BOARD MEETING STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY COASTAL HEARING ROOM, SECOND FLOOR 1001 I STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2002 9:00 A.M. JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NUMBER 10063 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii APPEARANCES BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Allan Lloyd, Chairperson Mr. Joseph Calhoun Mrs. Barbara Riordan Ms. Dorene D'Adamo Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Mr. Matthew McKinnon STAFF Mr. Mike Kenny, Executive Officer Mr. Tom Cackette, Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Mike Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Chuck Bennett, Air Resources Engineer Mr. Richard Bode, Chief, Health and Exposure Assessment Branch Mr. Joseph Calavita, South Coast Air Quality Management District Liaison Mr. Bart Croes, P.E., Chief, Research Division Mr. Bob Effa, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch Mr. Bob Fletcher, Chief, Planning and Technical Support Division Ms. Tracy Hysong, Population Studies Section Mr. Kurt Karperos, Manager, Transportation Strategies Section PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii APPEARANCES CONTINUED STAFF CONTINUED Ms. Leslie Krinsk, Senior Staff Counsel Mr. Jeff Lindberg, Air Pollution Specialist Ms. Karen Magliano, Manager, Particulate Matter Analysis Section Ms. Cynthia Marvin, Chief, Air Quality and Transportation Planning Branch Mr. Kirk Oliver, Senior Staff Counsel Ms. Tina Suarez-Murias, Air Pollution Specialist Ms. Kathleen Tschogl, Ombudsman Mr. Leo Vann, Smog Check Policy Advisor Dr. Barbara Weller, Manager, Population Studies Section PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv INDEX PAGE Roll Call 1 Item 02-1-1 4 Chairperson Lloyd 4 Executive Officer Kenny 4 Staff presentation 5 Discussion 9 Item 02-1-2 15 Chairperson Lloyd 15 Executive Officer Kenny 16 Staff presentation 17 Discussion 35 Item 02-1-3 53 Chairperson Lloyd 53 Executive Officer Kenny 53 Staff presentation 54 Ms. Cantrall 69 Mr. Pearson 71 Mr. Leary 74 Mr. Forester 77 Ms. Lee 84 Dr. Wallerstein 92 Ms. Holmes-Gen 94 Mr. Hirschinger 97 Mr. Davis 100 Ms. Cory 101 Mr. Larry Greene 112 Mr. Conway 114 Mr. Speckert 116 Mr. Barkhouse 117 Mr. Smith 122 Mr. Covell 124 Mr. Matthews 137 Mr. Moreo 138 Mr. Stephans 146 Mr. Caseri 163 Mr. Hemminger 164 Mr. Reynolds 170 Mr. Wolbach 177 Mr. Nishikawa 180 Mr. Morgan 183 Mr. Jones 188 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 v INDEX CONTINUED PAGE Item 02-1-3 Continued Discussion 192 Vote 201 Item 02-1-5 201 Chairperson Lloyd 201 Executive Officer Kenny 202 Staff presentation 202 Senator Johanessen 130 Mr. Lucas 219 Mr. Trimlett 231 Mr. Boire 233 Mr. Wiltse 246 Mr. Bohanan 249 Mr. Andriesse 263 Discussion 267 Vote 307 Item 01-2-6 311 Chairperson Lloyd 311 Vote 312 Item 01-2-7 312 Vote 313 Adjournment 313 Reporter's Certificate 314 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Good morning. The February 3 21st, 2002 public meeting of the Air Resources Board will 4 now come to order. 5 Mr. Calhoun, would you please lead us in the 6 Pledge of Allegiance. 7 (Thereupon Board Member Calhoun lead the 8 Pledge of Allegiance.) 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Will the Clerk of the Board 10 please call the roll. 11 BOARD CLERK KAVAN: Dr. Burke? 12 Mr. Calhoun? 13 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Here. 14 BOARD CLERK KAVAN: Ms. D'Adamo? 15 Supervisor DeSaulnier? 16 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Here. 17 BOARD CLERK KAVAN: Professor Friedman? 18 Dr. Friedman? 19 Mr. McKinnon? 20 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Here. 21 BOARD CLERK KAVAN: Supervisor Patrick? 22 Mrs. Riordan? 23 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. 24 BOARD CLERK KAVAN: Supervisor Roberts? 25 Chairman Lloyd. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Here. Well, the Chair is 2 often accused of actually slowing things down. This time 3 he's going to try and speed things up. He has to slow it 4 down, because we don't have a quorum. So I guess we 5 cannot start without a quorum. We're expecting Ms. 6 D'Adamo here any time. She's in transit. 7 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Do you want some jokes 8 while we wait? 9 (Laughter.) 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, as long as they're bay 11 area? 12 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I was going to tell 13 something about the valley. 14 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I live in the valley. 15 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Sorry. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: You should also be aware, I 17 guess, that this was not our idea to have these barriers 18 put on either side, so that we can't come down this way or 19 you can't come up on to the Board side either. 20 Okay. I think for everybody's benefit here, 21 let's adjourn till 9:30. You can see it's 9:15 there now, 22 so we'll adjourn till 9:30. 23 Thank you. Sorry for the false alarm. 24 (Thereupon a brief recess was taken.) 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I'd like to continue the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 hearing and I'd like to continue with the roll call. 2 BOARD CLERK KAVAN: Ms. D'Adamo? 3 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. So we 5 now have a quorum. Before we get started, let me find out 6 from my fellow board members and the audience, that agenda 7 item 02-1-4 proposed amendments to ARB Alternative Fuels 8 Specification For Propane and Compressed Natural Gas and 9 Liquefied Natural Gas has been postponed to our May 2002 10 hearing, in order to give all the affected parties to come 11 with to a mutually workable solution. 12 I can attest that Mr. Kenny and his staff are 13 working strenuously to this bring item to the Board, and 14 that the extra time is both necessary and will, in fact, 15 be spent as clearly a lot of work to be done on that item. 16 The next thing I want to draw the attention of 17 the Board is a new agenda item that we plan to have at 18 every board meeting from this day forward, namely the 19 Public Health Update. 20 As you know, our research program has continued 21 to produce ground breaking results in the public health 22 arena,as we saw with the release of the USC data on ozone 23 and asthma causation. 24 The purpose of the monthly health updates is to 25 keep the Board current and to give you a chance to ask PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 staff about the studies involved. I think this will be 2 enormously helpful to all of us in carrying out our duties 3 and to protect public health. I think this item in 4 conjunction with the public health news letter, which is 5 being now a regular production, will be significant to the 6 public to understand the issues that we face and 7 understand why we need to protect public health. 8 So with that, I would like to begin the first 9 item. I would like to remind everyone in the audience who 10 wishes to testify on today's agenda items, to please sign 11 up with the Clerk of the Board. 12 Also, if you have a written statement, please 13 provide 30 copies to the Board Clerk if that's possible. 14 As I mentioned, the first item is 02-1-1, an 15 update a recent research findings as to the effects of air 16 pollution on public health. I'd like to turn it over to 17 Mr. Kenny to introduce this item. 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman 19 and Members of the Board. 20 This informational item will highlights recent 21 findings from the Children's Health Study. The Children's 22 Healthy study is a large epidemiological study of the 23 chronic effects of air pollution on more than 5,000 24 children in southern California. 25 This study, which began in 1992, is funded by the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 Air Resources Boarded and carried out by researchers at 2 the University of Sourthern California. The objective for 3 this study is to determine air pollution's impacts on 4 children. 5 Children are one of the subpopulations most 6 sensitive to air pollution, and little is known about the 7 health effects on children's long-term exposures to air 8 pollution. 9 The findings Emerging from this study have been 10 impressive. And today, Tracy Hysong will update the Board 11 on the latest findings of the study. 12 Tracy. 13 MS. HYSONG: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. 14 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 15 presented as follows.) 16 MS. HYSONG: Good morning, Dr. Lloyd and Members 17 of the Board. I will be presenting two recent and 18 important findings from the Children's Health Study. This 19 study, which has been underway for ten years now, 20 continues to provide valuable information on the link 21 between air pollution and respiratory health in children. 22 --o0o-- 23 MS. HYSONG: I have included a map of the 12 24 communities chosen for the study. The communities were 25 chosen because of their varying levels of particulate PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 matter, measuredAs PM 10, ozone, oxides of nitrogen, acid 2 vapor and ultrafine particles. 3 --o0o-- 4 MS. HYSONG: Important results previously 5 released from this study include the following, days with 6 higher ozone concentrations result in significantly higher 7 school absences due to respiratory illness. Recent 8 calculations indicate that decreases in ozone in the South 9 Coast Air Basin have avoided 2.9 million school absences 10 over an eight-year period. 11 Children with asthma who are exposed to higher 12 concentrations of particles are much more likely to 13 develop bronchitis, and that children living in 14 communities with higher concentrations of particulate 15 matter nitrogen dioxide andAs vapor have lungs that 16 develop more slowly and are less able to move air through 17 them. Deficits in lung function growth average about one 18 percent per year. This decrease lung development could 19 have permanent adverse results. 20 I want to focus my discussion on the two most 21 recent findings of the study and their Implications for 22 public health protection. The findings provide 23 confirmation of these previous results and add to our 24 knowledge of the adverse effects of fair pollution on 25 children's respiratory health. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 --o0o-- 2 MS. HYSONG: The first of these findings that has 3 received much media attention is based on examining asthma 4 incidents in the high- and low-ozone communities. The 5 investigators divided children into two groups, those 6 participating in three or more team sports and those not 7 participating in team sports. The team sports group was 8 usedAs a way to identify those children most active in 9 physical activities. 10 The results indicate that children in high ozone 11 communities who played three or more sports are 3.3 times 12 more likely to develop asthma than children who play no 13 sports. In communities with low-ozone concentrations, 14 there was no relationship between the number of team 15 sports played and the development of asthma. 16 Additionally, none of the other pollutants, 17 including nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter or acid 18 vapor showed a relationship with the development of 19 asthma. 20 While it is known that air pollution can 21 exacerbate existing cases of asthma, this study is 22 important because it is one of the first to indicate a 23 possible causal role of air pollution in asthma 24 development. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 MS. HYSONG: The Children's Health Study 2 investigators released another finding in late December 3 that did not get as much media attention, but also has 4 important impacts on public health protection. 5 The second finding is based on an analysis of 6 children in the study who moved away from their original 7 study communities. These children experienced changes in 8 air pollution exposure after moving. Some moved to 9 cleaner communities, others moved to dirtier communities. 10 The goal of this analysis was to determine 11 whether these children's average annual lung function 12 growth rates were related to the changes in their air 13 pollution exposures. 14 The changes are related. The children's lung 15 function growth rates tended to increase if the new 16 location had lower PM 10As compared to the older location. 17 This finding provides evidence that children's lung growth 18 responds to changes in air pollution exposures. 19 --o0o-- 20 MS. HYSONG:As I mentioned previously, the results 21 of these latest findings have important impacts on our 22 work to protect the public health of Californians and 23 children. The results of the sports, air pollution and 24 asthma study provide evidence of the possible causal role 25 of air pollution in asthma development. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 Findings from this study underline the importance 2 of ozone health advisories and the need to continue to 3 reduce ozone in our communities throughout the State. 4 Results of the relocation study are important 5 because they are consistent with previous results reported 6 from the children's health study, indicating that children 7 living in higher ambient PM 10 areas have lower rates of 8 annual lung function growth. 9 The relocation study indicates that during the 10 teen years of development, the rate of lung function 11 growth can be altered by a large change in exposure to air 12 pollution. Results of the study highlight the importance 13 of reducing exposure to particulate matter and immediate 14 benefits to children's health can be obtained. We look 15 forward to sharing future results of this important study 16 with you. 17 Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 19 Questions from the Board? 20 What is the continuing role of the ARB in the USC 21 study? 22 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 23 The study actually has another two years to continue, that 24 during that time the investigators are taking all the 25 health data they've collect in this ten-year period, and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 continuing to take the exposure information and looking at 2 other health outcomes that they can identify. 3 We've also got a list of analyses that we want 4 them to look at, actually looking at some of the other 5 criteria pollutants and their impacts on children's 6 health. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I saw in the, again, the 8 tremendous coverage in the press of this study, few 9 investigators and reliable investigators really applauded 10 the results, but they also said, well, maybe if this could 11 be replicated this would have even more credence. Are you 12 aware of any other studies of that nature globally or are 13 there any plans to reproduce something like this? 14 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 15 This is one of the most comprehensive studies that's been 16 done on children's health, especially, the ambient 17 monitoring network that we put together that looks at, you 18 know, many different pollutants, the particulate matter, 19 ozone and the NOx pollutants. But we're also looking at 20 ultrafines as well. 21 We just started an ultrafine network, which is 22 one of the unique, actually probably only, networks that 23 exists in the world right now. So it's a pretty unique, 24 you know, study that's going on. 25 I think one of the things that's important is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 that ozone finding is pretty applicable, not just to 2 California and southern California, but also other areas 3 in the United States that, you know, have those same high 4 ozone peaks. And maybe not into many daysAs southern 5 California but definitely the Houston area that has bad 6 ozone problems. So I think the results can be used all 7 over the United States. 8 MS. HYSONG: We're also looking at, with regards 9 to ozone, that's one of the pollutants that we're 10 measuring in Fresno for the Fresno Asthmatic Children's 11 Environmental Health Study. So at some point, we'll have 12 more data about ozone and asthma from that study. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, I'm delighted to see, 14 again, the results coming forward. 15 Mr. McKinnon and then Mrs. Riordan. 16 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah. I'm curious about 17 the measurement of three or more team sports. Is that an 18 indication of how many days a year or -- I mean, for 19 instance, what happens if a kid plays one team sport 20 year-round or two team sports? I don't understand the 21 measurement. 22 MS. HYSONG: Well, they're using the team sports 23 kind ofAs a metric to measure exposure. And so it seems 24 that the children that were outside the most, playing the 25 most physical activity therefore getting the most PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 exposure, were the ones that were more like to onto 2 develop asthma in the high ozone communities. 3 So it's kind of a surrogate measure of exposure, 4 intense exposure to ozone. 5 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Okay. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mrs. Riordan. 7 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 8 This study is just a fascinating one. Of course, I wish 9 it could go on even longer than we have anticipated for it 10 to end. 11 I wondered two things. One, if I might have a 12 copy of your text to go with the slides. I think it's 13 very important when we're asked in communities,As this is 14 very specific to the area that I represent that this is 15 such a great story to tell. 16 And also on the relocation study, how far were 17 those who were restudied? How far did they move? Do you 18 have any ideas about what we're talking about? Is it just 19 within that area that's on the map or are we talking even 20 further? 21 MS. HYSONG: No. For the relocation study, in 22 order to control costs, the children had to have moved no 23 further away than the western states of California 24 Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington or Utah. So they had 25 to -- you know, they couldn't follow these kids all over PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 the country. 2 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: But that is a big expanse 3 of location. It's not like, for instance, they just moved 4 from Riverside to Santa Maria. They've moved quite a ways 5 away. 6 MS. HYSONG: Some of them did. Some of them 7 could have moved from Riverside to Santa Maria. There was 8 lots of variety all over the possibilities. 9 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 11 Mr. Scheible. 12 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Supervisor 13 Riordan, we are hopeful that the study will continue. 14 What we have done is we've funded the monitoring and 15 continued that beyond the period that they have to go for 16 the initial study. And we're hopeful that some other 17 sources will come in as the principal funders and we will 18 be a participating funder as opposed to the past where we 19 were the principal funding agency where we arranged for 20 funding from others. 21 So we are hopeful that the study will continue 22 for a good number of years, but we'll pay a much smaller 23 percentage of the cost. 24 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: And I think that's 25 something that we need to encourage, because I've often PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 said even if we could follow them, even just a few more 2 years, I think it would give us some information that we 3 just don't have available to us today. And I don't know 4 if any of that money could be stretched a little bit. 5 From what I understand, the people that 6 participate, particularly the children, are very 7 interested in. And because they've become interested, 8 they might be easier to follow than others in certain 9 tests that are done throughout the world of medicine. And 10 I think because they're so interested, they might make 11 themselves available to us for many more years than a 12 normal study group. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And I'd just like to mention 14 to my colleagues, Tracy is a new addition to the research 15 staff, so we're delighted to have you here joining this 16 wonderful group. 17 MS. HYSONG: Thanks. 18 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 19 I'd just like to add, we'd be more than willing to come 20 out to your area to, if you'd like a presentation. I've 21 been contacted by several districts already. 22 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I think that would be 23 wonderful. 24 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 25 Great. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 2 The next item on the agenda is 02-1-2, 3 Retrospective on California's Air Quality Program. This 4 morning we are taking some time to reflect on the air 5 quality progress made in California over the past 20 years 6 as well as looking towards the future. 7 Much of the progress California has made in 8 reducing emissions, improving air quality and protecting 9 public health over the past 20 years is a direct result of 10 Board actions that have pushed technology development. 11 In many cases, California has been ahead of the 12 nation in adopting standards to produce cleaner engines, 13 vehicles, fuels and consumer products. 14 When presented with these challenges, industry 15 has consistently risen to the occasion, often earlier and 16 at often also at much less cost than expected. 17 To continue to improve air quality and public 18 health, it falls to us, this Board, to pursue new clean 19 air strategies for the near term, and for the future. 20 Again, the health of our children and our grand 21 children depend on it. I think we can take pride in 22 what's been accomplished, and can the Boards and staff of 23 the local and regional air boards. I look forward to 24 continuing to work with my fellow board members and with 25 the various air districts throughout the State to address PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 the many challenges ahead. 2 I think also, just to alert my colleagues here, 3 we have being working with the Energy Commission on 4 developing a report required by the Legislature to look at 5 a way of reducing our dependence on petroleum fuels in the 6 transportation sector. 7 That will afford us an opportunity to look at 8 cleaner fuels, cleaning up gasoline, cleaning up diesel, 9 the alternate fuels and push the technologies which are 10 much more efficient, as well as ultimately providing us an 11 opportunityAs we move further ahead to get to an arena 12 where, in fact, we get to zero emissions both in terms of 13 CO2 and conventional pollutants. 14 So we will have some options there in that 15 reportAs required by the Shelley bill to provide policy 16 options to the Governor and the Legislature, which I think 17 can hope us in our task as we move ahead over the next 50 18 years. 19 So with that, I would like to ask Mr. Kenny to 20 introduce the item and begin the staff presentation. 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman 22 and Members of the Board. 23 California's air Quality programAs achieved 24 significant progress in reducing emissions and improving 25 air quality for the past 20 plus years. Staff's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 presentation will highlight our air quality progress and 2 some of the Board's significant actions that made this 3 progress possible. 4 Our air quality gains have been impressive. We 5 want to continue this progressAs we look towards the 6 future. We have ambitious goals in terms of meeting State 7 and federal air quality standards and reducing health 8 risks from air toxics. 9 AndAs we learn more about the harmful effects of 10 ozone, particulates and other pollutants on children, we 11 must redouble our efforts to provide them a clean, 12 healthful environment in which to grow. 13 The Board has set the stage with its history of 14 taking strong action to protect public health. Now, let's 15 spends a few minutes just simply reviewing some of those 16 actions and the clean air benefits that have been 17 accomplished by the Board. 18 With that, I'd like to ask Mr. Joe Calavita to 19 make the staff presentation. 20 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 21 presented as follows.) 22 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 23 LIAISON CALAVITA: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. Good morning Mr. 24 Chairman and Board Members. I have the privilege today of 25 giving you guided tour of California's air quality program PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 over the past 20 years, focusing on the achievements of 2 the Air Resources Boards. 3 We'll Look at how the Board's actions have 4 developed cleaner air for all Californians, concurrent 5 with population growth and economic expansion. It's a 6 story of significant improvement. It's a story of tough 7 choices, challenges set and met, and impressive technology 8 developed. But most of all, it's a story of putting 9 people first, making health protection our highest 10 priority. 11 The Board has compelled technology innovation to 12 serve public health and to do so cost effectively. 13 California's investment in pollution control pay 14 impressive dividends, yielding $3 or more in benefits for 15 every $1 spent. 16 After we review the last two decades, we'll look 17 forward through 2020 as we anticipate the Board's new 18 framework to protect the next generation of Californians 19 with a comprehensive clean air plan. 20 --o0o-- 21 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 22 LIAISON CALAVITA: We'll begin with a look back. In 1980 23 most Californians breathed unhealthy levels of lead, 24 nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, 25 particulate matter and/or air toxics. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 In the South Coast, there were over 100 days of 2 Stage 1 health alerts, and all residents were urged to 3 restrict their activity outdoors. Peak ozone levels 4 reached 49 parts per 100 million. Our air quality 5 standards are nine parts per 100 million. 6 --o0o-- 7 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 8 LIAISON CALAVITA: Today, lead as a regional pollutant 9 from gasoline is a problem of the past. The entire State 10 meets the health based standards for lead as well as well 11 as nitrogen and sulfur dioxides. 12 Fifty-six of the states 58 counties meet the 13 carbon monoxide standards. The South Coast has not seen a 14 Stage 1 smog alert in over three years, and ozone peaks 15 are down over 50 percent. 16 The annual average PM 10 concentrations have 17 declined over 20 percent, and the statewide cancer risks 18 from air toxics is down by 50 percent. 19 Let's look more closely at trends for several of 20 the pollutants that still pose a challenge. 21 --o0o-- 22 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 23 LIAISON CALAVITA: In response to cleaner vehicles and 24 industrial sources, most Californians are exposed to less 25 ozone from the combined effects of lower concentrations PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 and fewer hours at elevated levels. 2 The chart shows peak levels in four major urban 3 areas. The south coast has clearly seen the most dramatic 4 reductions. Peak levels have also declined in the 5 Sacramento valley. The San Joaquin valley and Bay Area 6 have been more resistant to long-term changes and peak 7 concentrations. The residents generally experience fewer 8 days over health based standards. 9 During this time period, San Diego, Santa 10 Barbara, Monterey, and the Upper Sacramento Valley have 11 all attained the first ozone milestone, the federal one 12 hour standards. 13 ARB's ozone control programs have also cut 14 emissions of pollutants for particulate matter, providing 15 dual benefits for public health. These programs, combined 16 with local dust controls, have reduced average levels of 17 inhalable particulate matter in California's most 18 populated areas by about 20 percent since 1988. 19 During the same period, days over the standard 20 have dropped 15 to 50 percent in the South Coast, 21 Sacramento, Bay Area and San Joaquin valley. 22 Let's look at one harmful constituent of 23 particulate matter, the substantive particles emitted from 24 diesel engines. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2 LIAISON CALAVITA: The Board's program to push the 3 development of cleaner diesel engines, fuels and 4 after-treatment technologies have helped to reduce 5 emissions of diesel particulate by over 40 years over the 6 1990s. 7 This Board's directive to cut diesel particulate 8 matter emissions and associated cancer risk, another 75 9 percent, by the end of the decade establishes the next 10 milestone. 11 --o0o-- 12 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 13 LIAISON CALAVITA: Eighty-five percent of the cancer 14 causing Benzene in the area comes from motor vehicles 15 evaporation and exhaust of unburned fuel. The Air 16 Resources Board's clean fuels and vapor recovery programs 17 produced an over 70 percent decline in statewide Benzene 18 emissions and associated cancer risks since 1990. 19 For ozone, inhalable particulate matter, diesel 20 particulate matter and Benzene, the Board's programs have 21 driven progress to reduce unhealthy exposure. 22 --o0o-- 23 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 24 LIAISON CALAVITA: California's programs have cut air 25 pollution while accommodating considerable growth, more PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 people and even more miles traveled. Since 1980 the 2 State's population increased by nearly 50 percent, while 3 the number of miles driven each year rose over 80 percent. 4 --o0o-- 5 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 6 LIAISON CALAVITA: How did we achieve this progress? 7 Through the combined efforts of California's air quality 8 regulators with the foundation of ARB's control programs, 9 complementary national actions for pollution sources under 10 federal authority and local air district programs for 11 industrial and commercial sources, as well as 12 Transportation plans that integrate transit and other 13 alternatives to solo vehicle travel. 14 The Air Resources Board's actions have set the 15 standards. The members of the Board have consistently 16 looked to the future, setting ambitious goals that 17 challenge industry engineers and scientists to create the 18 next generation of clean technology and formulations. 19 More often than not, the regulated community has 20 risen to the challenge, developing technological solutions 21 earlier and cheaper than predicted. 22 In the next series of slides we'll examine key 23 actions the Board has taken on mobile sources, air toxics 24 and consumer products to protect public health. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2 LIAISON CALAVITA: The heart of ARB's regulatory efforts 3 has always been our mobile source control program. In 4 fact, California's first mobile source controls predate 5 the creation of the Air Resources Board itself 1967. The 6 Board has tackled a wide spectrum of mobile sources to 7 reduce both bacteria and toxic pollutant emissions. 8 --o0o-- 9 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 10 LIAISON CALAVITA: The Board has taken full advantage of 11 provisions in federal law that made California the only 12 State and the authority to adopt its open mobile source 13 controls. The Board has pushed the development of new 14 cleaner technologies for virtually every category of 15 vehicle, engine and fuel. 16 This slides shows key Board actions to cut 17 emissions from on- and off-road vehicles, and ranging from 18 passenger cars and sport utility vehicles to heavy-duty 19 trucks to motor cycles. 20 There's a consistent pattern here, continually 21 tighter emission standards for new cars buses and big 22 trucks, cleaner fuels for all vehicles, plus diagnostic 23 inspection programs to keep emissions low in operation. 24 The Board's emission standards envisioned what was 25 possible with technology and evolution spurring successful PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 research and development efforts. 2 There was tremendous debate over the first major 3 initiative of the 1990s, the Board's adoption of the 4 original low-emission vehicles program. In addition to 5 the historic requirement for zero emission vehicles, the 6 Board set ultra-low emission vehicle standards that would 7 ultimately apply to the majority of the fleet. 8 At the time of the Board action, we anticipated 9 that only alternative fuel vehicles would be able to meet 10 the stringent U-LEV standards. 11 Yet, the automobile industry produced gasoline 12 powered U-LEVs earlier than expected and for a lot less 13 cost to the consumer. This Board continued to press the 14 envelope, with the adoption of the second phase of the 15 low-emission vehicle program in 1998, engendering similar 16 debate about the ability of futures technology to develop 17 the needed emission reductions. 18 This Regulation requires pick-ups, minivans and 19 sport utility vehicles to operateAs cleanlyAs cars in the 20 future. 21 The Board's programs have led both the U.S. 22 Environmental Protection Agency and other states to lower 23 emissions for motor vehicles. Many states have opted to 24 implement California's motor vehicle control program 25 including the zero emission vehicle requirement instead of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 the federal program, and many of U.S. EPA's mobile 2 initiatives are directly based on California's. 3 Last year, California successfully led a 4 coalition of states to adopt our not-to-exceed test 5 procedures to close a loophole in federal law that would 6 have allowed heavy-duty engine manufactures to backslide 7 on emission controls. 8 California has been justAs busy regulating 9 off-road engines. In 1990, the Board adopted the first 10 off-road engine regulations authorized under the 11 California Clean Air Act reducing emissions from lawn and 12 garden equipment. 13 Since then the ARB has established standards for 14 every major source of off-road emissions under State 15 control from fork-lifts to recreational equipment to 16 personal water craft to gas cans. 17 We've also worked closely and successfully with 18 our counter parts at the U.S. EPA to control emissions 19 from diesel engines nationally, ensuring and even playing 20 fold for California industry. 21 --o0o-- 22 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 23 LIAISON CALAVITA: These regulatory programs have slashed 24 emissions. A new car today is over '97 percent cleaner 25 than it's uncontrolled predecessor. However, a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 significant portion of these benefits have been and will 2 be consumed by growth. 3 As you can see from this graph, if the Board had 4 adopted no new controls after 1980, emissions from cars 5 and trucks would increaseAs population and vehicle miles 6 increased. 7 Without the benefits of our post-1980 controls, 8 motor vehicle emissions would be twice high in 2000 and 9 ten timesAs high in 2020. 10 --o0o-- 11 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 12 LIAISON CALAVITA: Passenger cars and light trucks provide 13 a good example of the aggressive and iterative nature of 14 the Board's regulatory programs. This slide shows the 15 change in the grams per mile of ozone forming pollutants 16 emitted by a new vehicle over the first 30 years of 17 implementing California's car and light truck control 18 program. 19 In the early 1960s, California required the first 20 automotive emission control technology in the nation. 21 Positive crank ventilation withdrawals go by gases from 22 crank case and reburns them in the cylinders. This was 23 quickly followed by California adoption the nation's first 24 automotive tailpipe standards for hydrocarbons and carbon 25 monoxide in 1966, and the first NOx standards in 1971. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 The development of after-treatment, technology to 2 treat the exhaust stream after it leaves the engine, 3 transformed motor vehicle control in the 1970s allowing 4 automotive engineers to optimize engine performance, while 5 the catalyst reduce exhaust emissions. 6 The 1980s saw the introduction of on-board 7 computers that evaluate how the engine is operating, and 8 adjusts spark timing and fuel delivery to enhance both 9 vehicle operation and emission control, and coupled with 10 cleaner fuels, after-treatment and on-board computers 11 continue to be the mainstay of motor vehicle control 12 today. 13 Although emission control technologies and 14 techniques are often pioneered on cars and pickup trucks, 15 these strategies also transfer to other engines from 16 heavy-duty diesel engines to lawn and garden equipment, 17 making all mobile sources cleaner. 18 --o0o-- 19 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 20 LIAISON CALAVITA: This slide is a continuation of the 21 ARB's control program for automobiles with implementation 22 since 1994. You can see how dramatically cleaner cars 23 have become by the shift in scale on the left-hand side of 24 the graph. 25 The scale of grams per mile on this slide is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 slower than the previous slide by about an order of 2 magnitude. The Low Emission Vehicle programs of 3 reformulated gasoline are driving the reduction in new 4 engine emissions in this timeframe. The introduction of 5 cleaner burning gasoline in 1996 instantly made every 6 gasoline engine operate more cleanly and pave the way for 7 improved emission controls on new cars. 8 The combination of stringent new standards and 9 cleaner gasoline contributed to significant decreases in 10 hydrocarbon emissions, and a corresponding decline in 11 toxic emissions from motor vehicles. 