has no written testimony; followed by two representatives 10 from the California Mining Association, Denise Jones and 11 James Good; and then John Bobis from Aerojet, then Bill 12 McConaghie from the National Paint and Coatings Association. 13 And if the folks from the Mining Association would 14 like to come up together, that's fine with me. 15 Good morning. 16 MR. SICKENGER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, 17 members of the Board. 18 My name is Jeff Sickenger, and I represent the 19 Western States Petroleum Association. 20 And I think, as staff mentioned, WSPA generally 21 views the proposed emission inventory regulation as a 22 positive step in the ongoing effort to streamline the 2588 23 program. And we certainly appreciate staff's efforts to 24 address our concerns throughout the process. 25 There are two issues that we wanted to bring to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 the attention of the Board this morning. The first one is 2 that we wanted to, again, express our appreciation for the 3 additional clarification that staff has provided in Section 4 5 of the regulation, relative to the intended use of the 5 summary update form. 6 It's our understanding that the intent is for 7 districts to require a summary form in lieu of full 8 inventory plans and reports, unless there's new information 9 that becomes available in the intervening years that could 10 affect a facility's calculated risk -- for instance, if a 11 new health value is established for a relevant substance 12 where one hadn't previously existed. 13 And we also understand that staff will include 14 additional clarification language and district guidance 15 letters that will follow adoption of this regulation. 16 The second issue that we wanted to raise is that 17 we have outstanding concerns with a number of references and 18 requirements in the -- both in the staff report and the 19 regulation dealing with sources of hazardous air pollutants 20 and other references to the federal air toxics program. 21 We feel that there's a need for further discussion 22 of the potential implications of those provisions, both in 23 terms of ongoing efforts to integrate the federal program 24 with existing State and local programs, and also in terms of 25 future efforts to streamline the 2588 program. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 We intend to pursue those issues in the context of 2 this newly formed Title 3 working group, in which ARB and 3 EPA Region IX, CAPCOA, and other stakeholders participate. 4 And depending upon the outcome of those discussions, we may 5 ask the Board to revisit this issue. 6 And I want to make sure that everyone understands, 7 notwithstanding those concerns, we support the Board's 8 adoption of the proposed regulation as it stands now. And, 9 of course, as always, we look forward to participating in 10 future efforts to streamline the program. 11 I appreciate Mr. Lagarias' comments about keeping 12 in mind the goals of the evolution of the program as we move 13 forward here. And we certainly hope that future efforts 14 will continue to emphasize the ongoing identification and 15 removal of sources that are not significant risk sources. 16 And, at the same time, those sources that remain in the 17 program, of course, there needs to be some mechanism to 18 continue to minimize the administrative burdens and the 19 indirect costs that are imposed on those facilities. 20 Again, we appreciate the opportunity to address 21 the Board on this issue. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. We appreciate that 23 progressive perspective on WSPA's behalf. Thank you for 24 that. 25 Any questions? You want to grill the witness? We PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 have WSPA up here. 2 (Laughter.) 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right, Jeff. You can take 4 your seat. Thank you. 5 MR. SICKENGER: Thank you. 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you very much. 7 Ms. Jones and Mr. Good, come forward, please. 8 MS. JONES: Mr. Chairman, members, my name is 9 Denise Jones. I'm the Executive Director of the California 10 Mining Association. I'm going to provide you with just a 11 little bit of background, and then turn it over to Mr. Good 12 to give you our specific details. 13 I think it's important for this Board to 14 understand that California ranks third in all States in 15 mineral production. In 1995, we produced $2.7 billion worth 16 of precious nonfuel and industrial minerals. That 17 represents 7 percent of the United States' total production. 18 In addition, California topped all other States in 19 the output of boron, Portland cement, diatomaceous earth, 20 calcines, gypsum, construction sand and gravel, rare earth 21 concentrates, natural sodium sulfate, and tungsten. And I'm 22 sure you all know what all those are used for. 23 Eight thousand people are directly employed in 24 California's mining industry and our workers earn the 25 highest average annual wage of any industry in the United PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 States. 2 We also produce ripple effects into the economy, 3 including nearly 140,000 Californians employed from sectors 4 generated by California's mining industry. We're extremely 5 regulated by environmental laws, not only what other 6 industry is regulated by, but also California Surface Mining 7 & Reclamation Act, which requires annual inspections of all 8 our operations, but also Title 23, Chapter 15, Article 7 of 9 the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, which ensures that we 10 do not have hazardous discharges into California's 11 waterways. 12 California Mining Association represents a very 13 diverse community of mining and mining-related companies. 14 We include both small and large operations. And we are 15 responsible for most of the minerals mined in the State of 16 California. 17 As landowners, miners, and employers whose 18 livelihood depends on compliance with issues like hot spots, 19 we are extremely concerned about the impact that these 20 regulations will have, especially on small and innovative 21 companies in California. 22 California has several commodities that are 23 produced no other place in the world or in very few places 24 in the world. These include things such as block pumice, 25 rare earth elements, borates, and hectorite clays. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 In addition, the California mining industry leads 2 the nation in the development of new technologies for 3 extraction and processing. 4 These new developments are risky and they require 5 extensive capital investment. 6 Based on these two factors, we're extremely 7 concerned about the unique facilities provisions which are 8 included in your regulations. By their very nature, many of 9 our mining operations are considered unique because they are 10 located only in the State of California, and because they 11 use very innovative technologies. 12 We hope that you can look at this issue very 13 closely to ensure that just by the nature of our business we 14 aren't included in a program that we shouldn't be. 15 And I'll let you grill my counsel, Mr. Good. 16 (Laughter.) 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Hi, Jim. Good morning. 18 MR. GOOD: Hi. Good morning. I'm Jim Good. I'm 19 the General Counsel of the California Mining Association. 20 Actually, I'm a lawyer from San Bernardino. 21 And the reason I'm speaking to is because our 22 points on the so-called "unique" facilities category are 23 primarily legal and policy-like, so you get the thrill of 24 seeing another lawyer in front of you. 25 I should start by saying that we have submitted a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 letter that we submitted to the Board clerk yesterday by 2 noon. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. Yes, I have it. We have 4 it in here. 5 MR. GOOD: Okay. I'll just try to kind of hit the 6 high points of that letter. 7 I want to first of all say we support the 8 streamlining. We're not against that. That's a good idea. 9 Our problem is we think that the proposal regarding unique 10 facilities is really kind of a step backwards from that 11 philosophy and approach. 12 And our only concern in speaking to you here is 13 with respect to the 10 tons and under criteria category. 14 We're not talking about the bigger operations. And within 15 that category, the staff now proposes to add a category 16 called unique facilities as it's described in the staff 17 report. 18 And we're not aware, at least I'm not aware, that 19 this particular category has been discussed in any public 20 meeting. At least we've received no public notices of an 21 intent to discuss this in the various consultation meetings 22 that have been referred to by the staff. 23 So, it's kind of -- 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Have you guys been to those, 25 Jim? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 MR. GOOD: No. We've seen the way these meetings 2 have been billed. We got the general gist of it. We 3 thought it looked good, streamlining. We're all for it. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 5 MR. GOOD: The unique facilities category, as far 6 as we know, popped up for the first time in the -- 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 8 MR. GOOD: -- in the May report. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: May I preempt you just for a 10 moment, Jim -- 11 MR. GOOD: Sure. 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: -- and ask staff, is there an 13 effort in some way to loop in the mining interests in our 14 State, specifically, did we miss the mark in some of the 15 workshop and consultative meetings? 16 Or are they just paranoid? 17 MS. MURCHISON: I don't think I can answer that. 18 We had about nine workshops and numerous phone calls where 19 we specifically invited industry groups to participate in 20 the discussion of development of this proposal. 21 That section for the unique facilities has been in 22 there probably since January time frame? 23 MR. BODE: It was originally discussed, I believe, 24 back in February, the February workshop. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: But it emerged over time, right? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 MS. MURCHISON: Right 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 3 MR. GOOD: Okay. Well, we picked up on it in the 4 May report that was issued I think June 7th. That's when we 5 first saw it. And that's why we're here. 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. But what I guess I'm 7 getting at, is there motivation to loop them in? I know we 8 have some threshold criteria. I mean, what are we dealing 9 with here? 10 MS. MURCHISON: You mean is there motivation to 11 loop in specifically these small facilities? 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. Unique mining 13 operations. 14 MS. MURCHISON: Not necessarily unique mining 15 operations. The purpose of the unique facilities clause was 16 to give the district the flexibility to bring in any kind of 17 unique facility. And maybe unique wasn't the best term 18 here. 19 But it is a type of facility that might otherwise 20 be exempted -- 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 22 MS. MURCHISON: -- but for some reason, the 23 district believes it could pose public health risk. 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. So, Jim, what we've got 25 here is a discretionary element that the locals can invoke PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 to get at you. 2 MR. GOOD: That's right. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: That troubles you, right? 4 MR. GOOD: Yeah. We're paranoid over that. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. 6 (Laughter.) 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: As long as we're clear. Okay. 8 MR. GOOD: Our problem is that it's highly 9 subjective, and this is not a cheap program. This is an 10 expensive program once you're into it. 11 And I'm talking for the small mine operators. I 12 don't know. I may be talking for other small industries as 13 well. But we're thinking in terms of the smaller operators 14 who would be brought into this program on what appears to 15 be-- to us, to be a set of somewhat subjective factors. no 16 clear criteria as such to guide the local districts in 17 making those decisions. And we just think it's poor policy. 18 We have some legal objections, but we think, as a 19 policy matter, it's not a good idea. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Can I -- and I apologize for 21 having a dialogue back and forth -- 22 MR. GOOD: Sure. 23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: -- because I know there's some 24 things you want to say. But I noticed in your letter that 25 you'd indicated that your legal read is different than Mr. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 Kenny and his team's read. 2 Could you highlight that for me just to -- 3 MR. GOOD: I wasn't aware that I had a difference 4 of opinion. I was hoping Mr. Kenny would totally agree with 5 me. 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I see. 7 (Laughter.) 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: So, you think it's a stretch for 9 us to be able to loop in these unique facilities under the 10 statute, right? 11 MR. GOOD: I think it's a stretch. 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 13 MR. GOOD: I think the Legislature intended in the 14 statute to have a first look, as they did in the report that 15 was made to the Legislature back in I think '90 or '91, a to 16 what types of facilities would be brought into the program 17 in the 10 tons and under category. 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Mike, what about this? 19 Are you trying to push the limits of the statutory authority 20 for this Board here, or are we just paranoid? 21 MR. KENNY: No. I think basically we have a 22 reasonable reading here. And, again, I'm actually going to 23 refer to the expert on this matter, which is Judy Tracy. 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 25 MS. TRACY: The Health and Safety Code requires PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 the Board, as has been noted, to identify classes of 2 facilities that emit less than 10 tons per year of criteria 3 pollutants, and to identify those classes of facilities that 4 should be included in the hot spots program. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 6 MS. TRACY: That's the entire direction that the 7 Health and Safety Code gives us as to what should constitute 8 these classes. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: So, the 10 tons is the trigger, 10 but we have provided some discretionary authority for the 11 locals to be able to draw upon if they wish to loop in a 12 facility based upon the cumulative example that you cited 13 earlier. Okay. 14 MR. GOOD: Okay. We'd say that, yes, generally 15 there's a lot of discretion given to the local authorities, 16 but that the statute restricted it to 10 tons; another says, 17 the Legislature's got to see what you have in mind first. 18 And they did give that look. 19 We think this is something new and something added 20 on. 21 And specifically, what we're asking for is that 22 the section -- and I think it's in the amended report -- it 23 would be Section E(3) -- it'd be E(3). And it's on page 92 24 or your book there, your agenda book. We think that there's 25 been very little rationale produced for that proposal. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 The total rationale that we see is on page 23 in 2 the staff report. It's one paragraph. It just says we 3 think it would be a good idea to do this. And we're 4 suggesting we don't think it's a good idea to do this 5 without some more specific criteria. We think, if anything, 6 it should be deleted. 7 But if it's not deleted, we think it deserves more 8 in-depth analysis, more deliberation, perhaps some 9 workshops, or something that would give us a chance to 10 really see if we could possibly develop some guideline 11 criteria. 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 13 MR. GOOD: In our view, it puts the districts -- 14 and we trust our local districts, of course, but -- but it 15 does put them in a position to make rather ad hoc, you know, 16 determinations without really any guidance. 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 18 MR. GOOD: Then we just pointed out a couple more 19 things, Mr. Chairman. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure. 21 MR. GOOD: Basically, we just think it's -- you 22 know, it provides an unfair criterion for the small 23 facilities, because it says in the proposal that in the 24 judgment of the district, there is a reasonable basis for 25 determining that the facility may individually or in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 combination with other facilities pose a potential threat to 2 public health. 3 And that's a standard that has not been applied so 4 far to any other facilities, larger class facilities. As 5 far as we know, it's always been on a facility-by-facility 6 basis. 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Jim, could I put you or Denise 8 on the spot for a moment? 9 MR. GOOD: Sure. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Can you assess for me what the 11 economic impact would be for a unique facility not equipped, 12 generally speaking, to be able to deal with a regulatory 13 program of this type to be looped in? 14 MR. GOOD: See, that's just the point. We don't 15 know. We really don't know who's being brought in under 16 this proposal. It's not been really, I don't think, aired 17 out to the point of that kind of analysis. But if we could 18 see what the criteria are, who is likely to be brought in, 19 we probably could come up with a better analysis. 20 Our own, at this point, subjective reaction is 21 that there are going to be a number of small mining 22 operators that are potentially going to be brought into this 23 program based on the factors that are set forth in the 24 proposed regulation, which are extremely subjective. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. McGuire? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 MR. MC GUIRE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add a 2 little perspective that I think would help. 3 Mr. Good suggested that this is a provision to 4 bring new facilities under the regulation of this program, 5 and it's not. What it is -- the proposal before you today 6 is to exclude over 2,000 sources that are covered by the 7 program today. And in excluding all of those 2,000 sources, 8 the staff has gone on to say, a close look at some of those 9 sources may suggest that there is reason to retain them in 10 the program. And that's what unique facilities are intended 11 to do. 12 It's not an intent to bring anybody into the 13 program that's not in it now. It is just an intent to 14 provide a little bit more limitation on who is excused under 15 the streamlining that's proposed. 16 The implications of being brought in under this 17 unique facility exemption are that the facility would be 18 required to submit a couple page report on the status of 19 their facility and their emissions--they would be tracked-- 20 unless there was indication that that facility did indeed 21 constitute a risk. 22 But right away, the assumption is, to begin with, 23 this only affects people whose risk is less than one in a 24 million already. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Jim, if I may, on that point. I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 think -- let me perhaps give staff a bit of a perspective. 2 There are some that have said that, if you give 3 the locals more flexibility -- particularly in what's been 4 going on overall in the regulatory reform environment -- 5 that they might try to grow a program. They might try to 6 loop some more in. 7 Some people have asserted there might be some 8 motivation relative to fees or some other requirements. And 9 I've not seen examples lately where that's been the case. 10 But that is a fear. 11 And so, I think in the case of the mining 12 industry, their concerned about inadvertently being brought 13 into a program because they are different, and because there 14 isn't a high level awareness of their function, and they're 15 concerned about that. 16 So, what I would propose, if my Board member 17 colleagues would indulge me on this point, would be, Terry, 18 for you to have a special meeting with the Mining 19 Association -- and, Jim, I'd look for you to bring the 20 relevant folks, a representative sample -- to sit down and 21 to outline and provide some attention to their concern. 22 And if it's warranted, if you believe it's 23 warranted, I'd like to have this issue revisited here at the 24 Board if we're going to consider -- don't forget, Mr. 25 Kenny's going to do the scenario planning to Supervisor PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 Roberts' concern. 2 If there's a critical mass of issues that need to 3 be revisited, I would entertain this coming back. But I do 4 think you would send a couple signals to the California 5 mining industry. One, you'd be educating the membership; 6 secondly, there'd be a record. 