12 An important component of the original LEV 13 regulation is the zero emission vehicle or ZEV 14 requirement. As you know, the Board has revisited the ZEV 15 Regulation over the years to make mid-course corrections. 16 However, the Board has never wavered in its 17 commitment to the goal that was declared back in 1990, to 18 attain the ultimate prize of zero emission transportation. 19 The major auto manufacturers have put nearly 20 2,500 EVs on the roads of California, with consumers 21 clamoring for more. 22 In addition, and justAs importantly, the ZEV 23 Program has spurred advances in natural gas and other 24 alternative fuel vehicles, super clean natural gas 25 vehicles, fuel efficient hybrids like the Honda Insight PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 and the Toyota Prius and fuel cell vehicles. 2 In many ways, the ZEV Program enabled our current 3 motor vehicle program, pushing the development of 4 technologies needed for the super clean gasoline vehicles, 5 we will see under LEV II. 6 Fuel cells, powered by clean hydrogen, are one of 7 the technologies that were pulled into the personal 8 transportation arena as a result of the ZEV regulations. 9 Although fuel cells have been used in the space program 10 for years, the challenges of redesigned fuel cells for use 11 in cars and trucks were formidable. To realize the 12 potential of fuel cell based transportation, the ARB 13 helped found the California fuel cell partnership in 1999. 14 The partnership is helping bring the dream that 15 cars can one day be powered by fuel cells to fruition, by 16 testing cars and trucks under real world driving 17 conditions, exploring alternative fueling infrastructure 18 and developing ways to overcome obstacles to 19 commercialization. 20 --o0o-- 21 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 22 LIAISON CALAVITA: California is again leading the nation. 23 This time towards the more diversified mix of fuels and 24 technologies to power our transportation needs, reduce our 25 dependence on foreign oil and increase national PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 self-sufficiency. 2 Of course, ARB's mobile source program is more 3 than just cars. If the 1990s were the decade of gasoline 4 vehicle control, these ten years are definitely the decade 5 of diesel. The ARB's focus on diesel engines is not new. 6 Our first diesel engine regulations went into effect in 7 1988. 8 However, we have made significant gains in the 9 last ten years, beginning with the introduction of 10 California clean diesel fuel in 1993. New regulations to 11 reduce emissions from off-road, on-road diesel engines 12 developed in conjunction with U.S. EPA take effect later 13 this year. The two agencies also worked together to 14 develop and adopt the next phase of on-road diesel engine 15 control. 16 Together, the cleaner diesel fuel to be 17 introduced in 2006 and cleaner diesel engines to be 18 introduced in 2007 will reduce per truck emissions another 19 90 percent. 20 --o0o-- 21 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 22 LIAISON CALAVITA: As I mentioned earlier, off-road 23 regulations are an important facet of our control 24 programs. ARB has made great sides since the beginning to 25 adopt off-road regulations for both engines and the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 containers that fuel them just ten years ago. 2 In 1990, the Board adopted the first off-road 3 mobile source controls under the California Clean Air Act 4 regulating utility lawn and garden equipment. 5 In two hours, a commercial chainsaw powered by a 6 two-stroke engine emits more than a new car driving from 7 Los Angeles to New York and back. This slide shows a 8 substantial drop in the relative emissions from a new lawn 9 mower and a new weed whip in 200 and 2010 compared to 1990 10 levels in response to adopted ARB regulations. 11 Recreational watercraft is another category the 12 Board has successfully controlled. The impact of 13 watercraft on air quality is magnified because use is 14 heaviest on hot summer days when smog levels are at their 15 highest. 16 --o0o-- 17 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 18 LIAISON CALAVITA: And compared to cars, watercraft can be 19 very high emitting. When ARB adopted watercraft 20 regulations in 1998, a personal watercraft, sometimes 21 known as a jet ski, operating for seven hours produced 22 more smog-forming emissions than a new car driving for 23 100,000 miles. 24 Last year, this Board augmented those 25 regulations, approving exhaust emissions standards for new PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 in-board and stern drive boats. The new emission 2 standards will be met by advancements in technology that 3 will allow new watercraft by 2010 to emit only 11 or 12 4 percent of 1990 levels. 5 Although, all personal and outboard engines are 6 currently two-stroke engines, we expect that ARB 7 regulations will help accelerate the introduction of 8 four-stroke engines in cleaner, more fuel efficient 9 two-stroke engines. 10 These regulations also have the added benefit of 11 reducing water pollution. Two-stroke Marine engines 12 discharge gas directly into the water, losing up to 30 13 percent of the fuel that directly pollutes the water as 14 well. 15 Some water quality agencies have banned the use 16 of high polluting watercraft on reservoirs because of 17 concerns that drinking water -- of drinking water 18 contamination. ARB's regulations may provide a way for 19 boaters to continue enjoying these reservoirs while still 20 protecting water quality. 21 --o0o-- 22 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 23 LIAISON CALAVITA: As the tailpipe emissions from cars 24 decrease, the Board is looking to less obvious emission 25 sources, including vehicle fueling. The Board has PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 long-standing programs to reduce emissions in gasoline 2 service stations. Stage 1 vapor recovers evaporative 3 emissions as gasoline is transferred from the tanker truck 4 to the storage tank at service stations. 5 Stage 2 vapor recovery reduces hydrocarbon 6 emissions and consumer exposure to toxicsAs cars and 7 trucks are refueled. Together with programs to make 8 gasoline burn more cleanly, and local district regulations 9 to control refinery emissions, ARB is committed to 10 lowering upstream emissions from gasoline. 11 --o0o-- 12 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 13 LIAISON CALAVITA: The History of ARB's mobile source 14 control program is inarguably a success story. Since we 15 first began to regulate cars in the 1960s, ARB has led the 16 nation and the world in motor vehicle control. 17 Our heavy-duty truck and bus control program 18 begun in the 1980s has hit full strideAs we evaluate how 19 to simultaneously reduce toxic and small chlorine 20 emissions from diesel engines. 21 We have responded to the consumer market, 22 adopting tighter regulations for sport utility vehicles as 23 their popularity skyrocketed in the 1990s. For lawn 24 mowers to recreational watercraft, even snow mobiles, the 25 Board has required every emission's source to contribute PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 to our air quality effort. 2 Let's change gears now and examine another facet 3 of ARB's programs, regulatory actions to protect community 4 health from the harmful effects of air toxics. 5 --o0o-- 6 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 7 LIAISON CALAVITA: The photographs that circle this slide 8 represent several of the air toxic sources that ARB has 9 controlled. Clockwise from the upper left, we show an 10 autobody shop, a gas station, automotive care products, 11 welding, a commercial sterilizer, medical waste for 12 incineration and a dry-cleaner. 13 Many of these sources are prevalent in every 14 community posing risks to people who live nearby. 15 --o0o-- 16 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 17 LIAISON CALAVITA: Following the first airborne toxic 18 control measures to reduce Benzene from service stations, 19 this timeline shows the Board's actions that have cut 20 chrome plating emissions by 97 percent or more, eliminated 21 the uses of hexavalent chromium from cooling towers, cut 22 dioxin emissions from medical waste incinerators by 99 23 percent, reduced perchloroethylene emissions from dry 24 cleaning by 78 percent, eliminated the use of three 25 chlorinated solvents in automotive care products, and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 eliminated the use of toxic metals in automotive coatings, 2 as well as cut asbestos emissions from quarries and 3 serpentine rock used for surfacing applications. 4 The diesel risk reduction plan is setting the 5 regulatory agenda for this decade with its toxic control 6 measures for stationary and mobile diesel engines. 7 --o0o-- 8 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 9 LIAISON CALAVITA: Mobile sources are responsible for over 10 85 percent of the statewide cancer risks from air toxics. 11 Our mobile source control program is vital, though 12 sometimes overlookedAs a component of ARB's efforts to 13 reduce emissions and risk from air toxics. 14 Hydrocarbon standards for vehicles and equipment 15 also cut the toxic constituents from vehicle exhaust. 16 Fuel reformulation and evaporative controls further reduce 17 air toxics. 18 --o0o-- 19 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 20 LIAISON CALAVITA: Let's look at how our toxics program 21 may affect the cancer risks from air toxics in one region. 22 This map shows this risk from air toxics, including diesel 23 PM in the bay area back in 1990. The areas with the 24 highest estimated risks are shown in road. 25 To date, that risk is lowered across the region. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 --o0o-- 2 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 3 LIAISON CALAVITA: By 2020, the implementation of the 4 Diesel risk reduction plan, the risk across most of the 5 region is projected to fall below 100 in a million. 6 --o0o-- 7 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 8 LIAISON CALAVITA: California's air quality challenge 9 demands that we not only reduce emissions from motor 10 vehicles and industrial sources, but also from widespread 11 and numerous smaller sources. 12 Consumer products such asAs hair sprays, 13 deodorants, perfumes, cleaning compounds, home, lawn and 14 garden products, and aerosol paints are one of 15 California's largest and reactive organic gases emission 16 categories, accounting for nearly eight percent of total 17 mandate emission statewide. 18 --o0o-- 19 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 20 LIAISON CALAVITA: The Board has adopted standards to 21 limit emissions from nearly 50 consumer product 22 categories, as well as over 35 architectural coatings and 23 aerosol paint categories. 24 The Board has adopted and implemented voluntary 25 provisions to offer greater compliance flexibility to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 consumer product manufacturers while retaining the air 2 quality benefits. This chart highlights past actions. 3 --o0o-- 4 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 5 LIAISON CALAVITA: U.S. EPA has followed California's lead 6 in developing many nationwide consumer product 7 regulations. 8 --o0o-- 9 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 10 LIAISON CALAVITA: As we can see here, Board actions have 11 significantly reduced emissions from consumer products 12 despite a steady increase in population and consumer 13 product use. 14 In the year 2000, we would have had over 100 tons 15 more per day of raw emissions statewide without our 16 consumer products initiatives. However, the story changes 17 past 2005. Without further actions, emissions will begin 18 to rise again after 2005As population growth overcomes the 19 benefits of adopted controls. 20 --o0o-- 21 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 22 LIAISON CALAVITA: Now, let's move from successes of the 23 past to the challenges facing this Board in the future. 24 --o0o-- 25 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 LIAISON CALAVITA: The Board has made great strides in 2 improving air quality, but we've not yet met our goal of 3 clean air for everyone every day. Over 95 percent of 4 Californians continue to breathe unhealthy air at times. 5 These maps show how often different regions experience 6 ozone at particulate levels that exceed State standards, 7 helping us visual two of the remaining challenges. 8 --o0o-- 9 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 10 LIAISON CALAVITA: EvenAs we press to meet the ambitious 11 air quality standards already established by the Board, we 12 must continue to advance the science. The research funded 13 by the Board on the health effects of air pollution 14 provides vital data, informing the priority and scope of 15 our emission reduction efforts. 16 --o0o-- 17 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 18 LIAISON CALAVITA: The compendium of health research that 19 exists today, tells us the current levels of air pollution 20 exact a toll on our lives. Based on monitoring air 21 quality data in a health model developed by U.S. EPA this 22 slide illustrates the scope of harm to Californians from 23 air pollution each year, from premature death to asthma 24 attacks, as well as the impacts on health care and 25 productivity. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 Recently studies link air pollution to sudden 2 deaths in infants as wellAs adults, shortening lives by 3 years. These calculated statistics do not reflect the 4 additional impacts from toxic air pollutants that can 5 cause cancer, reproduction damage, birth defects or other 6 life altering damage. 7 Air pollution is everyone's problem. We are all 8 part of a population that is especially vulnerable to the 9 effects of air pollution at some point in our lifetime. 10 To protect public health over the next two 11 decades, the Board will need to continue adopting and 12 implementing far reaching programs to cut emissions from 13 all sources under its control. Further program 14 improvements are critical to meet federal and State air 15 quality standards, reduce the risk from air toxics and 16 address community health and environmental justice. 17 Reducing air pollution is also important to 18 California's economic vitality, by improving the quality 19 life that is necessary to attract new businesses and 20 workers, allowing our military bases to compete with 21 others across the country and aiding the State's 22 agricultural productivity, and also ensuring the State 23 continues to receive its billion dollar share of federal 24 transportation funding each year. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2 LIAISON CALAVITA: With the Board's extensive foundation 3 of adopted control strategies and multiple priorities for 4 the future, we believe it is essential to define an 5 integrated approach for the next generation of emission 6 reduction strategies. 7 Next month, we will release the proposed Clean 8 Air Plan for you're consideration in April. The Clean Air 9 Plan covers 2002 through 2020 providing a comprehensive 10 blueprint to cut air pollution at the community, regional 11 and State level, as well as reducing California's 12 contribution to global climate change. 13 --o0o-- 14 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 15 LIAISON CALAVITA: The Clean Air Plan will build on the 16 one atmosphere concept, an integral link between the 17 spectrum of air pollutants, by incorporating all of our 18 programs to reduce individual pollutants. By considering 19 the scope of emission reduction opportunities for each 20 source sector, the Clean Air Plan will consolidate new 21 control requirements and encourage cost-effective 22 approaches that benefit the public health by achieving 23 multiple air quality goals. 24 --o0o-- 25 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 LIAISON CALAVITA: The clean air plan is designed to 2 support our near-term needs for emission reductions and 3 articulate a long-term vision for the air quality program. 4 Specifically, the plan will define new strategies 5 to help meet air quality standards for ozone and 6 particulate matter, including federal standards with legal 7 deadlines for attainment. These strategies will provide 8 the basis for new ARB commitments and federal measures and 9 upcoming revisions of the State Implementation Plan for 10 the South Coast and the San Joaquin valley. 11 The plan will seek to reduce the risk from air 12 toxics as soonAs possible, supporting the Board's 13 environmental justice policies and diesel risk reduction 14 goals. 15 Finally, the plan is intended to promote the 16 cleaner, zero and near zero emission technologies of the 17 future for all sources, continuing the Board's 18 international leadership role. 19 --o0o-- 20 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 21 LIAISON CALAVITA: The plan will propose strategies to be 22 developed by ARB to require cleaner vehicles, equipment, 23 fuels and products through a combination of regulatory and 24 voluntary approaches. 25 We will also build on cooperative relationships PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 with U.S. EPA to request further action on sources under 2 federal control. The plan will identify sources of air 3 toxics to be evaluated for future statewide controls and 4 suggest technology evaluations for sources under local 5 control to aid district efforts. 6 The Clean Air Plan will also seek opportunities 7 to increase energy efficiency. 8 --o0o-- 9 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 10 LIAISON CALAVITA: As we look back over the past 20 years, 11 California can be proud of not only how the Board's 12 actions provided clean air benefits for California but 13 also how the Board's vision has led the nation and the 14 world towards cleaner, more efficient technologies and 15 products. 16 With a Clean Air Plan, the Air Resources Board 17 can define a comprehensive set of strategies to continue 18 the long-term push to zero emissions for all sources. 19 With near-term technology improvements to benefits public 20 health now. 21 Thank you. That concludes my presentation. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 23 One question to staff, Smog Check was conspicuous 24 by its absence. Can you comment? 25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Man, this thing won't PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 work. 2 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Smog Check doesn't 3 work? 4 (Laughter.) 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: That I didn't say. 6 We actually are working with a number of the 7 regions around the State in terms of trying to ensure that 8 we actually could have a single enhanced Smog Check 9 Program that would be applicable throughout the State as 10 opposed to on a regional basis. And we'll continue to 11 basically try to pursue that goal. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. McKinnon, Mrs. Riordan, 13 Ms. D'Adamo, Mr. DeSaulnier. 14 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Mike, I really enjoyed 15 the presentation. And I think a lot of people in the 16 public are concerned about air. I think it's something 17 like 80 percent of the public. 18 And I'm wondering, and maybe this is already 19 done, do we have videos available to public television 20 stations or some other way of getting this information 21 out? 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: We actually have 23 produced some videos and we have provided them to 24 television stations for broadcast. One of the 25 difficulties is that if they broadcast them, they tend to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 broadcast them in the very early morning hours and so we 2 don't get much air play with them. But we have tried to 3 produce them and we have tried to push them. 4 We also have a specific group at the Air 5 Resources Board that reports to Kathleen Tschogl, who's 6 only responsibility is to look at air quality education 7 and to try to look at how we communicate with children and 8 how we would communicate with adults and how we would do 9 so, not with the idea of, you know, trying to accomplish 10 something in he next month, but really kind of more of a 11 five-year effort, you know, trying to really change the 12 thought processes and make people realize what we're 13 trying to do and why it's important. 14 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Okay. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mrs. Riordan. 16 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I just 17 wanted to say that to staff that this was a wonderful 18 perspective, and it just laid out everything so clearly. 19 And I do thank you for that. And hopefully we, to build 20 on what Mr. McKinnon said, hopefully we can get this 21 message out, because this is the clearest, I think I've 22 seen it in a long time on an over-arching view of what 23 we're doing and what we have done in the past. 24 Thank you. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Just some questions about 2 what we will be seeing in a few months that the Clean Air 3 Plan will -- this presentation that you gave us here today 4 we'll be incorporated in the Clean Air Plan so that it 5 will help to bolster what we're about to do in the future. 6 And secondly, I just wanted to encourage staff to 7 think out of the box as much as possible in the Clean Air 8 Plan as staff considers, you know, perhaps including some 9 areas where we may have questionable authority so as to 10 get the word out, perhaps the Legislature, and otherwise 11 that could be tremendous benefits that we can get very 12 creative with on those steps. 13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: We will be doing that. 14 What we're trying to do with the Clean Air Plan is really 15 kind of build upon what the Board has done over the last 16 20 years. I mean, the Board's track record is really one 17 of great success, because as we look forward over the next 18 20 years, it probably is going to be more difficult to 19 achieve the same level of emission reductions and yet we 20 really have, kind of, almost the similar tasks. 21 What we're also trying to do is recognize that in 22 the past 20 years our emphasis was primarily on ozone and 23 toxics, and yetAs we move into the future, we're probably 24 looking at more of this one atmosphere concept in which, 25 you know, people are probably more interested in what PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 they're breathingAs opposed to hearing us talk about the 2 fact that it's ozone or it's PM or it's toxics or it's, 3 you know, whatever it happens to be. 4 And so our approach really is to take the Clean 5 Air Plan, you know, bring forward kind of a one atmosphere 6 approach and talk to you about several approaches, you 7 know, initiative approaches that we think we need to rely 8 upon, strategies that we think we need to try to implement 9 and then regulatory approaches that would get us 10 reductions in, kind of, the traditional fashion that we 11 have relied upon for the last 20 years. 12 We will also be looking at things like episodic 13 controls. So we are trying to think out of the box. We 14 are trying to like be very broad in terms of the way we 15 approach it. We're trying to take advantage of some of 16 the educational opportunities that we think we need to 17 take advantage of. 18 We'll be looking at things, for example, like 19 allergens, pollens and trying to ensure that, in fact, 20 those are kind of evaporative. So we have people that are 21 looking at this from a kind of a broad based health 22 perspective, and see that the vision of the Board really 23 for the next 20 years is to have very clean, very 24 healthful air that does not present problems. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Just a comment before PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 Supervisor DeSaulnier. The other thing to my colleagues 2 here, staff is going to bring to us in June of this year 3 recommendations on new PM 10 and PM 2.5 standards to 4 protect -- specifically looking to see whether current the 5 standards are protective of children's health. 6 So I think that's one of the areas what we are 7 going to see some activity there. 8 Supervisor DeSaulnier. 9 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Of course, it's very 10 exciting to hear about Smog Check being equal all 11 throughout the State. 12 (Laughter.) 13 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: On the videos, Mike, I 14 wonder if we made those available to public access 15 channels like cities and counties or -- 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I think we do, but I'd 17 have to double check that. I think we have made them 18 pretty much available to everyone, but I'd have to double 19 check and see where we sent, and if we haven't done that 20 we will. 21 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: To school districts? 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: You know, I don't know 23 on that, I'll have to check. 24 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: And then following up 25 on what DiDi commented about in the presentation that, you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 know, we hear this a lot in the Bay Area about VMT, 2 population growth being a challenge in the Clean Air Plan, 3 thinking outside the box and tempting our regulatory 4 authority. I hope we have some ideas about what we can do 5 about VMT in particular. 6 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: We're trying to think 7 out of the box, and we are basically trying to look at how 8 we can reduce VMT. In terms of specific and concrete 9 ideas, at this point, it is going to be tough task. I 10 mean it's one of those things that really does implicate 11 behavior changes in a lot of ways and we're trying to 12 figure out how we can essentially achieve those VMT 13 reductions. 14 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: We recognize that 15 that's where one of the big problems and challenges are, 16 of course. So I think it's important that we don't ignore 17 it. 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: It's clearly a huge 19 challenge. 20 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Thank you, Mr. 21 Chairman. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Recognized, Supervisor, the 23 next item, so we're going out of the box into the barrel 24 in the next item. 25 (Laughter.) PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. Calhoun. 2 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Some of us have been 3 out of the box and in the barrel for a long time. 4 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I have a two-part 5 question. I want to first follow up on question that our 6 Chairman asked relative to the Smog Check. Will the next 7 Clean Air Plan, when you present it include Smog Check. 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: The Clean Air Plan 9 actually does not include Smog Check, what we are trying 10 to do is actually address Smog Check through a couple of 11 approaches. 12 You know, one there are Legislative limitations 13 that currently exist in statute that need to be changed 14 were it to be kind of single Smog Check that is the same 15 throughout the State. And so we are trying to at least 16 pursue that. 17 And then secondly, there are regional differences 18 in the state. And what we are trying to do there is kind 19 of work the different regions to get -- we're trying to 20 work with the different regions in a cooperative approach 21 to try to give a consensus that, in fact, enhanced Smog 22 Check should be the way to go. So that's what we're 23 trying to do on that at the moment. 24 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Is the fact that the BAR 25 has primary responsibility for the Smog Check one of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 principal reasons why it's not included in our plan? 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: No, I don't think I 3 would say that. I mean I think basically BAR and we work 4 relatively well together. You know, obviously we could 5 always work better together, but I don't think that would 6 be one of the principal reasons. 7 I mean, I think we are trying to pursue Smog 8 Check. One of the problems has been simply kind of the 9 popular reaction to Smog Check in this State is a 10 political reaction to Smog Check. It's obviously not been 11 popular, and perhaps we're trying to educate people and 12 convince them that's the direction to go, because it does 13 provide, you know, good benefits both from a ozone 14 standpoint, from a PM standpoint from a toxics standpoint. 15 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: And the second part of the 16 question pertains to greenhouse gases. Will the plan 17 include something relative to greenhouse gases. 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Yes it will. We are 19 looking at greenhouse gases as part of this one atmosphere 20 concept, and so the plan does basically look at those 21 issues also. 22 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I assume that it also 23 includes some thinking that's out of the box? 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Some thinking that's 25 out of the box, some thinking that's in the box. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 (Laughter.) 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo. 3 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well just as on the smog 4 issue, I think that it would be important for us on smog 5 or the vehicle miles traveled, those sorts of issues, to 6 at least obtain the information, even if that's not our 7 plan at present. I think it would be important to have at 8 least a component of the plan that raises some of those 9 issues that would perhaps require legislative action or 10 perhaps financial incentive programs that we don't have 11 the power to actually produce at this point. 12 But if we could show the benefits of, air quality 13 benefits, of such programs that may help to prod others, 14 other than just this Board, to act so that we could in 15 turn act. 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I think that's a good 17 point and we are actually trying to do that. We actually, 18 for example, have identified a number of incentive 19 programs despite the fact that we recognize there may not 20 be incentive monies available in the near term. But we do 21 want to keep them on people's radar screens, because they 22 have been pretty valuable and pretty beneficial. In terms 23 of Smog Check, we can do the same thing. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Again, I'd like 25 to add my personal thanks for a great job from the staff PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 and great overview. And, again, I think it sets us up 2 very nicely. So I'm really looking forward to April when 3 we see the plan laid out before us for the future. So 4 thank you very much in deed and congratulations. 5 Excellent. 6 I guess since this is not a regulatory items, 7 it's not necessary to officially close the record. 8 So we'll give a few moments for staffAs we move 9 on to the next agenda item, which is 02-1-3, public 10 meeting to consider approval of an airborne toxic control 11 measure to reduce emissions of toxic air contaminants from 12 outdoor residential waste burning. 13 Just to let everyone know and my colleagues know 14 that we will be taking a break at 12:00 o'clock sharp for 15 a one-hour lunch break, so that at 12:00 o'clock we will 16 break to do that, and assemble back at 1:00 o'clock. 17 Again, we have to take a break here. We have a 18 quorum. But if people leave to eat, we do not have a 19 quorum. 20 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: He's trying to getaway, 21 Mr. Chairman. 22 (Laughter.) 23 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I'll be right back. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The next item on the agenda 25 is consideration of a control measure to reduce emissions PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 of toxic air contaminants from outdoor residential waste 2 burning. 3 The Board ask staffed to look at this issue when 4 public health concerns about backyard burning were raised 5 last year by local air districts. And I must say this was 6 also hammered home to me when I went up to visit Bob 7 Reynolds. So wherever Bob is here, at least he bears some 8 of the credit or blame whichever way. 9 (Laughter.) 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: While burning of most 11 residential waste is already prohibited in a large portion 12 of the State, there are still communities that are 13 impacted by this practice. I understand there are also 14 concerns about restrictions on burning especially in some 15 sparsely populated areas. 16 There are a number of people here who wish to 17 testify on these points, so I would like to get started 18 and turn it over to Mr. Kenny at this point. 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman 20 and Members of the Board. Last June, the Board asked 21 staff to move expeditiously to develop a proposed toxic 22 control measure to address residential burning. Since the 23 Board meeting staff has worked extensively with the air 24 districts, fire agencies, the Integrated Waste Management 25 Board and the Regional Council of Rural Counties to gather PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 information about outdoor residential burning. 2 Currently rules in 27 air districts all the 3 burning of some form of residential waste other than 4 natural vegetation in some or all of the air districts. 5 Typically, this burning takes place in a 55 gallon metal 6 container known as a burn barrel. The proposed control 7 measure will minimize emissions of dioxins and other toxic 8 air contaminants from residential waste burning by 9 addressing both the materials which can be burned and the 10 method of burning. 11 The proposed control measure provides for 12 protection of public health while recognizing the desire 13 to allow some burning to continue in rural areas where 14 alternatives are not available. Since the release of our 15 proposal, staff held a number of workshops and seriously 16 considered the comments received. And as a result, we are 17 presenting a revised proposal that we think will help 18 address some of the remaining issues. 19 With that, I'd like to turn the presentation over 20 the Tina Suarez-Murias who will make the presentation. 21 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 22 presented as follows.) 23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SUAREZ-MURIAS: Thank 24 you. Good morning, Chairman Lloyd and Members of the 25 Board. Today we will be presenting to you staff's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 proposal to reduce the public health risks posed by 2 outdoor residential waste burning. 3 Residential waste burning, commonly referred to 4 as backyard garbage burning, is a significant source of 5 dioxins and other toxic air contaminants such as Benzene, 6 1,3-Butadiene, Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons, or PAHs, and 7 Poly Chlorinated Biphenyls, or PCBs in both the smoke and 8 the ash. 9 These five pollutants pose the greatest health 10 risks. However, toxics metals such as cadmium, chromium 11 and mercury are also produced. In addition, the smoke 12 from backyard burning produces fine particulate matter. 13 Dioxins and other toxic contaminants can cause cancer and 14 contribute to other health effects. 15 Children's exposure to this source is of special 16 concern. Both dioxins and PAHs have been identified by 17 the Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentAs 18 pollutants that may cause children to be especially 19 vulnerable to illness. 20 The proposed regulation will reduce health risks 21 to the households conducting the burning, as well as 22 surrounding neighborhoods. While backyard garbage burning 23 is banned in many areas of the State, it still occurs in 24 parts of California, including many densely populated 25 communities. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 The regulation eliminates backyard garbage 2 burning in all populated areas in the State. In these 3 areas, other waste disposal options are available and 4 should be used. The regulation does provide exemptions in 5 sparsely populated areas where the availability of other 6 waste disposal options is limited, and community health 7 risk is much lower. 8 However, in response to comments received, we 9 have modified the original regulation proposal to provide 10 an improved exemption process and to incorporate a strong 11 public education component. 12 --o0o-- 13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SUAREZ-MURIAS: Backyard 14 garbage burning is the disposal of waste from one- and 15 two-family homes by burning it outdoors. These wastes can 16 include anything from food waste, plastics and metal cans 17 to paper, cardboard and treated and processed wood. 18 However, it does not include burning of natural 19 vegetation grown on the property. This burning generally 20 takes place in 55 metal gallon drums -- 55-gallon metal 21 drums, known as burn barrels, but it can also occur in 22 piles on the ground. 23 --o0o-- 24 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SUAREZ-MURIAS: The 25 toxic air contaminants identified pose a number of health PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 risks. They can cause cancer, neurological liver and 2 kidney damage, skin and eye and respiratory irritation, 3 and can compromise the immune system. 