7 As you know, the locals always track how our 8 deliberations go on these matters. And if they would see 9 that we have extended a hand to the Mining Association and 10 have tried to deal with them in an upfront manner and answer 11 their questions. . . so, I think, staff, we need a little 12 bit more process with the Mining Association. And I would 13 like to direct you to do that. 14 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: And then, Mr. Chairman, is 15 the idea then to come back to the Board if there seems to be 16 still -- 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Correct. 18 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: -- some -- 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Questions. 20 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: -- questions. 21 MR. GOOD: Does that mean, as we requested, that 22 this particular section is tabled until that's done? 23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, I want to hear from the 24 other witnesses. I'm not there yet, Jim. 25 MR. GOOD: Okay. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: You've got me on the hook for 2 some more process. If my colleagues go along with that, 3 we'll give you the process. But I'm not looking to hang up 4 the staff proposal just yet. 5 I want to hear from the other two witnesses, and 6 then I have some questions for staff. 7 MR. GOOD: Okay. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mike Scheible, Jim? Are you 9 okay with that perspective? 10 (Thereupon, no disagreement was expressed.) 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. Mr. Good, 12 thank you. 13 Mike Kenny, did you have a point? Okay. Very 14 good. 15 John Bobis from Aerojet, Mr. McConaghie from the 16 National Paint and Coating Association. 17 MR. BOBIS: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my 18 name is John Bobis. I'm Director of Regulatory Affairs for 19 Aerojet. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Here in Sacramento or are you 21 down in Azusa as well? 22 MR. BOBIS: Yes, Sacramento. 23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 24 MR. BOBIS: And let me briefly tell some of those 25 folks who don't know about Aerojet. We used to be a large PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 aerospace contractor; however, with recent developments, we 2 have downsized considerably, although we still maintain two 3 facilities in California -- one in Sacramento and the other 4 one, as you said, Mr. Dunlap, in Azusa. 5 Aerojet's Sacramento operation is a wholly owned 6 subsidiary of GenCorp out of Fairlawn, Ohio. GenCorp is a 7 multi-State operation company. We maintain our facilities 8 in various States, and we concentrate in the areas of 9 automotive polymers and aerospace. 10 Aerojet itself at Sacramento is an aerospace and 11 defense contractor in the business of building liquid rocket 12 engines and solid rocket motors, along with aerospace, 13 defense, and defense-related conversion work at the 14 Sacramento facilities. 15 I'd also like to emphasize that Aerojet is 16 concerned and is committed to ensure the safety of its 17 employees, neighbors, and the environment as well. We also 18 supported the Governor's Executive Order issued last year, 19 which ordered the repeal or revise of burdensome laws and 20 regulations in an attempt to improve the business climate in 21 California. 22 We have proactively participated in that review. 23 We have submitted a 26-page recommendation to Cal-EPA. 24 Likewise, we submitted considerable comments to the 25 California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 We testified at those proceedings. 2 And also, we were invited to participate in the 3 California Regulatory Review Roundtable discussion held by 4 Lee Grissom of the Governor's Office of Planning and 5 Research. I'm sure you're aware of all that. 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. Been involved in 7 tracking all those efforts. So, you guys have been busy and 8 active. 9 MR. BOBIS: Yes, we have. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Good. 11 MR. BOBIS: One of my responsibilities is to try 12 to proactively assist agencies in promulgating reasonable 13 regulations. 14 I want to emphasize, also, as the previous speaker 15 said, we support the intent of the amendments of the program 16 to streamline reporting requirements in California. The 17 problem areas that we have identified in our written comment 18 to you dated July 22, 1996, is the proposed adoption by 19 reference of several documents -- more specifically, 20 Document No. 4 and Document No. 5. Both relate to the toxic 21 hot spots program assessment guidelines prepared by CAPCOA. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: We've gone through -- I don't 23 mean to preempt you, but we've gone through this issue, 24 remember, Mr. Kenny, a month or two ago about incorporating 25 guidelines by reference. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 You want it in the reg? 2 MR. BOBIS: I don't have a problem with 3 incorporating documents by reference; however, anything that 4 is adopted by reference, it must also comply with the 5 Administrative Procedures Act. 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 7 MR. BOBIS: That's the concern that we have. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: We would agree. Do you think 9 that we're headed for disaster, in that it will not be 10 approved as being in compliance with the administrative 11 processes? 12 MR. BOBIS: With all due respect, I don't believe 13 that it does comply. We believe that the CAPCOA guidelines 14 were developed in-house. It has not been subjected to the 15 45-day advance notice. The public has not participated. We 16 also believe that the guidelines contain unreasonable and 17 other criteria which has not been based on sound science. 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. May I interrupt you and 19 pose a question to staff? 20 MR. BOBIS: Sure. 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Boyd and Mr. Kenny take very 22 seriously the administrative requirements, the legal 23 requirements as we bring forward any regulatory effort. 24 Is there something new or different here, Jim or 25 Mike, in this proposal before us than in past proposals? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 What's at issue in the administrative process? 2 MR. BOYD: Well, I'm going to defer almost 3 entirely to Mr. Kenny. But to the best of my recollection, 4 there's nothing new in the fact that we are using -- that 5 the CAPCOA risk guidelines are referenced and have been 6 utilized as one of the major building blocks of the process. 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 8 MR. BOYD: Staff could probably elaborate better 9 than I on how that document was prepared and the large 10 number of years that were put into providing that document. 11 But I'd ask Mr. Kenny to address any legal issues. 12 As you indicated, we're pretty careful and 13 judicious in bringing forward anything to you --- 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. 15 MR. BOYD: -- that would be subject to any kind of 16 challenge. 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, Mike, what say you on this 18 point? 19 MR. KENNY: Mr. Boyd's correct. There really is 20 no change in the procedures that we have traditionally used 21 at this Board for the last two dozen years. 22 The guidelines that the witness is referencing 23 were part of the 45-day comment period to the extent that 24 they were part of this package, and this package was put out 25 for notice for comment. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Mr. Bobis, the legal team 2 says we're in the right on this one. 3 MR. BOBIS: I'm glad they said that. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 5 MR. BOBIS: Because the Administrative Procedures 6 Act clearly requires that the informative digest identify 7 specifically each and every item; that the reference 8 document is proposed to be adopted; also, the initial s 9 statement of reasons must identify each and every of those 10 items -- why they're necessary, how they -- et cetera, et 11 cetera. There's about six criteria. 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Is that the primary 13 concern that you have, sir, is in the administrative law 14 area? 15 MR. BOBIS: That would be one. And I believe that 16 the public should have an opportunity to comment 17 specifically on that document. 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: We would agree. So, what I'd 19 like to do -- again with the indulgence of my board member 20 colleagues -- is, Mr. Kenny, say to you, go through the 21 administrative OAL requirements and others; make sure that 22 we're in complete compliance. I don't want any chances 23 taken with this program, because it's too important. 24 And if you see any legal vulnerability, please 25 take the necessary time to overcome that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 Mr. Bobis, does that provide you some comfort? 2 MR. BOBIS: Yes. I have one more issue I'd like 3 to bring. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 5 MR. BOBIS: And that's identified on page 2 of our 6 comment. Basically, what I think we're saying is that -- 7 let me summarize -- that in addition to those reference 8 documents, we believe that other documents should be 9 referenced; for example, the federal EPA health risk 10 assessment document should be one of the alternatives. 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 12 MR. BOBIS: And additionally, also by legislation, 13 as you may recall, in 1992, the Governor signed AB 1731, 14 which really directs the Office of Environmental Health 15 Hazard Assessment to come up with criteria similar -- 16 exactly similar to criteria that's in the CAPCOA. 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 18 MR. BOBIS: And I believe that the staff has 19 considerable work already accomplished in that area. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. Thank you for 21 taking the time to point that out. It is important for us 22 to hear where we may be vulnerable and where we may set 23 ourselves up for some problems later. 24 I appreciate your time. 25 MR. BOBIS: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. 2 Mr. McConaghie. I'm butchering your name, sir. I 3 apologize. National Paint and Coating Association. Good 4 morning. 5 MR. McCONAGHIE: Good morning, John. You did very 6 well on my name. 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. 8 MR. McCONAGHIE: It probably goes back to when we 9 used to discuss things down in South Coast. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: That's right. That's right. 11 MR. McCONAGHIE: Good morning. I'm Bill 12 McConaghie of the National Paint and Coatings Association. 13 I'm here today because there's a great deal of 14 inconsistency, I might even say a great deal of confusion as 15 to how individual air management districts see the position 16 of auto body paint shops in this program, especially when it 17 comes to assessing fees. 18 It's become quite critical now, because in at 19 least one district, we have body shops receiving annual fee 20 demands of over $800, which represents probably one and a 21 half, close to two percent of the net profit of that 22 establishment. So, that's a significant factor. 23 By that, you should now realize that auto body 24 shops are probably the best possible example of small 25 businessmen you could find in the country. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. 2 MR. McCONAGHIE: So, my first question is: Is it 3 your opinion that auto body shops which report emissions of 4 less than 10 tons per year are included in the general 5 exclusions discussed in Appendix E, and also on page 1 of 6 the summary? Namely, would they be exempt from the program 7 and exempt from paying any fees at all? 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Staff, can we -- Mr. McGuire, do 9 you want to take a stab at that? 10 MR. BODE: I'll take a -- actually, the auto body 11 shops -- 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Please identify yourself for the 13 court reporter. 14 MR. BODE: I'm Richard Bode. And the auto body 15 shops are included on our Appendix E list, and those are 16 less than 10 ton facilities that must report emissions 17 inventory plan and report. So, they are not excluded. 18 What they are is, under our proposed language, if 19 the district has information that they can estimate the 20 emissions and the consequences, the risk from those 21 facilities, then they can get out under that general 22 exclusion. 23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: But it's a local decision, 24 correct, a local air district decision? 25 MR. BODE: It's a local -- yeah, a local decision PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 based on information from those facilities. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 3 MR. BODE: Now, most of those facilities also are 4 included in what we call the industrywide category. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. 6 MR. BODE: Which means all the emissions inventory 7 and risk assessment activity is done by the local districts 8 themselves. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Understood. But don't 10 forget, this gentleman, if I may be so bold to suggest what 11 he represents, is an association here. And you're basically 12 saying that the association is -- and he might say they're 13 at the mercy of 34 local air districts doing different -- 14 perhaps doing some different things. 15 And there's a consistency issue there, right, 16 Terry? 17 MR. BODE: Actually, this might be a case where 18 there is a very good deal of consistency, because with this 19 type of category, the Air Resources Board -- and actually 20 CAPCOA -- are the authors of the industrywide risk 21 assessment guidelines for these. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: So, those would likely be 23 applied, and that's where the uniformity would come in. 24 Terry, is that correct? 25 MR. MC GUIRE: The uniformity -- first, of course, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 we're coming back to discuss fees in September. And we will 2 deal with this question directly then. The proposal that we 3 have of -- at least tentatively, we're discussing now at 4 workshops for September -- Richard, you may have to help me 5 on this if I misspeak. 6 But for this year, we intend to continue to 7 recognize small facilities, such as auto body shops, just as 8 we did last year. And the fee program will go on to provide 9 that those which are ultimately found to be very low risk -- 10 that is, less than one -- I believe would be excluded from 11 the program once the appropriate risk evaluations have been 12 done. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 14 MR. McCONAGHIE: Yes. I've learned some things 15 listening this morning, also from studying this gigantic 16 document I got in the mail. 17 But it would appear to me that if a district is 18 looking for money -- and let's be blunt about it, some 19 districts are very loathe to give up sources of income -- 20 they can say to an individual body shop, You're required to 21 perform a risk assessment." 22 I would just point out that the cost of a risk 23 assessment is far beyond the capabilities of a small body 24 shop. In this case, I would suggest that if the shop is 25 reporting its VOC emissions and has a permitted spray booth, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 and something I feel strongly about -- certification from 2 the paint supplier that the coatings are completely free of 3 heavy metals -- that would suffice for a risk assessment. 4 Do you have any opinion on that? 5 MR. BODE: Yeah. Actually, the risk assessment 6 process is going to be done by the districts themselves. 7 So, facility operators will not have to pay for that actual 8 risk assessment that's done. 9 And we've actually been working quite closely with 10 CAPCOA and the districts, and actually representatives for 11 quite a few of the paints and coatings manufacturers to give 12 us the emissions inventory data and actually the formulation 13 data, so that we get accurate emissions inventories and 14 accurate risk assessments. 15 So, hopefully, we've -- through that process, 16 we've got consistent guidelines and we've spared auto body 17 shops the costs of emission inventory and risk assessments. 18 MR. McCONAGHIE: Okay. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Does that provide some comfort? 20 MR. McCONAGHIE: Not really, because in the 21 handout I gave you, these fees are due the 15th of next 22 month, and that's why people have asked me to come here 23 today. People have got bills for $820, $840. 24 But let me just ask one more question, please. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 MR. McCONAGHIE: It appears that districts have 2 the authority to decide whether body shops are in or out of 3 the program. But my question is, how much leeway does an 4 individual district have in assessing the fees a shop has to 5 pay? Bearing in mind that these shops are already paying 6 VOC emission fees. 7 I have spoken to different districts and got 8 different answers. That's why I'm confused, too. 9 I'm not paranoid like some people have been up 10 here today, but I can assure you that many of these body 11 shop owners are getting paranoid. Let me just say two 12 things I've been told, and ask you which one you think 13 applies in this case or may apply. 14 I've been told that body shops can be classed as 15 industrywide facilities and are liable for annual fees of 16 anything from $15 to $125. I've also been told that they 17 are considered small business and subject to the $300 cap 18 mentioned in these documents. 19 $300 is still a lot of money, but it's a lot less 20 than $820, $840 to a small businessman. 21 Does this Board have any control over the fees 22 districts can charge? 23 MR. BODE: Well, there are two types of fees that 24 are incurred. There are fees for the State costs. As Mr. 25 McGuire said, that cost is $15. And that's going to stay PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 through next year. 2 There are district costs. And, as I understand, 3 most of the district costs are again $15 to $125 costs. 4 Some districts don't choose -- don't require fee to the auto 5 body shops at all. 6 Then there is the district cost themselves. Those 7 costs are decided on by the local boards. And the auto body 8 shops, actually, when they go through their hot spots 9 budget, should probably attend the local board meetings on 10 their hot spots budgets for those years. 11 MR. McCONAGHIE: That's very nice to say. But, as 12 you probably well know -- I know Jim Dunlap knows -- 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. 14 MR. McCONAGHIE: -- that body shop owners are not 15 the most sophisticated of people. If they get these 16 documents in the mail, they can't read them. So, really, 17 I'm just looking to see what to tell these people. Should 18 they go ahead and pay the 800-odd dollars by the 15th of 19 August, and then complain about it, or should they say, "We 20 are small business; we're not going to give you more than 21 $300? 22 What really can they do? 23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. McGuire, then I'd like to 24 take a stab at this. Go ahead. 25 MR. MC GUIRE: The fees that are due next month, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 you're talking about the South Coast District? Is that 2 correct? 3 MR. McCONAGHIE: I hesitate to mention names, but, 4 yes. 5 (Laughter.) 6 MR. MC GUIRE: Okay. The fees that are due next 7 month are based on a regulation adopted by that district. 8 However, in two months, this Board will be considering 9 adopting their fees for the next fiscal year. So, I'm 10 trying to make the distinction between existing fees that 11 are part of an existing regulation -- and that's done by the 12 district. But in a couple of months, we will be back here 13 again talking about what fees should be applicable to auto 14 body shops in the South Coast District. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Bill, what I would suggest, we 16 have a member of our Board that's from the South Coast, 17 Supervisor Silva. 18 And he's certainly a balanced individual -- 19 MR. McCONAGHIE: I think I've seen him before. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: -- on economic costs. Jim, if 21 you wouldn't mind, would you introduce Mr. McConaghie down 22 to the folks at South Coast and see if you can get some 23 questions answered in that specific case? 24 SUPERVISOR SILVA: I'd be more than happy to. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: My counsel to you, as a friend PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 and colleague, is pay the fee, grumble about it, try to get 2 some questions answered. But don't get yourself in a bind 3 there. 4 MR. McCONAGHIE: Okay. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: What I would like to do is ask 6 staff to do something similar to what I've suggested for the 7 mining industry with Bill's group here, the association, and 8 any that you would suggest, any others. We'll be happy to 9 have a meeting and answer questions, and also outline for 10 you the plan for our fee work, which is coming forward -- 11 Terry, did I hear you say September? 12 MR. MC GUIRE: Yes, sir. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And then, you can get ahead of 14 the curve, Bill, and try to anticipate what's likely to come 15 and then talk to staff about your concerns or if you agree, 16 if the fee seems to reasonable, you know, please say so. 17 I want to just again to reiterate something to 18 staff. When you have small associations like this or 19 members that aren't sophisticated and don't have the ability 20 to track what we do, it's complicated and confusing. $800 21 does not seem like a lot of money to good-sized companies, 22 but it is to small entrepreneurs. So, we need to make sure 23 they understand. And it's something that the Governor and 24 Secretary Strock has reminded me of many, many times, be 25 sure that people understand the value they get for paying a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 fee or complying with the program. 2 And I think we, as regulators in this case are 3 probably guilty of not clearly outlining the benefits 4 derived and what the responsibilities are. 5 So, Terry, would you initiate some kind of 6 outreach effort and some meetings? 7 MR. MC GUIRE: I will. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Yes, Supervisor Silva. 9 SUPERVISOR SILVA: Yes. I'd like to offer Nina 10 Hull's services. She'll be out in the hall and we'd like to 11 work with you down at the South Coast. 12 MR. McCONAGHIE: Thank you very much. And this is 13 not a criticism. But one reason I'm concerned about these 14 fees is that when I was doing Title 5 recently, I found out 15 that South Coast data was four years out of date. And I'm 16 now doing paper work to get people out of title 5 that 17 shouldn't have been included in the first place. 18 Thank you very much. 19 SUPERVISOR SILVA: I understand that, and I know 20 that we're always going over fee structures. And it's nice 21 to see people interested, and we are trying to come them 22 back. 23 MR. McCONAGHIE: Thank you. 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Any questions or 25 comments from the Board? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 Okay. With that, I'll conclude or wrap up the 2 public testimony. Staff has already summarized those 3 written comments that we received. Thank you for that. 4 Mr. Boyd, do you have anything else to add? 5 MR. BOYD: Just some closing comments, Mr. 6 Chairman. Once again, I'd just say that staff does indeed 7 recommend the Board adopt the amendments to the inventory 8 criteria and guidelines as they've been proposed to you, 9 with the modifications that have also been brought to your 10 attention today. 11 A 15-day public notice will be required to allow 12 the public the opportunity to review the modifications. And 13 as the staff explained in the beginning, if pending 14 legislation is enacted, additional changes would be required 15 to today's proposal. 16 Those changes would not be major based on what we 17 know to date. While the legislation is conceptually similar 18 to our proposal, there are some differences and they'd have 19 to bee reconciled. And as part of that 15-day notice 20 process, the Executive Officer can make those changes which 21 would be necessary to conform the regulations to the current 22 version of the legislation. 23 If the legislation, however, that ultimate passed 24 required major changes to the proposal, then they would have 25 to be brought back to the Board. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Which there's a 2 willingness I have sensed to do that if it's warranted. 3 Okay. So, I'll now close the record on the agenda 4 item. However, the record, as Mr. Boyd outlined, will be 5 reopened when the 15-day notice of public availability is 6 issued. 7 Written or oral comments received after this 8 hearing date but before the 15-day notice is issued will not 9 be accepted as part of the official record on this agenda 10 item. 11 When the record is reopened for a 15-day comment 12 period, the public may submit written comments on the 13 proposed changes, which will be considered and responded to 14 in the final statement of reasons for this regulation. 15 Also, as we all well know, we need to report any 16 ex parte communications on regulatory items. Do we have 17 anything to report on this item? 18 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I would comment 19 that, yes, I've met with Mr. Jim Good, who is the General 20 Counsel to the California Mining Association. And 21 essentially that conversation was not any different than 22 what he presented to you here today. 23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. Anything else 24 to report? All right. 25 We have a resolution before us, 96-41, that we've PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 had for a few moments. 2 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I do have a 3 question -- 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure. 5 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: -- going to the subject 6 raised by the California Mining Association. And help me a 7 little bit. 8 If the workshop were to take place or is going to 9 take place -- I think there is probably general consensus 10 that it should -- then I'm wondering, the revisions or some 11 better clarification that might come from that workshop, 12 how's that included? 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Kenny, can you talk about 14 the 15-day notice and the other administrative requirements 15 that we have? 16 MR. KENNY: To the extent that there is at least 17 some modification that's made to the proposal that's before 18 the Board today, any of those modifications need to go back 19 out for public comment. And so, those particular 20 modifications would be put in written form and would be 21 provided to the public so that they would have an 22 opportunity to review them for at least 15 days and provide 23 their comments on them. 24 That would have to happen within the context of 25 the current notice that is outstanding. So, if we're PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 talking about changes that are beyond the scope of the 2 current notice, that could not occur. 3 But at least in terms of the context of the 4 comments that were made by the California Mining 5 Association, that would not be a problem. Their comments 6 were within the scope of the notice. 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. 8 You used the term "workshop." I was a little 9 fuzzy -- probably intentionally. I would call it "meeting, 10 outreach session." 11 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Get together? 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. Get together. Now, 13 workshop has some meaning, regulatory meaning. 14 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: I didn't intend that. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 16 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: But there has to be an 17 interaction with -- 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. With those two groups. 19 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: -- the Mining Association. 20 Right. 21 MR. LAGARIAS: Mr. Chairman? 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Lagarias. 23 MR. LAGARIAS: Are we going to get a "unique" 24 definition to the word "unique" as a result of this 25 workshop? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Perhaps? Okay. 2 MR. CALHOUN: Mr. Chairman? 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes. 4 MR. CALHOUN: Would the proposed action on this 5 resolution be premature, then, if we're going to get some 6 additional input from staff? 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, it's my perspective from 8 what I've heard, that there's a couple areas that we need to 9 do -- and no offense meant to staff, because I know that 10 with nine workshops, you've done a lot of outreach -- but I 11 think there's a couple groups here that have expressed some 12 very real concerns. 13 And I think much of their questions can be 14 answered through just meeting and some assurance, and 15 sending some signals to the local air distracts. So, I'm 16 comfortable that that can be accomplished. But I also know 17 that if there is something else that emerges -- for example, 18 the definition of "unique" is important to the mining 19 interests, and I think there needs a real focused analysis 20 of that, and whether or not they are just paranoid or some 21 of the local districts are poised to loop them in, perhaps 22 unnecessarily. 23 So, that needs to be sorted out. The 24 administrative law, OAL requirements, you know, Mike, you've 25 got to examine that and make sure that we're crossing the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 "Ts" and dotting the "I's." 2 But, Mr. Calhoun, I feel comfortable that we can 3 go forward, particularly since I'm told that -- and we've 4 all been told -- that in September, we're going to bring the 5 fee element of this program back to us. And there will be 6 ample opportunity for us then, provided Mr. Kenny says it's 7 legal relative to the notice process, that we could take up 8 any change at that point. 9 MR. CALHOUN: That's fine. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 11 MR. KENNY: Just for a point of clarification, is 12 the idea then to go forward with this resolution and, if 13 there is a change with regard to these -- for example, the 14 "unique" correct definition -- to have that go forward in 15 the regulatory process as a 15-day modification, and have 16 the Executive Officer ultimately adopt that? 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes. 18 MR. KENNY: Okay. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: That is what I would propose. 20 It's the most efficient and it gets to the core issues, and 21 we're also responsive to those constituent groups if, in 22 fact, their arguments hold water. And I must tell you, I'm 23 inclined to believe that they do. 24 Okay. With that, the Chair would entertain a 25 motion on the resolution before us. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 MR. LAGARIAS: Mr. Chairman? 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes, Mr. Lagarias. 3 MR. LAGARIAS: I move adoption of Resolution 96- 4 41, reflecting the comments of the Board members today. 5 MR. CALHOUN: Second the motion. 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. Thank you, 7 Mr. Calhoun. 8 We have a motion and a second. Is there any 9 discussion on the motion? 10 Okay. With that, I think we'll forego calling of 11 the roll, and I'll just ask for a voice vote. 12 All those in favor, say aye? 13 (Ayes.) 14 Any opposed? Very good. Motion carries. 15 Thank you very much, staff, and for those that 16 participated and provided testimony. 17 What I would like to do is move into the next 18 item, but before we do that, I would like to take some time 19 out to recognize one of our Board members, Jack Lagarias, 20 who is retiring from the Board. And that should not be a 21 secret to many in the audience, but it might have caught a 22 few of you by surprise. 23 This will be Jack's last Board meeting. And it is 24 an understatement, as those of you that have sat through 25 today's meeting can attest, to say that Jack will be missed. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 His contributions to the Board have been 2 tremendous over the past 10 years of his service. The 3 diesel fuel regulations, the consumer products regulatory 4 effort, zero-emission vehicles, and Cleaner Burning Gasoline 5 are just some of the programs that have had national and 6 worldwide impact. And Jack has been at the forefront of 7 those efforts. 8 Most recently, he has been the Chairman of the RFG 9 Advisory Committee, and a member of the San Joaquin Valley 10 Study Policy Committee. And we've always been able -- and I 11 have certainly in the year and a half that I've been 12 Chairman -- been able to count on Jack to fill in and 13 participate in Committees, and to do other duties as I would 14 deem necessary and my predecessors deemed necessary. And 15 that is quite a comfort to a chairman, particularly a new 16 chairman. 17 We could always count on Jack to ask the pertinent 18 questions and to shed light on the issues at hand, and he's 19 done that again today. 20 Jack has been a distinguished member of the Air 21 and Waste Management Association for many years, and has 22 been the President and member of their Board of Directors. 23 In addition, Jack has received many honors and 24 awards from that organization. And there's one that hangs 25 in our little Board meeting room in the back that's a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 special award that Jack won not quite a year ago. 2 We also have a number of awards we would like to 3 present to you, Jack, but don't want to embarrass you too 4 much. But I'd also like to recognize before we do that some 5 special people in Jack's life who are here today. 6 His wife, Virginia, could I have you stand up, 7 Virginia? Maybe wave to us? 8 (Applause.) 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And we also have, I believe, 10 one, if not two, of Jack's sons are here. Both of them are 11 here. It's Peter Lagarias. Good morning. 12 (Applause.) 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Peter is an attorney practicing 14 in San Rafael. And I don't know if your wife's here, 15 Elaine. And you have a daughter Kelly that may be with you. 16 So, welcome, we're glad to have you. 17 And also, Dr. Clark Lagarias, Jack's other son. 18 (Applause.) 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Who is a Professor of 20 Biochemistry at U.C. Davis, and has a wife, Donna, who's 21 also a biochemist, and a son and a daughter. 22 So, welcome. We're glad you're here. 23 (Applause.) 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: So, Jack, if I could get you to 25 go over to the podium for a moment. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 You have two of your Board member colleagues that 2 would like to read a couple things to you, and I'll ask, 3 Supervisor Riordan, would you go first? 4 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Be happy to. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And you can present -- we have a 6 special letter from Governor Wilson to Jack, and then I'll 7 ask Gene, if you'll follow up after Barbara and present a 8 resolution to Jack as well. 9 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Mr. Lagarias, it's my great 10 pleasure to read a letter on behalf of the Governor of the 11 State of California to you. And it reads as follows: 12 "It is my great pleasure to extend my 13 warm regards and sincere congratulations as 14 you retire following more than a decade of 15 selfless service to the State of California 16 as a Board member of the Air Resources Board. 17 "Throughout your distinguished career, 18 your dedication, expertise, and hard work have 19 deservedly earned the respect and appreciation 20 of all those who have been fortunate enough to 21 benefit from your leadership. Your remarkable 22 breadth of knowledge and active participation 23 in prestigious professional organizations, 24 environmental publications, and various meetings 25 on environmental quality all have truly PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 distinguished you as an international 2 environmental leader. 3 "I have long admired your extraordinary 4 professional accomplishments and will always be 5 grateful that you have dedicated so much of your 6 time and talent to making California both a 7 better place to live for its citizens and world 8 leader in environmental standards. 9 "Although I know you are going to be sorely 10 missed by your friends and colleagues at the ARB, 11 I hope you take enormous pride and satisfaction in 12 knowing that your hard work will leave a lasting 13 legacy. 14 "On behalf of the State of California, I'm 15 delighted to express my genuine gratitude for your 16 many years of service and my best wishes for every 17 continued success and fulfillment." 18 And it's signed, "Sincerely, Pete Wilson." 19 (Applause.) 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Go ahead, Gene. 21 MR. LAGARIAS: I noticed you raised your eyebrows 22 when he said "distinguished." 23 (Laughter.) 24 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Absolutely. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. We've asked Dr. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 Boston to present a Board resolution to you, Jack. And I 2 want you to know I felt funny -- I counted up the names on 3 there (speaking of framed resolution), and there's only ten. 4 We left you off. That's because we're giving it to you. 5 DR. BOSTON: Actually, it's kind of with a mixture 6 of sadness and happiness that I'm reading this to you, Jack, 7 because I'm going to miss seeing you here. 8 This is a resolution from the Air Resources Board, 9 and it states: 10 "WHEREAS, John (Jack) Lagarias has faithfully 11 served as a member of the Air Resources Board for 12 over a decade; 13 "WHEREAS, Jack continually modulated the 14 sometimes volatile Board meetings, leavening the 15 proceedings with a peck of sound science. . ." 16 Did you write this? 17 (Laughter.) 18 ". . .several cups of economic common sense, and 19 a few tablespoons of subtle humor for good 20 measure; 21 "WHEREAS, Jack's sense of fairness, ability 22 to explain complex processes in simple terms, 23 friendliness, and accessibility, and dignified 24 charm won him the trust and respect of the 25 Board, its staff, and the regulated community; PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 "WHEREAS, Jack pursued his Board 2 responsibilities, including participation on 3 the Reformulated Gasoline Advisory Committee, 4 the San Joaquin Valley Study Policy Committee, 5 and a myriad of other task forces over the 6 last ten years with unmatched diligence, 7 enthusiasm, and expertise; 8 "WHEREAS, Jack has contributed immensely 9 to improving the environmental quality of 10 both the nation and the world through his 11 participation with the Air and Waste 12 Management Association, an organization 13 which he has held many posts, including that 14 of president; 15 "WHEREAS, Jack has shared his vast 16 experience and knowledge through the 17 publication of over 50 articles primarily 18 concerning environmental issues; 19 "WHEREAS, Jack has practiced what he 20 preached, obtaining patents for air 21 pollution control equipment and 22 instrumentation; 23 "WHEREAS, Jack is retiring from the Air 24 Resources Board in order to spend more time 25 with his family and pursue other interests; PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2 Board finds that Jack has provided a steady 3 hand and cool head, and has lent credibility 4 and stability to the Board initiatives over 5 the last 10 years, and that his presence on 6 the Board will be sorely missed; 7 "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board 8 sincerely thanks Jack for his important 9 contribution to air quality improvement in 10 California, and wishes Jack the very best in 11 what is sure to be a productive and happy 12 retirement." 13 And with that, I present you with this framed version of 14 that resolution which you may hang anywhere in your home 15 that you feel is appropriate. In your garage or -- 16 (Laughter.) 17 DR. BOSTON: -- bathroom, anyplace. Thanks very 18 much. 19 (Applause.) 20 MR. LAGARIAS: Thank you. And the Governor 21 doesn't even know how I voted. 22 (Laughter.) 23 MR. LAGARIAS: Well, I have to tell you it's been 24 a real pleasure to have worked with such a remarkable Board 25 and staff. The staff, in particular, have impressed me with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 their competence, their capability, and their diligence. 2 That doesn't mean I always agree with them, but I 3 respect their work. And I'm very grateful to have been able 4 to work with you. 5 As for the Board, if I took a vote, I'd come up 6 with a 10 to 0 vote, too. I've been very impressed with the 7 dedication, the competence, and the common sense that this 8 Board has often reflected, except in those cases where it's 9 disagreed with me. 10 (Laughter.) 11 MR. LAGARIAS: It's been a real pleasure working 12 with you and listening to the comments. I have to tell you, 13 I go back to 25 years ago, when I worked on a common project 14 with Jim Good, who was here today. And I didn't have an 15 opportunity to say hello. Hi. 16 So, I appreciate these awards, and I'm looking 17 forward to going on. 18 Thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Jack. 20 (Applause.) 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: We've already told Mr. Parnell 22 he's going to have to take care of all those questions that 23 Jack would ask. So, we're giving you notice. 24 Well, what I would propose to do -- and I 25 apologize for those in the audience that have been with us. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 It's taken us a bit to get through the first item. I'd like 2 to propose a break for lunch now, and we'll come back. The 3 other items should go fairly quickly, and we should be able 4 to have an early release from the Board meeting. 5 So, I would propose we take a recess and come back 6 here. Pat, what would be the approximate time we'd 7 reconvene? 8 MS. HUTCHENS: Maybe 2:00, 1:45. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 1:45, that time period. 10 Okay. Very good. Thank you. 11 (Thereupon, the luncheon recess was 12 taken.) 13 --o0o-- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 --o0o-- 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Since we ran longer than 4 anticipated on the first item this morning, and I've had to 5 rearrange our schedule this afternoon. 6 Our first item of business will be to meet in 7 closed session, as indicated in the public notice, to 8 consider the appointment of a new Executive Officer. This 9 closed session is being held under the personnel exemption 10 of the Open Meeting Act, specifically Government Code 11 Section 11126(a). 12 We will reconvene here in open session at the 13 conclusion of the closed session. I anticipate that this 14 will be very brief. At that time, Item 2 of the published 15 agenda item will be taken up. And I thank you for your 16 patience. 17 And we'll see you in a few minutes. 18 (Thereupon, the Board retired into closed 19 session, reconvening the meeting and conducting 20 business as follows:) 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I'd like to call the meeting 22 back to order. I'd remind those of you in the audience that 23 if you have any testimony you'd like to present to the 24 Board, please see the Board Secretary to my left and sign up 25 for all testimony. And if you have written comments, please PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 provide her 20 copies. 2 We'll move now back to the second item on the 3 agenda today, which is 96-66-2, a public meeting to consider 4 a draft report of planned air pollution research 1996 5 update. 6 This item is the annual update of the Board's 7 planned air pollution research, and the research projects 8 sponsored in this document were reviewed by the Board's 9 Research Screening Committee on May 31. 10 And I'd like to welcome several of the Research 11 Screening Committee members, who are sitting behind staff in 12 the third row there. 13 We'll have an opportunity to introduce you 14 formally in a few moments. 15 As most of you know, this Committee was 16 established by law to advise the Board as we develop and 17 implement our research program, and to recommend for 18 approval research proposals that are designed to meet the 19 objectives that we establish. 20 The plan is updated annually to ensure that it 21 reflects the Board's current concerns and priorities. 22 At this point, I'd like to ask Mr. Boyd to 23 introduce the item and begin the staff's presentation. Jim? 24 MR. BOYD: Thank you. Today, we want to present 25 for your consideration the annual update of the Board's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 planned research program. 2 The research plan update, as you know, is 3 developed over the course of several months by the staff 4 with the assistance of the Research Screening Committee, and 5 is presented to you in a similar context as this forum every 6 year. 7 We're always very appreciative of the assistance 8 provided to us, the staff, by the Research Screening 9 Committee in carrying out this responsibility. And at this 10 point, I'd like to introduce Professor Hal Cota, whom you 11 know as Chairman of the Research Screening Committee, who 12 will present the Committee to the audience. 13 And I believe he has some comments or two on this 14 year's research highlights. And then I'll take it back and 15 go a little bit more into the introduction of the plan. 16 DR. COTA: Thank you very much, Mr. Boyd. Good 17 afternoon, Chairman Dunlap and members of the Board. 18 It's a pleasure to be with you this afternoon. 19 Before I make any comments, though, I'd like to introduce or 20 have the committee introduce themselves. 21 Let me start. I am a Professor of Environmental 22 Engineering, a chemical engineer by training, at Cal Poly, 23 San Luis Obispo. I'm also Director of Cal Poly's EPA 24 Areawide Training Center, whose main responsibility is to 25 train people in the regulatory areas as well as industry on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 various matters dealing with air pollution control. 2 My main research interest is on the engineering 3 side of air pollution control. And with that, I'd committee 4 to pass it on. 5 DR. HOEKMAN: I'm Kent Hoekman. I've worked for 6 the past 16 years as a research scientist at Chevron 7 Research and Technology Company. My training is in organic 8 chemistry. And most of my work has involved air pollution 9 research issues in one way or another. 10 DR. HIGDON: My name is James Higdon. I'm a 11 Professor of Physics at Claremont McKenna College. My 12 formal training was in planetary physics. And much of my 13 research has been in turbulent flows. 14 DR. FUCALORO: My name is Anthony Fucaloro. I'm a 15 Professor of Chemistry at the same institution as Professor 16 Higdon. I'm at Claremont McKenna College, also. I've been 17 taken out of useful service by being appointed Dean of 18 faculty there. 19 (Laughter.) 20 DR. FUCALORO: Most of my work has been in basic 21 research, although I've done some work in ozone and 22 stratospheric ozone depletion. As most of you know, ozone 23 down here is bad and ozone up there is good. I hope that's 24 a spiritual law, also. 25 (Laughter.) PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 DR. FUCALORO: I've nothing much else to say. 2 It's just that this is a wonderful committee to be on. And 3 I think -- I want to say one thing that we've all noticed, I 4 think, on this committee, is that the staff at the ARB has 5 done a wonderful job in preparing us and helping us make 6 what we think are good decisions. 7 MR. TAYLOR: My name is Jim Taylor. I would echo 8 the comments with respect to the staff's assistance. I am 9 the nontechnical member of the committee. I am an attorney 10 practicing environmental law, and I'm based here in 11 Sacramento. And I appreciate the opportunity to serve on 12 the committee. 13 DR. COTA: We have three members that could not 14 join us today -- Professor Sherwood Roland of U.C. Irvine, 15 Mel Zeldin of the South Coast Air Quality Management 16 District, and Dr. James Ortner with the Orange County 17 Transportation Authority. 18 And I need to say at this point, several members 19 of the Committee have to catch a plane. So, they may be 20 leaving at sometime during my presentation or this matter, 21 so please excuse them for that. 22 I'd like to start my comments by acknowledging the 23 accomplishments and contributions of the two previous 24 chairs. My immediate predecessor, Dr. Alan Lloyd, provided 25 an atmospheric chemistry input to the committee, and also an PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 important link with the South Coast Air Quality Management 2 District. 3 Previous to that, Dr. Clarence Collier served as 4 chair for many years, and provided a very important input to 5 the committee; that is, input relative to the medical side 6 dealing with health issues, the research we have to look at 7 there. 8 Speaking for the committee, it is a pleasure to 9 serve the Board and to provide the staff of the Board with 10 the assurance that the research projects brought before you 11 receive peer review. 12 This assurance comes from the Screening 13 Committee's technical expertise and really their dedication. 14 Last year's program had really many important points, and 15 I'd just like to highlight one or two. 16 One completed project looked at the speciation 17 profiles of coating operations. There were up to 300 18 components looked at for more than 100 coatings. And these 19 kind of results will enable the staff to develop greatly 20 improved emission inventories. 21 Another major highlight is continuing, and that's 22 the children's health study. This study should provide 23 information on the long-term health effects of air 24 pollution, an area which there's really very little data. 25 I believe that this is critical for your Board to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 have, because of the future regulatory action that may come 2 about. 3 Over 5,000 children are now enrolled in the study, 4 twelve Southern California communities involved. 5 I would also like to thank Dr. Holmes and his 6 staff for their efforts in providing the Research Screening 7 Committee with timely staff evaluations so that we can 8 better understand the significance of many of the issues 9 that we look at. 10 I also would like to express my respect for your 11 Board and Mr. Boyd and his staff. It's a pleasure to serve 12 you as you steer a course to provide the maximum 13 environmental protection and also the maximum benefit to the 14 economy. 15 We hope we will be able to assist you with the 16 tough decisions you will need to make to provide California 17 with improved air quality. 18 Finally, our committee has had the opportunity to 19 review the projects that we're going to be looking at in the 20 plan that you're considering today, and we'd recommend these 21 to you for your approval. 22 I believe the new plan has a good mix of projects. 23 At this point, if there are no questions, I'd like to turn 24 the proceedings back to Mr. Boyd. 25 MR. BOYD: Thank you. Does anybody have any PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 questions of the group before I move on? 2 Thank you. Thank you, Professor Cota, or Hal, if 3 I may, since we've known each other for so long. It's been 4 a pleasure working with you and the members of the 5 committee. And I thank you for myself and for the staff. 6 Our planned research is keyed directly to the 7 Board's long-term goals and objectives. As your Executive 8 Officer, I established seven research teams within the staff 9 of the Board corresponding to the elements that you'll see 10 described in the plan. 11 These teams meet to discuss the ways in which 12 research and research projects can help us move more 13 efficiently towards the Board's goals and objectives. Each 14 team identifies research projects, prioritizes them, and 15 submits them to the Executive Review Committee. This 16 committee, which I chair, consists of my two deputies, Tom 17 Cackette and Mike Scheible, and the Research Division Chief, 18 Dr. Holmes. 19 Every year, we spend many, many hours reviewing 20 each team's list of proposed projects, discussing how they 21 will help us to meet the Board's objectives and the stated 22 objectives of the Governor and the Governor's budget, and to 23 be sure that they correspond to what we understand to be 24 your priorities. 25 We cannot, of course, do all the projects that are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 requested each year. The budget just does not permit that. 2 So, the final task of my review committee is to decide which 3 projects are to be eliminated, or scaled back, or postponed 4 to future years. 5 After we've done this, the proposed project plan 6 goes to the Research Screening Committee, as you've heard, 7 for their review and their comment. And, as you know, 8 further amendments are made at the committee's suggestion. 9 The proposed extramural budget for fiscal year 10 96-97 is $3,469,000. This budget is allocated to the 11 program areas that you'll see displayed in the plan. 12 I should note that, in addition to this extramural 13 research program that the Board reviews every year,a the 14 Board sponsors research under several other programs for 15 which the Legislature has provided or narrowly defined 16 objectives, either in statute or often in the Budget Act 17 itself. 18 These programs, which are periodically reviewed by 19 the Board, are listed for your information on page 5 of the 20 plan. But the research for these programs does not appear 21 in the plan that is before you today. 22 Let me add that the recently approved budget 23 incudes new funding for economic analysis as well as 24 continued funding for programs such as the children's health 25 study that was mentioned by the Chair, and the innovative PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 clean air technologies program, or ICAT, that you will 2 address in a different setting. 3 These other programs are carefully coordinated 4 with our extramural research program, and the resulting 5 research projects are also reviewed by the Board, as you 6 know, before contracts are awarded for any of them. 7 With that, I'd like to introduce Mr. Ralph Propper 8 of the Research Division. He's going to take you through 9 this year's update of the research plan. 10 Gentlemen? 11 MR. PROPPER: Thank you, Mr. Boyd. And good 12 afternoon, Chairman Dunlap and members of the Board. 13 In accordance with the California Health and 14 Safety Code, the Air Resources Board carries out a 15 comprehensive program of research into the causes and 16 effects of air pollution in California as well as possible 17 solutions. 18 In planning the research program, we try to look 19 ahead to address upcoming environmental problems and 20 regulatory needs. 21 The ARB's Mobile Source, Stationary Source, 22 Technical Support, and Monitoring and Laboratory Divisions 23 all play major roles in designing our research program, and 24 are all actively involved in the research teams established 25 by Mr. Boyd. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 Each team is represented here today to answer any 2 questions you may have on specific programs or project 3 areas. 4 We are also attempting to reach out beyond the ARB 5 staff to solicit ideas from the public regarding appropriate 6 research projects that would advance your policies. Later 7 this fiscal year, we intend to host a stakeholders' 8 conference for this purpose. 9 We also coordinate with other State agencies in 10 planning our research program. Recent legislation, SB 199, 11 requires the ARB to coordinate with other public agencies in 12 planning research relating to vehicles and vehicle fuels. 13 The document you've received includes an 14 introduction that outlines how the plan was put together and 15 brief descriptions of proposed new research projects. 16 Appendix 1 is a budget, providing titles and 17 anticipated costs of the new projects. Appendix 2 provides 18 one-page descriptions for each new project arranged by 19 research team category. 20 We have grouped the proposed projects identified 21 by the research teams into four general ARB program areas as 22 shown on this slide. Our research projects are designed to 23 address specific needs of the ARB. Some of our projects are 24 part of a long-term effort or a sequence of studies, while 25 others address shorter term needs. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 I will limit my presentation to the new projects 2 we plan to initiate this fiscal year. I'll discuss these 3 projects by program area. 4 Five projects are proposed in the first program 5 area, motor vehicles and fuels. Three of these are shown on 6 this slide. 7 The State Implementation Plan contains two 8 measures, M9 and M10, that call for major emission 9 reductions from off-road diesel engines. The first project 10 would determine the applicability of on-road controls to 11 off-road diesel engines and equipment. 12 Maintenance of the ozone air quality standard 13 during the next decade will require a four-fold reduction in 14 nitrogen oxide emissions from heavy-duty engines. 15 The second project would identify and evaluate 16 promising new advanced technologies to achieve ultra-low 17 emissions from heavy-duty engines. 18 We plan to coordinate with the U.S. EPA and other 19 parties in developing this project. 20 The State Implementation Plan calls for the 21 development of incentive programs to reduce emissions from 22 heavy-duty vehicles. The third project would characterize 23 the heavy-duty fleet in the South Coast Air Basin in order 24 to design effective incentive programs. 25 We plan to work with the South Coast AQMD in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 developing this project. 2 This slide shows the remaining two projects in 3 this program area. 4 The next project is operational characteristics of 5 advanced battery electric vehicles. Examples of advanced 6 batteries include nickel metal hydride and lithium-ion. 7 A cooperative program is being developed with 8 funding from the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction 9 Review Committee, the California Energy Commission, the 10 South Coast AQMD, and others. Our role in this program 11 would be to assess consumer acceptance of the resulting 12 electric vehicles. 13 The last project in this program area is 14 development and demonstration of an automated electric 15 vehicle charging system. This is designed to address one of 16 the concerns most often cited in electric vehicle marketing 17 studies -- convenience of charging. 18 This project would lead to a system that could be 19 installed at home, at work, and at other locations. 20 One new project is proposed in the next program 21 area, toxic air contaminants. Although measures have been 22 implemented to reduce the risk from public exposure to 23 perchloroethylene from dry cleaners, a significant risk 24 remains. 25 A potential risk reduction approach recently PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 identified is the use of ventilated room enclosures with 2 vapors dispersed from a roof top stack. This project would 3 determine the effectiveness of this approach. 4 We are setting up and advisory committee with 5 members from air districts and dry cleaners to help us 6 develop this project. 7 Under the California Clean Air Act, the ARB 8 provides technical assistance to local air districts to 9 support their activities. We're proposing six new projects 10 to support the Board's responsibilities under this Act. 11 This slide shows the first three projects. A 12 major cause of uncertainty in ARB's emissions inventory is a 13 lack of information about control equipment from a wide 14 variety of stationary sources. The first project would 15 identify point source emission controls and determine their 16 efficiencies. 17 It will provide data that should assist in 18 planning compliance and rule development programs at the ARB 19 and local air districts. 20 Solar ultraviolet radiation, or UV, induces the 21 chemical breakdown process known as photolysis. 22 Air quality models do not account for variations 23 in the intensity of UV, which may result in significant 24 errors in estimating ozone levels. 25 The next project would review and improve UV PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 models used to calculate the rates of photolysis in 2 regulatory ozone models. 3 Recent ARB sponsored studies found that ozone 4 concentrations above the inversion layer are often much 5 greater than near the surface. The next project would 6 investigate the formation of ozone in the upper air and its 7 effect on surface ozone. 8 The Coordinating Research Council is planning to 9 co-fund this project. 10 This slide shows the three remaining projects in 11 this program area. 12 Recently, some VOCs, such as aromatic 13 hydrocarbons, have been found to produce large amounts of 14 oxygenated organic compounds. These compounds are 15 significant precursors of ozone. 16 The next project would use smog chamber 17 experiments to improve our knowledge of the reactions that 18 form these compounds in the atmosphere. 19 This is another project that we plan to co-fund 20 with the Coordinating Research Council. 21 Horizontal diffusion, which controls the spread of 22 pollutants in the air, has a major effect on peak ozone 23 levels. The next project would determine the extent of 24 horizontal diffusivity for use in air quality models. 25 We use a meteorological model called MM5 in the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 development of our State Implementation State. However, in 2 some cases, it can overestimate the mixing depth, which is 3 the layer of air near the ground where pollutants are well 4 mixed. 5 The last project in this category would improve 6 the performance of this model by adjusting its mixing depth 7 algorithm. 8 The California ambient air quality standards are 9 based on the need to prevent or minimize adverse health and 10 environmental effects. We propose a set of new projects int 11 his program area. Airborne particulate matter has been 12 linked with numerous health effects, but the mechanism 13 responsible for these health effects is unclear. 14 These projects would investigate particulate mater 15 health effects in two ways -- by making use of animal 16 exposure studies and by engaging populations at greatest 17 health risk, such as children and the elderly. We hope to 18 arrange for co-funding by the U.S. EPA. 19 As Mr. Boyd noted in his introduction, we have an 20 extramural budget of just under $3.5 million. As I 21 discussed, we propose 13 new projects for this fiscal year. 22 This pie chart shows the proposed allocation among the 23 various program areas for this fiscal year. 24 Both motor vehicles and fuels under the California 25 Clean Air Act would each receive over a third of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 funding. Air quality standards would get about a quarter of 2 the pie, while the remainder would go to the toxic air 3 contaminants. 4 Earlier in my talk, when I discussed the proposed 5 projects, I identified likely and potential co-funders. We 6 have been increasing our efforts to leverage our limited 7 research budget with funds from both the public and private 8 sectors. 9 This slide shows the generally upward trend in the 10 co-funding we have obtained for our research projects. 11 Since 1985, we have received a cumulative total of about $3 12 million in co-funding. About half of this total has been 13 contributed by local air districts, about a third by federal 14 agencies, and the remainder was provided by State agencies 15 and the private sector. 16 We feel it is important to arrange for co-funding 17 whenever possible due to the complex air pollution problems 18 facing our state, and due to the increasing costs necessary 19 to conduct significant research. 20 As part of our efforts to update this plan, we 21 have updated our summary of completed research. This 22 summary is available in the back of the room. We believe it 23 is important to have one comprehensive document for the 24 extramural research program. 