4 Dioxins are of special concern, because they are 5 the most potent. They may last in the environment for 6 many years. Dioxins can also accumulate in the fat of 7 fish and animals and are then passed on to people when 8 contaminated food is eaten. 9 In addition, the smoke from backyard garbage 10 burning contains fine particulate matter. It can produce 11 respiratory and cardiac problems, especially among the 12 sensitive populations, such as the elderly and the very 13 young,As discussed in the first board item this morning. 14 --o0o-- 15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SUAREZ-MURIAS: Young 16 children are also especially vulnerable to dioxins, 17 because dioxins can be passed on through mother's milk, 18 and because of their rapid growth in development. 19 As mentioned earlier, both dioxins and PAHs may 20 cause children to be especially susceptible to illness. 21 Because the smoke from backyard garbage burning often 22 crosses property lines, health impacts can occur both to 23 the household conducting the burning as well as to 24 households in surrounding communities. 25 Depending upon location within the State, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 potential cancer risks from exposure to backyard garbage 2 burningAs source location ranges from approximately 180 up 3 to 400 additional cancer cases per million. 4 For comparison, the current risk posed by 5 exposure to the top 10 toxic air contaminants, including 6 diesel particulate matter, in an urban area is about 750 7 additional cancer cases per million. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SUAREZ-MURIAS: As 10 previously discussed, although many areas of the state 11 already prohibit backyard garbage burning, there are still 12 many jurisdictions where it is allowed. 13 This map shows what is currently allowed under 14 air district rules. Eight air districts, shown in green, 15 prohibit all backyard garbage burning. Twenty-one air 16 district, colored yellow, allow only the burning of some 17 combination of cloth, treated wood products, paper or 18 cardboard. 19 Finally, six air districts, shown in gray, have 20 no restrictions on what materials, including plastics, can 21 be burned in all or part of the air district. 22 In some instances, there are additional local 23 ordinances that go beyond the air district regulations. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SUAREZ-MURIAS: In PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 developing the proposed Regulation, we worked extensively 2 with a number of groups. 3 These included a residential burning working 4 group, meetings with fire and waste management agencies 5 and air districts. In addition, we held 21 public 6 workshops in 17 locations throughout the State to provide 7 the general public an opportunity to learn about the 8 proposed regulations and to hear and address their 9 concerns. 10 Based on this input, we have developed the 11 regulation and proposed modifications discussed in the 12 next slides. 13 --o0o-- 14 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SUAREZ-MURIAS: On 15 January 4th of this year, we released the initial 16 regulation for public comments, which includes these basic 17 proposed provisions shown here. Because no external 18 control technology is feasible for backyard burning 19 sources, such as burn barrels, the best available control 20 technology is elimination of the burning of all types of 21 household garbage other than natural vegetation. 22 In addition, many air districts and fire agencies 23 report that prohibited materials, such as plastics, are 24 commonly found in burn barrels. Therefore, the proposed 25 regulation also eliminates the use of burn barrels to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 assist in enforcement efforts. 2 Burning of allowable materials can occur only on 3 permissive burn days and only an approved ignition device 4 can be used to start the fire. We also included a 5 provision for limited exemptions, based upon general 6 criteria including the availability of waste service, 7 distance to a landfill and population density. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SUAREZ-MURIAS: The 10 requirements would be come effective July 1st, 2003. 11 However, since the release of the original proposal, we 12 have continued to work with the air districts and rural 13 counties to develop further modifications to this 14 proposal. 15 --o0o-- 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SUAREZ-MURIAS: The 17 first important modification is that only paper and 18 cardboard can be burned in exemption areas. Under the 19 original proposal, there are no restrictions on the 20 materials that can be burned in the exemption areas. 21 This modification is in recognition that the 22 greatest public health risks are associated with the 23 burning of plastics and other synthetic materials. 24 Second, the effective date has been moved back to 25 January 1st, 2004. This provides additional time for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 public education by the ARB, as wellAs additional time for 2 the Integrated Waste Management Board and local 3 jurisdictions to enhance waste disposal alternatives. 4 Finally, many air districts were concerned about 5 the lack of specific criteria and the role of ARB in the 6 exemption approval process. Therefore, specific exemption 7 criteria have been developed that are based upon 8 population density, using U.S. census zip codes. These 9 exemptions will be revisited every ten years rather than 10 every five to be consistent with the availability of new 11 census data. 12 --o0o-- 13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SUAREZ-MURIAS:As 14 illustrated in this slide, a tiered population density 15 approach has been developed based upon the 2000 census zip 16 code areas. A full scale map of all affected areas is 17 also shown on the stands to my right. 18 All zip codes with a population density of less 19 than or equal to three people per square mile will be 20 automatically exempt. These areas are represented by dark 21 green on the map. In zip codes with a population density 22 greater than three and less than or equal to ten people 23 per square mile shown in light green on the map, the air 24 district can request an exemption to burn paper and the 25 ranking fire official can request the use of a burn barrel PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 based upon fire safety concerns. 2 In these areas, a permit provide or other 3 mechanism to distribute educational materials will need to 4 be in place. The district governing board must approve 5 the exemption request at a public meeting. Air districts 6 may also delineate portions of the zip code, where the 7 exemptions do not apply. 8 Finally, no exemptions will be provided for zip 9 codes with a population density greater than ten people 10 per square mile or for any incorporated area. 11 Incorporated areas are shownAs yellow squares on the map, 12 with the red areas representing this highest population 13 density tier. 14 However, air districts may request an exemption 15 for portions of the zip code, if they can demonstrate that 16 the population density in the smaller area is less than 17 three people per square mile. Exemptions for these 18 subareas must be revisited every five years. 19 --o0o-- 20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SUAREZ-MURIAS: We also 21 examined the potential impacts of the regulation on waste 22 diversion and landfill capacity, illegal dumping, indoor 23 burning, increased vehicle traffic and fire safety. 24 A strong public education effort coupled with the 25 Integrated Waste Management Board's efforts to work with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 local jurisdictions to address waste disposal needs will 2 reduce the potential impacts on landfill capacity and 3 illegal dumping. 4 In addition, exemptions will be provided in rural 5 areas where alternative waste disposal options are most 6 lacking. Education about health impacts will also play a 7 key role in discouraging people from exposing their 8 families to additional health risks by burning waste 9 indoors. 10 Finally, because of fire safety concerns about 11 the burning of paper and cardboard in open piles, the use 12 of burn barrels can be allowed in areas receiving an 13 exemption to burn these materials. They will not be 14 allowed in more densely populated areas where only natural 15 vegetation is burned to prevent the burning of illegal 16 materials in them. 17 --o0o-- 18 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SUAREZ-MURIAS: 19 Potential economic impacts of the regulation include 20 enforcement, public education and waste disposal costs. 21 Enforcement of the regulation will be the primary 22 responsibility of the air districts and fire agencies. 23 Because enforcement is generally complained driven, an 24 overall reduction in backyard garbage burning coupled with 25 extensive public education should minimize the impact on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 enforcement workloads. 2 The ARB is committed to the development and 3 distribution of public education materials and will assist 4 air districts and fire agencies in their further efforts. 5 Households that had previously been burning some or all of 6 their waste will be required to use additional alternative 7 disposal methods. 8 Additional costs could range from $100 to $600 9 per year per household. However, these costs can be 10 reduced in areas with recycling programs that allow 11 materials to be dropped off at no charge. 12 While the regulation does not require the 13 expansion of waste collection, recycling and disposal 14 services, the regulation may stimulate increased 15 opportunities, better efficiencies and economies of scale 16 for local agencies striving to provide better services to 17 their constituents. 18 During the public comment period, several 19 additional issues have also been raised. First is the 20 consideration of widening the discretionary exemption tier 21 to a higher population density cut point. We have 22 evaluated several different cut points and feel they would 23 exempt substantially more households and therefore would 24 not beAs health protected. 25 Second, at the workshops, citizens have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 questioned whether we have monitoring data or plan to 2 conduct monitoring to demonstrate that toxic emissions 3 exist in unhealthful quantities in their particular 4 community. 5 While ambient measurements have not been made in 6 most communities, because testing has demonstrated that 7 the combustion of backyard garbage results in substantial 8 emissions, and because there is no threshold below which 9 public exposure is considered safe, there is an adequate 10 basis to control this source. Finally, requests have been 11 made for a later effective date to allow more time for 12 public education and development of waste disposal 13 alternatives. 14 We believe our modification to provide ARB 15 commitment to public education will be effective in 16 meeting this need. 17 In addition, the ten-year exemption review 18 schedule will provide time for expansion of waste services 19 in those areas where they are most lacking. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SUAREZ-MURIAS: In 22 summary, we recommend that the Board adopt the proposed 23 regulation with the additional modifications presented 24 today. We believe that a strong commitment to public 25 education and outreach is essential, and we will work with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 the air districts and fire districts to provide the needed 2 information. 3 We also support a continued, strong working 4 relationship with the Integrated Waste Management Board 5 and others to develop and distribute educational 6 materials, as well as in promoting other waste disposal 7 alternatives, which are environmentally sound. 8 Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. And, 10 again, Madam Ombudsman, will you please describe the 11 public participation process that occurred while this item 12 was being developed before it was brought before the 13 Board. 14 OMBUDSMAN TSCHOGL: Mr. Chairman and Members of 15 the Board, as you know, at your June 29th, 2001 meeting 16 you directed staff to develop an Airborne Toxic Control 17 Measure, ATCM, for dioxin emissions from residential waste 18 burning and the use of burn barrels. 19 Since that time, staff has worked with the 20 following entities in the development of the proposed 21 ATCM, the California Air Pollution Control Officers 22 Association, Air Pollution Control districts, California 23 Integrated Waste Management Board, Office of Health Hazard 24 Assessments, California Department of Forestry, United 25 States Forest Service and the Regional Council of Rural PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 Counties. 2 The residential waste burning working group was 3 an offshoot of the existing smoke management working 4 group. The residential waste burning working group 5 discussed technical and nontechnical issues related to the 6 proposed ATCM before you now. The working group 7 membership consisted of 50 people from the various 8 agencies identified previously in addition to other ARB 9 divisional staff. 10 The working group organized 11 conference calls 11 and meetings with the above mentioned entities between 12 October 2000 and December 2001. Each meeting was attended 13 by about 25 people representing the APCDs, OEHHA, the 14 Integrated Waste Management Board, the Forest Service and 15 environmental groups, including the American Lung 16 Association. 17 Beginning in August 2001, staff met individually 18 with the staff from Modoc, Yreka, Mendocino, Lake, 19 Northern Sonoma, North Coast, Monterey, Kern and San Diego 20 air pollution control districts. In addition, staff met 21 with local fire department personnel, RCRC, local waste 22 management agencies and service providers, the California 23 Department of Forestry and the California Integrated Waste 24 Management Board. 25 In December 2001, staff conducted nine public PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 workshops in the following six locations Sacramento, 2 Yreka, Alturas, Susanville, Hollister and Alpine. 3 In January of 2002, staff conducted 12 public 4 workshops in the following 11 locations, Nevada City, 5 auburn, Jamestown, Willows, Oroville, Mariposa, 6 Placerville, Eureka, Crescent City, Redding and Yuba city. 7 Attendance at these workshops ranged from two in 8 Sacramento County to 40 at the Mariposa county workshop. 9 Workshops notices were sent out to over 4,000 people. 10 Staff used these community meetings to receive 11 input from the general public on how best to develop the 12 proposed ATCM. Such as issues as costs, density, distance 13 from the landfill, environmental impacts prohibiting the 14 burning of paper, landfill capacity, as well as the 15 additional trips associated with traveling to the landfill 16 were discussed at these workshops. 17 All workshops were noticed in the local 18 newspapers via local media advisories and on the ARB's 19 calendar of events schedule. Staff has developed two fact 20 sheets and a web site. 21 Finally, on January 4th, 2002, the public hearing 22 notice was sent out to over 4,000 people and staff sent a 23 copy of the staff report and proposed regulations to each 24 of the air districts. 25 Thank you. That concludes my comments. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 2 Questions from the Board to the staff? 3 Seeing no questions, at this time, I'll take 4 the -- start on the first of the witnesses. I'd like to 5 again remind witnesses if they have written copies of the 6 testimony, if they could provide it to the Clerk of the 7 Board. First, we have Supervisor Cantrall, Supervisor 8 Pearson, Mr. Mark Leary, Barbara Lee. 9 MODOC COUNTY SUPERVISOR CANTRALL: Good morning, 10 fellow public servants of the people of California. 11 Oh, this mic. Usually, I don't need one. 12 I would like to say right off that I would like 13 to thank Mr. Effa for bringing the group of people to 14 Modoc county. And I would like to ask youAs a Board 15 representing the people of California, how many of you 16 have been to the northern counties? 17 (Hands raised.) 18 MODOC COUNTY SUPERVISOR CANTRALL: Very good. 19 More trips are needed. First of all, I would like to ask 20 you to totally exempt Modoc, Lassen, Siskiyou and whatnot. 21 We are grateful that you have given us some leeway in 22 every ten years, but the way things are going our 23 population is not going to grow. We have no mills left, 24 no business of any kind in those counties and I can't see 25 us growing, so why don't you just totally exempt us, and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 why don't you take MTBE out of the system. That would do 2 more for the State of California than taking away our 3 little old burn barrels. 4 For air quality versus water quality control, I 5 would wish that you would work a little more closely with 6 them, because we are under sanction from water quality 7 control controlling what we take to the dumps, from the 8 dumps to Lockwood. If we raise that consumption going to 9 the landfills and the dump sites, then we're going to be 10 fined by water quality control. And, of course, it is 11 going to go up if we have no burn barrels. And like I 12 say, we grant you've given us a little space, give us all 13 of it. 14 I would ask you people if you took an oath of 15 office, like I did, to uphold the Constitution of the 16 United States? I thought you did. It does say in that 17 oath that we will defend our people against all enemies, 18 foreign and domestic. 19 And I would like to leave you with this one word. 20 You make laws regarding northern California about a people 21 you don't know and a land most of you have never really 22 truly toured. Isn't that coming under the heading of 23 domestic enemy, when you slit the throats of the people of 24 the northern part of the State just to make us look like 25 Los Angeles county or San Francisco or Sacramento? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 I, too, took that oath. AndAs little girl, I had 2 the enemies of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. And I say 3 to you that the only enemy I have today are the 4 politicians of Sacramento and the United States government 5 and I hope you start changing your ways. 6 Thank you. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 8 Next Supervisor Pearson. 9 PLUMAS COUNTY SUPERVISOR PEARSON: My name is 10 B.J. Pearson and I am a supervisor from Plumas County, 11 District 1. I was sort of tempted to say me too. She 12 said it pretty well for the people of Plumas County, but 13 there are some other areas I'd like to get into. 14 When I first heard about this proposal, I talked 15 to several people in the county. And at first, because 16 I'm known now and again for practical jokes, they thought 17 this was a practical joke. 18 They really didn't believe in Plumas County 19 knowing that we have 1.6 million acres and 20,000 people 20 in the whole county, that any responsible government 21 agency would be seriously considering banning burn 22 barrels. 23 First, it's thought by most of the people in 24 Plumas county that burn barrels are beneficial by 25 containing the way we burn our materials. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 And second, they could not see how that if we're 2 to be governed under the Constitution that the majority of 3 the people are to make the rules that we'd abide by and 90 4 percent of Plumas county at least does not want this, why 5 we wouldn't be entitled to an automatic exemption. 6 Well, I told them, and I'm telling you that 7 freedom is not easily to come by nor is it easy to keep, 8 and so we have to come to these meetings, we have to 9 appear in front of this body and we have to allow you to 10 know that we cannot live with this regulation for two 11 reason. 12 First, we don't have how we're going to enforce 13 it, nobody has ever told us that. We don't know what the 14 penalties are going to be. And last, and this is very 15 important, and I would like for you to seriously consider 16 this, my client, as an elected official, is the people of 17 Plumas County. That's who I answer to. 18 And the vast majority of the people in Plumas 19 county, almost unanimous hot only say they do not want 20 this regulation, they say they won't abide by it. 21 Now, I'm sure you understand that at some point 22 when you continue to pass rules, and it gets to the point 23 where the vast majority of the people no longer will 24 tolerate your regulations, we've got a serious problem. 25 And I would like to submit that we're getting PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 close to that problem in California. I would like for 2 Plumas county to be added to the list of categorical 3 exemptions. I don't think that we pose a problem to 4 anybody. We've got 1.6 million acres. We've only got 5 20,000 people. They don't want this rule. They won't 6 abide by this rule. I have no idea who's going to come up 7 thereAs burn barrel cop and try to enforce this rule. 8 I ask you to consider just some common sense and 9 back away from trying to force the rural counties, who 10 cannot afford it, to comply with this regulation. They 11 don't want it. They won't live by it. Please back away 12 from your regulation. 13 Thank you very much. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 15 Mr. McKinnon. 16 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I'm looking at the map 17 and Modoc certainly looks like most of it is exempt. How 18 about Plumas? There's not really an overlay of county 19 lines that I can see from this distance. 20 It's not Placer, it's Plumas. Our list says 21 Plumas. 22 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: It's Plumas. 23 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: So there's some urban 24 areas that are not exempted, but much of it is exempted in 25 Modoc. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 PARTICULATE MATTER ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER 2 MAGLIANO: Modoc is right here, so it's almost all of 3 them. 4 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: So it's almost all 5 exempted. Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 7 What about the issue of enforcement and the -- is 8 that to be worked out? 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: What we were trying to 10 do is we actually delayed the implementation date,As way 11 of providing for greater public education. And from an 12 enforcement standpoint, the Health and Safety Code does 13 provide for penalties for noncompliance. But we were 14 hoping to work with the local fire official and with the 15 local air pollution control officers. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 17 Mark Leary, Integrated Waste Management Board. 18 Barbara Lee and Dr. Wallerstein. 19 Thank you, Mark, for coming today. 20 MR. LEARY: Good morning Chairman Lloyd and 21 members of the Board. My name is Mark Leary. I'm the 22 Executive Director of the Integrated Waste Management 23 Board. And as your staffAs portrayed we've been actively 24 involved in these proposed regulations. And what I'm up 25 here today to do is to commit our support as you move PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 forward in the implementation of these regulations to take 2 advantage of the Board's resources, and we'll commit those 3 resources to your implementation, because, in fact, we 4 support the philosophy behind these regulations. 5 We particularly are enticed and supportive of the 6 proposed modifications of your staff. We think, 7 particularly, putting the implementation date out to 8 January 2004 will give us a good 18 months to work with 9 our common stakeholders, the jurisdictions who are 10 affected by this Regulation and assist them in not only 11 waste disposal alternatives,As the staff portrayed it, but 12 alternatives to disposal for those rural jurisdictions, 13 because that's mainly what the Waste Board is all about, 14 of course, is finding alternatives to disposal and finding 15 productive uses for those materials in the recycling 16 environment. 17 So, again, we commit our support and look forward 18 to our positive working relationship. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, Mark. 20 We appreciate you coming. 21 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, may I just 22 ask a question of this gentleman. 23 We all know that we have responsibilities in 24 recycling and taking as much waste and putting it into 25 recycling programs to save our landfills. Do these PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 smaller counties have the same responsibility that the 2 larger counties do, the more urban counties? 3 MR. LEARY: A short answer is that AB 939 passed 4 in 1989, defined a 50 percent diversion rate. The statute 5 also defined an alternative for rural jurisdictions to 6 seek a different rate than the 50 percent to seek a 7 reduction in that diversion rate. So rural jurisdictions 8 can appeal to the Board to seek a reduction in the 9 recycling requirement because of the nature of the rural 10 waste management environment in that it's difficult to 11 final those alternatives. 12 We are working with those jurisdictions, both the 13 populated jurisdictions, as well as the rural 14 jurisdictions throughout the State, to meet that mandate. 15 And we have assisted in some jurisdictions in putting an 16 application together to reduce their diversion mandate for 17 50 percent to something less, in consideration of the 18 difficulties that these jurisdictions face in managing 19 their waste materials. 20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Would it still fall say 21 some where between 25 percent and 50 percent? Have you 22 lowered any beyond 25 percent? 23 MR. LEARY: I believe some jurisdictions have 24 sought reductions beyond 25 percent, and I believe they've 25 been granted, but I hesitate to quote. Let me follow up PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 in writing to the Chair and to the Members of the Board to 2 confirm that for you with copies to staff. 3 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you, Mark. 5 Thank very much, indeed. 6 Supervisor Forester from Amador county has 7 arrived, so I'll take the Supervisor, and then Barbara. 8 AMADOR COUNTY SUPERVISOR FORESTER: Good morning. 9 Thank you for taking my testimony today. I'm from Amador 10 County. I really can't believe we're committing this kind 11 of money and staff to a problem which I consider minimal 12 compared to the impact of Amador County with is coming 13 from San Francisco, Sacramento and the more urban areas of 14 the State. 15 We have an inversion layer that comes in and 16 impacts us far more severely than any impact that's going 17 to come from burn barrels. I would ask you to take that 18 more seriously than what we're booking at today. 19 Burn barrels have been a part of life for people 20 in the rural counties. I'm not saying that there aren't 21 corrections we can make. We can educate the people. If 22 you're going to help us at all, help us with the dollars 23 for education. 24 Right now, we have a program with our local air 25 district where we do educate, we could do a better job if PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 we had more dollars put into that. Why spend the dollars 2 on enforcement and regulation on burn barrels when we 3 could be taking it and putting it into education to help 4 our people understand the rules more clearly. 5 And I think the majority of the people understand 6 the rules and do abide by it. Most people know that 7 they're not supposed to burn plastics and thinks of that 8 nature. 9 The other impact is burning the material, 10 cardboard and things like that, if we have to take it to 11 the landfill, you're going to impact, one, our roads and 12 the use of the roads, the safety factor that goes into 13 that. 14 Our landfill in Amador County, which is already 15 in trouble because it has too much waste going into it, is 16 located on an intersection of Buena Vista Road and Highway 17 88 which is a major intersection. Just to show you the 18 safety impacts, my mother is sitting in Amador county 19 hospital right now because she was broadsided by a car 20 coming off Buena Vista Road where the landfill is located. 21 That's just one case, but it hits home with me, 22 because she's going to be in the hospital for about three 23 weeks. That's the intersection of our landfill road. 24 That's a big safety factor. You're going to 25 require a lot of elderly folks who burn their things and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 follow the rules at their home to travel to the landfill. 2 Our county is dominated by an elderly population. 3 Now, all those people are going to have to travel 4 to the landfill instead of being able to burn, since we're 5 one of the counties which is not exempted. 6 We have specific areas of our county in the 7 incorporated cities, which should not be allowed to burn. 8 But I think the rural areas of our county should be 9 exempted. We should have that say from our local Air 10 Board, and we'll work along with you on the education. 11 But we believe that our people should be allowed to use 12 that right that they have to burn and use those burn 13 barrels at their homes legally and not exempt them from 14 the other items, plastics and things that they should be 15 taking to the landfill. 16 We would ask you to just help us with the funding 17 of education and we appreciate your support in that 18 effort, but please don't force us to go under some 19 guidelines that to us appear ridiculous. Help us to stop 20 the inversion layer and make more stringent regulations on 21 San Francisco and the urban areas. 22 Thank you very much. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you, Supervisor. 24 Just one point of clarification, the pollution 25 that comes from the Bay Area and other areas there, that's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 sort of the urban smog, I think this is focused on the 2 toxicsAs toxic control measures and clearly dioxin is one 3 of the issues that we're looking at. 4 And also, we've got some testimony here from one 5 of the water districts. And I've heard it from my 6 colleague, the Chairman of the Water Board, to say that 7 anything that gets into the air, so dioxin gets in the air 8 from things like burn barrels, do deposit. They also then 9 become a water quality issue. 10 But I appreciate the point you raise. This is 11 clearly a very difficult issue for us. I just want to 12 clarify the difference between this particular measure and 13 the other transport of typical smog. 14 AMADOR COUNTY SUPERVISOR FORESTER: They are two 15 separate issues. I wish we could have had Supervisor 16 Guttman who's a chemist from Sierra County. He refuted 17 everyone of those points at one of our RCRC meetings. 18 Unfortunately, because he lives in Sierra county and they 19 are exempted, he's hot here today, but he did refute 20 everyone of those points with no answer from your ARB 21 staff. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. 23 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, if I might, 24 just back to recycling for a moment. Do you have a 25 recycling program? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 AMADOR COUNTY SUPERVISOR FORESTER: We have a 2 recycling program at our landfill where people can go -- 3 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: At the landfill. 4 AMADOR COUNTY SUPERVISOR FORESTER: At the 5 landfill and PEOPLE Within the communities have a number 6 of different recycling facilities. I, myself, take in 7 cans and plastics in our recycling facility in Ione, in 8 the City of Ione. 9 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Do you have any transfer 10 stations in your county? 11 AMADOR COUNTY SUPERVISOR FORESTER: We do have 12 two transfer stations. 13 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Are those working well? 14 AMADOR COUNTY SUPERVISOR FORESTER: They are 15 working very well. And especially we have, on a monthly 16 basis, people can take in their toxic waste paints and 17 things like that into the landfills and drop them off for 18 no charge. 19 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. 20 AMADOR COUNTY SUPERVISOR FORESTER: Thank you 21 very much. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 23 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Sir. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Supervisor. 25 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Many of us on this Board PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 are concerned about transport from the Bay Area, in 2 particular. And something you should note is that we are 3 barred by law, by statute from doing everything we need to 4 do there. And that's a conversation you should also have 5 with your legislator, because there's a hole carved out 6 for the Bay Area that we would like to get to. Just so 7 you know. 8 AMADOR COUNTY SUPERVISOR FORESTER: I can believe 9 that, since a majority of the Legislature come from very 10 urban areas. 11 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Well, that's another 12 subject. 13 (Laughter.) 14 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: We have population based 15 reapportionment. I happen to, in my other activities, 16 represent timber mill workers. And I have a very clear 17 understanding of how populated areas sometimes get a 18 different view of what's really happening in rural areas. 19 So don't assume that people from populated areas 20 don't have some understanding, whether it's cattle 21 ranching or forestry operations. I've spent lots of time 22 working and supporting people's right to work in those 23 industries. 24 I'm not convinced that that translates, in my 25 mind, to being able to poison your neighbor with dioxins. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 People burn trash, okay. We both know that. Let's be 2 honest about it. 3 So, if there's a better way to do this, if it 4 means more landfills or whatever, I'm interested in all 5 the possibilities, but people burn trash, and that smoke 6 hits their neighbors. And I think we've got to give that 7 some thought. 8 AMADOR COUNTY SUPERVISOR FORESTER: Let's define 9 the trash, what type do they burn, and go with the 10 education rather than the regulation that government is so 11 famous for. 12 I just have a hard time looking around the room 13 here at the number of staff committed to this and not 14 being able to realize that education is the key to this, 15 not enforcement, not regulation. You can put these 16 regulations on it, but if enforcement is another item. 17 You're going to have hit and miss regulation in 18 these counties because the dollars aren't going to be 19 there to regulate, but give us the tools to educate the 20 people and I think we'll do a far better job in helping 21 you meet your goal. 22 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Okay. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you, Supervisor. 24 AMADOR COUNTY SUPERVISOR FORESTER: Thank you 25 very much. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Barbara Lee, Dr. Wallerstein, 2 Bonnie Holmes-Gen. 3 MS. LEE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members 4 of the Board. My name is Barbara Lee and I'm the Air 5 Pollution Control Officer in northern Sonoma county. I'm 6 actually here before you today on behalf of the California 7 Air Pollution Control Officers Association to express our 8 support for reducing public exposure to harmful emissions 9 from garbage burning in burn barrels. 10 As you will recall last June, the membership 11 asked the Air Resources Board to move forward to address 12 this important air quality and public health issue. We 13 also asked ARB to consider the circumstances in the more 14 rural parts of California, and ensure that efforts to 15 reduce exposure to burn barrel emissions did not create an 16 undue hardship in those rural parts of the State. 17 The staff of the ARBAs done a tremendous job in a 18 very short timeframe making themselves available 19 throughout the State to work with stakeholders, hear our 20 comments and seek solutions. 21 As an association, CAPCOAAs worked with its 22 members to identify and understand the needs of individual 23 districts and to develop consensus solutions. Our goal 24 has been to achieve real reductions in public exposure to 25 harmful air pollutants, while continuing to recognize the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 need for local flexibility. 2 To further this effort, our members developed and 3 approved a consensus position on regulating burn barrel 4 use, and we believe that this position focuses the efforts 5 of the ARB and the local districts in areas where the 6 greatest benefit will occur. 7 It provides the time needed for effective 8 implementation, and it allows flexibility for areas that 9 are not currently able to eliminate burn barrel use, while 10 providing a mechanism to educate the public in those areas 11 and to reconsider the circumstances as the population of 12 the area changes. 13 Most of the points of our consensus position have 14 been incorporated into the proposed regulation that's 15 before you today. The only point that we supported that 16 you did not incorporate into your proposed regulation was 17 our request that once exemptions and applicability have 18 finally been determined on the basis of population density 19 and the other exemption requests that have been submitted, 20 that the Air Board hold a public hearing to formally 21 identify the areas that are subject and the areas that are 22 exempt to make sure that there is not some significant 23 controversy outstanding. And we would like to reiterate 24 that requestAs part of our testimony today. 