25 Accordingly, if you approve the plan, we will PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 incorporate this summary into the final plan. 2 In conclusion, the ideas for projects that I have 3 presented are now in the conceptual stage. Unless our needs 4 change, with your approval, you may expect to see them 5 presented to you again as proposals for research after a 6 thorough review by your Research Screening Committee. 7 This concludes my presentation. We'd be happy to 8 answer any questions you may have. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Do any of the Board members have 10 questions for staff? Jack? 11 MR. LAGARIAS: The policy decisions we make depend 12 to a great extent on the research information that you 13 develop. We certainly look forward to getting sound science 14 to use in our deliberations. 15 But how do you prevent yourself from doing 16 selected science? You take information just to go into a 17 certain area to support either preconceived or directions 18 you want. How do we have the assurance that you're looking 19 broadly at an area to put all the considerations on the line 20 and not just getting information to support a predetermined 21 objective? 22 That's enough, a tough question you can't answer. 23 But go ahead. 24 (Laughter.) 25 DR. HOLMES: Well, I think that -- I agree, it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 really is a tough question. But what we try to do, what the 2 staff tries to do, is to listen very carefully to the Board 3 in various contacts that we have with you, as well as at 4 public meetings to get a sense of what your priorities are 5 and what you think -- which air pollution problems deserve 6 the most attention, or which are still puzzling to you, not 7 well enough understood to know what, if anything, needs to 8 be done. 9 And we put together the program from that 10 perspective. That's the way it works in the case of the 11 more policy oriented or the ones that are more closely 12 connected to the regulatory programs. 13 MR. LAGARIAS: Well, how do you know that we're 14 asking the right questions? How do you get back to us and 15 say, "Yeah, that's a good question. But that's really not 16 what we need to know"? 17 DR. HOLMES: Well, one of the pleasures that I 18 personally have in working with the members of this Board is 19 that there's never any fear on our part, on staff's part to 20 engage in dialogue back and forth. I certainly know that 21 the Board members, particularly the one who's asking me 22 these tough questions, never hesitate to tell me when they 23 think I'm wrong. And I like to think I have the same 24 privilege as I work with the various Board members. 25 So, I think we all do the best we can -- the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 Board members and the members of the staff. And I don't 2 think, if you'll stand back and took a look at it over the 3 years, we have allowed any sorts of personal bias or staff 4 bias to come into this important stage of planning the 5 research for the years ahead. 6 MR. LAGARIAS: Well, you're proposing health 7 studies on suspended particulate. And, as we all know, 8 we've got 30 years of studies on that, including animal 9 studies. What directions are you going in that are 10 different from all the studies that we've seen up to this 11 time? 12 DR. HOLMES: It looks to us as if the Federal 13 Government is going to establish a standard that addresses 14 only the finest portion of suspended particulate matter, the 15 so-called PM2.5, or PMX standard. There simply are not 16 enough data in the literature to do that intelligently with 17 a feeling of security about not making a mistake. 18 So, I think the emphasis is from now on out on 19 both of them, the health effects of PM and the monitoring, 20 and atmospheric chemical studies focused almost entirely on 21 PM2.5, in order to put both standards and regulatory 22 approaches on a firm as possible scientific basis. 23 I'm not sure what you're going to hear in the next 24 item on your agenda, whether -- it's titled PM10, but I 25 think you're going to be hearing more and more about PM2.5 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 or whatever it turns out to be in the next years. 2 MR. LAGARIAS: Well, let me express, in hearing 3 you, my admiration and respect for all the work and research 4 that you and your Scientific Review Panel members and 5 Research Screening Panel members have done. I think you've 6 really done an outstanding job. And I always like to needle 7 you a little bit. But you've done well. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thanks, Jack. Any other 9 questions? Joe. 10 MR. CALHOUN: I guess I have one standard question 11 that I always ask whenever I attend the Research Screening 12 Committee meetings, and that question -- I hope the staff 13 also asks this question: What are you going to do with the 14 data once you get it? 15 And that's really kind of related to the question 16 that Jack asked, and I hope that we don't ever get to the 17 point where we're doing research just for research sake. 18 That's just an observation I wanted to make. 19 DR. HOLMES: I couldn't agree more. And I think 20 it's very important to understand that well ahead of time as 21 to what the data are going to be used for once they've been 22 collected. 23 And taking it beyond that, I think one of the gaps 24 that -- the one I see in our own research program, as in 25 many others as well, is that scientists would rather gather PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 data than analyze and interpret it. And I think what we 2 need to do here is probably place somewhat more emphasis on 3 data analysis. 4 I was talking a couple of weeks ago with Ellis 5 Colling (phonetic) who is one of the grand old men of air 6 pollution research from North Carolina State, and he is 7 thinking of proposing to the U.S. EPA that they place a 8 requirement on their research people that they spend $1.00 9 for data analysis for every dollar they spend for field 10 research. 11 So, that tells you at least how one senior 12 research official feels about the importance of that. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you for that, Dr. Holmes. 14 One comment I'd make. I appreciate the overview, 15 and I certainly appreciate and welcome the members of the 16 Research Screening Committee here. 17 One of the things that I've noted, particularly 18 the last year, is how much time and effort the regulatory 19 community and the environmental community are spending doing 20 their own research, independent and separate from anything 21 we might do. And there is not infrequently a collision in 22 findings; that is, they have refuted a position or a 23 variable that may be in a model that is instrumental in a 24 new regulatory program that we've brought forward, or some 25 other such situation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 I want to say to you how much I've appreciated the 2 collaborative nature of the research when you talked about 3 trying to find partners. I think that's very important. 4 I'd also like to say to the audience here, some 5 representing groups and associations that have a desire to 6 do your own research, please do not rule out working with 7 us. Come in the front door and meet with Dr. Holmes and 8 others in the management team here and propose a joint 9 project or effort. Because we're very willing to do that. 10 There are certain limits that we, of course, would have to 11 impose on any such effort. But if you can scope a project 12 whereby the findings can be of value to us and you jointly, 13 that would be the most desirable of outcomes it would seem 14 to me. 15 So, Dr. Holmes, for my part, I've been very 16 impressed with how diligent you and your team have been, and 17 also, Jim, for you and your deputies to coordinate the 18 limited resources that we have in doing research. We don't 19 have a lot of money. That's not a lot of money we're 20 talking about. And it has proven to be very well spent 21 historically. 22 It's not that we haven't missed the mark from time 23 to time, we have. But we certainly have tried to maximize 24 the State's resources, and that's a comfort to me and my 25 Board member colleagues. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 So, thank you, and keep it up. Is there any other 2 comments or questions of staff? 3 Dr. Boston, do you want to say anything? 4 Recently, you had an issue or two you were concerned with. 5 And I think you had a teaching moment. 6 DR. BOSTON: No. We're going to be discussing 7 that particular issue a little later with Dr. Holmes and 8 some of his staff. But I'm really anxious and excited still 9 to pursue this children's health study. I know that's 10 ongoing and I'm looking forward to doing a little field trip 11 in October. I think we're setting it up to observe some of 12 the efforts in progress with some of the children. So, I'm 13 looking forward to that. Thank you. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very well. If nothing else, we 15 have no witnesses that have signed up. 16 DR. HOLMES: Mr. Chairman? 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes, Dr. Holmes. 18 DR. HOLMES: There were two written submittals 19 that came in. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Please, summarize those for us 21 if you would. 22 DR. HOLMES: One letter from the South Coast Air 23 Quality Management District from Chung Liu, the head of the 24 Technology Advancement Program down there. He's offering to 25 co-fund three of the mobile source projects that are in this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 plan, and because they coincide very closely with the 2 objectives that the district has in their mobile source 3 effort. 4 The second submittal is -- 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: On that point, we should 6 encourage Supervisor Silva to make sure they're generous in 7 their contribution, right? 8 DR. HOLMES: No dollar figure was mentioned, 9 Supervisor Silva. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Get with Supervisor Silva before 11 he leaves today, John. Bend his ear. 12 DR. HOLMES: The second submittal is from a 13 resident of the Sacramento area, Mr. Gil Humphreys, not so 14 much on research, but on a matter related to what people 15 have learned from research. 16 In this case, he's very concerned about wood 17 smoke, smoke that comes from fireplaces and wood burning 18 stoves. He cites an illness in his own family that is 19 related to the fireplace wood smoke. 20 His main theme is that we should -- we, ARB, 21 should do a much better job of communicating to the public 22 about the dangers of wood smoke and ways of avoiding 23 exposure to it. 24 And he has included two pamphlets that are 25 published by the State of Washington -- the first entitled, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 "Wood Smoke: The Other Second-Hand Smoke!" And then 2 another more technical one on "Health Effects of Wood 3 Smoke." 4 So, we'll put those to good use here. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very good. Thank you. Mr. 6 Boyd, does staff have any further comments? 7 MR. BOYD: I'll try to be real brief, just to 8 reflect on some of the dialogue that has taken place, the 9 good questions of Mr. Lagarias and Mr. Calhoun's points just 10 remind me that over the years, the interaction -- and Dr. 11 Holmes pretty eloquently put this already -- but the 12 interaction between the staff and the Board, the staff and 13 members of the Research Screening Committee, or even between 14 Board members and members of the Research Screening 15 Committee, coupled with the interaction with the client 16 groups within the staff itself, because it's usually a 17 client group somewhere else in the organization that is 18 demanding the work. And therefore, the idea of research for 19 research sake, we've never been wealthy enough to have that 20 occur. 21 There's usually a demand somewhere in the 22 organization for some piece of work, which is usually a 23 product of some action the Board has taken, and a product of 24 our strategic plans, the biggest of which always is the SIP. 25 I mean, that is our strategic plan for a long way into the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 future, and gives us a lot of guidance and direction on what 2 it is we know we have to do. And, as indicated and as we'll 3 hear more this afternoon, of course, the next great SIP will 4 be PM10 and following that, PMX, whatever it happens to be. 5 And so, we've been very fortunate. And the other 6 point that you mentioned about partnering in competition; I 7 think the good news I can report over my tenure here is 8 that, while there still are collisions and there's certainly 9 in some of the new modern approaches -- i.e. modeling, you 10 still see work outside -- there are orders of magnitude less 11 competition between us and the regulated community now than 12 there were years ago, because of the partnering that has 13 taken place, and the fact, over ten years ago, a paradigm 14 shift occurred between both of us, and we were able to sit 15 down, pool money, get the public and other communities of 16 interest accepting of the idea that the regulators and the 17 regulated could sit down together, spend money, and carry 18 out a project or a program. And that we, the regulators, 19 weren't going to stay in bed with the regulated community 20 and you could, therefore, have a synergism and a combination 21 of dollars that resulted in some extremely significant and 22 precedent setting air quality research and research studies 23 in this State, many of which you are familiar with, not the 24 least of which is the San Joaquin Valley study for first 25 ozone, now PM10. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 So, we've been most fortunate. We have a very 2 progressive State and a very progressive system here that 3 has allowed us to pretty well maximize the bang for the 4 buck. And I trust it will continue in the future. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very well put. Thank you, Jim. 6 We have no witnesses. Since it's not a regulatory item, we 7 don't need to close the record. But we have before us a 8 very brief resolution in support of the material that's been 9 presented to us. 10 It's simple and direct, and the Chair would 11 entertain a motion to pass and support this resolution. 12 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: So move. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Supervisor Vagim. 14 MR. CALHOUN: Second the motion. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Calhoun, thank you. Any 16 discussion? 17 All right. With that, I'll do a voice vote. 18 All those in favor, say aye? 19 (Ayes.) 20 Any opposed? Very well. Thank you. 21 Thank you, Dr. Holmes and members of the Research 22 Screening Committee. Appreciate your time and effort. 23 All right. Let's move -- yes. The third agenda 24 item, 96-6-3, a public meeting to consider an update on 25 development of the PM10 State Implementation Plan. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 I know there's a lot of interest in this topic. 2 The health studies on particulate matter tell us that this 3 pollutant deserves increasing attention. I know that it is 4 happening on many fronts. 5 We cannot tackle the entire subject in one 6 meeting. So, today, we will focus on the required Federal 7 PM10 plans. Staff is working very closely with the air 8 districts to develop PM10 attainment plans for the San 9 Joaquin Valley and the South Coast regions. 10 These plans are due to the EPA in early '97. As 11 you know, the SIP process includes Board consideration of 12 the district plans before submission to the Federal 13 Government. I expect today's presentation to give us a good 14 introduction to these efforts with more to follow once draft 15 plans have been completed. 16 At this point, I'd like to ask Mr. Boyd to 17 introduce the item and begin the staff's presentation. 18 Jim? 19 MR. BOYD: Thank you. This update is very timely, 20 as per our last discussion, and the fact that development of 21 PM10 plans indeed is well underway in California as staff 22 will discuss with you in a moment. 23 This activity is one that parallels ARB and 24 district efforts to implement the ozone SIP that I just 25 referenced. So, as usual, staff's plate is very, very full. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 Fortunately, the 1994 ozone SIP provides a very strong 2 foundation for addressing particulate matter pollution. 3 Our experience with the ozone program also serves 4 us well in terms of our approach to developing the PM10 SIP. 5 We will use the best available data, recognize its 6 limitations, and ensure that we continue to refine and to 7 improve upon the attainment plans as more is learned about 8 the subject. 9 As with the ozone SIP, staff will periodically 10 update the Board on the PM10 plans and on progress on those 11 plans. And with that, I'd now like to call upon Ms. Gayle 12 Sweigert of the Office of Air Quality and Transportation 13 Planning to give you the presentation on PM10. Ms. 14 Sweigert? 15 MS. SWEIGERT: Thank you, Mr. Boyd. 16 I will begin with an outline of what I will cover 17 in today's presentation. 18 I will discuss five general topics. First is an 19 introduction to PM10, its components and health effect; 20 next, a summary of the planning process and requirements; 21 third, the technical foundation for PM10 attainment plans; 22 next, the status of the 1997 PM10 attainment plans; and, 23 finally, concluding remarks. 24 I will start with the introduction with some 25 background on particulate matter air pollution. Particulate PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 matter air pollution is the complex mixture of small 2 inhalable particles that are 10 microns or smaller. It 3 includes solids and liquid droplets. 4 Primary particles are those that are directly 5 emitted. For example, dust and soot. 6 Secondary particles are those that are formed in 7 the atmosphere from gaseous pollutants such as oxides of 8 nitrogen, oxides of sulfur, and volatile organic compounds. 9 Also associated with these small particles are 10 individual chemical species, such as combustion byproducts. 11 Why is PM10 a public health concern? Airborne 12 particulate matter is a public health concern due to the 13 adverse effects associated with particulate matter, public 14 exposure to levels exceeding State and Federal standards, 15 and the large number of Californians exposed. 16 Ozone control strategies are helping to reduce 17 exposure, but we are still working to understand what it 18 will take to attain particulate matter standards. 19 What do particulate matter health studies 20 indicate? A number of health studies have reported 21 associations between particulate matter air pollution and 22 adverse effects on human health. These studies have found 23 associations between particulate matter pollution and 24 premature mortality as well as a range of health effects 25 that include increased respiratory symptoms and impaired PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 lung function. 2 These studies generally show health effects 3 increase with pollution levels, and the effects have been 4 observed consistently in many different communities. The 5 strength of these studies, called epidemiological studies, 6 is that they analyze health effects of human populations at 7 ambient air pollution concentrations. 8 What is the status of health-based standards? 9 California's PM10 standards were adopted in 1982. They are 10 both annual and 24-hour standards. The less stringent 11 Federal PM10 standards area currently under review and the 12 results of recent health studies are being considered in 13 that process. 14 The current PM10 standard is likely to be 15 supplemented with a new standard that applies to particles 16 2.5 microns or smaller. 17 Now I will move on to discuss the air quality 18 planning process. The California Clean Air Act does not 19 require air quality plans for PM10. The current planning 20 process is driven by the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act. 21 The initial PM10 plans, those for moderate areas, 22 are for the most part complete. I will discuss this in more 23 detail in a moment. 24 Areas which have a more difficult particulate 25 matter problem are classified as serious. These plans are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 due to the U.S. EPA by February 8th, 1997. These plans must 2 include an attainment demonstration as well as provisions 3 for the implementation of best available control measures by 4 1997. 5 What attainment plans are due in 1997? There are 6 four serious area nonattainment plans due in 1997. Plans 7 are required for the South Coast, the San Joaquin Valley, 8 Owens Valley, and Coachella Valley. 9 What is each agency's role? Districts have the 10 primary responsibility to develop the plan, which includes 11 holding public workshops and hearings on the plan. Local 12 metropolitan planning organizations, or MPOs, provide the 13 transportation element and local growth forecasts. 14 As part of the plan development process, ARB staff 15 works with district staff to complete the technical work 16 needed for the plan. After the plan is adopted by the 17 district governing board and approved by ARB, it is 18 submitted to the U.S. EPA for their review and action. 19 What are the deadlines for attainment? The 20 attainment deadline for most moderate areas was 1994. The 21 attainment date for the Mojave area is 2000, because it was 22 designated at a later date than the other moderate areas. 23 The serious areas are required to attain by the 24 year 2001. This attainment date can be extended up to five 25 additional years, or to the year 2006, if an extension is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 granted. 2 What is the process for extending serious area 3 attainment deadlines? The first step is to conduct 4 technical analysis to determine if attainment by the year 5 2001 is feasible. 6 If it isn't, then an attainment demonstration for 7 an alternate year is prepared. The request for an extension 8 must be submitted along with the attainment demonstration. 9 This request only extends the attainment date. All other 10 SIP requirements and time frames remain unchanged. The 11 request for an extension must be approved by the U.S. EPA. 12 What SIPs have been completed? Moderate area 13 plans for Mammoth Lakes, Searles Valley, Mono Basin, Mojave, 14 and Imperial have been completed. 15 Additional modeling work is underway to support 16 the attainment demonstration for the Mojave plan. The 17 results of a transport assessment study are being used to 18 complete an attainment demonstration for Imperial. 19 How are the 1997 plans being developed? All of 20 the serious area plans are developed through a broad-based 21 public participation process. In the South Coast Air Basin, 22 a PM10 task force oversees development of the plan. A 23 separate task force is overseeing development of the 24 Coachella plan. 25 The Owens Lake Advisory Committee provides PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 community input for the development of the Owens plan. 2 And finally, in the San Joaquin Valley, the 3 district has initiated an outreach process which I will 4 discuss later in more detail. 5 Before we move to the discussion of the status of 6 the individual PM10 plans, I will provide background on the 7 technical foundation for the attainment plans being 8 developed. 9 What characteristics of PM10 affect plan 10 development? First, unlike other pollutants, PM10 is not a 11 single chemical species, but a complex mixture of particles. 12 The chemical and physical components of PM10 must be 13 characterized so that contributing sources can be 14 identified. 15 As I mentioned earlier, PM10 includes both direct 16 and secondary emissions. The relative contribution of each 17 is the key issue. Unlike ozone, PM10 air quality problems 18 are not confined to one season. Attainment demonstrations 19 may have to address different PM10 seasons with different 20 sources and meteorological conditions. 21 Because of these complexities, the development of 22 sophisticated urban airshed models for PM10 has lagged 23 behind that of ozone. Currently, there is no single model 24 which adequately addressed both direct and secondary 25 emissions. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 As a result, a combination of modeling approaches 2 must be used. 3 What elements provide the technical foundation for 4 the plans? Air quality monitoring and field studies provide 5 data to characterize PM10 air quality. Source apportionment 6 analyses are used to identify contributing sources. Studies 7 are done to improve the emissions inventory and future year 8 forecasts. 9 Like ozone, these plans rely on PM10 modeling 10 analyses. 11 And finally, studies are undertaken to identify 12 and evaluate potential control strategies. What types of 13 monitoring data is used in PM10 plans? 14 PM10 mass is measured every six days at 15 approximately 160 locations in California. PM10 mass data 16 is a regulatory data for record and used to determine 17 compliance with ambient air quality standards. However, the 18 mass data alone is not sufficient to develop attainment 19 plans. Information about the specific components of 20 measured PM10 is needed to identify sources and develop 21 control strategies. 22 For example, we supplement PM10 data with PM2.5 23 data for source apportionment. Chemical speciation data is 24 obtained by further analyzing PM10 and PM2.5 mass samples. 25 Finally, additional monitoring data from special studies is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 134 1 used for plan development. 2 One example is special daily monitoring studies 3 which are used to supplement the statewide monitoring on an 4 every six day basis. 5 What type of information does source apportionment 6 analysis provide? First, apportionment analysis identifies 7 the broad source categories that are contributing to the air 8 quality of a region. It also estimates the relative 9 contribution of these source categories to PM10 mass 10 concentrations. 11 Direct PM10 categories are identified. These 12 include geological material, smoke-related emissions, and 13 motor vehicle emissions. Source apportionment also 14 addresses secondary PM10 in the same analysis by estimating 15 the contributions of nitrate and sulfate components to PM10 16 concentrations. 17 What kinds of emission inventories are used in the 18 1997 plans? 19 The emission inventories in the 1997 plans 20 incorporate the most recent revisions of the mobile source 21 emissions inventory. 22 Regional fugitive dust inventories for the 23 nonattainment areas were prepared. These inventories 24 incorporate new emission factors based on recent studies. 25 Modeling inventories for each episode are prepared for the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 135 1 attainment demonstration. 2 These inventories include baseline emission 3 estimates and future year forecasts. 4 What models may be used in the 1997 plans? There 5 are three general types of models that will be used in the 6 plans. Speciated rollback, incorporating source 7 apportionment analysis, will be used in the San Joaquin 8 attainment demonstration. 9 In a speciated rollback, reductions in future 10 ambient PM10 concentrations are estimated to be directly 11 proportional to reductions in direct and secondary PM10 12 emissions. 13 Where fugitive dust is the primary problem, a 14 fugitive dust dispersion model can be used. This is the 15 case for Owens Valley. This model estimates PM10 16 concentrations by using meteorological and source specific 17 information. 18 The South Coast will use an urban airshed model 19 with linear chemistry and source apportionment. 20 This model is the simplified version of the UAM 21 models used in the ozone attainment demonstrations. It is 22 combined with source apportionment because it cannot address 23 all emission source categories in the same analysis. 24 Speciated rollback is also used in the South Coast 25 attainment demonstration. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 136 1 How is attainment demonstrated? Attainment is 2 demonstrated by showing how PM10 concentrations will be 3 reduced to the level of the Federal standard by the 4 attainment year. A PM10 design day concentration is 5 identified for each episode that is modeled. This is a 6 Federal requirement. 7 Design day concentration is the highest PM10 8 concentration experienced during the recent three-year 9 period. The benefits of the ozone and moderate PM10 10 strategies are incorporated into the modeling analysis. 11 Attainment is demonstrated when it can be shown 12 that the design value will be reduced based on the expected 13 mix of sources and controls strategies to the level of the 14 Federal standard by the attainment year. 15 If additional reductions are needed beyond the 16 ozone and moderate PM10 measures, the attainment strategy 17 will lay out the process and time frame for the development 18 of these programs. 19 Next, I will briefly the plans for the South 20 Coast, San Joaquin Valley, Owens Valley, and Coachella 21 Valley. 22 First, I will discuss the South Coast plan. What 23 is the status of the South Coast plan? The plan for the 24 South Coast is further along than the other serious area 25 plans. The district announced its attainment strategy on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 137 1 July 18th. However, a draft plan will not be released until 2 August 2nd. 3 Following the release of the draft plan, there 4 will be a public comment period from August 2nd through 5 September 20th. 6 At this time, the district plans to hold at least 7 six workshops in September with the district board hearing 8 on the plan anticipated for October or November of this 9 year. 10 What is the South Coast PM10 attainment strategy? 11 The attainment strategy is based on a combination of ozone 12 SIP and district fugitive dust measures. The strategy 13 includes revisions to the district's ozone SIP measures. 14 In addition to district measures, the modeling 15 analysis shows that State and Federal ozone SIP measures are 16 needed for attainment of PM10 standards in the South Coast. 17 What revisions to the district ozone SIP strategy 18 were made? While the details of the proposed changes to the 19 district's ozone SIP strategy have not been released, the 20 district has described them in general terms. 21 District indirect source measures would be 22 deleted. Some near-term district VOC measures would be 23 delayed or deleted. The long-term new technology 24 commitments to the 1994 ozone strategy. 25 How ere the technical of the plan developed? In PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 138 1 order to develop the technical foundation of the plan, the 2 district initiated a PM technical enhancement program. 3 The technical enhancement program included 4 monitoring studies, improvements to the emissions inventory, 5 and model development and evaluation. 6 What monitoring studies were done? Additional 7 PM10 and PM2.5 monitoring was conducted for one year. This 8 included daily monitoring for six months to supplement the 9 routine six-day monitoring. 10 Chemical speciation analysis on those samples was 11 done. This study resulted in a greatly expanded database 12 for use in characterizing PM10 air quality of the region. 13 Several PM10 episodes were evaluated that resulted 14 in new episode design days based on the most recent data. 15 What improvements to the emission inventory were 16 made? The attainment demonstration will incorporate the 17 most recent mobile source emission estimates. An improved 18 ammonia emissions inventory was developed through studies of 19 livestock waste and composting. Ammonia in the presence of 20 oxides of nitrogen contributes to PM10 formation. 21 Better information about ammonia emissions 22 associated with dairies was needed because ammonia emissions 23 occur in the area of the South Coast with peak PM10 24 concentrations. 25 Updated emission factors for fugitive dust were PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 139 1 also incorporated. In addition, updated growth assumptions 2 were incorporated for vehicle travel and other mobile 3 sources. 4 What do the PM10 modeling analyses show? A 5 separate modeling analysis was done for the annual and 24- 6 hour standards. Results of the attainment demonstration 7 show that both the annual and 24-hour standards can be met 8 in the year 2006. 9 As I mentioned earlier, the model selected as an 10 urban airshed model with linear chemistry. This model 11 cannot address all emission sources, so it is used in 12 conjunction with source apportionment analysis. 13 Speciated rollback analysis, a more simplified 14 analysis was used for comparison, and both models produced 15 the same results for the annual standard; similar results 16 were seen for the 24-hour standard. 17 Now, I'll turn to a discussion of the status of 18 the San Joaquin Valley plan. 19 How can the San Joaquin Valley PM10 problem be 20 characterized? There are two types of PM10 episodes in the 21 San Joaquin Valley -- fall and winter. 22 The San Joaquin Valley violates both the 24-hour 23 and annual standards. The 24-hour exceedances are high and 24 the annual standard is exceeded by only a small margin. 25 Fugitive dust dominates in the fall; secondary PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 140 1 PM10 is the main problem in winter. 2 What control strategies do we expect in the San 3 Joaquin Valley plan? The San Joaquin Valley plan is still 4 under development. However, it is clear that the control 5 approaches for the fall and winter episodes will differ. 6 Ozone strategies and wood smoke programs are 7 anticipated for the winter episode. Additional future dust 8 strategies will be needed for the fall episode. The 9 district's approach is to pursue development of voluntary 10 programs to reduce dust emissions from agricultural 11 operations while revising their existing fugitive dust rule 12 to address nonagricultural sources of dust. 13 Because additional work is needed to further 14 understand the fall problems and its solution, the fall 15 control strategy can't be fully defined by February, 1997. 16 How will programs for agricultural operations be 17 addressed? 18 The district has recognized the need to involve 19 the agricultural community in the development of potential 20 control strategies to reduce fugitive dust emissions. The 21 near-term focus for agricultural operations is on the 22 development of voluntary programs. 23 The district has an outreach program to facilitate 24 the participation of farmers and growers. Other 25 participants in the process are the ARB, the U.S. Natural PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 141 1 Resource Conservation Service, or NRCS, and the California 2 Department of Food and Agriculture, or CDFA. 3 ARB staff are closely involved in the technical 4 work to improve the emission estimates for agricultural 5 operations. NRCS and CDFA are contributing their expertise 6 related to agricultural practices and the issues and 7 concerns of the agricultural community. 8 Will an extension of the attainment date be 9 needed? Modeling analyses are still underway to identify 10 the most feasible attainment date for both the fall and 11 winter episodes. At this point, a 2001 attainment 12 demonstration for the fall episode does not appear to be 13 likely. This is due to the magnitude of exceedances 14 experienced in the fall, and the fact that we won't be able 15 to include a fully defined control strategy in the February 16 SIP submittal. 17 The most likely attainment date for the winter 18 episode is not yet known. Technical analyses for the winter 19 episode are also still underway. 20 What is the San Joaquin Valley PM10 plan SIP 21 schedule? Because the modeling analysis for both episodes 22 has not yet been completed, a specific schedule for plan 23 workshops and hearings it not yet available. 24 However, the district expects to release a draft 25 plan by August or September. Workshops and public hearings PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 142 1 would follow in fall and winter. We expect to submit the 2 plan to the U.S. EPA by February, 1997. 3 Now, I will briefly discuss the status of the 4 Owens and Coachella plans. First, I will begin with the 5 plan for Owens Valley. 6 The Owens Valley is located south of Mono Lake in 7 Inyo County. The Great Basin Unified Control District has 8 the responsibility to develop the plan. Windstorms on the 9 dry lake bed cause the PM10 violations. Control strategies 10 focus on the mitigation of dust emissions that result from 11 these windstorms. There have been many studies to evaluate 12 potential control strategies. 13 Control strategies under consideration, include 14 flood irrigation, vegetation cover, sand fences, and adding 15 gravel to the lake bed. As part of the plan development 16 process, the Great Basin governing will select the preferred 17 control strategy. This decision is anticipated for this 18 November. 19 Coachella Valley -- the 1997 plan will include an 20 attainment demonstration showing the Federal PM10 standards 21 were attained in 1995. All moderate area measures have been 22 implemented, and serious area controls are proposed as 23 contingency measures. The 1997 plan will include a 24 redesignation request. 25 The Coachella plan will be released later this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 143 1 year. 2 This completes my discussion of the status of the 3 1997 plans. Now I will conclude with comments on our long- 4 term particulate matter strategy and future Board meetings 5 on the subject. 6 What is California's long-term strategy? Progress 7 in reducing public exposure to particulate matter will 8 continue as we implement ozone and PM10 strategies. We will 9 continue studies to further define California's particulate 10 matter problems and solutions. 11 We will also update attainment plans as necessary 12 to incorporate new information. Finally, we will continue 13 the technical work necessary to prepare for potential 14 federal PM2.5 standards. 15 What future Board meetings on particulate matter 16 are anticipated? Today's presentation was intended to 17 provide background information on the PM10 planning process 18 and a review of the PM10 plans that you will be reviewing 19 early next year. 20 An ARB hearing on district plans is tentatively 21 scheduled for January, 1997. Staff will also continue to 22 update the Board on PM10 plans and issues. 23 Thank you. That concludes the staff presentation. 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Do any of the Board members have 25 any questions for staff? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 144 1 Mr. Lagarias. 2 MR. LAGARIAS: Just one question, and it's -- I 3 guess it's philosophical in nature. That's my prerogative 4 today. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: It is? 6 (Laughter.) 7 MR. LAGARIAS: I notice that in the Owens Valley 8 PM10 issue, you say windstorms on dry lake beds cause PM10 9 violations. If we are unable to meet the PM10 standards in 10 the Owens Valley, what do we see? Does EPA call us on our 11 SIP? Do they fine Mother Nature, or just what happens if 12 you can't do much with the Owens Valley windstorm PM10 13 violations? 14 MS. TERRY: That's a perfect question, and the 15 Board will certainly hear more about this issue in the 16 coming months. 17 As was mentioned in the staff presentation, there 18 have been a lot of studies looking at different possible 19 control strategies. Those will be considered as we go 20 through the process. I think there's some question about 21 just how far those strategies will get us in terms of 22 meeting the PM10 standard. 23 And if they aren't sufficient, if what -- if the 24 measures deemed to be cost-effective and feasible are 25 adopted and not effective, I think there will be clearly a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 145 1 debate about what to do at that point. 2 U.S. EPA has recognized the concept of a natural 3 event and has provided some recent guidance that gives 4 consideration to naturally occurring events. That's a 5 start. I think the Owens Valley may be a situation where we 6 have to press on that policy once we find out more about the 7 control measure effectiveness. 8 MR. LAGARIAS: Let's go to other extreme then. 9 Suppose in the heavy urban areas like Los Angeles, the 10 metropolitan areas, we find that all our technical 11 approaches are inadequate, are you prepared to make social, 12 sociological solutions, like move half the people out of the 13 area, or shut down their work, or take them out of their 14 cars? Do you go that far in pushing for your PM10 15 strategies, to go into sociological approaches? 16 MS. TERRY: Well, I think it's clear the South 17 Coast District is not going to. They have just backed off 18 on those kinds of measures, and not to be facetious here, 19 quite seriously. 20 In terms of the PM10 plan, we haven't had a chance 21 to look at the details of their analysis. On the surface, 22 it would appear that those kinds of measures aren't needed 23 for meeting the current PM10 standard in the current time 24 frames. 25 The question you raise, however, goes to the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 146 1 future and potential new standards for fine particulates. 2 So, I'm sure that we will be before this Board many times on 3 this issue over the next few years. 4 Just a comment on the timing, though. Even if a 5 Federal standard is adopted mid next year, there will be a 6 fairly lengthy process in terms of EPA designating new 7 areas, doing the monitoring, the classifications, deciding 8 on time lines for plans, and so on. 9 So, it will be a while. 10 MR. LAGARIAS: Well, I'll leave that for my future 11 Board members to wrestle with. I'm just raising the issue. 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Jack. Any other 13 questions or comments? 14 Supervisor Vagim. 15 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: From the San Joaquin Valley 17 District; I'm certain has an issue. 18 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Mainly dust. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Dust. 20 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: The problem in the valley, we 21 hope. The question I have is, as far as the extension 22 criteria, are we going to develop a model or are we going to 23 develop a methodology which standardizes the request and 24 procedures one would follow for extension requests? Or is 25 there just going to be an ad hoc district by district PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 147 1 request, and analyze each one of them separately? 