25 I also need to point out that there have been PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 several changes to the proposal in the last couple of 2 weeks that go beyond the consensus position that we 3 adopted. And I want to make sure that you do not construe 4 my testimony nowAs being supportive of those changes. I 5 cannot take a position on those changes, because the 6 membership has not had a chance to consider them and vote 7 on them. 8 We did provide a complete written statement of 9 our position to ARB staff. Our consensus position 10 represents a considerable amount of compromise by 11 individual members districts. Some districts would have 12 gone further with the ban, while others still have strong 13 reservations about moving ahead. 14 While not everyone was happy with all elements of 15 the compromise, our members felt that the result was 16 acceptable. Nonetheless, some districts will be 17 addressing you today to convey their individual 18 interests.As always, we encourage you to listen carefully 19 to their concerns. 20 We believe it is our diversity that makes 21 California such a unique and wonderful place. And it is 22 our abilityAs regulators to recognize that diversity that 23 makes us effective in our request to protect air quality 24 and public health. 25 In closing I would like to express our gratitude PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 for the support given to CAPCOA by this Board and by the 2 ARB staff in moving ahead on our request of last June, and 3 the substantial resources you committed to this effort 4 over the last several months. 5 We look forward to working with you and your 6 staff in the future on this effort and other efforts. 7 Thank you very much. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank, Barbara. 9 I think we have a question, Ms. D'Adamo. 10 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Ms. Lee, could you or Ms. 11 Terry identify the significant areas in which the staff 12 proposal differs from the consensus based proposal that 13 CAPCOA supports. 14 MS. LEE: The basis of our consensus position was 15 the concept that areas with a population density of less 16 than three people per square mile should be exempt from 17 the regulation. 18 And that in areas where the population density is 19 between three people and ten people per square mile, the 20 area should be able to request an exemption from the 21 regulation if two criteria hold true. 22 And that would be that there is a distance to the 23 nearest landfill of 15 miles or greater or the local fire 24 chief has found that the use of burn barrels is necessary 25 for a fire safe consideration. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 We also had some other criteria regarding the 2 issuance of a written permit to use the burn barrel or the 3 provision of some alternative mechanism for disseminating 4 information to people who would be using burn barrels, so 5 that they would be able to consider whether or not this 6 was something that they really wanted to be doing based on 7 the health effects. 8 We asked that the Board of a District wishing to 9 have an exemption be required to hold a public hearing, 10 and in that public hearing consider the risks associated 11 with the use of burn barrels and articulate the basis for 12 the board deciding that the use of burn barrels was still 13 necessary. 14 We also provided in our consensus position some 15 requested time frames for the provision of information to 16 the districts, and from the districts to ARB in order to 17 support a smooth determination of applicability and 18 enforcement. 19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Could staff respond and 20 perhaps give the justification for the changes? 21 PARTICULATE MATTER ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER 22 MAGLIANO: This is Karen Magliano. Two of the primary 23 differences between what Ms. Lee presented and what we 24 have in staff's modified proposal, one, that in the 25 exemption areas under our modified proposal, you would PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 only be allowed to burn paper and cardboard. 2 So in air districts that had currently been 3 allowed to burn plastics and other garbage, that would no 4 longer be allowed even in the exemption areas. 5 The other change was that we have included a 6 provision to subdivide some of the census zip codes, 7 because they are so large in some cases, to allow the 8 districts to look at how population density may be 9 different throughout the zip code itself. 10 We also did not include the provision for being 11 greater than 15 miles from a landfill and essentially 12 provided that discretion to the air district to make a 13 determination that they needed to continue burning paper 14 and cardboard within their exemption areas. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. Calhoun. 16 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Ms. Lee, couldn't the 17 local districts do, in effect, what you're asking the 18 State to do, in terms of banning burning? And if that's 19 true, why haven't you done it? 20 MS. LEE: Well, certainly the local districts 21 have the authority to establish regulations. The 22 districts do not specifically have the authority to 23 establish air toxics control measures that the Air Board 24 has. 25 In some instances, we believe it is more PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 efficient and effective where the impacts of a particular 2 activity are recognized and are not going to vary 3 throughout the State. And by this I mean, that exposure 4 to dioxins is a serious health consideration. And if the 5 exposure occurs, it doesn't really matter where you're 6 living when the exposure occurs. 7 This is not a circumstance where you're dealing 8 with local smog issues where there is a significant 9 variation throughout the State in the sources that are 10 comprising the pollution problem, the degree of the 11 pollution problem, that sort of thing. 12 So our feeling was that this was a significant 13 public health concern, that the best way to address it was 14 through an Air Toxic Control Measure to reduce the 15 exposure. 16 That being said, there are a number of districts 17 that have gone ahead and made this move on their own. 18 There are many others who are contemplating this move. 19 Sometimes, it is more effective to have us all move 20 forward together. And in support of that, the membership 21 voted unanimously last may to request you to do this. And 22 I believe at that meeting we had all but three or four of 23 the local air districts present. 24 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I can understand why Mr. 25 Wallerstein is supporting this particular regulation, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 because burning in these incinerators have been outlawed 2 in Los Angeles County for almost 50 years. 3 And I'll just drop this. I won't pursue it 4 anymore. 5 MS. LEE: I appreciate your concern there. I can 6 say certainly on behalf of my own district, and this is 7 not on behalf of all districts, but merely northern 8 Sonoma, we are in support of this proposal. We had 9 intended to move forward with the ban. We're one of the 10 areas that allows the burning of nonplastic. We allow 11 paper and cardboard and vegetation to be burned. Our 12 intent had been to move forward regardless of your action. 13 And I think you'll hear from a number of the 14 other rural districts that are in support of the proposal. 15 You will also hear from rural districts that have concerns 16 about this proposal. And I think the diversity of the 17 opinion largely reflects the composition of the people 18 living in the area, and it is the job of the Air Pollution 19 Control Officer to represent the position of their board. 20 And the Board represents the feelings of the people, and 21 that's why you will hear the diversity of opinion. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I compliment you coming 23 forward in representing CAPCOA, when I see the list of 24 people here who are members who are going to be here. 25 Do you have any idea, or does the staff have any PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 idea, how many burn barrels are we talking about 2 statewide, approximately? 3 PARTICULATE MATTER ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER 4 MAGLIANO: We've surveyed the air districts, and 5 approximately we came up with about 100,000 burn barrels 6 statewide. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: What are we going to do with 8 the burn barrels when they're not used? 9 (Laughter.) 10 MS. LEE: They make excellent planters. 11 (Laughter.) 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. 13 MS. LEE: I thought you were going to ask me if I 14 had life insurance. 15 (Laughter.) 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 17 Dr. Wallerstein, and then Bonnie Holmes-Gen, 18 James Hirschinger, and Richard Davis. 19 DR. WALLERSTEIN: Good morning, Chairman Lloyd 20 and members of the Board. I'm Barry Wallerstein. I'm the 21 Executive Officer at the South Coast Air Quality 22 Management District, I'm here to present our staff's 23 comments. 24 We are home to Los Angeles County. We're most 25 often thought ofAs home to the metropolitan Los Angeles PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 area, and we do have, in our district, about 40 percent of 2 the State's population. However, we're also home to 3 communities in the San Bernardino MountainsAs we're also 4 the home of the Coachella Valley, so we do have rural 5 portions of our district. 6 I'm here today to strongly support your approval 7 of the proposal that is before you. I also support the 8 CAPCOA proposed amendments. I want to point out and 9 emphasize that the proposal that you have before you has a 10 tiered exemption structure. You not only have some of the 11 very rural areas that are automatically exempt, based on 12 the current population statistics, you have an ability for 13 other low population areas to opt in to an exemption. And 14 the opt-in process seems to me to be very fair and not 15 burdensome. 16 Mr. Calhoun, the real reason that I'm here today 17 is because when I first started delving into this topicAs 18 a member of CAPCOA and I saw the risk estimates that your 19 staff has produced, and I compare those to large 20 industrial sources in urbanized areas are frankly almost 21 to the total contribution from our stationary sources in 22 south coast, and see how these levels from the burn 23 barrels mirror even potentially exceed that of what we 24 find in our most urbanized areas,As matter of public 25 health and environmental protection, and frankly, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 reflective of the 20-year plan that your staff just 2 described to you in the previous agenda item, I think it's 3 urgent that the State move forward on this item. 4 And with that, I would urge your approval. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, Barry, 6 for coming. 7 Any questions? 8 MS. HOLMES-GEN: Good morning. Bonnie Holmes-Gen 9 representing the American Lung Association of California. 10 And I am pleased to be here today in support of the 11 proposal before your board today. 12 The position of the American Lung Association of 13 California is that open burning of garbage poses a health 14 hazard and is a practice that must be stopped. As you are 15 aware, residential waste burning causes dioxins and other 16 potent persistent hazardous chemicals not to mention the 17 fine particle matter, which we're greatly concerned about. 18 Communities throughout California are adopting 19 ordinances regulating wood smoke emissions due to the 20 severe health problems posed by exposure to wood smoke 21 pollution. And pollution from barrel burning and backyard 22 burning is so much more hazardous due to the dioxins and 23 other toxics emitted into the air. 24 And because there are no emissions controls,As 25 you've just heard, the toxic risk from barrel burning PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 mirrors the risk of industries in urban areas. This is a 2 very serious risk that must be controlled. 3 As you know, there are several counties and air 4 districts that have already banned residential burning 5 successfully, and the bans have resulted in substantial 6 improvement to the environment, health, fire, safety and 7 the quality of life in communities around this State. 8 Smoke and emissions from backyard residential 9 burning are unhealthy for everyone, but can cause severe 10 reactions in residents that have sensitive lungs. AndAs 11 your presentation earlier noted, that we are all in a 12 sensitive groupAs some point in our life, whether we're 13 children, whether we are the elderly, whether we have an 14 asthma condition or other respiratory condition, we all, 15 at some point may, fall into a sensitive category where we 16 are specially sensitive to the impacts of these burns. 17 At the Lung Association, we receive many 18 complaints from people affected by air pollution from many 19 sources, including burn barrels. We receive calls from 20 people who say they feel like they are prisoners in their 21 own homes. They fear going outside because they fear the 22 health effects of breathing in toxic fumes. We've 23 received many letters and communications from individuals, 24 and we've passed some of them on to your staff and we can 25 certainly pass others on to you, but it certainly is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 greatly disconcerting to us that people feel like they're 2 prisoners in their own homes because of the toxic effects 3 of these burns. 4 We support the strongest restrictions possible on 5 burn barrels, and the strongest restrictions on any 6 exemptions that are allowed. We are concerned about some 7 of the revisions that have been made recently. The 8 extension of the effective date and the provision to 9 revisit exemptions every ten years. We think that's too 10 much time. We would encourage you to look to go back to a 11 four- or five-year time period to revisit those 12 exemptions. 13 And we do support the recommendations for 14 permitting exemptions and requiring permits for any 15 exemptions and accompanying any exemptions with a very 16 strong educational program and materials describing the 17 health impacts of open burning. 18 The air of our community is a valuable resource 19 that must be protected and we commend the Air Resources 20 Board for its leadership and urge you to move ahead and 21 ban this unhealthy practice. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 23 Mrs. Riordan. 24 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Bonnie, I wanted to ask, 25 two of the supervisors brought up what I think is a very PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 good point, which is an education program, asking the ARB 2 to participate. And I know our staff feels very strongly 3 that we do need to educate people. 4 Could the Lung Association also join us in that 5 effort. I think you would have maybe some resources that 6 could be very helpful to us at this time, and I'm sure you 7 have a number of members in the northern areas, but we 8 need to do some real outreach to people. Would you be 9 willing to commit to that? 10 MS. HOLMES-GEN: Yes, we certainly would enjoy 11 being apart of that and helping in the educational 12 process. 13 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I think that would be very 14 helpful to this program. 15 Thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 17 James Hirschinger, Richard Davis, Cynthia Cory. 18 DR. HIRSCHINGER: Good morning. I'd like to 19 thank the Board for allowing me to come testify this 20 morning. My name is Dr. James Hirschinger. I'm here to 21 address what I consider to be the ultimate secondhand 22 smoke, and that is the burn barrel. 23 I'd like to compliment the staff on the 24 tremendous report that they did that was eye opening, very 25 sobering when I first read this report. I'd also like to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 thank them for the way that they conducted the public 2 hearings. 3 I was amazed at the public hearing in Placer 4 County of the passion that people had to keep their burn 5 barrels. I would like to assure you that I am equally as 6 passionate to do something about it. 7 Twenty years ago my wife and I bought an acre of 8 land in rural Loomis and spent our life building a place 9 that we wanted to enjoy. We opened the windows on a nice 10 morning, there's fairly clear air outside, my neighbor 11 about 100 yards away cranks up, fires up his burn barrel. 12 Immediately the air comes into our house and we become 13 prisoners in our house as the last speaker said. It's 14 affected us. It's affected my wife's health. It's 15 stifling. It's got to be changed. 16 I'd like to support this ATCM. I think it's 17 needed. It needs to be implemented. I'd like to have 18 itAs original implementation time, but I understand those 19 kind of restrictions. 20 We live on an acre with 40 oaks. We have not 21 burned for ten years. Education needs to be apart of this 22 process. We use a chipper program, that the County comes 23 out and will chip our wood for us on site. That needs to 24 be expanded. It needs to be promoted. We recycle, and we 25 use other methods to get rid of what we consider some PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 things that are biodegradable. 2 Education,As said, is critical. I'd like to 3 recommend that there be other things done besides the burn 4 barrel. I think that's only the tip of the iceberg. Open 5 burning is also an issue. I think there need to be new 6 restrictions on that. The Loomis basin is becoming 7 intolerable. It's going to affect the health of the 8 children, the psychological impact of people living there 9 and the economy ultimately. 10 I would recommend that they promote and support 11 the expansion of the chipper programs, that they promote 12 and support a green waste program in the county to help 13 people to find ways to deal with getting rid of their 14 waste. We understand where people's concerns are. The 15 government has to do something to help them. 16 And finally, I think that if people are not 17 burning outside, they're going to take their garbage and 18 things and burn it in their stoves inside, including 19 Christmas paper, which is toxic to wildlife and birds. 20 There needs to be a way for business and industry 21 to provide incentives for people to upgrade their 22 wood-burning stoves, so that they can find a way to lessen 23 the pollution that's out there. 24 So in summary, I would like to urge you to 25 support this and to make sure that we enjoy California and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 the air that we would like to have healthy for all of us. 2 Thank you. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much for 4 coming. 5 Questions, comments? 6 Richard Davis, Cynthia Cory and David Conway. 7 MR. DAVIS: Good morning. I'm Richard Davis from 8 Granite Bay. And I'm here to give you my support for the 9 burn barrel ban. One of the main reasons that -- we live 10 in a basin there in Granite Bay and the air doesn't move 11 out very well, so anything we can do to eliminate burning 12 is going to benefit us. 13 And Mr. Calhoun mentioned something earlier about 14 why doesn't the local districts try to do something about 15 it. And I've been working with the fire district and the 16 air pollution control district at Placer County for over 17 two years to try to get something done. But it always 18 ends up a political issue. So something has to be done at 19 a higher level. They just don't want to seem to take the 20 responsibility or the blame. 21 Like I say, I support this ban. I just think 22 that perhaps you don't far enough. I'd like to see you go 23 on and include all open burning in California. How do you 24 eat an elephant? One bite at a time. 25 Thank you very much. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 (Laughter.) 2 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Thank you. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 4 MS. CORY: Chairman and Members, Cynthia Cory 5 from the California Farm Bureau. I want to thank your 6 staff, first off, for all the cooperation I've received in 7 working with them on this issue. They included me into 8 their working group and I appreciate that. 9 And I hope they have feel that I was cooperative 10 too because I did try to advertise the workshops as much 11 as possible and put an article about this in the Ag Alert, 12 which I think did draw a lot of attention to the 13 workshops. 14 So I wish, you know, with all this cooperation, 15 Could say we're singing Koombiya here. We're close to it. 16 We're just a couple chords short of it. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Feel free. 18 (Laughter.) 19 MS. CORY: We're not quite in harmony. 20 So what I'd like to do is just mention a few 21 concerns we have and then I'll offer an alternative, 22 because I'm not asking you to do nothing. And I have 23 submitted my comments in writing and hopefully you have 24 them. 25 First off, before I go into our concerns, since PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 I've been sitting here, I would like to -- some of the 2 questions that have come from the Board I'd just like to 3 make two comments on. 4 First, there was a question about Modoc being 5 exempt. And I would draw your attention to -- this page 6 has been very help to me and maybe would be helpful to the 7 Board Members. It's 4-2. It has a table in it in the 8 proposal. And it lists all the counties by county. It 9 shows you exactly what they can do in the county now. So 10 I think it's real important that the Board understand that 11 there's only six districts in the State that can burn, 12 what we call household garbage. The rest of what we're 13 talking about here is paper and cloth in nine of them. 14 But the majority of them we're just talking about paper 15 and vegetation. 16 And the other point was what Mr. Calhoun had made 17 about can't local districts do it? And I think,As we all 18 know, Politics has a lot to do with anything, but I think 19 that there needs to be political will. And I think I've 20 got in my proposal an answer to that, but I do think -- 21 I'm a firm believer in local control and local decision 22 making. 23 One of the concerns I have is with the new 24 determination on the population control centers. And this 25 three to ten is based on, what I, guess is a square mile. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 And then there is something to do with the zip code. And 2 I guess -- since I've only seen the summary, and even 3 from -- 4 The presentation I wasn't able to tell exactly 5 what that means, but I do know that there are areas of the 6 State, let's take Alturas, for example, that where you've 7 got a whole zip code and you've got the City of Alturas, 8 which is going to have a population center that's 9 certainly going to be more than ten people per square 10 mile, but in that zip code you're going to have outlying 11 rural areas that are going to be 20 to 25 miles, they have 12 pretty big zip codes up there. 13 And so they would be affected by this. So I 14 just -- I want to make really clear how ever you go 15 forward with this three to ten per square mile, where does 16 this square mile start and how does it work with the zip 17 codes. Just doing the zip code, I'm not sure is -- I 18 think it needs a little bit more thought. 19 I think the majority of citizens, I'd like to 20 think so anyway, want clean air and will, you know, put up 21 the money if they're sure it's the right thing to do and 22 we're going to get a benefit from it. I think what we 23 have here, what I've seen from the rural members I talk 24 to, and you might wonder why the Farm Bureau is up here. 25 I know this isn't directed at farmers, but I do represent PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 a lot of people that live in the rural area, and they will 2 be affected by this. 3 And farmers are very aware of air problems, 4 especially as Ms. D'Adamo knows in the San Joaquin, we're 5 very aware of the air issues we're faced with and so we're 6 want to do our part. 7 But I think the case hasn't been made really 8 clearly here, and I think it has to do with part of the 9 modeling, and I understand risk assessment has to do with 10 computer modeling and that's 90 percent of it. But I'd 11 like to also draw your attention to, in the proposal, page 12 3-5, which is the only place I could find where they talk 13 about the testing that was done in California for this. 14 And as far as I can tell, as far as actual dioxin 15 testing, there was no testing done that had to do with 16 burn barrels. And where it was done, that's even close to 17 the rural areas was in Fresno, and they say it was not of 18 toxicological importance. 19 And I know I'm not an air scientist, but I just 20 think that it's important that if we're going to make this 21 fairly huge change for a number of people in California 22 that we've got the data that's specific to burn barrels, 23 and the situations that they're in, not incinerators in 24 LA, not U.S. EPA data where we've incorporated it using 25 California meteorological data, I'm talking about PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 measuring the emissions off of a burn barrel up in Modoc 2 county under real conditions. 3 Now, we've put a lot of money into outreach and I 4 appreciate that. And it would have been nice if we could 5 have put maybe a little bit of that money into real 6 testing. And I'm not saying test, test, test. I'm not 7 trying to stop the stuff by asking for a continuous test. 8 I'm just saying a little bit of actual real testing on the 9 real issue would have been productive. 10 So the other point I've got to make of concern is 11 illegal dumping. Our people are rural residents, and we 12 are concerned that $100 to $600 increased fee that they're 13 attributing to finding the waste service, there's going to 14 be a lot of poor rural residents that are going do 15 everything they can to avoid that. And unfortunately I 16 think they're going to dump it on a lot of my farmers' 17 lands, and they have a concern about that. 18 That's why I say local control, local decisions. 19 And that gets us to your proposal, which is a mandatory 20 five-year, every five years and that's a number I came up 21 with that kind of aligned with your review. 22 You can make it shorter or longer if you want, 23 but a five year review, at least, on every air district 24 that burns more than vegetation in the State. So this 25 would allow the people that apparently are scared to come PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 outdoors to come to their air boards, their local air 2 districts and make a lot of noise. 3 But in the meantime, these decisions should be 4 based on landfill capacities and risk emissions that are 5 done right there in that area based on that population. 6 It could also include waste service availability 7 in any parameter that would be important in that area. 8 It's going to be different. 9 And I think, Mr. Calhoun,As you were asking, why 10 haven't they very made it? And Ms. Lee is saying -- 11 they're about to ban paper burning in northern Sonoma. 12 Well, I think that there are a lot of, if you 13 look at that chart, there's a lot of ordinances that are 14 made. Even northern California, half the time you can't 15 burn six months out of the year, because of the burn -- 16 CDF telling them they'll can't burn anything. 17 So there's a lot of decisions that are made on a 18 local level and I think we need to capitalize that, so we 19 can take that local initiative with the mandatory review 20 and combine it with the public education that has been 21 proposed here which I full support. 22 And the money and the effort that's going to go 23 into that, and then you can educate the local people. If 24 there is concern about dioxins and barrel burning, these 25 people -- they'll listen to that and they'll change their PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 ways, but let that education go out. Let the testing go 2 with it. Let them see that it's a true problem, and then 3 go from there. 4 But I just think this is a public relation's 5 nightmare for you. We got the diesel retrofit. We 6 started out where we were going to retrofit every diesel 7 in the State, and you know how that went over and now 8 you're following it by, okay now we're going to take your 9 barrels. 10 And I understand that people might not understand 11 scientifically all the parameters and all the 12 ramifications, but I just want to make sure that we're 13 picking the right fight. And if you can use a carrot 14 instead of a stick, I would highly encourage it. 15 Thank you for your attention. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I cannot let you get away 17 with just comparing this to diesel retrofit. I mean, 18 there's all sorts of differences. 19 MS. CORY: Now what I meant is the public 20 relations. When you first started out, the way it was 21 laid out to the State was, and I'm assuming if you meant 22 it or not, but the it got around to the coffee shops was 23 that every diesel engine in this State was going to be 24 retrofitted. And I know we're moving towards a more 25 realistic approach, but that's the way -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We're moving towards a more 2 realistic approach based on sound science. 3 MS. CORY: Absolutely. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So on the one hand you're 5 criticizing us for not sound science. In the other case, 6 we're using sound science and you're also criticizing us. 7 MS. CORY: No, now. What I'm saying is -- I'm 8 very supportive of what you're doing with the diesel 9 retrofit. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Our ambition on diesel 11 retrofit was clearly to protect public health.As we moved 12 ahead with our sound sounds science approach, based on 13 international retrofit committee, clearly we find, as you 14 know, and we appreciate your participating, we can't do as 15 much as we wanted. But I think in this case, I think it's 16 clearly apples and oranges. 17 MS. CORY: Well, I'm sorry, maybe I used the 18 wrong example. I was meaning in relation and in reference 19 to public relations in the way it kind of rolls out. But 20 I do question the science here. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Since you're also a member of 22 the Diesel Retrofit Committee, maybe you can help Us 23 educate the public that we can't retrofit as many 24 enginesAs we would like. And obviously I know we're 25 working together to see how we can get some replacements PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 there. 2 MS. CORY: Oh, you know I'm there. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I appreciate that. But I 4 would like to take you up on a question for the staff when 5 we talk about, and I think I asked staff this, the comment 6 you made, what basis, what technical basis, do we have for 7 some of the measurements here? 8 PARTICULATE MATTER ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER 9 MAGLIANO: The basis is that the U.S. EPA has done testing 10 on burn barrels themselves. This testing was done in New 11 York, and they put together an average composition of 12 household waste. 13 We did look at how that compared to the typical 14 composition within California, and that compared quite 15 well in terms of the distribution between paper and 16 plastics and food waste and things like that. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And I also think that Bob 18 Reynolds, when he speaks, they've done some work in that 19 area, I think, according to his letter. 20 We have some more questions. 21 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'd like for staff to 22 comment on the zip code issue. Is there consideration of 23 perhaps subzip codes, or something that would address the 24 concern. 25 PARTICULATE MATTER ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 MAGLIANO: That's correct. Maybe we can also clarify what 2 we mean by a sense of zip code. Essentially, though, the 3 areas that are shown on that map there approximate a 4 postal zip code. And it was pointed out sometimes those 5 areas can be quite large. 6 In our proposed regulation all incorporated areas 7 would not -- could not be exempted from the regulations. 8 So what we've done is we've taken the and the area of all 9 incorporated areas out of the calculation of population 10 density for the remainder of the zip codes, so it does not 11 influence the population density in the surrounding 12 region. 13 ButAs we talked about earlier, because there may 14 be differences in population density throughout a census 15 zip code, we also have included a provision so that an air 16 district could subdivide that to better reflect those 17 variations within density. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 19 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah, I had the same 20 question, but I wanted to find out the Farm Bureau's 21 reaction to that method of -- it seems to me the point 22 here, we have letters from people that a burn barrel is 23 located underneath their apartment window and blows in 24 their house. 25 It seems to me the point is in population dense PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 areas, we need to deal with the problem. And I've worked 2 with the Farm Bureau and others on timber issues. I 3 realize that there are people that live out roads where 4 there's very little chance that they'll be exposed by 5 their neighbor. 6 But what we need to deal with is people who think 7 its their God-given right to burn their trash in their 8 backyard and have their neighbor breathe it. And so this 9 particular way of kind of framing up zip codes and 10 subdividing dense areas, I'm interested in your reaction 11 to that. 12 RESEARCH AND ECONOMICS STUDY CHIEF COREY: I'm 13 sorry someone was talking to my right when it was being 14 explained a little bit there. 15 As long as if there's flexibilityAs you're not 16 going to take great swaths of areas where you might have a 17 concentration of -- like Alturas. So if Alturas has a 18 waste service availability or someway to deal with their 19 trash, and then you've got 15 or 25 miles outside of 20 Alturas, where you'ge got one or two people per square 21 mile, but they're not going to get included in that, if 22 that's what you're assuring me of, I think that's the 23 direction I was trying to point to. 24 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Does that match up? 25 PARTICULATE MATTER ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 MAGLIANO: That is in deed correct. If you look at the 2 map here there's a dot for Alturas and then the rest of 3 the areas are either in the automatic or discretionary 4 exemptions areas. 5 MS. CORY: Okay. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 7 Larry Greene and then David Conway and Steven 8 Speckert. I guess Larry you have time constraints. 9 MR. GREENE: Thank you very much for taking me. 10 I'm Larry Greene. I'm the Air Pollution Control Officer 11 at the Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District. I'm 12 here to speak in support of the position that has been 13 developed, a very difficult position, very difficult 14 negotiations for quite a long time, to get to this point. 15 It's been difficult for the air districts to come 16 to a consensus position. And even with that, we did have 17 some people who were willing to come to a consensus 18 position. And I really appreciate that, but still have 19 some concerns for their local residents. And they will be 20 here to speak to those today. And I think that the Board 21 should certainly listen and honor those requests, too. 22 I appreciate the staff's work, because we started 23 out thinking that this was going to be pretty easy and it 24 hasn't been pretty easy. It's been very difficult. 25 As you see today, a lot of people believe it's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 their God-given right to do their burn barrel. My 2 district bans burn barrels. We don't allow those in my 3 district. Does that mean I don't get complaints? No. 4 When we get complaints, we go out an investigate 5 them. And I will tell you that because we have a ban in 6 my district, it certainly makes it easier to go out and 7 take care of the problems. 8 I've had some really serious discussions with 9 residents in my district who have been impacted with burn 10 barrels. And I wish I could have you listen to a couple 11 of those, because they believe it's their God-given right 12 not to have to deal with the burn barrel and not to have 13 those toxins put in into their bed rooms and into their 14 houses and into their communities. 15 I think this is a good compromise. I think it 16 truly represents the people out in the rural areas that 17 don't have options, and it gives them a way to deal with 18 the problem. And I think it truly deals with those cases 19 where people are being impacted and don't feel like they 20 have the strength, the right or the ability to deal with 21 that smoke impact in their homes. 22 So we support the position that the staff has 23 brought forward to you in the Yolo Solano district. And, 24 again, I commend everybody for all the hard work that's 25 come forward. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, Larry. 2 Any questions? 3 Thank you. 4 Dave Conway, Steven Speckert, Bob Barkhouse. 5 MR. CONWAY: Hello, Mr. Chairman and Members of 6 the Board. My name is David Conway. I'm here 7 representing the Mariposa County Air Pollution Control 8 District Board. And you'll find in your packet at letter 9 number 59 from the Chairman of our Board. 