2 MS. TERRY: Well, at this point, there are really 3 just two at issue, and South Coast has -- several months 4 ago, it became clear that they wouldn't make it by 2001. 5 So, that request, documentation of the need for the 6 extension will -- we expect to be included in the plan 7 that's released next week. 8 We think most likely a similar case will be made 9 for the San Joaquin Valley. And so, the law's fairly clear 10 on justifying the need for the extension; that technical 11 supporting work would be included in the plan along with the 12 request. 13 And then the plan itself would be designed around 14 the appropriate attainment date. 15 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: I was kind of joking about the 16 dust issue, but the fact of it is, that is PM10 in a lot of 17 people's registration, and we've kind of categorically 18 lumped this all into one bucket called PM10 until the PM2.5 19 issue is resolved on where it will -- what form it will 20 take. 21 Have we and are we working on any, let's say, 22 judgmental arenas of -- is PM10 the culprit if it comes from 23 dust or is it more of a culprit if it comes from someplace 24 else. And if you have it mainly from something that is 25 manmade versus geologic, it's not -- you can distinguish the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 148 1 difference? Who is working on that and where is it? 2 Because I haven't seen any criteria differential. All you 3 have is a line on a graph. And it says, if you exceed it, 4 you've exceeded the standard. 5 But clearly, there's a health difference, a health 6 risk from something that was generated through some other 7 process, manmade versus organic. 8 And what, you know, who's working on that? I 9 mean, is OEHHA working on that? Is the EPA working on that? 10 Does anyone know? 11 MS. TERRY: The answer to that is nobody knows at 12 this point. And it's really at the heart of, I think, some 13 of the controversy we'll see with the PM10 plan. 14 Nonetheless, I think everyone is going into the 15 PM10 planning process with a clear recognition that we can't 16 differentiate at this point between the effects of the 17 finest particles and those between let's say 2.5 and 10. 18 From a biological standpoint, you know, it may 19 well be that a certain amount of mass loading of 20 particulate, even of the larger sizes, most likely is not 21 good for people. On the other hand, we intuitively would 22 suspect that the smaller sizes that are combustion related 23 with many different chemical species may pose different, 24 maybe worse risks. 25 The positive side, I think, is that, as we address PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 149 1 PM10, we're looking in both of the major PM10 plans -- South 2 Coast and San Joaquin -- the secondary component, which is 3 essentially 2.5, is going to be key to the attainment 4 strategies in both cases. 5 Clearly, for South Coast; in the San Joaquin, it 6 will key for the winter. That leaves us with the fall 7 episode. And I think that there's wide recognition that 8 those dust-related issues for the fall episodes are a very 9 special case that we need to tread quite carefully as we 10 look at the need for control and what the benefits of those 11 kinds of measures might be. 12 I think the mechanisms are in place to address 13 that controls strategy side of the issue. So, it's more of 14 a pragmatic approach I would say. We're looking at the 15 control strategy feasibility, the effectiveness, and cost, 16 and so on as opposed to trying to answer the health effects 17 question as to whether or not it's PM10 or PM2.5. 18 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Essentially then, we're 19 basically going to develop these plans that are due by 1997 20 for strategies starting in 2001 for the serious areas, with 21 extensions year by year to 2006. Looking over our shoulder 22 is PMX. Now, are we going to be defining PMX as 2.5 just 23 for the basis that that's probably what it's going to be. 24 Hopefully, if you've done your research and 25 everything else, 2.5 is where you'd like to plug things in. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 150 1 But are these going to be looked at together now, versus 2 waiting and then having to come backwards and plug in 2.5 as 3 part of your strategies? 4 MS. TERRY: I guess my assessment is that we're 5 forced to look at both now, because the reality is you have 6 to look at all the feasible measures for both 2.5 and 10. 7 And I think what that really -- the undefined element of the 8 San Joaquin Valley SIP, the fugitive dust related issues, is 9 where a lot of attention will have to be placed as we look 10 at control strategies. 11 Right now, it's simply a concept over the next few 12 years. We hopefully will learn enough to determine whether 13 or not these measures are needed, are cost-effective, and 14 will really be helpful in reducing public exposure. 15 So, there are a lot of questions, clearly, as you 16 point out. 17 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Now, one of the areas -- and 18 Jack and I sit on the study for the San Joaquin Valley, and 19 getting some preliminary findings in the study. 20 Obviously, in the fall and late fall, the valley 21 anyway has higher episodes than any other part of the year. 22 And knowing the areas in which they did the sampling, 23 particularly the urban areas of Fresno, it was obvious that 24 wood burning fireplaces, what have you, were the culprit. 25 The question becomes, right now, it's a kind of -- the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 151 1 valley's adopted this kind of like stoplight approach, red, 2 green and yellow. 3 It's nice. You can put a red light on all you 4 want, but someone can still burn their fireplace. At what 5 point in time in our great regulatory world are we going to 6 have people knocking on doors to say, "Are you burning your 7 fireplace today?" 8 I mean, we got rid of the back yard garbage 9 burner, but that was pretty obvious. Say, you got a back 10 yard garbage burner, and you shouldn't burn that anymore. 11 And we all kind of reluctantly accepted it. I mean, I 12 remember having a big charge of lighting my week's garbage 13 and having fun with that little thing. 14 But that all went away. But the fact of it is, 15 fireplaces have a whole different regime, a whole different 16 genre. The California mind set is sitting around on a cold 17 winter night with a fireplace. And all of a sudden you're 18 going to get a knock on the door that says, you can't burn 19 that? 20 Who's going to enforce this? I mean, how many 21 squad cars are going to show up that day? Are some of the 22 approaches that we're going to put on this realistic? And 23 should we even attempt to put these approaches if they're 24 not going to be realistic? 25 MS. TERRY: Well, those are all good questions, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 152 1 and I certainly expect that, as we face a potential 2.5 2 standard, it will clearly put the focus on this kind of 3 issue. And there will have to be a debate about what kinds 4 of programs will work. 5 Now, the good news is, we hope that a lot of days 6 you'll be able to use your fireplace and have a clean 7 conscience. But on those days where it causes a problem, I 8 think we'll have to face some kind of a program. 9 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: The measure of health risk, 10 though, is the question. I mean, if you have a peaking one 11 day when you have an inversion layer, and it does peak the 12 charts on a graph, on that day the assessment of the health 13 risk for that day, for that moment in time, for human health 14 versus extrapolating, boy, if you had those peaks everyday 15 of the year, it would be dangerous. 16 Should we get to a point where we do what the 17 scientists for years have done with sound? They have 18 measurements of sound, and you can have a real loud blast of 19 a fire cracker, and that is equated in the bigger scheme of 20 things as something that goes on for a 24-hour duration, and 21 averaging it out, that isn't such a big deal versus a big, 22 loud noise that goes on for 15 or 16 hours a day that may be 23 one-tenth the sound of the fire cracker. 24 Are these assessments going to be put in the mix? 25 MS. TERRY: Well, you're asking great questions of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 153 1 the toxicologists in the room in terms of short-term high 2 level exposures, long-term lower level exposures and so on. 3 And those are things we need to learn more about. 4 MR. SCHEIBLE: And EPA is having in their standard 5 development process that very debate, should the standard be 6 a peak 24-hour reading, should it be a combination of the 7 high day. They're even going into is there area averaging? 8 And there's many policies they'll have to make. 9 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Okay. The question that I want 10 to know is how much we, as Californians, and one of the 11 world leaders in this, is going to be on the edge of 12 convincing them that maybe there are better approaches than 13 some of the approaches they may be taking? Or are we just 14 monitoring and watching, and coming back and reacting? 15 I know in the SIP process, we had to lead them 16 around a little bit if I remember correctly. Are we going 17 to have the same kind of approach in the PM10 world? 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, if I might preempt the 19 response from Mr. Boyd -- I saw him grabbing the mike -- I 20 think one of the things that we've done, it seems to me -- 21 and Jim, you're certainly the resident historian on this -- 22 but we've not so much sat on the sidelines, Doug, as gone 23 out and tried to answer the technical questions and let 24 people know, remind them of the expertise that this Board 25 has in the air pollution field. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 154 1 I don't want to suggest that Jim and the staff 2 have been sitting on their hands relative to the debate or 3 the discussion, but rather we've been waiting for some smoke 4 puffs and some signals relative to what the thinking is. 5 Because it's been -- there hasn't been any commitment. 6 There's been, as we know from about a month ago or 7 two months ago, there was health effect studies that some 8 environment groups put out that got an awful lot of Press 9 attention. And that helped crystalize and remind people of 10 some of the health implications of particulate matter on the 11 body. 12 So, I guess it's kind of up to us and how active 13 we are in the debate and discussion. But I can assure you, 14 if there are unreasonable expectations, you, as a member of 15 the Board -- by the Federal Government that is -- you, as a 16 member of this Board, have every right -- no, you have an 17 obligation to bring up or suggest a course of action or 18 aggressive course that we might follow relative to getting 19 involved with what's going on at the Federal level 20 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: So, I guess -- 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I think it's early. Jim, is 22 that a fair characterization? 23 MR. BOYD: Well, it's been a very difficult road 24 to follow. As you know, California set the first standard, 25 and it turned out to be three times more stringent than the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 155 1 ultimate Federal PM10 standard. And the one thing -- your 2 questions are all excellent questions, and they're almost 3 21st Century questions with regard to where the state of t 4 he art is, because the one thing you've got to realize -- 5 and you probably do realize -- is that the standard right 6 now in terms of what affects human health is just tied to 7 the size of particle, no matter what its constituency is, or 8 where it came from. The size of particle that medical 9 science has shown to be harmful to the lung. 10 And PM10 was that first huge significant cut point 11 from the early days of just total suspended particulate was 12 not good for you. So, the emphasis has just been, for quite 13 a long time, how can you get PM10 reduced? As mentioned 14 earlier, like so many of the things in this State we've been 15 lucky with, there have been spillover benefits from other 16 programs, even the ozone program, that have helped in this 17 arena o,r as you will recall down through time, many is the 18 proposal we brought forward on the basis of ozone or 19 something else where we have told you that there is a PM 20 benefit to it. 21 The scientists are struggling with the question of 22 what perhaps you can prioritize, which one is worse. Are 23 the PAHs in wood smoke really worse than something else. 24 And, as Mike Scheible indicated earlier, that debate has 25 been affecting the ability of the Federal Government to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 156 1 revise its standard. 2 But my feeling is we're a long ways away from 3 having answers to that question. 4 Now, the flip side is, what do we do about it? 5 And do we have the fireplace police and so on and so forth? 6 I think recent experience with social experimentation has 7 been disastrous, if nothing else, for air pollution control 8 folks. 9 And so, I think public education, and 10 volunteerism, and conscience is going to probably be part of 11 some of the ways that will take place as we deal with days 12 like today or many days around here, which are voluntary, 13 you know, cut-down-the-driving days, because of the ozone 14 dilemma we've had and the educational programs that many 15 districts have. 16 Much has been the situation with regard to 17 fireplaces, and fireplace smoke, except in areas like Reno 18 or Squaw Valley, where it's been so severe for many years 19 now, they really do have green line/red light, and I think 20 people perhaps are sensitized to maybe know that you just 21 don't do it. I frankly don't know what their enforcement 22 mechanism. But I do know that people are very sensitized to 23 it. 24 And as you know only too well from the San Joaquin 25 Valley study, there are people who would like to know is my PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 157 1 contribution better or worse than the next person's 2 contribution. And that's some of what the PM10, the valley 3 study, will be trying to look at over the years. 4 But I'm afraid we're a fairly long time away from 5 allocating or reallocating the prime responsibility to some 6 subset of those who contribute PM10, or 2.5, or whatever. I 7 think all we've learned -- all we're learning now from the 8 science is that 2.5 is -- down in that size range is what 9 really gets deep in the lung and is bad for you vis-a-vis 10 10. But they know 10 is bad, too. 11 So, it's kind of 2.5 is worse than 10; 10 is bad, 12 too. And we're really in the -- we're not in the dark ages, 13 but we're in the very early years. And that's why I've said 14 for a decade that PM is the 21st Century pollutant. It is 15 right now, as you are seeing, will replace ozone as the 16 dilemma that air pollution people have to deal with. 17 And the bad thing about it is what's been learned 18 in the last several years, and it was just mentioned there 19 have been more studies that particulate matter seems to be 20 the only thing that has actually been documented to kill 21 people versus just affecting health. 22 So, particulate matter is bad stuff, and a lot of 23 people are going to have to wrestle with it. There are a 24 lot of answers. We just don't -- there are questions we 25 don't have the answers to yet. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 158 1 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Mr. Chairman, one final 2 question. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure. 4 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Jim, as you know, I guess 5 ozone, no matter who contributes to it, always ends up being 6 03. Where, in this instance, it can be any configuration of 7 a molecule binding with another molecule to be either 2.5 or 8 10. Who is working on the fact, if I put out the same 9 amount of 2.5 and 10 as a guy who puts out something else 10 from a different source at 2.5 and 10, quantifiably the same 11 amounts but different constituents, different signatures, 12 who is working on measuring to say which one's more 13 unhealthy than the other one? 14 MR. BOYD: Well, that gets to the role of research 15 that we discussed earlier. And people are just beginning to 16 begin; beginning to have a little bit of money left in the 17 priorities to address questions like this. 18 And we're just scratching the surface. 19 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Is anybody working on it, or is 20 it something we ought to be putting in the kitty for 21 research? 22 MR. BOYD: I think EPA has looked at this in their 23 research program to some extent, and we've talked about it a 24 lot, as you know, in the context of the valley study. And 25 we've talked about it, as your staff, in the context of how PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 159 1 do we allocate our limited research budget each year. 2 But I'd have to almost turn to somebody else to 3 have somebody run the flag up to know which study there is. 4 I think Mr. Cackette here has got a live one perhaps. But 5 it's just beginning. 6 MR. CACKETTE: It is just the beginning. But if 7 you look at the health effects -- particulate matter health 8 effects proposal in our research plan, one of the things 9 that we're trying to better understand here is what is the 10 biological mechanism that causes the health effect itself? 11 We know that particles go deep into the lungs. We 12 know they sit there. But the actual mechanism is not well 13 understood. It's not well understood for the variety of 14 both particles by size and by chemical constituency that 15 exists there. 16 I think starting at that point, a better 17 understanding will help us sort out whether a PM2.5 particle 18 that happens to be solid carbon versus a PM 2.5 particle 19 that happens to be something else that has laden on it 52 20 different chemicals - which, in fact, are causing the 21 problem? And it's not a trivial exercise at all in the area 22 of diesel particulate, where I think most people understand 23 that diesel exhaust is made up of PM sub 1 micron materials 24 that go by all the defense mechanisms in your body, get deep 25 into the lung. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 160 1 But there are also carbon, and so they absorb like 2 a carbon canister would, these many, many known carcinogenic 3 or highly suspected carcinogenic materials that are in the 4 exhaust with the diesel. 5 We've yet been able to, after spending millions 6 and millions of dollars -- not just ARB, but particularly 7 the auto industry and the U.S. EPA -- fully understand 8 whether it's the particles or whether it's what's absorbed 9 on the particles that causes lung cancer in that case. 10 And so, it's a very difficult -- in fact, some of 11 the best results have been a little bit counterintuitive. 12 They ran a study where animals were exposed to just what 13 they call carbon black, which is a pure carbon material with 14 nothing on it versus the same kind of carbon with 15 carcinogenic materials on it. And, in fact, the carbon 16 black caused the same reaction as the stuff that had the bad 17 stuff absorbed on it. 18 So, there's a lot to learn. But that's maybe one 19 of the more fundamental research efforts that we're trying 20 to do to see if we can't get a better handle on which are 21 the bad actors. 22 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: So, we will be seeing more 23 research requests like this? 24 MR. CACKETTE: Yeah, and there's lots of people 25 doing this outside of ARB, too. And we're trying to, you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 161 1 know, complement that, but look at all the research going on 2 in the world on this issue. 3 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. 4 Chairman. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: You're welcome. Mr. Lagarias. 6 MR. LAGARIAS: The question that Supervisor Vagim 7 proposes is very similar to the experience we've had with 8 volatile organic gases. We've been regulated them for 20, 9 25 years, before we started looking at the reactivity of the 10 components and speciating them, and trying to find out which 11 the bad actors are. 12 Now we're at the process where we're regulating 13 the particulate -- the PM10, and you're hoping to speciate 14 that and find out if there are any bad actors on there. 15 Jack here was asking me, are there any good actors 16 or anything that's acceptable. We already know that 17 asbestosis is a bad actor; that miners have problems with 18 certain species. But I think for now the mere fact that 19 we're regulating PM10 is appropriate. We know it's a 20 health effect disorder. And maybe there's a smoking gun. 21 Maybe there's a component there that if we get out, we're 22 home free. 23 Don't count on it. 24 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: One final thing. Mr. Lagarias 25 I think brought up a very important point. And that is that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 162 1 this may -- the speciation may never end, because everytime 2 we come up with a new chemical in our society, it may bind 3 with something else to create another culprit. 4 And so, the researchers are getting ongoing 5 exactly what that thing does and when it becomes a particle, 6 either when it's created through evaporation or through 7 combustion. 