10 Some of the key points that our Board wants to 11 make is that they understand this issue of dioxin 12 generation. They also understand the need to control 13 airborne toxics, but they also understand that we're a 14 small rural county, and we have very large open spaces, 15 and some small pockets of population centers within those 16 open areas that are within the same zip code. 17 So I'm going to go back to the zip code issue 18 that you brought up. On page two of their letter, they 19 have two issues that they'd like addressed. And that is 20 one is to define the boundaries of relatively dense 21 population pockets, exceeding ten per square mile as has 22 been Identified by staff. 23 It is my understanding now that staff has 24 modified their original position to allow us to -- or 25 those districts to subdivide the district and, you know, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 we're in favor of that. 2 The only thing I would like to point out is that 3 the letter addresses the cutoffAs being ten. And the 4 proposed regulation change addressed the change to be 5 three or less. The ten or less is already available for 6 an exemption request by the district. And we have some 7 zip code areas that, by nature of their just being in that 8 zip code, will be allowed to, or the district will be 9 allowed to request an exemption. 10 Right across the street from them is another zip 11 code, it will still be the same sparsely populated, less 12 than ten people Per square mile, but under the proposed 13 change, just across the street, they would not be allowed 14 to burn. And most of these areas are 20, 40, 160-acre 15 minimum parcels. We're looking at zoning issues within 16 our county too. 17 So if you're going to adopt this regulation with 18 the recommended changes of staff, we would encourage you 19 to change Item 5(e) on page four of the staff's prepared 20 proposed changes to the proposed regulation to the last 21 word to read ten versus three. 22 Additionally, our Board would like you to 23 encourage you to provide a vigorous program of education 24 regarding the dangers associated with burning products 25 other than paper and cardboard. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 2 Steven Speckert, Bob Barkhouse, Ken Smith. 3 MR. SPECKERT: Mr. Chairman and elected 4 supervisors. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to 5 speak on this issue. My name is Steve Speckert. I'm with 6 the Feather River Air Quality Management District, which 7 is comprised of Yuba and Sutter counties. 8 The Feather River Air Quality Management District 9 proposes this regulation for the following reasons: 10 In the staff report, it states that tests were 11 don on a waste stream by the EPA in New York. The waste 12 stream included paper, plastics, foods, food wastes, 13 textiles, glass, ceramics and various metals. 14 Based on these tests, it was determined that 15 approximately three residents per square mile created a 16 health risk of one in a million, which that number was 17 used to exempt people from this regulation. Our rules 18 currently ban the burning of garbage, except clean paper 19 and vegetative materials. 20 Therefore, we do not believe this study is 21 representative for our district. We do not believe that 22 this proposal should be adopted until a representative 23 study is done for each district. 24 In addition, this regulation would almost 25 certainly result in increased dumping on public and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 private lands, which is a problem in our district. 2 Third, without significantly increased funding, 3 it would be hard for the district to enforce this 4 regulation because most burning occurs in rural areas. 5 Fourth, even if the regulation could be fully 6 enforced, there would be increased diesel and gasoline 7 emissions in rural areas, which could result in increased 8 cancer risk in those areas. 9 Because each district is unique, burn regulations 10 should be left to local control and be based on full 11 scientific and geographic data for those districts. 12 We urge you to vote against the proposed 13 regulation or at a minimum allow local air districts the 14 full discretion to adopt and enforce the local 15 regulations. 16 Thank you. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. We've 18 got your letter here. 19 Questions? 20 Now we have Bob Barkhouse also from Feather 21 River. 22 MR. BARKHOUSE: We're ganging up on you. 23 (Laughter.) 24 MR. BARKHOUSE: I come here with two hats. One 25 I'm the Chairman of the Feather River Air Quality PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 Management District, and the other is that I'm Vice Mayor 2 of the City of Yuba City, so I have two axes to grind 3 here. 4 You heard Mr. Speckert's testimony. And I'm not 5 going to reiterate a lot of that. But there are some 6 issues that I think have to be brought to bear here. I 7 did not get a chance to read the revised document that's 8 been talked about here. I've seen all original data. 9 And as I read that data, I was alarmed at the 10 many uses of "could", "should" and "may". And it was not 11 very scientific from my perspective of reading it. And I 12 think that you're going to have to do some better 13 education of we people that are out there that will 14 ultimately have to administer this program. 15 The other thing is that I'm concerned about the 16 unfunded mandate that will be imposed upon us unless you 17 can find some funding. Our district is very small, and 18 it's just barely surviving on the money that it's getting. 19 And we now know that we're going to be cut back again next 20 year, and you're going to impose upon us the job of being 21 burn barrel cops. And that's an impossibility at this 22 particular time with the staff we've got. So 23 administering the program would be very difficult. 24 I think that as what's been proposed here many 25 times already, that we get into some kind of a public PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 awareness program, might do as much good or more good than 2 without it. And I think there is a way we can do that, 3 leave the individual control up to the local burn 4 districts and go to a burn barrel permit, if we have to. 5 We can charge for those permits, number one. And 6 those permits then, that money could help support the 7 unfunded mandate that you're coming with us. At the 8 second time, it's a great time to get into a public 9 awareness or public education programAs a part of that 10 permit of what can be and can't be in the barrels. 11 I know it's been in the paper, and I know it's 12 been all over the place, but my guess is that many people 13 have not read it to its entirety, and do not know. 14 We have a similar problem right now. Every 15 Wednesday morning, when I go out of my house, I think it's 16 Christmas again, because I look at my back alley and I see 17 a green can, and I see a gray can, and I see a blue can, 18 and we're segregating all our garbage And this goes on 19 and on every week. 20 The problem is that even the people that live in 21 that community, and we've done extensive articles in the 22 paper and everything, they have a difficult time of 23 knowing what should be recycled and what shouldn't, let 24 alone what should be burned and what should not be burned. 25 So I think the public relations tied to a burn PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 permit could work. I oppose the spottiness of this map, 2 because across the street one person could burn and the 3 other side it could not burn. I think you could tie it to 4 cities that are incorporated, number one, above a certain 5 population, and pick a number 10,000 people, but I haven't 6 got the scientific data, so I don't know. 7 But if it's above 10,000 people, I'm going to 8 pick that number, that you allow the local districts to 9 administer the program. And if they want to go on a 10 permit basis, why, so be it. 11 The problem is we have urban motes around almost 12 every town, so you'd have to say a town plus a mile in all 13 directions from the town or something like that. And 14 maybe if we were able to do this, we would probably have 15 80 percent of the people that are involved in the problem 16 under some kind of control. 17 My city does not allow burn barrels at all, but 18 we do have the urban mote around us that is a problem. So 19 I think that going with some regulations that would 20 include the urban mote, you're including a significant 21 number of people. 22 And that's all I have. Thank you. 23 Any questions? 24 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I have a question. 25 Congratulations on having a recycling program in Yuba PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 City. Does that extend to your urban mote area? 2 MR. BARKHOUSE: Yes, it does. 3 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: How far out does it go? 4 Is it countywide or -- 5 MR. BARKHOUSE: It's not totally in the county. 6 We have to segregate the waste within the mote and the 7 city limits, but when you get out away from town, they 8 dump everything in a common barrel. 9 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Okay, but they do have 10 recycling? 11 MR. BARKHOUSE: It then goes to our dump, and 12 there is a recycling system at our dump site. 13 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Do you have transfer 14 facilities -- transfer stations throughout the county? 15 MR. BARKHOUSE: Yes. 16 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. 17 MR. BARKHOUSE: One last thing, I almost forgot 18 it. From my city hat side, somebody mentioned we have our 19 fire department go out, and they'd be the burn barrel 20 cops. I can tell you my fire department is minimal and an 21 excellent fire department, but they're taxed to the 22 limitAs it is right now. And to find extra dollars to put 23 on extra staff would be impossible. 24 Thank you. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 We'll take two more witnesses before lunch. 2 We'll take Ken Smith Lassen County and Norm Covell from 3 Sacramento. 4 MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of 5 the Board. For the record, I'm Ken Smith, Air Pollution 6 Control Officer for Lassen County. 7 My comments are in reference to letter number 53 8 that I believe is in your packet. 9 Rather than recite, I thought I'd show you my 10 comments. This is 1.4 pounds of salt, it represents the 11 amount of dioxins that are produced from burn barrels 12 across the United States. From the far reaches of Alaska 13 to the northern woods of main, from the Florida Keys to 14 Waikiki, if were you to collect the dioxins from burn 15 barrels in the United States, this is how much you come up 16 with, 1.4 pounds. 17 Now, how much does Lassen County produce? If you 18 factor in all of the correction factors considering that 19 we can't burn but half the time because of fire 20 restrictions, that we don't burn garbage, we only burn 21 vegetation, and that we only have 774 burn permits, some 22 of those permits are for open-burning and some are for 23 burn barrels, I have know way of knowing, but there's been 24 an over estimation, and so if you factor that in, in one 25 year's time, from burn barrels you're going to produce two PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 milligrams per year of dioxins. 2 You can't even see this unless you hold it up to 3 a piece of white paper. I'd like to enter that into the 4 record. 5 If you contrast that with, we have four 6 cogeneration plants in Lassen County that are wood fired. 7 And they produce 1,000 times more than that. And under AB 8 2588, we determined that that's an acceptable health risk. 9 You know AB 2588 is a program that the State came up with 10 and there is an approved procedure for scoring and ranking 11 these facilities. And they produce 1,000 times more per 12 year in Lassen County. And that has been determined to be 13 a safe health risk. 14 So it defies all reason to come up with a to 15 regulation to ban burn barrels in Lassen County. It's not 16 reasonable. It's not reasonable to allow garbage to be 17 burned in burn barrels in California. That's not 18 reasonable either. 19 So Alternative 2 is reasonable, ban the burning 20 of garbage in California. And that's what Lassen County 21 recommends. 22 Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. The 24 material you have in there, what's the material in there? 25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Salt. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 MR. SMITH: Salt, and this is Cayenne Pepper, but 2 I'd like to enter it into -- it's nothing dangerous. It 3 just represents dioxins. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: But obviously you're drawing 5 some analogy between the volume which would be occupied by 6 a certain weight of dioxins compared with the salt. 7 MR. SMITH: Well, we've got to try to get it into 8 apples and apples somehow. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes, it's not there yet. 10 Any questions? 11 Thank you very much. Are you leaving the salt? 12 MR. SMITH: Just to look and see how little 13 dioxins there are. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: It's not relevant because of 15 the assumption you make there. 16 MR. SMITH: It's very relevant. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Covell. 18 MR. COVELL: Good morning Chairman and Members of 19 the Board. I'm Norm Covell the Air Pollution Control 20 Officer for the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 21 Management District. I appreciate the opportunity to 22 speak today and moving me up on the schedule because of 23 commitments I have later this afternoon. 24 I stand before you as one of the six districts 25 that still has regulations that permit garbage burning in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 rural areas of the district. Up here today somewhat 2 shamed by one of my associates and good friends Bob 3 Reynolds, who has told me that he spends most of his time 4 Abalone spearing -- fishing, diving for Abalone, and then 5 I find he'd been digging around in burn barrels and doing 6 all kinds of surveys and identifying nasty things. 7 We have reviewed this regulation. We have worked 8 closely with CAPCOA on the language. We are prepared to 9 move forward with the implementation of it within the 10 district. The area it affects in our district is the 11 southern Delta area of the southeast portions of our 12 county. 13 I had discussions with the one board member that 14 would be impacted by this regulation going into effect. 15 And he's comfortable with that. 16 I would like to stress the fact that we are one 17 of the many districts that reside within the great 18 interior valley of California. We're well aware of the 19 impact of air pollution, not only caused by what we 20 generate ourselves, but the issue of transport, which I've 21 heard spoken to a number of times here this morning. 22 And collectively, we do have a very significant 23 problem. It results in this valley being identifiedAs 24 probably the area with the highest potential for adverse 25 problems from air quality as anywhere in the nation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 We need to do everything that we can to reduce 2 the impacts of pollution that we generate ourselves. I'll 3 probably be asked the question, why haven't you banned it 4 within your own district? 5 We have, over the years, moved to restrict the 6 areas in which this allowed to the most sparsely populated 7 areas. And for those of you that have been on the Board 8 for awhile know that we had some fairly significant 9 burning issues with some of our industries here that had 10 exemption under the Fire Control Marshall to burn expired 11 or expended rocket propellant. 12 It's pretty difficult to go tell somebody you 13 can't uses the burn barrel when you've got tons of this 14 material going up annually. 15 We put a phase-down schedule on that through the 16 cooperative efforts of the State agencies working with us. 17 That no longer exists in that industry. 18 With that findings of toxics associated with 19 this, I think we're prepared to clearly move forward and 20 ban this, especially within the interior valleys of 21 California. 22 So we are prepared to do that. I do want to 23 reinforce the requirement for education. As you know, 24 this regulation is receiving a lot of attention, because 25 it's somewhat like Smog Check in that it adversely impacts PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 the general public. And it seems that the public is 2 certainly more supportive of those things that affect 3 industry down the street, but when it causes us to change 4 the things that we do personally on a daily basis, it 5 becomes more problematic. 6 You've heard from physicians here today speaking 7 to health concerns. You've heard people talk about living 8 in rural areas that are adversely impacted by neighbors 9 who burn these things. You heard one supervisor talk 10 about the temperature inversion. It becomes very 11 problematic, especially in the summer and fall parts of 12 the year. 13 And I don't know -- it doesn't matter who's 14 Governor, we're going to have temperature inversions in 15 the interior valley. And that's something that we've got 16 to live with and reduce the impacts of that by reducing 17 the emissions. 18 That's very much of a challenge for us in areas 19 that are expected to grow in population, like the interior 20 valley is. So we strongly support the proposal before you 21 today, and we would ask you to give special attention to 22 the educational needs of those around the State and 23 perhaps it makes more sense to move ahead with education 24 first in some of these sparsely populated areas, but for 25 urban areas and the burgeoning urban areas of the State, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 it clearly makes sense to move forward with the proposal 2 before you today. 3 Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 5 Questions? 6 With that, I think we'll adjourn till 1:00 7 o'clock for lunch. Right after lunch, we'll start with 8 Dewayne Matthews, Joe Moreo, Bill Stephans, Gary Caseri 9 and Jim Hemminger. 10 Thank you so much. And we'll get back at 1:00 11 o'clock. I should also mention that the Board will be 12 having a closed session during the lunch time period. 13 (Thereupon a lunch recess was taken until 14 1:00 p.m.) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The meeting of the California 3 Air Resources Board is now in session. Please come to 4 order. 5 Earlier today, that is in the luncheon period, 6 the Board met in closed session. Before proceeding to the 7 next item on the agenda, I would like to announce the 8 results of the closed session. 9 The Board has conferred with and received advice 10 from its counsel regarding two pending lawsuits: Daimler 11 Chrysler and General Motors et al. versus California Air 12 Resources Board and Michael Kenny, filed January 3rd, 2002 13 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of 14 California, and Daimler Chrysler, General Motors and Isuzu 15 et al. versus California Air Resources Board and Michael 16 Kenny, filed June 4th, 2002 in Fresno County Superior 17 Court. No action was taken. 18 At this time I'd like to continue -- I would like 19 to put on continuation the agenda item vis a vis burn 20 barrels, and open the record on Agenda Item 02-1-5, 21 proposed amendments to the current regulation for 22 voluntary accelerated vehicle retirement. And I'm opening 23 this one in order to take testimony from Senator 24 Johanessen who has other obligations later in the 25 afternoon. So I would like to ask Senator Johanessen to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 come forward and give us the benefit of his advice on this 2 particular regulation. 3 SENATOR JOHANESSEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 4 Members of the Board. This particular item that you're 5 dealing with is somewhat close to my heart. I think you 6 will understand in as muchAs was the author of the 7 legislation in which we are discussing. 8 This legislation worked on for several years to 9 come down to some understanding of what the initial 10 legislation not only was about, but how if it were to be 11 any kind of a modification what form would it take. 12 Unfortunately, it has that these kind of things 13 has a tendency when you write legislation to be 14 interpreted. And the problem is that the bureaucracy 15 sometimes has a tendency to try to interpret legislation 16 in the way they would like to see it be rather than that 17 which it is. 18 So in this particular case, this piece of 19 legislation did not, and I repeat the intent of this 20 legislation did not, allow for or mandate fore the 21 destruction of any parts including emission related parts. 22 The idea behind this piece of legislation were to 23 retain parts that would be usable, and to be used to 24 repair cars perhaps of another age and to be of benefit to 25 those people who,As a hobby or whatever, would build cars, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 people who would restore cars, and, in fact, repair the 2 cars that they had existing cars that they had with 3 perhaps parts and equipment that were, through that era of 4 the car no longer would be available perhaps in the open 5 market with the exception of the after market is coming on 6 strong and doing things, quite frankly better than the 7 originals. 8 But we have a problem here again with the 9 certification and all the rest that take years to get a 10 simple part through certification to be exchangeable in 11 the current rules and regulations. 12 So what transpired in the, and I can quote the 13 legislation, but I'm sure that you have it. What 14 transpired in the negotiation is trying to figure out what 15 to do with this, we came up with a sticking point which is 16 actually emission control devices. 17 Well, emission control devices could mean 18 anything, except perhaps the door handle on the car or 19 something. And so it has been apparently interpreted as 20 being the total drive train of a car. 21 Yeah, granted, if you, I don't know why I would 22 be surprised, but that could contain the whole thing. So 23 I want to make absolutely sure that the intent of the 24 legislation that we worked for would be kept exactly what 25 it is and that the interpretation will be left in that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 matter. 2 In essence, the only difference would be the 3 funds that from the, I'm trying to think of the fund's 4 name -- it's not important -- yeah, it's important. It's 5 the amount of money that is paid to the wrecking yard for 6 taking these cars that you will pay the people that 7 basically put the cars in the wrecking yard. 8 In those cases there is a seven-day waiting 9 period. Unfortunately, that can be construed as well, 10 because the car may never reach the wrecking yard in seven 11 days. So there ought to be to make sure that the seven 12 days occurred at the time it needs the wrecking yard, and 13 therefore being publicized that you have that type of a 14 car. 15 There have been instances where cars, maybe just 16 the engine block alone is worth $7,000 or $8,000, been 17 crushed for no reason whatsoever. They could be used for 18 rebuilding, perhaps, a show car or something. So we would 19 like to make sure that that is taken -- make sure that 20 that is working. 21 The other thing that it was hoped for, at the 22 time we were negotiating this piece of legislation through 23 the Legislature, were that we assumed that a car that may 24 not meet the current smog standard, which very few do in 25 the older cars, but they do meet the standard in which PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 time they were built. So that people who -- generally, 2 people who have these older cars are, in most cases, not 3 all, but in most cases are people of limited means. And 4 that the, at least my assumption would be, that if parts 5 were available to be purchased to repair and modify, 6 perhaps, these cars to meet the standards that they ought 7 to be made, is tremendous savings. 8 Because by crushing these cars, a lot of things 9 happen to them. Crushing these cars doesn't solve the 10 problem, because the amount of money that is given than to 11 that person, they will go out and buy perhaps a similar 12 car that can't meet that, anyway, the next time around. 13 So we're not gaining anything, except it is 14 perceived in the area of air pollution, that if you crush 15 enough cars sooner or later we're going to save the 16 environment. That is the presumption. 17 And I think it's the same thinking that went into 18 that everybody should run around in electric cars. 19 Unfortunately, there hasn't been long enough cords made to 20 do it. So we're going to end up now probably with some 21 kind of hybrid and so forth. 22 So, in the case that we're dealing with here 23 today, I just want to make sure that the intent of my 24 legislation is clear and obvious. And I hope that this 25 Board would recognize that, because the most frustrating PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 134 1 thing for a legislator is that you go through the trials 2 going through putting bills together and then when you're 3 all done, you give it to some bureaucracy someplace who 4 will sit a wake at night trying to figure out to put in 5 some kind of rule or regulation that will basically avoid 6 or skew away from the intent of that legislation. And I 7 hope that you bear that in mind, and I appreciate very 8 much if you would do that. 9 And if you have any technical questions that you 10 may want to have, I have with me someone that can do that 11 for you if that's required. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, Senator. 13 Will that person be available when we bring this item up 14 on the agenda? 15 SENATOR JOHANESSEN: Absolutely. There will be 16 no doubt about it. 17 Thank you very much and I'm delighted to see you 18 all again. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 20 We have a question, Senator. Two questions. 21 Ms. D'Adamo, and Mr. McKinnon. 22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Senator, thank you for 23 appearing today. I found your testimony quite helpful. 24 Do you have a copy of the bill that you could leave with 25 someone so that we could get a copy of it. I'm noticing PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 135 1 in the materials that we have, I don't see it in its 2 entirety. 3 SENATOR JOHANESSEN: I can certainly make sure 4 that you have that. I will make sure of that. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 6 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Senator, it's always a 7 pleasure to see my favorite tool and dye maker. 8 SENATOR JOHANESSEN: You remember. 9 (Laughter.) 10 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Just so I'm clear, is the 11 most important subject to you the mechanics of the 12 seven-day period, so that the cars are truly available? 13 Is that -- 14 SENATOR JOHANESSEN: That is the one area 15 certainly. But the other area as well is that some of the 16 most valuable parts that you have in the car is the engine 17 and drive train. For the purposes of not only building 18 cars, replica cars, whatever you want, but also to 19 remodel, if you will, these kind of cars. 20 And, for example, if you have -- well, let's just 21 say a 454, it could be a General Motors or whatever it is, 22 you have. And those are harder to find with good 23 rebuildable blocks, for example. And if you want to 24 restore a show car you need those kind of items and they 25 become quite rare. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 136 1 And there's no reason to assume that you sold the 2 problem but merely crushing them. You could force the 3 issue, for example, which has been suggested. You could 4 force the issue that you don't want this particular engine 5 that perhaps is blow by on the rings or whatever it 6 happened to be or whatever, that you get it out of 7 circulation in its current form. 8 That you can take a couple of spark plugs out, 9 put a little sand in the engine and crank it over, it 10 won't damage the block to the point you can't rebuild it, 11 but it certainly can make that engine unusable in its 12 current condition. And no one is going to take that kind 13 of an engine and rebuilding it at the cost that that 14 engine is going to be put in there. 15 I mean, that's a tremendous amount of cost. 16 You're talking an engine like that, rebuilding and engine 17 like that, you're talk maybe $4,000 or $5,000 or $6,000. 18 They're got going to do that. 19 So, obviously, it won't be something that someone 20 goes in the scrap heap and take the engine off and pluck 21 them in an old car that smokes like crazy. They're not 22 going to do that. 23 So I guess what I'm saying is that logic and 24 reason in this area goes a long, long way. And we're not 25 talking about a huge universe of cars here. We're really PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 137 1 not. 2 But the philosophy behind it is, let's save what 3 we can, and I would really appreciate it. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you, Senator. 5 SENATOR JOHANESSEN: Thank you very much. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I'd like to continue this 7 item in order to go back to the previous item on the burn 8 barrels and continue testimony. 9 We will go to Dewayne Matthews, Joe Moreo, Bill 10 Stephans. 11 MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen 12 of the Board, my name is Dewayne Matthews. I'm the Fire 13 Chief with a volunteer fire department. And I'm here 14 representing the Modoc County Chiefs Association. 15 My objection to this is strictly from a fire 16 safety standpoint. When you do have burning in a burn 17 barrel it is in a contained area, and it's less liable to 18 get away and start secondary fires. 19 Paper and cardboard, especially, have a tendency 20 when burned to let off sparks that float with the rising 21 air currents from the heat created and can land several 22 feet to hundreds of feet away. So that if you get rid of 23 the burn barrels, all that paper and stuff can start fires 24 elsewhere. 25 Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 138 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, in deed. 2 Joe Moreo, then Bill Stephans, Gary Caseri. 3 MR. MOREO: Thank you for allowing me to -- My 4 name is Joseph Moreo. I'm the Air Pollution Control 5 Officer in Modoc county amongst other things. And before 6 I get started, just so it's clear in my mind, we've a 7 quorum of six, a board of 11, a quorum of six, you can 8 vote on this today, right, with a majority of those 9 present? 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Correct. 11 MR. MOREO: Well I'm hoping everyone came with an 12 open mind, but I really need three people to have shown up 13 this morning with an open mind, and hopefully that's the 14 case. 15 (Laughter.) 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, they'll were going the 17 show up. 18 (Laughter.) 19 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I would bet six of us 20 showed up with an open mind. I'd bet on it. 21 MR. MOREO: You'd bet on that? 22 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yes. 23 MR. MOREO: What kind of odds do I get? 24 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Keep talking and we'll 25 close it. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 139 1 (Laughter.) 2 MR. MOREO: Prior to the California Air Resources 3 Board consideration of the proposed prohibition of burn 4 barrels the first suppression benefits of burn barrels 5 must also be considered. We believe that value, in terms 6 of fire safety of this simple technology in rural areas, 7 clearly outweighs the comparatively minimal risk of any 8 emissions caused health effects the staff report, the blue 9 thing, attempts to quantify. 10 The Modoc County Air Pollution Control District 11 recognizes the amount of fire protection the use of burn 12 barrels affords. 13 We believe the use of burn barrels is an 14 appropriate environmentally benign method in rural and 15 timberlands of the State, for disposing paper, cardboard 16 and other combustible waste. We believe the prohibition 17 of burn barrels will result in increased wildland fires, 18 illegal dumping and significant solid waste facility 19 impacts. These impacts are of great concern to much of 20 California. 21 Incredibly, the proposed ATCM has the distinct 22 possibility of actually contributing to wildland fires and 23 air pollution. By prohibiting the use of burn barrels in 24 rural areas, the threat of wildland fire confronts 25 California every summer and typically causes catastrophic PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 140 1 damage in some part of the State year after year. 2 The fire prevention aspect of burn barrels must 3 be recognized and taken into account in any discussion of 4 a proposed prohibition. Fire suppression agencies have 5 been permitting burn barrels in California for many years 6 for fire prevention purposes. We believe this effort has 7 protected California's citizens and environment for as 8 many years. 9 We request, at a minimum, that the California Air 10 Resources Board consult with local, State and federal fire 11 suppression agencies concerning the potential adverse 12 effects before approving the proposed ATCM, and subsequent 13 burn barrel prohibition. To date, this concern has not 14 been adequately addressed by the ARB staff in our view. 15 Of additional concern, and further complicating 16 the proposed ATCM is the health risk assessment, once 17 again in the blue book, used for the justification of a 18 Statewide burn barrel ban. 19 When the risk assessment numbers are analyzed, we 20 find that dietary risk pathway is by far the most 21 significant. Ninety-four percent of the risk in that 22 model is dietary, not emissions. I can't overstress that. 23 And if you haven't looked at that thing, you really do 24 need to look at those numbers today. 25 We also find the dietary risk pathway described PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 141 1 in the report to be highly suspect in its assumptions. 2 And, in fact, can be shown to be in error. For example, 3 the upper range of the dietary risk pathway assumes that a 4 household can produce all of its meet, beef, pork, 5 chicken, milk and eggs within 20 meters of a burn barrel, 6 an area of less than a third of an acre. This is 7 obviously impossible. 8 On the other hand, the lower range of the dietary 9 risk pathway is shown to be below the level of public 10 health concern by the very same assessment. Again, this 11 dietary risk pathway and its assumptions, account for more 12 than 94 percent of the entire cancer risk assessment. 13 Without this dietary portion of the cancer risk 14 model, the cancer risk chances per million drops to levels 15 that are insignificant to protecting public health. We 16 request that the California Air Board allow for the time 17 and opportunity to further explore this health risk 18 assessments with ARB staff before the approval of the 19 ATCM. 20 Given the serious concerns previously described, 21 the Modoc County Air Pollution Control District 22 respectfully requests, at this time, the California Air 23 Resources Board not approve banning burn barrels or 24 prohibiting the burning of paper and cardboard statewide. 25 In our estimation, the control measure is much PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 142 1 worse than the stated problem. We strongly recommend this 2 issue be left to the discretion of the local air pollution 3 control districts and their representative constituencies. 4 And I'd entertain any questions. And I hope 5 somebody asks me a question about that risk model. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 7 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah. I'd like to ask 8 you a question about something else. Do you approve of 9 burning plastic or styrofoam cups or foam or aluminum 10 foil? 11 MR. MOREO: You mean in a burn barrel? 12 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yes. 13 MR. MOREO: No, I don't. And I would suggest as 14 an alternative if we want to ban something, we could 15 possibly look at banning the burning of plastic. But in 16 our view, this measure -- banning the method, i.e. He burn 17 barrel, which has some fire suppression qualities is just 18 not justified. 19 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: My second question is did 20 you take any enforcement action citation or otherwise in 21 the last year for people burning plastics or styrofoam or 22 foil and other? 23 MR. MOREO: It hasn't been within the last 24 calendar year. But within the last two years, based on 25 complaints, what we did is went out and talked to the, I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 143 1 don't want to call them a violator, because we don't have 2 a regulation on the books that he's actually violating. 3 But, you know, basically where I live, if you 4 have neighbor impacts, you have an agency you can call. 5 We go out and talk to the guy, and we normally resolve it 6 at that level. And we're suggesting that's the level we 7 should keep it at. 8 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I'm not asking you to the 9 questionAs where you live. I'm asking you the question as 10 the Air Pollution Control Officer. 11 MR. MOREO:As Air Pollution Control Officer in the 12 last two years, I responded to two complaints that delve 13 into this burning of garbage, both of which were, I guess 14 you'd say, mitigated by me talking to the person. 15 Actually, in both case they quit burning, based on 16 complaints. 17 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: So you had two complaints 18 in two years of burning trash. 19 MR. MOREO: Two complaints in two years, yes. 20 Please, somebody ask me about this model, because you 21 really do need to look at it. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: What do you want us to ask 23 you about it? 24 (Laughter.) 25 MR. MOREO: Well, do you understand that today if PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 144 1 you vote to ban burn barrels, you're not doing it because 2 of health effects, according to the model, from health 3 effects from emissions. You're doing it for the dioxin 4 deposition on forage crops that are then going to be 5 consumed by people, and that is the method that their 6 health is going to be impacted by dioxins. 7 And we test for dioxins in food, milk, meat, 8 eggs, and we don't find them at anywhere close to health 9 threshold levels. The model is seriously flawed in that 10 respect. Ninety-four percent of the risk in that model is 11 dietary. And I left out the backyard garden and mother's 12 milk provisions which also have some problems. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Do you want to respond? 14 PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT CHIEF FLETCHER: 15 Yeah, I'll respond to that a little bit and then we have 16 Dr. Andy Salmon from the Office of Environmental Health 17 Hazard Assessment that would be happy to respond further. 18 I'm Bob Fletcher. 19 Certainly, there is uncertainty in risk 20 assessments. AndAs Mr. Moreo has pointed out, the 21 assumptions that we make regarding 70-year exposure and 22 the dietary intake are correct. I mean, he's right about 23 that. 24 But I think what we've tried to do in that is 25 provide a relative perspective on risk from different PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 145 1 compounds. And clearly the multi-pathway for exposure is 2 important from the dioxin perspective. 3 The 20-meter estimate and consuming all of that 4 food is the assumption that's typically made in these 5 sorts of analyses, again, to provide a perspective on the 6 relative risk of these compounds. 7 So there is uncertainty in the risk estimates. 8 There's uncertainty in the emission factors, and we have 9 taken, you know, if you looked in the staff report, there 10 was a couple different estimates of an emission factor. 11 We have used the lower emission factor. There's a higher 12 emission factor that's probably 30 times higher than what 13 we've presented here. 14 And we believe that the inhalation risks alone 15 associated with dioxins and the other compounds there, the 16 other toxic air contaminants are sufficient to justify the 17 actions that we're taking. 18 And if you would like more information about the 19 dioxin exposure, Dr. Salmon would be happy to elaborate. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think that's fine. 21 Now, you are a member of CAPCOA? 22 MR. MOREO: Yes, unless they kicked me out, yes. 23 (Laughter.) 24 MR. MOREO: I think they're considering that. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I'm amazed that Barbara still PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 146 1 doesn't have gray hair there, or Barry. 2 MR. MOREO: We're working on a deal for me to 3 mitigate that. 4 (Laughter.) 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. I think we hear 6 your concern. Our difficulty here we've got to look at 7 the StateAs a whole. And obviously we hear a lot of 8 people in favor of this regulation, people against, people 9 wanted modifications. It's our job to try to balance 10 those issues there, but we appreciate your testimony. 11 MR. MOREO: Doesn't that make the case for local 12 control? They need this regulation in the populated areas 13 where they have it. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We've heard those cases 15 lines. We'll hear some more. 16 MR. MOREO: Thank you. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Bill Stephans, Gary Caseri, 18 Jim Hemminger, Bob Reynolds. 19 MR. STEPHANS: Well, good afternoon. My name is 20 Bill Stephans. I'm the Air Pollution Control Officer For 21 Siskiyou County. And I appreciate the opportunity to talk 22 to the Board regarding the ATCM for toxic emissions. 23 We have many concerns with ATCM. And my first 24 concern is that the process of adopting this measure 25 appears to have been fast-tracked without the full benefit PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 147 1 of review by the affected parties of the relevant comments 2 received by ARB through their long scoping period. 3 By that statement we mean that Health and Safety 4 Code section 39665(c) has been interpreted by staff to 5 mean something other than what it plainly states. 6 Directly quoting from the law it 7 states, "The staff report and relevant 8 comments received during consultation 9 with the districts, affected sources and 10 the public shall be made available for 11 public review and comment at least 45 12 days prior to the public hearing required 13 by Section 39666." 14 Our last public consultation was held on January 15 23rd, 2002 in Yuba City. On February 4th, 2002 we 16 requested your legal staff to forward the relevant 17 comments to us immediately, if they existed, or to give us 18 their legal reasoning and authority for not complying with 19 this code section. 20 On February 19th, 2002 at approximately 5:00 21 o'clock in the afternoon, the district received a written 22 reply from Kathleen Walsh, your general counsel, and I 23 personally thank her for her written response to us about 24 my comments. 25 As partner with ARB and enforcing air pollution PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 148 1 regulations, we are concerned that the interpretation of 2 Section 39665(c) is not correct. 3 JustAs in CEQA, and the code section 4 is Public Resources Code 21091, "All 5 relevant comments must be published and 6 addressed in the EIR. And failure to 7 comply with this requirement can lead to 8 the disapproval of the project. The 9 public must be assured that each comment 10 was given careful consideration in the 11 final document." 12 Without the relevant comments being made 13 available, how are the public and affected sources able to 14 be sure their voices were heard? 15 The interpretation of this code sectionAs 16 extensively explained in the written document authored by 17 Ms. Walsh appears to say that since ARB conducted a long 18 scope process and the oral comments were extensively 19 discussed, then, ARB has complied quote, "...with the 20 letter and the spirit of the law set forth in Health and 21 Safety Code section 39665(c)." 22 We agree with Ms. Walsh that the staff report was 23 released at least 45 days prior to the hearing. However, 24 we did receive some comments on official stationary 25 yesterday afternoon. That was approximately 15 to 18 days PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 149 1 after I requested those comments. 2 We also agree that the relevant comments can be 3 received up to and including the date of the hearing. 4 However, relevant comments received during consultation,As 5 stipulated in Section 39665(c), are required to be made 6 available at least 45 days prior to this hearing. 7 By my calculations, with the last consultation 8 being held on January 23rd, the earliest this hearing 9 could have taken place is March 11, 2002. 10 It is our understanding that a statute cannot be 11 interpreted differently than what the plain language of 12 the statute says. Case law is very specific in this 13 regard. 14 Additionally, regulatory departments cannot 15 interpret a statute differently than the plain language 16 contained in that statute because it is perceivedAs a 17 burden or would have placed undue emphasis on the 18 comments,As Ms. Walsh has stated in her letter to us. 19 I believe a process of adopting this ATCM has not 20 complied with Section 39665(c) by interpreting it to mean 21 something other than what the Legislature's intent was and 22 what the plain language of the statute states. 23 As a partner in the process, we respectfully 24 request that the relevant comments and not just the 25 official comments on letterhead,As stated in legal staff's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 150 1 February 19th letter to me, be made available to all 2 stakeholders prior to adopting this ATCM. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I understand the legal 4 issues, but in terms of our job of protecting public 5 health, are you for or against this? 6 MR. STEPHANS: Well, I'm actually against the 7 ATCMAs written, yes. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. 9 MR. STEPHANS: And I'll get into the other 10 reasons, if I may? 11 The ATCM proposes to ban all residential burning, 12 except the burning of natural vegetation in non-exempt 13 areas. This proposed ban includes paper and cardboard. 14 Staff's justification in proposing to include paper and 15 cardboard is stated on page 6-4. ANd that basically says 16 individual tests are not available to quantify the dioxin 17 emissions from separate material types, such as paper and 18 cardboard. 19 Therefore staff determined that the best 20 available control technology for residential waste burning 21 would be a prohibition on burning of all types of 22 residential waste materials, other than the natural 23 vegetation. I request that prior to banning the burning 24 of paper and cardboard, the Board directs staff to perform 25 emission tests on paper and cardboard to determine the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 151 1 emission rates of dioxin and other toxic air contaminants. 2 My third concern is nowhere in the report is 3 there a total quantifiable number for theCalifornia dioxin 4 emissions associated with the use of burn barrels and 5 residential burning. 6 What amount of emissions are we eliminating by 7 implementing the proposed ban and at what cost to the 8 public. 9 The U.S. EPA estimates that residential burning 10 emits 620 grams of dioxins per year in the entire United 11 States. That is approximately,As stated earlier, 12 approximately a pound and a half of dioxin emissions. 13 In table 4-4 on page 4-7, staff reports that the 14 average emissions of dioxins are estimated to be .15 grams 15 per year per household or .005 grams per year per 16 household depending on the Series 1 1997 testing or Series 17 2 2000 testing. 18 Something does not ring true with either 19 emissions estimates because using either number times the 20 estimated 108,200 households, able to burn residential 21 waste, and that's in table 4-2 page 4-5, the total dioxin 22 emissions in California would be estimated to be 16,230 23 grams or 541 grams respectively. 24 The range between these two numbers suggests to 25 us that the numbers used throughout the report vary so PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 152 1 greatly that it is impossible to correctly estimate the 2 risk. 3 Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 4 39665(b)(5), the staff report must contain the approximate 5 cost of each airborne toxic control measure, the magnitude 6 of the risk posed by the substancesAs reflected by the 7 amount of emissions from the source for a category of 8 sources, and the reduction to risk which can be attributed 9 to each airborne toxic control measure. 10 CEQA require transparency. Therefore, I believe 11 ARB CEQA's equivalency also requires staff to divulge the 12 numbers they used in all their calculations. My staff has 13 asked repeatedly for the numbers used in their 14 calculations so that we could estimate our risk since the 15 districts hotspots prioritization threshold is ten excess 16 cancer cases per million, not the one excess cancer caseAs 17 stated in the report. And they use that to justify the 18 three people per square mile population density. 19 To date, we have not received this information. 20 I wrote this yesterday. I was told by Mr. Effa that we 21 did receive it late yesterday afternoon and staff hasn't 22 had time to do the risk assessment. So I don't know what 23 was given to. I wasn't there. 24 Since the emission numbers attained during 25 various tests appear to have a low confidence rating since PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 153 1 the numbers vary so greatly, we request that this Board 2 direct staff to release all calculations including the 3 numbers used in those calculations, so that public truly 4 knows the risk and the cost of reducing that risk. 5 Again, we ask the Board what is the total coast 6 of this ATCM to the public. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. Stephans, we're running 8 out of some time here. We do have copies and we're 9 reading along with you. Maybe you could just highlight 10 that and then the Board can ask questions based on your 11 statement here. 12 MR. STEPHANS: Well, the only thing that I have 13 is I do burn paper and cardboard. And I have timed my 14 burning along with my neighbor who is a neighbor that has 15 four individuals. In no case have I ever exceeded 17 16 minutes in a two week periodAs opposed to the two hours 17 per burn, twice a week which is four hours per week. So I 18 think that the estimates are quite high. 19 And in his, it's only 33 minutes for his 20 household every other week too. So, again, I believe that 21 the estimates are quite high in their assumptions. 22 The only other thing that I could say is that if 23 you look on the Table 3-1 on page 3-4, U.S. EPA estimates 24 that municipal solid waste incinerators and medical waste 25 incinerators when they're combined produce almost three PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 154 1 times as much dioxin that the highest estimate of the EPA 2 is for all burn barrels in the United States. Why aren't 3 we going after those emissions if it's so bad? 4 They're almost three timesAs highAs what the 5 highest estimate is, so that's my question here. 6 That's about it. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo and Mr. McKinnon. 8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Mr. Stephans, I should 9 just start off by stating that I think that it's the 10 position of the entire board, as well as staff, that the 11 more information provided to the public the better. And I 12 certainly hope that if there are any remaining comments or 13 issues that you need additional information, that staff 14 would be able to provide that to you. 15 As far as a legal matter though, I'm a little bit 16 lost here, because you cite the Health and Safety Code and 17 then you cite CEQA, so I was wondering if Ms. Walsh could 18 comment on what is actually required of the Board in terms 19 of the period of time in which members of the public 20 should be able to obtain this information. 21 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: Under the Health and 22 Safety Code regarding the adoption of Airborne Toxic 23 Control Measures, ATCMs, such as this measure, the 24 legislation states that the staff report, including 25 relevant comments that have been received are made PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 155 1 available to the public at least 45 days before the 2 notice. 3 That actually is a parallel of the basic 4 Administrative Procedure Act requirements for rule 5 makings. We do thatAs a matter of course. 6 In this case, there were written comments that 7 were collected prior to the issuance of the 45-day notice. 8 Those documents were apart of the record and were 9 available to anyone who requested those. 10 And as soon as I was aware of Mr. Stephans' 11 letter, I did make sure we got copies of what was in the 12 record to him. That's a standard practice. 13 In terms of comments that came in orally during 14 the extensive workshopping and meeting process for this 15 regulation, those are generally reflected in the initial 16 statement of reasons. That's the basic purpose for those 17 workshops and meeting activities was to collect 18 information, ideas and thoughts to provide them to the 19 BoardAs a part of the staff report. 20 The additional concern that somehow the workshops 21 and contacts that were made subsequent to the issuance of 22 the 45-day notice creates a, what I would describe,As a 23 legal conundrum, which Mr. Stephans is suggesting that we 24 should just shut off all contact with folks at the point 25 in time we issue the 45-day notice when, in fact, and in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 156 1 practice and certainly a reasonable process means that's 2 the point in time when you maybe step up your contact with 3 folks. 4 And, in fact, we do that on a regular basis, not 5 only with this ATCM but ATCM's generally, and regulations 6 generally. As you know, oftentimes we come to the Board 7 with modified proposals from the proposal that went out 8 with the original 45-day notice based on those comments. 9 So I believe that we have complied fully with the 10 statutory requirements, both under the Health and Safety 11 Code and CEQA in this regard. 12 MR. STEPHANS: May I respond. I was not saying 13 that you could not take other comments between the 45-day 14 comment period. What the Code specifically says in its 15 plain language is that "...and relevant comments received 16 in consultation with..." and you can continue to receive 17 once that 45-day comment period is in place, you can 18 continue to receive other comments. 19 We have the same problem with CEQA. I've dealt 20 with many CEQA issues where I regarding geothermal plants 21 that they're trying to put in the Mendocino Lake area. 22 We do have a certain time limit that we have to 23 accept public comment. And what I have a problem with is 24 that in the workshops no one took the comments down. They 25 didn't appear to me at least in Yreka. What we in every PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 157 1 consultation with CEQA, we had someone taking the comments 2 down and we had to publish those in the EIR and address 3 those. 4 Here what I've only received from ARB was the 5 written comments, and no other comments from anyone else 6 in any of the workshops. And I guess what I'm concerned 7 about is there might be issues that have been brought up 8 that have not been addressed that no one is aware of 9 because it only happened in some workshop someplace else. 10 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: But that's the purpose of 11 a staff report to summarize the issues. 12 MR. STEPHANS: It doesn't say that the staff 13 report shall include relevant comments. It says basically 14 -- this code section says, "The staff report and relevant 15 comments." There's a difference between saying including 16 relevant comments, there's a difference between saying 17 well, they can address relevant comments in the staff 18 report. 19 That's not what this code section says. So I 20 talked to my CEQA attorney who we've used extensively. 21 And he said there's case law says that you cannot 22 interpret a code section that's written in plain language 23 any differently than what the code section is written. 24 And those that's all my point is. 25 I'm a partner in this process, and I understand PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 158 1 that, but I've been told by my CEQA attorneys that if we 2 did something similar to this in our CEQA review that we 3 would lose in court because we haven't followed step. And 4 we would be required to pay legal fees and other fees 5 associated with that case, if we did lose it because we 6 didn't follow a step. That's my concern. 7 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I think the staff report 8 does include that information. But if Ms. Walsh could 9 respond just for the record. 10 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: That is our position, 11 that the purpose of those workshops was to collect 12 comments to engage in discussion with folks who would be 13 affected by the regulation that was done, and the comments 14 are reflected in the staff report. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yeah. I know you've 16 underlined and, but also you could also underline 17 relevant, so I guess the staff has to -- 18 MR. STEPHANS: And you know that I talked about 19 that to the attorney. And he said, yeah, it depends on 20 who calls relevant whatever relevant is. And I understand 21 that that's a wiggle world. But usually you want to err 22 on the side of being cautiousAs opposed to not being 23 cautious, because you may think something is relevant or 24 not relevant, the judge that you're going against may 25 think it was relevant and there's a problem there. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 159 1 So you try to be as cautiousAs possible and try 2 to take in as much. That's what his comment to me was 3 whenever I did discuss this with him. 4 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: I will say that I agree 5 with that legal advice, and we do err on the side of 6 caution in that regard. And to the extent that Mr. 7 Stephans is worried that somehow there were issues that 8 were revealed during the workshop process that are not 9 reflected somehow in the staff report, I do believe that 10 is not the case. 11 MR. STEPHANS: But we don't know, that's my 12 point. You don't know, because they're not written down. 13 The only thing that I could say is that I would 14 ask that the Board to take the following proposed actions 15 on the ATCM. And that is direct staff to implement a 16 thorough education program, I agree with that, consisting 17 of educational materials the districts can use to show the 18 dangers of burning illegal products. I agree with that 19 wholeheartedly. 20 I also agree with requiring residential burning 21 on burn days only. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: What do you mean by illegal 23 products? 24 MR. STEPHANS: We already ban all the products in 25 the ATCM locally, except for paper and cardboard and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 160 1 textiles. Now the textiles were put in years ago because 2 of burning seed bags from farming. Okay, so that's not a 3 problem with us. We can remove that. I don't have a 4 problem with that. 5 But what my main concern is that we do not have 6 the air emissions data to ban burning of paper and 7 cardboard. And I understand there's illegal products that 8 could be burned but that's an educational issue that we 9 can handle on the local level. 10 With the Governor's budget of $5 million removal 11 of subvention to the local air districts, his proposal in 12 his budget, I can't see how we can continue to accept more 13 mandated enforcement programs with less money. So that's 14 what my concern is. 15 The other thing that I would say is continue to 16 allow the use of burn barrels if the local district board 17 adopts a resolution in a duly noticed public hearing that 18 the banning of the use of burn barrels will impose 19 additional serious fire safety concerns on the district, 20 require a permit to be issued which would allow 21 dispersement Of educational materials and the collection 22 of residential burning data for further study. 23 That's important. We don't who's out there 24 burning. I don't know. And all these things, everywhere 25 where it says an estimate, that's the best guess, and it's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 161 1 a big guess. 2 So we would like to gather information like that 3 and revisit the ATCM in four years after staff has 4 performed additional emission studies and the districts 5 have accumulated burn data to either support or not 6 support additional regulatory actions, ban all garbage 7 burning throughout the State, but continue to allow paper 8 and cardboard burning, and extend the implementation 9 dateAs outlined in the RCRC suggestions. 10 I think that those -- we've already been burning 11 for years and years. I don't understand what the point is 12 that to go so rapidly into this, if people do want to ban 13 it locally, I agree with that wholeheartedly. That would 14 be perfect. In my area it doesn't appear to be what the 15 population wants in my area, so that's why I'm here. 16 Thank you. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 18 Any questions? 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 20 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah. In the last couple 21 of years have you taken any enforcement actions on 22 individuals for burning nonpaper, cardboard and textile 23 products? 24 MR. STEPHANS: Yes, we have. 25 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: How many have there been? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 162 1 MR. STEPHANS: Five so far, and we're taking one 2 criminally right now in the D.A.'s office as opposed to 3 doing the mutual settlement possible with the individual. 4 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: My second question is 5 that there's been -- there's an estimate that out of the 6 county's 44,300 residents approximately 6,500 people are 7 estimated to actually use burn barrels to burn waste. 8 MR. STEPHANS: That was our best guess, yes, sir. 9 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: If you are to subtract 10 out those places where you have population densities that 11 qualify for either of the two types of exemptions, how 12 many of the 6,500 people are in those areas that qualify 13 for the exemptions? 14 MR. STEPHANS: I can't give you an answer right 15 now because I just received the staff right know, so I 16 don't -- I have no idea. We haven't done a study on 17 exactly where these populations are. 18 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Let me just ask you in 19 places like Weed, in town, do people use burn barrels? 20 MR. STEPHANS: No, they're not allowed, but 21 outside they are. 22 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Outside of Weed, they do 23 or out? 24 MR. STEPHANS: Yes. In fact, One of the 25 supervisors who was supposed to be here, Supervisor Bill PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 163 1 Hoy, does have a burn barrel and he's in Weed, right out 2 outside of Weed. 3 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Just outside of Weed. 4 MR. STEPHANS: Yes. 5 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Great. Thanks. 6 MR. STEPHANS: Any other questions? 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 8 Gary Caseri, Jim Hemminger, Bob Reynolds. 9 We'd appreciate it if you could keep the 10 testimony fairly short. We're running out of some time. 11 I'm worried about losing some of my quorum. 12 MR. CASERI: Actually, I was going to say I was 13 going to be brief. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay, thank you. 15 (Laughter.) 16 As briefAs possible. 17 Good afternoon. My name is Gary Caseri. I'm the 18 Tuolumne County Air Pollution Control Officer. On behalf 19 of Tuolumne County Air Pollution Control -- on the behalf 20 of the Tuolumne Air Pollution Control District and its 21 board, I'd like to offer the following comments. 22 We are opposed to the recent draft of this ATCM. 23 Tuolumne County has, for some time now, prohibited most of 24 the disallowed combustibles proposed in this document. We 25 request your board approve an ATCM with allowances for the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 164 1 continued burning of paper and cardboard. 2 We request this in light of the lack of data 3 that's been mentioned previously, with respect to paper 4 and cardboard. The current exemptions based on zip codes 5 fail to adequately address our concerns and I haven't read 6 the most recent version that was put out today. 7 In general, Tuolumne County is opposed to the ban 8 on burn barrels and firmly believe that it is more 9 appropriate and fair to -- firmly believe in active 10 enforcement and educational program is more appropriate 11 and fair to the public we serve. 12 With that, I'd like to offer to continue working 13 with ARB staff to finalize a document that meets the needs 14 of more rural counties or districts such as Tuolumne 15 County. 16 Thank you. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 18 Questions? 19 Thank you. 20 MR. HEMMINGER: Hi. My name is Jim Hemminger. 21 I'm here today representing the Regional Council of Rural 22 Counties, RCRC. 23 Perhaps one of the advantages or good points of 24 this proposed ATCM is that it did provide the rural 25 counties and Air Board staff some of you to become PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 165 1 familiar with each other, as we never have before. This 2 is a big issue in our rural counties. 3 RCRC is comprised of 29, pretty much the 29 4 smallest counties in California. Its board includes 5 county supervisors who have been appointed by each 6 county's full board of supervisors to represent their 7 county. 8 Over the past several months, we've discussed 9 this within our board meetings and were fortunate enough 10 and appreciate presentations by Air Board staff. Not 11 unlike CAPCOA a fair diversity of opinion within the 12 organization.As you're hearing today, most of the smaller 13 counties have strong opposition to the ATCM. 14 We do offer, and I hope you have a copy of the 15 letter we prepared, putting together a position of the 16 organization. As you've heard some member counties take a 17 much stronger position opposed to this in consideration of 18 the fact that we recognize that some regulations are going 19 to be -- are being put forth. We have been fortunate 20 enough to work with Air Board staff to lookAs proposals 21 and evaluate them. 22 And as stated in the letter, we generally support 23 the concept behind the proposed regulationAs it's been 24 modified, but would suggest some specific modifications 25 and urge your consideration for those. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 166 1 Burning of garbage statewide, hard to take 2 exception to that. Tiered regulatory program, that makes 3 sense, especially when you're talking health risks. It is 4 related to density. A lot of us picture Sonoma County, it 5 is rural county, but it's got 450,000 people in it. 6 What we're talking about and a lot of the 7 opposition maybe you've heard this morning, are from our 8 small counties, with Sierra with 3,000. As you pointed 9 out, Mr. McKinnon, Siskiyou, one of the larger counties is 10 43,000 people, about enough to fill Enron Field. Modoc 11 just about would fill the ARCO Arena. Not a lot of people 12 spread out over a wide area. Given this, we do support 13 the tiered approach. 14 We do question, however, the numbers that are 15 being proposed. And in the letter we do suggest instead 16 of the light green areas, instead of being from three to 17 ten people per square mile, we're suggesting 20 people per 18 square mile,As more reasonable alternative and more 19 consistent with the scientific basis. 20 As Mr. Fletcher did point out there is a 21 uncertainty in the scientific analysis. I won't try to 22 compete with the statisticians, but it's,As Mr. Fletcher 23 said, trying to reach a balance between the risk factors 24 and the reasonableness. 25 I do realize that the statute gives the Air Board PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 167 1 pretty wide latitude when it comes to ATCMs and regulating 2 those. 3 But statute does also limit it to the 4 practicableness. We need to understand, people have 5 spoken about not wanting a burn barrel under their 6 apartment window. That's not the issue here with many of 7 our rural counties. 8 I forget the gentlemen, a doctor spoke about his 9 obnoxious neighbor on his one acre parcel, getting burn 10 barrels smoke. Again, that's not what we're talking 11 about. The ten people per limit, say two or three people 12 per household, we're talking two or three houses per 640 13 acres. 14 The three limit that's being proposed for the 15 dark green is one house per 640 acres. Most houses, even 16 in Siskiyou county, if you will, only one out of six 17 houses are using their burn barrels. So we're talking 18 here what is the density's threshold that we would 19 suggestAs a reasonable balance between risk, cost of 20 enforcement and other environmental factors. 21 Without going on, I do mention in my letter we do 22 suggest numbers which we do feel are reasonable, are 23 defensible and we would really ask for your consideration 24 of that. 25 Parceling out of a zip code map, we think that is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 168 1 an excellent opportunity, but the suggested three people 2 per square mile seems unnecessarily restrictive. 3 I do have, and I will try to brief, a couple 4 other comments. The first two comments actually here have 5 been superceded, if you would, by staff's latest proposal 6 by pretty much what I just suggested. 7 Transition period is my next suggestion. 8 Regardless of the number, balancing cross-media 9 environmental impacts. There are concerns about illegal 10 dispose. There are concerns that people, no longer able 11 to burn, would be stock piling their garbage on their 12 private property. 13 If you look at the map, it seems like there's a 14 lot of dark green, a little deceptive, because most of 15 that is public lands, government lands. And part of the 16 reason it's dark green and fits within the zero to three 17 threshold, is the fact that very few people are living on 18 the public lands. 19 To a lot of our rural counties that dark green 20 looks like the areas of illegal disposal. In a lot of 21 areas within the zip codes hopefully we can have or put 22 together some sort of program for an alternative solid 23 waste collection system, but my proposal is to provide 24 some regulatory ability for local air pollution districts, 25 if they do have a particular area that may exceed a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 169 1 threshold posing particular problems with garbage 2 collection or other competing environmental needs, to give 3 them the option of petitioning the Air Board for a 4 four-year extension, with some findings about the 5 environmental impacts and perhaps some commitment to do 6 some mitigating measures within that four-year period. 7 Second to last. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Quickly. 9 MR. HEMMINGER: We would suggest -- 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The last one in terms of more 11 funds, you can save some time on that one. 12 MR. HEMMINGER: Funding would be great. A lot of 13 our guys only have a half time person doing air pollution 14 control. We've talked about 100,000 burn barrels, lot of 15 work for one guy. 16 Education. That's the one thing we all agree on. 17 And I would like to suggest, there's no -- education is 18 difficult in a rural county. I've tried it. It takes a 19 lot of time, effort and thought. And whale supporting 20 that aspect of the regulation, I would suggest at some 21 point maybe through a workshop before the regulations take 22 effect, we do have an opportunity to come before you and 23 assess the effectiveness of that public education program. 24 Regardless of the numbers we come up with, that 25 is going to be the key to the success of this program. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 170 1 Our guys want to work together with you on the program, 2 but we do need to be sure that that does achieve its 3 desired objectives. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, in deed. 5 Thank you, for coming before us. 6 Bob Reynolds, Dean Wolbach, Todd Nishikawa. 7 MR. REYNOLDS: For the record, my name is Bob 8 Reynolds. I'm the Air Pollution Control Officer of Lake 9 County Air Quality Management District. I have a Masters 10 of Science degree with a specialty in control equipment 11 design, an undergraduate degree in chemistry. I've had a 12 chance to follow this issue for a long time. I actually 13 worked for the Air Resources Board and worked on the 14 toxics issues in the early seventies I guess. 15 Dioxins, you know, it's really unfortunate that a 16 lot of people here today do not understand the process. 17 You've already decided dioxins is a terrible compound, 18 terrible molecule. It causes a lot of health problems. 19 That's not an issue anymore. People that don't 20 understand that Agent Orange affects the Vietnam veterans. 21 Many of my friends still suffer from that. That they 22 cause teratogens. The discovered they cause miscarriages 23 and deformed horses. That's the initial way that dioxins 24 were discovered as a problem in our country. 25 I mean, there's a really terrible history. In PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 171 1 fact the popular press calls this molecule the monster 2 molecule. It's for good reason. It'a reputation well 3 earned. 4 And people that are worried about other things in 5 environment, whether it be in our air, land or water have 6 got to pay attention. Now, we banned burn barrels in 7 about 1995, primarily because we had banned garbage 8 burning in the late to mid-eighties and found that we 9 could not keep the garbage out of the burn barrels. 10 It's just an honest statement to you is, if you 11 don't ban burn barrels, you're going to have garbage 12 burned, accept that fact. 13 And there is a study in Attachment to the letter 14 that I sent to you that shows you what we did in Lake 15 County. And we made this decision based upon what we 16 consider really good information and honest information. 17 The reason that we made the decision to ban burn barrels 18 then, is the literature that you're talking about today, 19 the risk assessments that everyone is concerned about, 20 it's been out there for seven years. It just got peer 21 reviewed and published in the year 2000. That's what made 22 it different. So it's been a well known fact among people 23 that specialize in air pollution control for a long time. 24 The other points, I want to make is that we 25 banned burn barrels in 1997 in Lake County. It's a rural PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 172 1 county. We banned them countywide. No exceptions for 2 nothing. We did review that about a year ago. No one 3 showed up wanting the burn barrels back. Everyone 4 accepted it well, not a single person stood up to say give 5 me back my burn barrel. They all agreed it was a good 6 move. It took courage from the Board that wasn't 7 unanimous when they did it. 8 And frankly I've heard, Joe Moreo and I, in spite 9 of our differences, are pretty good friends, at least when 10 we're we drinking. 11 (Laughter.) 12 MR. REYNOLDS: And the bottom line is I heard the 13 same things you've heard, being good public servants, 14 understanding that you're charged with implementing air 15 toxics control measures. The Legislature charged you with 16 that. 17 You're going through a process that you have to 18 go through, and people's real health, and, you know, 19 you're standing up to emphasize children. I think one of 20 the most sinister things about this particular kind of 21 poison is it causes deformed children. And that's well 22 known. It's just not emphasized because no one know how 23 to quantify it. 24 No one can get enough data together, statistics, 25 to make everyone just feel lovely and wonderful that we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 173 1 should bring that out to you, but it's fairly well 2 accepted. 3 And then the other thing I guess that, you know, 4 I won't repeat everything in my letter because you haven't 5 told me I have two minutes yet. 6 But the bottom line is that you have some 7 testimony from the fire chiefs and stuff. I will point 8 out that I did attach the Fire Chiefs Association from 9 Lake County's letter. We very much involve our fire 10 chiefs as well as your community in any kind of -- I've 11 heard the work ordinance or actually regulations that in 12 our case, at least every time we can, they end up in the 13 State Implementation Plan, so they're also federal laws. 14 And our community has well accepted the fact that 15 we shouldn't burn garbage. I mean, I think they're 16 actually proud of it. The fire chiefs are very 17 participatory in the process. And they made several 18 points. And one of them is is that burn barrels do cause 19 escape fires, they do cause fires. If you don't want to 20 have a fire, you don't want your national forests to burn 21 down, ban residential burning. It would be a good for 22 staff. 23 And the second thing they point out, which I 24 think is really good for them. It says -- I'll just read 25 from it, it says, "The program that moves the State PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 174 1 forward into the 21st Century benefiting the public health 2 and fire safety..." 3 And they're urging you to act today. I'm urging 4 you to act on the staff's proposal. I think it's way past 5 time. 6 With that, I'll take questions. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, Bob. 8 And thank you for providing this for the work you've done 9 on this as well. 10 When did you say you passed the ban? 11 MR. REYNOLDS: 1997. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes, Ms. D'Adamo. 13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I really appreciated not 14 just your letter but the attachment and want to compliment 15 you. We've received a lot of anecdotal information, but 16 yours is very comprehensive and I think tells -- gives a 17 good accurate picture of what's out there. 18 I'd also like to encourage you to go on the road 19 and let some of the other air districts see that it can be 20 done. It's not just ARB shoving this down their throats, 21 but that it can be done at the local level with vision. 22 Thank you very much. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: With a clean vehicle of 24 course. 25 MR. REYNOLDS: If ARB would get off the dime and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 175 1 buy all the districts one, we'd have one. 2 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, one of the 3 issues that we've heard today happens to surround money. 4 And what is your experience in terms of enforcement, has 5 it created a huge burden to you or have you been able to 6 absorb it within your budget? 7 MR. REYNOLDS: I've attached to you a letter from 8 the Fire Chiefs Association and the district, signed by me 9 and it's in our staff reports that have been early 10 provided, we clearly state that we think it's a benefit to 11 the cost. 12 In other words -- and maybe some of these air 13 districts don't take complaints. I can't imagine How you 14 can burn garbage and be in any proximity and not get 15 complaints. It overwhelmed us. In the Fire Chiefs letter 16 they mentioned false fire alarms. 17 Basically, burning garbage, smells like a burning 18 house. People report a burning, you issue a fire engine 19 out there. You finally get out there and you find it's 20 burning garbage. My personal thing is that happens pretty 21 often. 22 I have the good fortune actually to have a Fire 23 Chief that used a burn barrel the caught his garage on 24 fire when we were discussing it, and it made real obvious 25 anecdotal information. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 176 1 (Laughter.) 2 MR. REYNOLDS: But the bottom line is people 3 cheat with the burn barrels. The fire chiefs know that. 4 And I think anyone that looks knows that. They burn 5 they're not supposed to burning at all. In fact, I've 6 even heard some air officials say that. 7 And that's, you know, that's just something that 8 happens. And when we talked among ourselves as 9 professional people, no one believes they use burn barrels 10 and don't put garbage in them. Everyone believes they 11 have garbage in them. 12 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 14 Mr. McKinnon. 15 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yes, on that point 16 exactly. I thought I was hallucinating when I was hearing 17 that burn barrel -- I've seen a burn barrel or two and 18 they burn trash in them. That's what people do. 19 And your study was real helpful. It identified 20 -- 21 MR. REYNOLDS: I appreciate that. Because some 22 of that stuff is really gross. 23 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I mean, once in awhile 24 you had a good actor in here, once in awhile. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 177 1 MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Dean Wolbach, Todd Nishikawa, 3 Wayne Morgan and David Jones. 4 MR. WOLBACH: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen 5 of the Board. My name is Dean Wolbach I'm the Air 6 Pollution Control Officer for Mendocino County. 7 I am here today in support of the ATCM. And the 8 first thing I should say is that Bob has been banned in 9 several counties already. 10 (Laughter.) 11 MR. WOLBACH: I am not here in support of this 12 because it is perfect, this ATCM, nor because it won't 13 cause me a lot of heartburn, both me and my district in 14 enforcing it. But I'm here because it is a step in the 15 RIGHT direction. 16 As Bob alluded to burn barrels are used to burn 17 garbage. I'm fortunate in my district to already have 18 regulations banning the burning of garbage period. We 19 find it. Time and time again we find it in burn barrels. 20 People think that if they have a burn barrel, 21 it's to burn garbage. I don't think, at this point, that 22 most of my county it is a serious health effect at this 23 time. I know that it will become so, because my county, 24 my district, is going to tip from basically a rural 25 agricultural area into a suburb area probably within the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 178 1 next ten years. 2 If we don't start now to put these bans into 3 effect, get people used to not using burn barrels, which 4 they're not supposed to be doing through the six months of 5 the year when the fire ban is on, and they still do, it 6 will be just that much more difficult as the population 7 grows. 8 I have rather a unique background coming here I 9 notice. I've been in the regulatory end of this now for 10 about three or four years, but I do have a Ph.D in organic 11 chemistry. And I spent over 30 years working on 12 incineration and pollution control. 13 I was actually with the people and in the same 14 company and organizations that did the earlier research on 15 the generation of dioxins in incinerators and in 16 generation of dioxins in burn barrels. 17 At the time we began to get this information out, 18 which was in the early eighties, we said to ourselves, oh, 19 the problem isn't with the incinerators, it's with the 20 burn barrels. And we told EPA this in no uncertain terms. 21 They said we can't do anything about that now. But we 22 knew it then and it is here now. 23 I would also like to read a short quote from an 24 article, Environmental Science and Technology that came 25 out about 18 months ago, and this gets to the heart of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 179 1 issue. 2 "Historically, the principal health concerns for 3 waste incineration were mainly focused on communities 4 living near the incinerators." 5 The National Research Council report more 6 comprehensively identifies three populations at risk, 7 including the local population, the workers and the larger 8 regional population who may be remote from any particular 9 incinerator, but who consume food, as per the risk 10 assessment, potentially contaminated by one or more 11 incinerators and other combustion sources that release the 12 same persistent and bioaccumulated pollutants. 13 There has been some talk here about but our trash 14 stream is different. The generation of dioxins is based 15 upon the temperature regime, the presence of organic 16 material, the presence of a chloride source, which 17 includes salt, and the presence of a metal, preferably 18 copper, but iron works fine. And you can generate all the 19 dioxins you want. 20 One and a half pounds of dioxin represents about 21 700 times ten to the 12th nanograms of dioxins. I believe 22 that a toxic effect can be seen in humans from some of the 23 earlier exposures at about ten to 15 nanograms. 24 Therefore, if the people were directly contacted by the 25 amounts of materials that are being generated through PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 180 1 these systems, we definitely would have a major health 2 problem. 3 With that, I only have one other thing to say.As 4 a bureaucrat now enforcing regulations, I always look to 5 the Constitution for my reasons for doing this, "promote 6 the general welfare." 7 Thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. May I suggest you 9 join Bob on the tour. You'd make an excellent pair there. 10 Any questions or comments? 11 Thank you very much. 12 Todd Nishikawa, Wayne Morgan and David Jones. 13 MR. NISHIKAWA: Mr. Chairman and Members of the 14 Board, my name is Todd Nishikawa. I'm Acting Air 15 Pollution Control Officer for Placer County. And I'm here 16 representing the district board who has adopted a position 17 with regard to the proposed ATCM. 18 Our board supports the adoption of the ATCM kind 19 of conditionally. They support the ATCM, but they believe 20 that,As some speakers have previously said, that the 21 banning the burn barrels is not the intent of the measure, 22 but the measure's intended to prevent garbage and other 23 materials from being burned. 24 In Placer county we do currently allow paper and 25 cardboard to be burned, and we agreed that the prohibition PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 181 1 of burning that material is something that needs to be 2 done. However, in deference to Bob Reynolds, we do not 3 believe that there is sufficient justification regarding 4 the potential misuses of burn barrels to ban the barrels. 5 And that burn barrel can be used to safely burn vegetative 6 waste and enforcement measures can be taken with regard to 7 illegal burning. 8 And that it is the material in the burn barrel or 9 in an open burn pile that is of concern and not the burn 10 barrel itself. And it has been stated by other speakers 11 today, the district does not wish to become burn barrel 12 please. I do not believe that fire districts wish to 13 become burn barrel police, but we would be more than 14 willing to enforce regulations regarding material that is 15 burned, and that's all I have. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 17 Any questions? 18 Mr. McKinnon. 19 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: How does not being burn 20 barrel police differ from not being police of what's in 21 the burn barrel? I'll tell you there's studies and 22 there's personal experience that says people burn trash, 23 most people burn trash. 24 And, you know, we get things like 6,000 people 25 burning in a county and there's five enforcement actions PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 182 1 for -- it flies in the face of the reality of this. 2 So how do you get into policing what's in the 3 barrel as opposed to whether or not there's a barrel 4 there, I don't get it? 5 MR. NISHIKAWA: Well, I think that the question 6 that we would have to address if we did ban burn barrels 7 is why we were banning a burn barrel? When someone was 8 wishing wish to burn vegetative materials in a safe 9 manner. 10 And so we would have difficult explaining why 11 we're banning a burn barrel, and coming out, for example, 12 finding somebody who's burning vegetative materials 13 telling them you couldn't burn it in a burn barrel, 14 because that's what the regulations stated even though we 15 didn't burn paper. 16 In Placer County we have -- you know, we don't 17 have a perfect enforcement system but we have a relatively 18 aggressive system. You know, we have limited staff but we 19 still try to enforce the rules. 20 With regard to the burning of garbage that does 21 occur, but, you know, it's probably going to occur even if 22 ban paper and burn barrels. I think that the need there 23 is to have aggressive enforcement and to have a strong 24 education effort to go along with that. 25 You have asked, you know, previous speakers PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 183 1 regarding whether or not -- you now how many enforcement 2 actions they've taken. In Placer County we probably get 3 maybe 150 to 200 complaints a year. The majority of which 4 are regarding burning of one sort or another. 5 And we in the past year in 2001, we probably have 6 collected approximately $30,000 in fines regarding those 7 violations, as well as provided warnings and education 8 materials to burners. 9 So I think that, in our view, it's not the burn 10 barrel that is at issue, it's the material, in that, both 11 the education effort and enforcement effort would go far 12 toward eliminating the burning of that bad material. 13 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Thanks. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 15 Wayne Morgan and David Jones. 16 MR. MORGAN: Mr. Chairman and Members of the 17 Board, our Board Chair was supposed to be here this 18 morning and he got fogged out in Eureka, so he was going 19 to make the presentation. 20 I'll try to summarize his comments to the Board, 21 however, which represents the position of the North Coast 22 Unified Air Quality Management District. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Which it's supportive. 24 MR. MORGAN: He is supportive. And he's, not 25 only he, but our entire board, was supportive based upon PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 184 1 the review of the health effects from residential burning, 2 burn barrel burning. It was very convincing to them that 3 something needs to be done. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That would be excellent, 5 unless you had anything more to add to that. 6 (Laughter.) 7 MR. MORGAN: This is very brief, isn't it. 8 (Laughter.) 9 MR. MORGAN: There's a couple of things I'd like 10 to add because the Board did have some concerns. With the 11 zip code method, I think the staff has corrected those. I 12 might add is that we were the district that decided that 13 that could be a viable method of determining population 14 density with a zip code. We proposed it to CAPCOA. 15 CAPCOA proposed it to the ARB and here we are today. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Great. 17 MR. MORGAN: Once in awhile rural districts do 18 things correctly. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Particularly today. 20 MR. MORGAN: One of the concerns that our board 21 had was in California communities and it was echoed here 22 earlier, there's a law that required districts to divert 23 up to 50 percent of their waste by, I think it was, 24 January of 2000. 25 Humboldt County and our district have achieved PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 185 1 that 50 percent diversion. And their concern was is that 2 they should not be penalized because of some kind of 3 backsliding as result of the ATCM going into effect. So 4 they were asking that perhaps, and I think staff has 5 discussed with the Integrated Waste Management Board, and 6 I think, if my read on that is correct, is that there will 7 be no penalties for that type of backsliding. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 9 MR. MORGAN: There's no mention in this staff 10 report of any additional funding being made available for 11 the public outreach, the public education. And, I think, 12 we all agree that this is a very important part of the 13 ATCM. 14 One could argue that should the education be 15 before the regulation, my experience and my bias is that 16 you have to have a regulation followed by education to 17 make it effective. That's my bias. 18 I think it's appropriate for me to be towards the 19 end of this presentation. As you recall, I was here 20 before the Board last June, and I was here advocating that 21 you direct staff to expedite the process to go forward 22 with an ATCM for the burn barrels residential burning. 23 That was the result of looking and reviewing 24 evaluating the data that came out of the New York health 25 study, the EPA joint study with New York health. And it's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 186 1 appropriate here today to finalize this. And we certainly 2 would recommend that you support your staff by adopting 3 this regulation today. 4 The other thing that hasn't been mentioned here 5 today, which I want to make you aware of is that even 6 though this ATCM is directed towards dioxin and the 7 reduction of people's exposure, there will be many other 8 benefits of toxic air contaminants such as Benzene, 9 1,3-Butadiene, PAHs and many more that will be reduced and 10 will in turn reduce people's exposure to those toxic air 11 contaminants as a result of this ATCM. 12 From that standpoint, I would beg that you go 13 forward and adopt the ATCM. It's reasonable. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. Again, 15 than you for all your help and your comments last year 16 too. That's helpful. 17 I thinkAs question. 18 Wait, Mr. Morgan. 19 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I want to hear That Mr. 20 Kenny was to say and then maybe I don't have a question. 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I wanted to respond to 22 the one statement that Mr. Morgan made with regard to the 23 Waste Board. I mean, we actually have worked with the 24 Waste Board and we are trying to continue to work with the 25 Waste Board cooperatively. We've had a good solid PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 187 1 relationship with the Waste Board, and I'm sure that will 2 also relate to the districts. 3 At the same, I don't think the waste Board can 4 make a blanket statement that, in fact, any backsliding 5 would essentially be immune from any kind of prosecution 6 or penalties. You know, I think the Waste Board will try 7 to work with us. That's been their statement and their 8 posture all along, but I have not heard that from the 9 Waste Board, and so I would not want to essentially 10 characterize any of the Waste Board's cooperation or 11 coordination with us to essentially kind of have an 12 immunity from any kind of prosecution. 13 Number one, I don't think the staff of the Waste 14 Board has said that. And number two, the Waste Board is a 15 Board. And so, you know, the Board is going to direct 16 policy for the Waste Board. 17 MR. MORGAN: And I may have mischaracterized that 18 statement as well. 19 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Let me just say there's 20 another component, and I tried not to take to much time, 21 but thereAs recycling component. Those people who have 22 discussed, say, burning of paper, we really should be 23 recycling that paper. We should not be burning the paper. 24 So there's more than one part of this and some of 25 it is, too, of course, keep these things from landfills. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 188 1 That's another hat that the supervisors must wear. But 2 the big part of this is the recycling program, and to make 3 it all work well. 4 So we appreciate your comments. 5 MR. MORGAN: Thank you very much. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you, Wayne. 7 The last witness is David Jones. 8 MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman -- can you hear okay? 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes. 10 MR. JONES: Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, my 11 name is David Jones. I'm the air quality specialist for 12 the Robinson Rancheria Pomo Indians. It's a small 13 Rancheria in Lake County, Bob Reynold's, north shore or 14 Clear Lake. We're bisected by Highway 20. 15 I must say right upfront, and this is a 16 disclaimer from a tribal point of view, I don't speak for 17 the tribe. I can't speak for the council. They're 18 elected government. This is my professional and personal 19 opinion. 20 Personally and professionally I'm in favor of a 21 burn ban for burn barrels. Well, dealing with the burn 22 barrels. 23 The Council for the Rancheria passed an ordinance 24 six months ago doing exactly that, much simpler than 25 yours. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 189 1 (Laughter.) 2 MR. JONES: Very simple. 3 (Laughter.) 4 MR. JONES: But there was a lot of education and 5 outreach that went out and was begun a long time before 6 that, so that -- and I'll explain, we have a small 7 subdivision of, like, 22 homes and small a apartment 8 complex of another 12 apartments. 9 We had approximately 20 burn barrels when we 10 started. By the time the ordinance got passed, we had 11 one, and that individual is still resisting, so we have 12 just passed an ordinance for enforcement and a penalty 13 dollar amount. 14 So most of the points in regards to this proposed 15 regulation I find are valid considerations. Both the 16 education, the enforcement, we don't have really any costs 17 associated with it. 18 But we found that there was more to it than just 19 the dioxins and the actual chemicals. We found that it 20 was noxious, it was unsightly, and a potential fire 21 hazard. We went through all the same sorts of things that 22 you're discussing. 23 People tend to burn anything and everything. So 24 they all have to pay to take their garbage to the 25 landfill, sometimes they don't have transportation, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 190 1 sometimes they don't have the money, for whatever reason. 2 They tend to put everything in there. Glass bottles, 3 clean clans, rubber, clothes. You name it, it will tend 4 to go in there. 5 With the banning of the burn barrels, the next 6 step people tended to burn in their fire places or 7 wood-burning stoves. All of our units have wood-burning 8 stoves, so they're controlled combustion. That's still 9 only a help to a limited extent. 10 Pretty soon they got tired of the smell, so they 11 only burned paper and cardboard. You know, everything 12 else went out into the rubbish. 13 We encouraged them to stop by increasing the 14 number of cans they had to pickup by the local garbage. 15 We do recycling at the rancheria. Paper and cardboard, by 16 the way, doesn't generate much in the way of money for 17 recycling. It's very minimal. 18 And most of the people eventually stopped burning 19 because it was simply just put it out in the trash, and 20 That's curbside pickup. 21 Like I said, I've got one individual that it's a 22 routine. I don't know if it's exactly cultural or not, 23 but he's still burning, not very frequently. We've got 24 him reduced now. 25 But all that said, like I mentioned earlier, I'm PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 191 1 in favor of banning of burn barrels. So the unofficial 2 personal point of view is just that. I might suggest that 3 when you contact, you know, agencies and government groups 4 and whatever about proposed regulations that maybe you 5 include tribes in that list. 6 Around the lake, we formed an environmental 7 consortium, so it's really easy to contact us. Otherwise 8 there's more than 100 tribes and the list is fairly long. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Is there something equivalent 10 for the State that would be similar to CAPCOA for the 11 rural counties, is there a central point we can utilize? 12 MR. JONES: ITCA, I think, is the closest, the 13 tribal council. That's probably the closest. The Bureau 14 of Indian Affairs regulates the trust lands, doesn't have 15 a complete list. It's changing. For example, there are 16 six tribes around the lake. A new one was just 17 recognized, so there's now seven. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Maybe we can get staff to 19 look at that. 20 MR. JONES: EPA doesn't have a complete list. I 21 maintain a list for about six counties, just for that 22 reason, that those are the people I network and deal with. 23 But I can find out, you know, for you. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We'd appreciate it. 25 MR. JONES: Because that would simplify a lot of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 192 1 things. Tribes in California are all neighbors. We've 2 only got one air shed to work with really. What we 3 generate goes your way and vice versa. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 5 MR. JONES: Questions? 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 7 MR. JONES: So you're finished. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes. 9 Mr. Kenny, do you have any further comments? 10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: No. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I will now close the record 12 on this agenda item. However, the record will be reopened 13 when the 15-day notice of public availability is issued. 14 Written or oral comments received after this hearing date 15 but before the 15-day notice is issued will not be 16 accepted as part of the official record on this agenda 17 item. 18 When the record is reopened for a 15-day comment 19 period, the public may submit written comments on the 20 proposed changes which will be considered and responded to 21 in the final statement of reasons for the regulation. 22 And to my colleagues here, do you have any ex 23 parte communications to divulge at this time? 24 Seeing none, I guess we are open for discussion 25 and review of the motion. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 193 1 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm just 2 wanting to underscore something that is in the resolution 3 that's before us. And that is in talking about the 4 Integrated Waste Management Board and working with them, 5 we need to be very well coordinated because there may be, 6 in deed, if we pass this, some additional interest in 7 going to landfills by people that normally use the burn 8 barrels. 9 But in four it does indicate that there might be 10 some financial support for boosting recycling centers or 11 perhaps even transfer stations to make recycling and 12 getting rid of waste easier for the general public. 13 And I would encourage us to, sort of, underscore 14 that with our staff, because I think that along with the 15 education is going to make it work quite well, if this, in 16 deed, is supported. 17 And it is my understanding that that money easily 18 could be used. That's a perfect purpose for some of the 19 monies that the Integrated Waste Management Board 20 oversees. It's just a perfect use of that kind of money, 21 so I'm very supportive of that. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I have a couple of questions 23 for staff, and maybe you know the answer to this, but 24 would more time be helpful in resolving the differences 25 with the rural counties? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 194 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: We don't think so. 2 What we tried to do is actually provide some additional 3 time for implementation, but at the same time we do think 4 that we have, at least, kind of, a reasonable approach 5 here. One of the requests from the rural counties was 6 kind of the reliance upon an educational component, almost 7 exclusively, because, you know, the thought was is that 8 education really would be the solution here. 9 We don't think that's the proper solution. We do 10 think that, essentially, you know, banning burn barrels 11 really will provide the solution that we're looking for. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I was aware of a comment 13 about maybe even an extension of the time period for 14 implementation. Is that available? Is the option 15 available if a particular county wanted to apply for an 16 extension? 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: We don't have that in 18 there currently. What we tried to do with this regulation 19 was minimize the amount of discretion that would be 20 associated with the regulation, and really set the 21 regulation up so that it was almost self implementing. 22 We were trying to do that in order to avoid kind 23 of a, almost like sort of a cookie cutter approach. And 24 so we think right now that if we set it up in a way in 25 which it is fundamentally self implementing with the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 195 1 exception of kind of subdivisions on the zip codes. 2 And that at the same time we have basically, you 3 know, extend out the implementation timeframe until 2004. 4 So between those things, we think that we 5 actually have a Regulation that is fairly straightforward, 6 has very limited discretion in it, and is essentially 7 self-implementing, which we thought was all beneficial. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: On the education side of it, 9 of course we heard a lot about this. But also I think 10 there was a real need to work with the districts and with 11 the counties thereAs we go ahead on the implementation of 12 this. I'm read this, from what staff is saying, you'll 13 continue to work with them on the education side. 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: We do think education 15 is very important. In fact, when we have spoken with the 16 RCRC, and Jim Hemminger has been very helpful throughout 17 the process, I mean, he has highlighted and the RCRCAs 18 really highlighted the value of education and we do not 19 disagree with them at all. We think they're right. 20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Also, Mr. Chairman, I 21 think we would make use of some of those air pollution 22 control districts that have in place this ban and their 23 successes. 24 And while I recognize there are some very rural 25 counties that we've heard from today, I just remind you, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 196 1 say for instance the Mojave Air Basin, which I represent, 2 we have probably over 22,000 square miles. And in that 3 22,000 square miles, there is real rural area. Rural that 4 would equate to anything that any of the northern counties 5 might have. And we've had a burn, no burn, for an 6 extended period of time. 7 It can be done, and it is within your ability to 8 do. You've got to have support. But I can tell you that 9 there isn't anyone who would go back to the old days of a 10 burn barrel. It can be done in the most rural of areas. 11 So I just say that from my personal experience. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 13 Any comments? 14 Mr. McKinnon. 15 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I'm real interested in 16 making sure that the bulk of what we do is in populated 17 places. And that in places where there are very few 18 people, we're notAs stringent. And I think the zip code 19 and subdivision of zip code goes along way to deal with 20 that. 21 However, after we discussed that, there were a 22 couple of comments about people being across the street in 23 a different zip code or something like that. Is it not 24 possible -- for the record, my understanding of it is then 25 you subdivide two zip codes, so that you get the urban PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 197 1 area or the most populated, densely populated, area 2 regulated so people are not burning trash for other people 3 to breathe. 4 And that in the outside of those subdivisions 5 where you get to the lower density, then the exemptions 6 take place. 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: The way we've tried to 8 craft the subdivisions on the zip codes is that we would 9 subdivide zip codes down into the zero to three area. And 10 we do think that, in fact, what that will do is that will 11 result in essentially eliminating people who are in those 12 very kind of nondense areas, and we'll exempt them from 13 the regulation. 14 We don't think that, in fact, this kind of 15 person-who-crosses-the-street concept is really going to 16 be very applicable in that situation, primarily because of 17 the fact that if we're subdividing zip codes we are down 18 to the zero to three per square mile area. And so it's 19 very unlikely that we would run into that kind of a 20 situation. 21 If we try to do multiple zip code subdivisions, 22 we're afraid that what will happen is that we'll get into 23 a situation in which we don't have a regulation that 24 essentially is easy to implement. In fact we're having to 25 make decisions across the State in those areas on very PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 198 1 small geographic determinations. 2 So we're trying to avoid that, and at the same 3 time recognize that because we're in the zero to three 4 area, we shouldn't have, you know, the neighbors across 5 the street where one can and one can't burn. 6 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Then I would really 7 want -- if we ended up with a strange result that came out 8 of this, I would want us to have the ability to alter 9 that. You know, if it really truly turned out that you 10 got most of a population, the dense population, and there 11 was a street, and you had a little bit more dense 12 population, and there were two different sets of rules and 13 divided it, kind of, if that would really happen, if 14 that's even possible. 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: We don't think that 16 will happen. However, we do hear -- if you can think 17 back -- if we do have that sort of inequitable result is 18 something we would want to look at and will probably bring 19 back to you. 20 But we don't expect that happen. And so as we 21 basically sort of -- if we were move to forward with 22 implementation of this reg, I mean, we will continue to 23 monitor it. We'll do the education and outreach. And if 24 we see that, we'll bring it back. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 199 1 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Yes. I was going to 2 suggest that staff come back with a report in, I don't 3 know, say six months or a year, whatever staff would think 4 would be most workable, to report on the zip code issue. 5 Maybe give us a map so we can see just how it works out in 6 terms of real practice. 7 And then also if staff could report back on the 8 public outreach and education efforts, enforcement, I'm 9 curious to see is this something that's just going to be 10 put on the books and -- it's a real funding issue, so it's 11 my hope that this will drive the local communities to 12 expand garbage collection and recycling services. And I'd 13 be curious to see what it looks like, you know, in a year 14 from now. 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Actually, if I could 16 make one comment on that. The implementation is not 17 scheduled to start until January 1st, 2004. And so my 18 suggestion there is we report back essentially one year 19 after implementation, because then we would have, kind of, 20 information about how it's going forward and what kind of 21 problems there are, and for example, Mr. McKinnon's 22 concern about whether or not we are seeing some inequities 23 with regard to boundaries. And we could look at all of 24 those things and report back. 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: That would be great. And PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 200 1 then one other suggestion is while on page seven of the 2 proposed resolution, I think it would be helpful to insert 3 public health organizations. This is the group that will 4 be working together with the local districts, make it 5 broad enough to encompass the Lung Association, and others 6 that have made comments today. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Great. Any other comments? 8 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Have we not resolved most 9 of the concerns expressed by people who have testified 10 here today, except for their desire that we just not ban 11 burn barrels? 12 PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT CHIEF FLETCHER: I 13 would say that that's generally true with the exception of 14 the issue associated with burning of paper and cardboard 15 in the red areas. 16 I think that would be the one issue we probably 17 have not resolved to everybody's satisfaction. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: With that, I would entertain 19 a motion. 20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: So moved. 