8 So, it's always going to be an ongoing chore to 9 see which one of those guys is the new culprit on the scene 10 so to speak. 11 MR. LAGARIAS: Well, in the case of PM10, we 12 didn't have any control over secondary aerosols until just 13 five years ago that they were even recognized as an issue. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And that's one of the reasons 15 we've been involved for so many years in the San Joaquin 16 Valley study, Doug, to try to get those answers. 17 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: It's going to bring all the 18 answers. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yeah. Okay. Is there anything 20 else to add, staff? Mr. Boyd, on this item? 21 Yes, Mayor Hilligoss. 22 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Mr. Chairman, in the Bay Area, 23 we do have a voluntary program in the wintertime. It's 24 "Don't Light Tonight." 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: "Don't Light Tonight"? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 163 1 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Yeah, don't light your 2 fireplace. And if the weather is bad, we ask them not to 3 light. And the last two years, we haven't had to, because 4 the weather has been all right. But in Petaluma, for the 5 last five years, we've had an ordinance that does not -- all 6 the new houses cannot have wood fires in them unless they 7 have a catalyst. And also, it has to have EPA wood -- 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. Certification. 9 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Yeah. Certification. And that 10 seems to have helped in our area. 11 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: It's similar, except on your 12 bad nights, your good night comes down to our area. 13 (Laughter.) 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. 15 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: We have your bad nights. 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Mr. Boyd, do you have 17 anything to add on this item? 18 MR. BOYD: No further comments. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Did we have any written 20 comments, Ms. Terry? Not that I'm looking for any. 21 MS. TERRY: Well, we have one very brief one, not 22 directly related to the presentation, a comment from an 23 individual concerned about the adequacy of PM10 monitoring 24 in the Sacramento region. 25 So, we will respond to him in the context of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 164 1 Sacramento District activities. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Thanks to staff for 3 doing a very thorough job. I appreciate very much the time 4 and effort and the priority you've made this program. 5 Mr. Boyd, I trust there's no further business you 6 have for the Board, so I may hop into an item or two? 7 MR. BOYD: That's correct. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. I would like, Jim, to ask 9 you to come to the podium over there, if you wouldn't mind. 10 And I'd ask Mr. Parnell to join him. 11 Many of you know this. Jim is set to retire 12 August 15th. And this will be his last Board meeting. And 13 it is our hope that he'll be able to join us at the 14 September Board meeting for some other activities. 15 In the meantime, Jim, we have a small presentation 16 for you, a letter again sent from Governor Wilson that I'd 17 like to have Jack read to you, at which time, we'll heap 18 some praise upon you and give you a few moments if you'd 19 like to comment. 20 Go ahead, Jack. 21 MR. PARNELL: Thank you. It's a pleasure for me 22 to be able to read the letter from the Governor, because Jim 23 and I have traveled a few miles together and his presence 24 will be missed. 25 It says to Jim Boyd: PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 165 1 "On behalf of the State of California, it 2 gives me a great deal of pleasure to extend my 3 sincere congratulations as you retire following 4 more than 20 years of outstanding service at the 5 Air Resources Board, including 15 years as its 6 Executive Officer. 7 "Throughout your long and distinguished 8 career, you've established an exemplary reputation 9 for quality management and effective 10 leadership, and earned the respect and admiration 11 of all who have had the pleasure of working with 12 you. Your expertise, as well as your friendship, 13 will be sorely missed by your colleagues at the 14 ARB. 15 "As you take the time to reflect on the 16 significant accomplishments that mark your 17 career, you can take great pride in knowing that 18 your efforts have made a profound difference in 19 the lives of all Californians. 20 "I join everyone at the Air Resources 21 Board in applauding you and thanking you for 22 your many contributions to the Golden Gate. 23 Please accept my very best wishes for a 24 rewarding and fulfilling retirement. You have 25 certainly earned it. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 166 1 "Sincerely, Pete Wilson." 2 (Standing Ovation.) 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Jim, the time is yours. But I 4 can't help but notice that for a relatively low key Board 5 meeting, we have a standing-room only crowd back there. I'm 6 certain they're here for you. 7 MR. BOYD: I know that PM10s are important. 8 Well, were but I retiring, and were I that old, 9 darn it. 10 Anyway, members of the Board and staff of the Air 11 Resources Board, I address you this last time with very 12 mixed emotions; thus, I've written my presentation rather 13 than risk an ad hoc presentation. 14 The idea of leaving the Air Resources Board after 15 over 20 years is difficult for me to comprehend or, frankly, 16 to accept. I have worked under six ARB chairmen and women, 17 five as their Executive Officer. And this morning, we 18 quickly toted up and I have served, I believe, 34 Board 19 members in that period of time. 20 I have been blessed to see phenomenal progress in 21 the battle against air pollution. I have been lucky enough 22 to participate in the creation and the implementation of 23 innumerable new and different approaches to solving the 24 problems of air pollution. Yet I know the work of the 25 organization is not finished. I know there is so much more PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 167 1 to be accomplished and so many new and exciting ways to 2 approach solutions to these problems. 3 I leave therefore, not because I know the job is 4 done, nor because of some higher calling, or because some 5 lucrative offer has lured me away, but because of events 6 that have occurred over recent time that have caused me to 7 think of myself --maybe for the first time in a long time-- 8 my own well being, and the quality of work life that I 9 experience. 10 I realize that there comes a time in life, and 11 probably enough of us don't look at that, when one should 12 ask: "What's best for me, for my health, my welfare, and my 13 well being?" 14 And the result of that evaluation for me led to my 15 decision earlier this month to leave the organization. I am 16 not retiring, unfortunately. I have no employment plans at 17 present. I do plan to take a little time for myself. 18 Perhaps I'll read a book. I did that once. In the 1960s. 19 (Laughter.) 20 I read Future Shock, which had a profound effect 21 on my thinking, quite frankly. And it's time for new 22 insight into the future, and it's time for me to read 23 perhaps another book, more up to date. 24 When I assumed the job of Executive Officer 25 fifteen years ago, there were five part-time Board members, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 168 1 including the Chair. It grew to seven, then nine, then 2 eleven. The Chair became a fulltime Chair at the beginning 3 of this Administration. 4 And when I began as Executive Officer, I pledged 5 to the Board at that time in my campaign for the position -- 6 and there were a good number of people, primarily outside 7 the organization, going for the job -- I pledged to the 8 Board, based on the experience I had had here at that time, 9 that my priorities as their new Executive Officer would be 10 as follows: 11 First, to reestablish a positive and constructive 12 relationship with California's local governments, most 13 certainly air pollution control districts who, with the 14 counties and cities themselves -- obviously, at that time, 15 we were at a fairly low point; secondly, to provide that the 16 regulatory proposals that we made to the Board would be 17 based on unimpeachable technical work, thus working to 18 establish the unquestionable technical credibility of the 19 staff of the California Air Resources Board. 20 Thirdly, to rebuild the organization and to build 21 its morale, and to create, thus, a harmonious team; and, 22 fourthly, to continue to work to protect the sovereignty of 23 the State of California to carry out its own air pollution 24 control program. 25 I believe history reflecting the events of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 169 1 past and present will show that the staff responded to these 2 challenges with now famous enthusiasm. And for that, I am 3 immensely proud of the men and women of the staff of the Air 4 Resources Board. 5 I'd like to give a bit of advice to my successor 6 that may be of value to him or her in helping get the job 7 done around here. 8 This is an incredible organization, peopled by the 9 absolute best employees anyone could ever hope to have. I 10 tell you, care about them, care for them, nurture them, 11 share with them your goals and your aspirations. This is a 12 team. This is a family made up of people. It is people 13 that make things happen, make the system go, who get the 14 work done, who devise the ideas and the answers that solve 15 the problems. They are the creative thinkers. Listen to 16 them. Listen to their ideas and their differing points of 17 view. Have an open mind and accept on a regular basis that 18 they might be right. 19 Inspire them, empower them, praise them, lead 20 them, and never deceive them. They will go the extra mile 21 for you. These people wrote the book on quality and service 22 long before it became fashionable. 23 Also, I would advise you, whoever you may be, that 24 you never assume that there is not a better answer, a better 25 way out there somewhere. Always pursue change. Never get PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 170 1 caught thinking that the ever-accelerating pace of 2 technological development and of communications has paused, 3 stopped, or reached its limits. Push it. Push the envelope 4 always. People do and will always find a way. 5 Finally, I'd like to share some observations 6 gained from thirty-five years in California State 7 Government, serving in a variety of organizations and 8 assignments, five Governors, five different organizations, 9 fourteen distinct different assignments. I believe I have 10 seen every conceivable organization and program management 11 approach and technique. 12 You have an Air Resources Board with its policy 13 board and a staff operating under Board direction, the 14 finest design for a regulatory operation that I have ever 15 seen, a Board composed of members who, according to law, are 16 either local elected officials with air quality program 17 responsibilities, or professional people with technical 18 skills, reviewing policy proposals and making policy 19 recommendations in the public arena; therefore, totally in 20 the sunshine. 21 This offers the fairest and most equitable 22 approach to regulatory decision-making that the citizens of 23 California could ever hope for. It is part of what has made 24 California the Golden State, has sustained California's 25 heretofore high quality of life standards; in turn, fueling PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 171 1 the economic engine that has sustained California as one of 2 the world's economic powerhouses. 3 Historically, the California air pollution control 4 program has enjoyed bipartisan support from the California 5 Legislature and undying support from the citizens of the 6 State. This needs to continue. 7 I salute the Board and all of its previous members 8 for their dedication to the cause of protecting and 9 improving the health of the citizens of California, and for 10 their courage in consistently striving to make California 11 not just like one of the other States, but the best State. 12 You have sustained us as we have striven to 13 protect the health and welfare of California, and we have 14 striven to fuel the economic engine that provides ultimately 15 the resources, the wealth, to pay for needed changes. 16 Please continue your good work to protect and to 17 sustain that program. 18 I thank everybody for their support. I thank them 19 for their friendship, and I thank you all for the memories. 20 Thanks. 21 (Standing ovation.) 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well said, Jim. Thank you very 23 much. And thank you for the many years of dedicated 24 service. And good luck to you. 25 For those in the audience that I'm certain have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 172 1 contacted Jim's office or my office, or others, there are 2 going to be plenty of opportunities to express your 3 appreciation for Jim's service and well wishes to him. And 4 they're being planned now. 5 And we'll make sure that folks are made aware of 6 them. Again, Jim, thank you. 7 What I would like to do is make a quick 8 announcement to report back in public the results of the 9 closed session. Earlier today, the Board met in closed 10 session. During that meeting, the Board voted unanimously 11 to select Michael Kenny, currently serving as the ARB's 12 Chief Counsel, as the ARB's new Executive Officer, effective 13 August 16th, 1996. 14 Mr. Kenny has been notified of the Board's 15 decision and has accepted the appointment. And I'd like to 16 congratulate you, Mike. 17 MR. KENNY: Thank you very much. 18 (Standing Ovation.) 19 MR. KENNY: I very much appreciate the Board's 20 confidence. And, at the same time, I have very mixed 21 emotions about this day. I've worked with Jim for a number 22 of years, and he has been an extraordinary person to work 23 with. So, I have some fairly large shoes to fill. And I 24 recognize that. 25 I think really that's pretty much all I have to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 173 1 say today. And we'll talk again soon. 2 Thank you. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mike. 4 Thank you all for your attendance and your 5 interest in today's items. 6 We do have one remaining request to speak. 7 Mr. DeBottari, Lou DeBottari, are you here sir? 8 You've asked to have a few minutes, and I'd like 9 to provide that to you now. And then after we hear from 10 you, sir, we're going to conclude our meeting. 11 MR. DE BOTTARI: I thank you. I come here today 12 to inform you of a problem created by the imposition of CBG 13 in all of California. I have a vocal problem I've got. It 14 must be PM10. I don't know. 15 I live in an area of Mono County 18 miles from the 16 Nevada border. Our area has no measurable air pollution. 17 This Board in the past has recognized the uniqueness of our 18 area. First, you gave an exemption -- you exempted small 19 stations from having to implement vapor recovery. 20 Second, when the Board required oxygenated fuel to 21 be dispensed, you recognized the financial hardships of 22 small stations and again modified the regulations so that 23 small stations receiving gasoline and small tankers were 24 exempted. 25 The only ones who complained at the hearing were PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 174 1 the large oil companies. 2 Now, with the new regulations, small stations in 3 northern Mono County and other rural counties are at the 4 mercy of secondary bulk plants. Before the CBG regulation, 5 we had numerous small bulk plants in Nevada where we could 6 shop for the best price. Now I can only buy from a facility 7 in South Lake Tahoe or Lee Vining. I realize they tell that 8 transportation costs are low (sic), but they increased the 9 gas prices, and then -- they've increased the gas prices. 10 They truck the fuel from Sacramento and they know 11 the small stations have no option. The local people now 12 very seldom buy locally because of the significant price 13 difference between Nevada and us, about 35 cents a gallon. 14 There is no benefit to the air quality and no benefit to the 15 State or the local economy. 16 Everyone suffers just enough -- everyone purchases 17 just enough to get to Nevada and, thus, Nevada benefits from 18 the regulation, not California. 19 I urge this Board to revisit this problem. I 20 thank you. And that's all I can say right now. 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Mr. DeBottari, you know 22 full well, sir, how important the Cleaner Burning Gasoline 23 program is to our air quality program? 24 MR. DE BOTTARI: Absolutely. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: You have been very active and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 175 1 very involved and interested in looking out not only for 2 your subregion's area, but also in pointing out to us where 3 we might have a flawed program. And I'm grateful for that 4 and for your interest. 5 One of the things that we're doing that might 6 provide you with some comfort is we're continuing to monitor 7 and evaluate what's been going on with the introduction of 8 this program. Mr. Boyd has been working very closely with 9 his colleague at the Energy Commission, Mr. Rhoads. The 10 Governor has maintained at the Energy Commission an 11 emergency reporting provision whereby we're getting detailed 12 information from the oil companies about what's going on 13 with supply and production. 14 We will continue to do that. We'll continue to 15 examine all options to make this program a success. And 16 we'll continue to evaluate the issues that you bring before 17 us. 18 But I must tell you this program is so valuable to 19 our clean air strategy that the thought of a suspension or 20 deleting a portion of our State from the program causes us 21 some concern, not to turn a blind eye to those consumers or 22 motorists that found themselves in an untenable position 23 relative to price. But we think that that might be a short- 24 sighted approach, and there's not support here to make a 25 change along those lines. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 176 1 MR. DE BOTTARI: I understand where you're coming 2 from. I'm just saying that the amount of gas being bought 3 in that area is small. Everybody's buying their gas in 4 Nevada. I'm pressing to get the gas in the pipeline; that's 5 the other alternative. Because this is what's hurting us. 6 Either the gas gets in the pipeline, and then I 7 don't care. I mean, it's not the CBG I'm complaining about. 8 It's the idea that you have created special interests that 9 are just milking us dry up in our area, because there's no 10 place we can compete. 11 The ranchers have the same problem. The ranchers 12 are in real trouble up there, too. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, what I would propose to do 14 is ask Mr. Scheible to maybe take a visit up to your area. 15 We'll send the high level representative from the Board 16 staff to maybe spend some time with you up there to learn 17 more about the specifics of the problem, talk to some 18 people, look at the data that we have, and get you some 19 answers. 20 Would that help in the short-term? 21 MR. DE BOTTARI: That certainly helps. I'd like 22 to, also, since Nevada is already got their problem in Reno, 23 why can't we be pressing EPA to push them -- if this gas is 24 so great, get it in the pipeline, so Nevada has it. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Well, with that, Mike, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 177 1 I'll ask you to get in the car and take a drive. 2 MR. SCHEIBLE: I've been to far worse places than 3 Mono County. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: That won't be tough duty for 5 you, I don't think. 6 MR. DE BOTTARI: There's great fishing now. 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yeah. All right. So, Mike, 8 I'll look for you to report back to the Board on what you've 9 learned and some remedies that you would suggest, if any. 10 MR. SCHEIBLE: We'll also do a careful -- we get 11 data from the Board of Equalization and, if they can break 12 it down by county, we will assess whether there's been any 13 switch in fuel sales on the border counties. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Mr. DeBottari, don't 15 stray. I'll invite you to spend a few minutes with Mr. 16 Scheible, get his calendar and figure out when you can get 17 him up there. 18 All right. With that, if there's no other 19 business, the July meeting of the California Air Resources 20 Board will now adjourn. 21 (Thereupon, the meeting was adjourned 22 at 4:10 p.m.) 23 --o0o-- 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 178 CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER I, Nadine J. Parks, a shorthand reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify that I am a disinterested person herein; that the foregoing meeting was reported by me in shorthand writing, and thereafter transcribed into typewriting. I further certify that I am not of counsel or attorney for any of the parties to said meeting, nor am I interested in the outcome of said meeting. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 4th day of August , 1996. Nadine J. Parks Shorthand Reporter PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345