21 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I'll second the motion, 22 Mr. Chairman. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think. Fine okay, 24 Supervisor DeSaulnier? 25 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I'm fine. I'm trying PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 201 1 to be quiet. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Do you want that on the 3 record? 4 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: No. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: All in favor say aye? 6 (Ayes.) 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Anybody against? 8 It's a unanimous vote on that one from here. 9 We'll take a short break and we will continue the 10 item on Agenda Item 02-1-5 proposed amendments to the 11 current regulations for voluntary accelerated vehicle 12 retiremente as soon as we change staff. 13 (Thereupon a brief recess was taken.) 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: As I indicated before the 15 break, we will continue on this agenda item proposed 16 amendments to the current regulations for voluntary 17 accelerated vehicle retirement. 18 Scrappage programs have had a difficult time in 19 our State. On one hand, they offer the flexibility to 20 business when usedAsAs alternative compliance method. On 21 the other hand, the collector car industry is concerned 22 about losing access to vintage cars and cars parts. 23 In addition, air districts and environmental 24 groups want to ensure the integrity of each emission 25 reduction. So it's truly a balancing game. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 202 1 At this point, I'd like toAs Mr. Kenny to 2 introduce this item. 3 (Thereupon an overhead presentation 4 was presented as follows.) 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman 6 and Members of the Board. The proposed regulatory 7 amendments before you represent balancing act between 8 various stakeholder interests. We are roll also operating 9 in an arena where more than one public agency is involved, 10 soAs important to achieveAs much consistencyAs we can for 11 the benefit of the broader public. 12 So we think it's important that persons wishing 13 to participate in vehicle scrappage programs encounter the 14 same criteria to the extent possible wherever they go. 15 That's just kind of good government that we want to try to 16 encourage. 17 However, we also need to ensure that the proper 18 safeguards are in place, that the emission reductions, we 19 and the local districts are counting upon, really do 20 happen. 21 With that, what I'd like to do is ask Mr. Leo 22 Vann to make the staff presentation 23 SMOG CHECK POLICY ADVISOR VANN: Mr. Chairman, 24 other Board Members thank you. 25 Today, the staff is bringing before you some PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 203 1 proposed amendments to ARB's credit program vehicle 2 retirement regulations. These proposed amendments are 3 intended to address two issues. 4 --o0o-- 5 SMOG CHECK POLICY ADVISOR VANN: First, they are 6 intended to minimize the differences between ARB and 7 Bureau of Automotive Repair regulations with respect to 8 vehicle eligibility requirements. This I might note is 9 required by existing statutes. 10 In addition, we are proposing amendments to the 11 regulations to extend the opportunities for parts 12 recycling and resale, particularly for nonemission related 13 and the nondrivetrain parts. 14 --o0o-- 15 SMOG CHECK POLICY ADVISOR VANN: Just as 16 background, I want to note that there are two types of 17 vehicle retirement programs in California. The first one 18 as I mentioned, is operated by the Bureau of Automotive 19 Repair. It's operated under their Smog Check program. It 20 is offered simplyAs a safety valve to consumers and to 21 consumers that have failed their biennial smog inspection, 22 and they have chosen to either, because of lack of funds 23 or for other reasons, to not repair the vehicle. It gives 24 them another alternative to the vehicle repair. 25 It's important to note that BAR's program does PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 204 1 not generate any emission credits that are sold to outside 2 parties. Any benefits of the BARs program are applied 3 directly to the Smog Check program. 4 Lastly, until recently BAR was paying consumers 5 approximately $1,000 per vehicle for retirement. They 6 have recently suspended that program because of the 7 current budget situation within the State. However, they 8 do intend to restart the program up in July after the new 9 budget is passed. 10 I will note that we do expect, however, that they 11 will reduce the amount of money offered to consumers back 12 to something on the order of $450 to $500 per vehicle. 13 --o0o-- 14 SMOG CHECK POLICY ADVISOR VANN: The second type 15 of program are those privately operated credit programs 16 that are operated under ARB regulations. To be eligible 17 for these programs, a vehicle must have passed its 18 biennial smog inspection. 19 The intent of the credit program was to provide, 20 which was established via legislation, SB 501. It was 21 intended to provide maximum flexibility to both industry 22 and local districts to give them some alternatives to 23 achieve SIP required emission reductions. 24 Currently, the credits that are accruing to these 25 credit programs right now are being usedAs offsets against PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 205 1 trip reduction requirements from State Implementation 2 Plans and local plans. 3 Typical payment under the privately operated 4 credit programs is somewhere between $450 to $700 per 5 vehicle to the consumer. 6 What are the issues with these programs? 7 --o0o-- 8 SMOG CHECK POLICY ADVISOR VANN: Well, the 9 primary issue is that the two types of retirement programs 10 are different. They differ with respect to eligibility 11 requirements. And for the Air Resources Board, our key 12 issue there is determining if the vehicle is actually 13 being used on the road, so the credits are real credits. 14 To contrast that with BAR's program, it's not 15 quiteAs important under BAR's program whether the car is 16 being driven or not, because it is not used to generate 17 credits. 18 The second issue is parts recovery. And for us, 19 the issue is will the recovery of parts actually extend 20 the life of some other vehicle that might otherwise be 21 retired, thereby reducing the amount of credit that should 22 be offered for that particular vehicle. 23 --o0o-- 24 SMOG CHECK POLICY ADVISOR VANN: With respect to 25 the vehicle eligibility issues, statutes do require that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 206 1 the two programs be as seamlessAs possible. However, 2 under current regulations BAR's vehicle eligibility 3 requirements are somewhat less stringent than those 4 requirements specified in ARB regulations. 5 These differences between the vehicle eligibility 6 requirements have led to some confusion and inequities 7 between the two types of vehicle retirement programs. 8 --o0o-- 9 SMOG CHECK POLICY ADVISOR VANN: To discuss how 10 to minimize the differences between the eligibility 11 requirements for the two programs, staff conducted four 12 workshops with interested parties. From the results of 13 those workshops, almost without exception, participants 14 recommended that ARB revise ARB regulations to emulate 15 BAR's regulations. 16 There was one alternative proposal to use 17 odometer data from BAR's vehicle information database data 18 that's collected as part of the Smog Checks to determine 19 if a vehicle is actually being used on the road, and use 20 this criterion in lieu of other vehicle eligibility 21 requirements. 22 --o0o-- 23 SMOG CHECK POLICY ADVISOR VANN: Based on the 24 results of the workshops, staff is proposing to align the 25 eligibility requirements within the ARB regulations to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 207 1 those requirements specified in BAR regulations. However, 2 we are proposing two exceptions. 3 We recommend that we maintain a requirement in 4 vehicle eligibility that the vehicle be capable of driving 5 in reverse. We feel that being able to drive in reverse 6 is an indicator of whether or not it is actually being 7 used on the road on a regular basis. 8 Secondly, we propose to simplify the vehicle 9 registration requirements to simply require that the 10 vehicle be continuously registered for at least 120 days 11 prior to this vehicle being accepted into the credit 12 program. 13 Simply stated, we feel that if the consumer has 14 paid the DMV fees and they have the vehicle ensured, it's 15 probably a pretty good indicator that they did intend and 16 are in fact using that vehicle on the road. 17 We ultimately rejected the proposal to use the 18 vehicle information database odometer dataAs a means of 19 determining if a vehicle is on the road. And we did so 20 for a number of reasons. 21 Not the least of which are that when we looked at 22 data we found that there was a relatively high level of 23 fraud, and there is a natural error rate when you enter 24 six digits into a -- computer technician's make mistakes, 25 transpose numbers, either deliberately or accidentally. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 208 1 Lastly, we rejected it because in some areas of 2 the State of California there still are no biennial smog 3 inspections requirements. These are called the change of 4 ownership areas. And in those areas, there will be no VIN 5 data, odometer data available, so a person would actually 6 not be eligible for the program. 7 --o0o-- 8 SMOG CHECK POLICY ADVISOR VANN: The second 9 issues addressed at our workshops was the issue of parts 10 recovery and resale. And this actually proved to be the 11 more contentious issue that we addressed. Under current 12 statutes, the statutes read that we shall allow for 13 trading sale and resale of vehicles, da, da, da, to 14 maximize the salvage value of the vehicles through the 15 recycling, sales and uses of parts. 16 Under current ARB regulations, there is a 17 mandatory seven-day waiting period explicitly to allow 18 third parties the opportunity to come in and purchase this 19 vehicle outside of the credit program, if they deem the 20 vehicle to have some collector value or parts value. 21 We felt that this current requirement does 22 satisfy the intent of existing statutes, and it also 23 addresses the concerns of most of the collector car 24 interests. 25 Not withstanding this, many of the stakeholders PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 209 1 still think that parts recovery and resale should be 2 expanded, or opportunities for parts recovery and resale 3 should be expanded. And they also believe that ARB 4 regulations are, at a minimum, inconsistent with existing 5 statutes, which is the phrase that I read to you earlier. 6 In looking at this issue, we evaluated three 7 options for parts recovery. The first option was to 8 maintain the status quo, and, essentially, make no extra 9 provisions for parts recovery other than the current 10 seven-day waiting period. 11 The second option was to allow for partial 12 recycling of nonemission related and nondrivetrain parts, 13 in addition to maintaining the seven-day waiting period. 14 And the third option was simply to allow 15 unlimited parts recovery off the vehicles offered for the 16 fed programs. 17 When these options were presented to the workshop 18 participants, it actually wasn't that surprising, but 19 there really was no consensus from the workshops on this 20 particular subject. 21 If you were an after-market manufacturers 22 parts -- after-market parts manufacturer representative or 23 have collector car interests, you wanted maximum 24 flexibility to recovery parts off these retired vehicles. 25 If, however, you were actually operating one of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 210 1 these scrappage programs or an air district, you wanted to 2 minimize the opportunities for parts recovery in order to 3 maximize the air quality benefits. 4 --o0o-- 5 SMOG CHECK POLICY ADVISOR VANN: Briefly, the 6 pros and cons for each of the options are as follows: 7 Under the status quo, or only having a seven-day 8 waiting period, the pros are that of the three options 9 reviewed, it probably has the highest air quality benefit 10 fleet turnover due to vehicle retirement. 11 Secondly, it is the option that probably lends 12 the highest level of credibility to the credits actually 13 claimed for retiring those vehicles. 14 Lastly, it requires no change to existing 15 regulations. 16 On the other hand, the cons to that approach are 17 that it will continue the perception that the existing 18 regulations are inconsistent with statutory requirements, 19 and it may decrease the overall cost effectiveness of 20 these credit programs. 21 --o0o-- 22 SMOG CHECK POLICY ADVISOR VANN: Under option 2, 23 the pros are that it also complies with statute. It is 24 limited to nonemission control and nondrivetrain parts. 25 By expanding the opportunity for parts recovery, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 211 1 it does expand the cost effectiveness of the programs. 2 And we do maintain a provision that it's voluntarily on 3 the part of the enterprise operator that actually takes 4 these vehicles in. In other words, if they don't want to 5 recycle parts, they aren't required to actually recycle 6 parts. 7 On the other hand, because it is a partial parts 8 recovery option, it is more difficult to administer, and 9 you do have the issue that recovered or recycled parts may 10 keep other vehicles on the road longer than they would 11 otherwise have been kept on the road. 12 --o0o-- 13 SMOG CHECK POLICY ADVISOR VANN: Under option 3, 14 the pros of Option 3, unlimited parts recovery, are that 15 it improves -- probably has the highest level of cost 16 effectiveness for the credit programs maximizing parts 17 recover. Like option 1 it's very easy to administer. 18 There aren't a lot of rules that you have to worry about. 19 On the con side, it may not result in any real 20 emission benefits. You just may be changing parts from 21 one vehicle to other and keeping several old vehicles on 22 the road. 23 --o0o-- 24 SMOG CHECK POLICY ADVISOR VANN: Lastly, it 25 probably will reduce the credibility of the credits PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 212 1 claimed under these credit program provisions. 2 --o0o-- 3 SMOG CHECK POLICY ADVISOR VANN: Therefore, in 4 summary, staff is recommending that the ARB vehicle 5 eligibility requirements be revised to emulate those 6 specified in BAR regulations, with only the two exceptions 7 I mentioned earlier, maintain a provision for driving in 8 reverse, and simplifying the vehicle registration history 9 to continuous registration within 120 days of vehicle 10 retirement. 11 Lastly, we are recommending that Option 2 be 12 adopted, and that we allow parts recovery for all parts 13 that are nonemission and nondrivetrain related parts. 14 Is there any questions? 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 16 Madam Ombudsman, do you have any comments on this 17 item? 18 OMBUDSMAN TSCHOGL: Mr. Chairman and Members of 19 the Board, on November 15th, 2000 staff mailed a letter to 20 over 60 interested parties informing them of ARB's plans 21 to amend these regulations. In response to the comments 22 received, staff undertook an effort to re-examine the 23 voluntary accelerated vehicle retirement regulations. 24 The evaluation focused on the differences between 25 the ARB regulations and the Bureau of Automotive Repair PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 213 1 regulations. 2 The evaluation also included parts recovery and 3 resale. At the outset, staff conducted a fact finding 4 study of the two programs. They held two workshops to 5 generate additionals. The first workshop was held on 6 January 30th, 2001 in El Monte, where just under 50 people 7 attended. 8 A second workshop was held October 25th, 2001 in 9 Sacramento, where only three people attended. Notices for 10 these workshops were published on ARB's web site, and 11 notices were also mailed to individuals. 12 The attendees included classic car collectors, 13 after-market parts manufacturers auto dismantlers and 14 local air districts. 15 In addition to formal discussions, staff met 16 informally with the various interested parties. 17 Thank you. That concludes my remarks. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 19 Do the Board Members have any comments? 20 A point of clarification. Mr. Kenny, we had a 21 presentation by Senator Johanessen earlier, and left me a 22 little bit confused in terms of what we are proposing 23 here, and his advice to us in terms of legislative intent. 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Actually, I think 25 probably the best person to answer that is a Rob Ogilve PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 214 1 our legislative director. He's been very closely involved 2 in all the legislation on this since. Rob. 3 MR. OGILVE: Actually, I clarified the Senator's 4 testimony with staff after he presented it. And 5 essentially what he was referring to was the bill that he 6 introduced in 1999, SB 1058, which sought to significantly 7 relax the terms of the parts recovery portions of SB -- of 8 the original legislation, which was SB 501 authored by 9 Senator Caulderon. 10 He had a bill introduced. That bill did not 11 pass. And the Senator was really expressing what his 12 intent or what his desire would be to have the regulations 13 adopted, not really the full intent of the Legislature or 14 the Governor's Office. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That's helpful. 16 Mr. McKinnon. 17 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yes. I was briefed on 18 this yesterday. And I've been kind of mulling it over, 19 and I'm somewhat concerned. 20 It's my understand that the Internet kind of way 21 of announcing what cars might be available for the 22 seven-day period, it's my understanding that rarely, if at 23 all, anybody takes advantage of that option. And I would 24 be very, very interested not only in staff's answer, butAs 25 people testify why that might be. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 215 1 And just to give kind of tip my hand where I'm 2 coming from on this, is that my experience with people 3 that are restoring cars, is that they do pretty good jobs 4 at making sure that the cars is operating clean and 5 efficiently and otherwise, and they drive very few miles. 6 So I'm a little -- it seems to me that for people 7 that do a good job at fixing and restoring cars, if we 8 drive up the cost, then what will happen is that people 9 who don't have a great deal of money will have to buy new 10 parts that have been made at great expense. 11 And I don't want to limit by class or economic 12 status who can restore cars. I don't want to do that, if 13 I can avoid it. 14 So I'm interested in how that works and how we 15 could modify the system. I haven't bought in that we 16 should open up all drivetrains forever for resale, but is 17 there a system that opens up to purchase the cars better 18 than what we have right now? 19 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: If I can just 20 make one comment on that. I think there are two separate 21 issues. One is without reference to their economic 22 status, people that restore classic cars and the idea of 23 the seven-day waiting period in the Internet announcement 24 was to take -- let people know that a car that you may 25 think is a piece of junk that you just got $700 for, in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 216 1 someone else's eyes maybe that block or that part that 2 they're looking for that is very valuable. 3 And the idea there is to call out of the large 4 number of cars that are just plain junk, the gross 5 emitting cars, call out of those the ones that might, in 6 fact, have some collector car interest. 7 And, you know, we think that that's happening. 8 Although, the fact that no one seems to be taking 9 advantage of it, I guess, could be that there are no good 10 cars or it could be that not enough people know about it. 11 So, you know, we've asked the question about 12 trying to find different ways of doing this, and really 13 haven't found a better way. We're certainly open to, if 14 there's some way of fine-tuning it or expanding the -- you 15 know, so that everyone knows that there's, you know, a 72 16 Ford of some kind that might have collector value, that 17 we'd be very open to that. 18 The second issue really just has to do with if 19 you're going to retire a car, the presumption here is that 20 the old car is taken off the road and a newer car replaces 21 it. The data supports that. 22 And that generates a piece of currency, which is 23 an emission credit. And that emission credit can now be 24 bought by somebody who can avoid another air pollution 25 control rule by using that and cashing in that emission PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 217 1 credit. 2 For example, you can avoid a carpool rule that 3 might apply to some business's those types of regulations. 4 Our concern is to make sure that in the extreme at least 5 that what happens here is we generate an emission credit 6 by scrapping a car. All the parts off that car get pulled 7 off, cause another junker, which would have died to now be 8 back on the road. And the net is in the increased air 9 pollution. 10 So that's the event that we're trying to prevent 11 by limiting the use of emission related parts and put it 12 in its simplest terms, it's simply that if these cars get 13 scrapped, a 30-year old car gets or a 20-year old car gets 14 scrapped, we don't want to see another 20-year old car 15 stay on the road for another couple of years, because 16 that's counter to our air pollution goals. 17 We'd like to see the scrappage ultimately cause 18 some kind of modernization in the fleet, so we can get rid 19 of the, not just gross emitting vehicles, but the old 20 vehicles that are inherently high emitting cars. And so 21 it's that principal of making sure this currency is like a 22 real dollar bill and not something that is not, you know, 23 a true currency that we are trying to protect by what may 24 seem like, you know, bureaucratic requirements. 25 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: If I can follow up. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 218 1 There's a proposal in here to change the time period. One 2 of the people that wrote an E-mail talked about a ten-day 3 period and the clock not counting until the car is 4 actually available, and that kind of thing. 5 What do you think about that, and certainly for 6 those people that testify, I'm interested -- and maybe I 7 should read what's proposed here, so that everybody knows 8 what we're talking about. 9 But I believe it's a ten-day period rather than 10 the seven, and the car has to be held an additional seven 11 days if somebody shows interest. 12 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I think the 13 issue there is that at least what we've tried to do is one 14 of balance. And I think the testifies today can really 15 shed the best light on it, but it's on one case is trying 16 to maximize the opportunity if someone might view this as 17 a collector vehicle and have valuable parts somewhere on 18 it to have access to it. 19 And on other hand, the enterprise operator, the 20 guy that does the scrapping, doesn't wanted to hold lots 21 of cars around or have transactions with people not be 22 executed giving them the money and getting the car for a 23 long period of time, because that costs them a business 24 expense. 25 And we had extensive discussions about this in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 219 1 the workshops. And you know, there was not a -- we were 2 unable to find a balance point beyond what's in the 3 regulation already, but maybe in the testimony we'll hear 4 differently. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I guess that's a good segue 6 way into the testimony. And I'd like to call up the first 7 witness who's signed up to speak and that's Robert Lucas, 8 Leonard Trimlett and Glen Boire. 9 MR. LUCAS: Thank you. My name is Bob Lucas. 10 I'm representing the California Council for Environmental 11 and Economic Balance. And I'm happy to be here today. 12 And the first thing I want to do is to be sure to 13 thank you for undertaking this rule making at all. The 14 balance that was referred to earlier today on the 15 introduction of this topic -- 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Is your mic on, Bob? 17 MR. LUCAS: Maybe, I'm just not close enough to 18 it. There you go. The balance we referred to earlier 19 with the introduction of this topic is one that, in our 20 view, was out of kilter significantly because of the 21 extent to which the Air Resources Board regulations 22 restricted eligibility requirements and restricted the 23 ability of people to actually bring their cars in 24 voluntarily and have them accepted for scrap. 25 The changes that you have before you today are a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 220 1 very important improvement. And we urge that no matter 2 what other minor changes you make that you actually adopt 3 regulatory package today. 4 Now, with regard to the issue that was just 5 raised, it was one of our members that actually raised the 6 issue of perhaps a ten-day notice might be more effective 7 in responding to the concerns and providing some balance 8 to the concerns that have been expressed. 9 And I believe that it was a three-day prior 10 notice to let people know that vehicles of these VIN 11 numbers are available for transaction, and then give 12 people the time to respond to express interest that they'd 13 like to come down and look at the vehicle, and then give 14 them the additional seven days after the vehicle 15 transaction for the vehicle to be inspected and to be made 16 available. 17 We thought that this was quite fair and that this 18 does extend that timeframe. And it extends it on the 19 right side of the transaction too, by the way. Any 20 extension prior to the transaction acts to discourage the 21 person bringing the car in from actually undertaking the 22 exchange. 23 And it's another one of these obstacles that 24 unfortunately we have to deal with in the program where in 25 order to meet these preconditions, the buyer is asked to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 221 1 wait. For whatever reasons he may want to sell the 2 vehicle, he is asked to wait the seven days before he can 3 actually get his money and actually make the transaction. 4 The ten-day proposal that you have will allow the 5 transaction to occur, not to the disadvantage of the 6 person who wants to sell the car, but would allow those 7 extra days for the person who may want to purchase the car 8 later. 9 And I hope that that is responsive to your 10 concern. And even those it isn't in the current proposal 11 today, we still support it. And if you find merit in it, 12 we'd urge that you go ahead and adopt it. 13 We had also taken notice of some of the other 14 time frames were in this reg package. And I think, at 15 this point, that we can accept them. The changeover on 16 the prior registration to 120 days, if you note those 17 items that were in the slide, that was presented to you, 18 the expense to actually ensure the car, you know $125, 19 $150 minimum just to ensure the car. 20 Actually, to have undergone the smog check, to 21 have made the repairs, what have you, so that the car is 22 legally registered at the time that they bring it in, 23 makes it difficult to conceive that that person might want 24 to scheme the system by bringing in a car that was not 25 actually operable. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 222 1 We think that 120-day timeframe could actually be 2 shortened without any damage to the integrity of the 3 program, but this is a decision that's up to you. If you 4 decide on 120, we can live with 120, although we think 90 5 would work. 6 Similarly, there's a requirement at the South 7 Coast in their rules that vehicles that are submitted for 8 scrapping within 30 days of their required smog check, 9 actually go out and have that smog check performed. These 10 regs say 60 days. 11 Now, this is not a change in the regulations. 12 The State regs have always said 60, but the effect of this 13 60 days in this regulatory set would be to require the 14 South Coast to change their rule from 30-day prior to 15 60-day prior. 16 Again, these are eligibility requirements. Some 17 may view themAs impediments. Some may view themAs 18 important for program integrity. We think they're 19 judgment calls. We can accept the number that you have, 20 but we think it's a shame that there will be a certain 21 number of vehicles that will now be turned away in the 22 South Coast in particular, because people will be told 23 they're now within 60 days of a smog check, go get your 24 vehicles smogged. 25 If they pass, they then make the decision well PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 223 1 why should I scrap it, I now have a passing vehicle. I'll 2 just register it and drive it. And if they don't, then 3 they might fall into the regular smog check program. So 4 if we were to make another informal recommendation, it 5 would be that that 60-day timeframe in the reg be changed 6 to 30 to conform it to the South Coast rule rather than 7 require the reverse. 8 And finally, if I can make one comment that's a 9 little bit off the actual topic of this regulation, I'd 10 like to say that in our view, the benefits of accelerated 11 vehicle retirements deserve your increased attention. We 12 take a look at the data that is now available through the 13 Bureau of Automotive Repair and their actually experience 14 of scrapping vehicles, and look at the relationship 15 between the ROG to NOx reductions of the vehicles they 16 scrapped versus the credits that are given in Appendix B 17 of this Regulation, and we find that not only do these 18 numbers differ significantly in magnitude by several 19 times, but they also differ in terms of range. 20 The experience of the BAR data would suggest that 21 the hydrocarbons far exceed by four to five times perhaps, 22 maybe even more, if you consider evaporative emissions, 23 the NOx that you would gain from scrapping or accelerating 24 the vehicle retirement. 25 Whereas if you were to look at the charts PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 224 1 Appendix B of this regulation, it would suggest the 2 opposite, that the NOx benefit far exceeds hydrocarbon. 3 We think that this might be a function of the assumptions 4 that have gone into the MFACT model as well as assumptions 5 that might underlie the people trying to achieve a proper 6 balance between calculation of a credit versus encouraging 7 an emission reduction. 8 Which brings us back to the final point that I 9 would like to make today. Fleet turnover is critical to 10 the achievement of the emission reduction goals that you 11 have that we all have in this State. Accelerated vehicle 12 retirement through voluntary means is a very important 13 tool to reach it. We don't believe that we should put 14 obstacles the way of people who are willing to offer their 15 vehicles in exchange for payment so that we can capture 16 those emissions. 17 In fact, we think we ought to encourage them. We 18 don't think we're at the encouragement point, but at least 19 I think we are moving to removing obstacles. But when we 20 do do it, we think that's it's important that we 21 accurately calculate the benefits that result, because we 22 think that if you look at the data coming from the BAR 23 experience and compare it to the credits that are actually 24 generated via this program, you see there is a major 25 disconnect. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 225 1 If this disconnect is followed through in other 2 programs that have vehicle retirement at its basis, then 3 it may be affecting the decisions that you're reaching. 4 And we think this is implications towards decisions about 5 funding M1, the State funding of vehicle retirement, not 6 credits, but State funding of vehicle retirements to get 7 the emission benefits. 8 If it's true that these cars have much higher 9 hydrocarbon, ROG emissions, if you would, rather than NOx, 10 then this could affect your decisions affecting the bay 11 area, and enhanced vehicle inspection in the bay area, 12 because if, in fact, the concern about instituting 13 enhanced vehicle inspection in the bay area is you're 14 going to get too much NOx, well here's a way in which you 15 can get ROG. And we think the data is available that 16 might support exploring that further. 17 And finally, the ZEV Program. I mean, you might 18 find that as look at a proper allocation of the benefit 19 towards vehicle retirement and fleet turnover, that you're 20 better able to portray a benefit of your ZEV program. 21 In any event, you've urged the staff this morning 22 to think outside the box, to challenge the assumptions 23 that they've made, to look at ways in which they could 24 creatively and still factually come forward with good 25 proposals for you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 226 1 We would suggest to you today that the adoption 2 of this regulation is an excellent first step, and that 3 hopefully after the adoption of this regulation, that you 4 will ask the staff to go back and further explore the 5 relationship of the data sets being developed by the BAR, 6 by your own roadside tests to the data that is coming out 7 of the MFACT models and the projections that you're using 8 to base other decisions upon. 9 We think there's far more benefit here than 10 you're recognizing. 11 Thank you. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Could staff 13 comment on the difference hydrocarbon NOx difference 14 between BAR and our calculation of that. 15 SMOG CHECK POLICY ADVISOR VANN: Yes. Well, I 16 can't -- the difference between hydrocarbon and NOx I 17 can't address directly. But in BAR's retirement program 18 they are retiring only failing vehicles from the biennial 19 smog inspection. And to calculate the benefit from 20 retiring that vehicle, they use the actual test result, 21 the official smog inspection. 22 So they take the difference between the actual 23 measured hydrocarbon emissions and NOx emissions from the 24 smog inspection converted to grams per mile and the 25 difference between that and the assumed replacement PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 227 1 vehicle. And in the case of BAR, they use for their last 2 report, it was a 1990 vintage replacement vehicle. And 3 then they use the VMT from the retired vehicle, and 4 calculate the credit that way. 5 Under the ARB's Appendix B, I think -- is it B? 6 Appendix B, I believe the methodology that's used is first 7 the ARB, too avoid double accounting, the ARB assumes that 8 that vehicle must have passed a smog inspection. So the 9 emission threshold for the retired vehicle is assumed to 10 be a passing vehicle not one that is below standard. It's 11 been repaired up to standard. 12 And then the ARB uses, I believe an eight-year 13 newer vehicle as the base emissions. And I believe they 14 get that from MFACT and do the calculation that way. So 15 the big difference is really -- 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Does ARB in the model being 17 replaced use actual data or just assume genetic data for 18 that period? 19 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: For the 20 eight-year issue didn't that come from the study that 501 21 required? The original legislation had us do a study. 22 SMOG CHECK POLICY ADVISOR VANN: Yes. There was 23 a survey done. And there is no disagreement that the 24 average replacement vehicle, regardless of the retirement 25 program type, is generally eight years newer. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 228 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: What about the, what I gather 2 from what Bob was saying, that BAR used And you said BAR 3 used the actual data from the car. And what are we using, 4 what is ARB using? 5 SMOG CHECK POLICY ADVISOR VANN: I think what is 6 used is emission rates for a particular model year -- 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So it's a generic -- 8 SMOG CHECK POLICY ADVISOR VANN: -- that is -- 9 but it is based -- yes, it's generic, but it's based on 10 the surveillance activities conducted by the, I believe, 11 it's the El Monte -- 12 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: The key 13 assumption is that vehicles running around on the road, 14 typically in between their smog checks, halfway let's say, 15 are generally in compliance with the smog check standards. 16 They're not necessarily the cleanest, and, of course, if 17 they're old, they're very high emitters. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes, the emphasis would be on 19 generally. 20 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yeah. And in 21 the BAR program, you've got actual vehicles which have 22 failed, and they've apparently failed so badly that 23 someone is not willing to spend two or three hundred but 24 have to spend $500 or $1,000 to the fix the car. And they 25 say, gee, I'd rather get rid of the car. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 229 1 So you've got kind of the worst of the worst 2 being retired out of the Smog Check program. In our case, 3 for credit bases, it's just the average car off the road 4 that happens to be near the end of its life. And it might 5 be at the end of its life because its ball joints are shot 6 or because it got whacked in the side by a car in an 7 accident or something like that, not necessarily that the 8 car is a gross emitter for that age car, because it did 9 pass smog check, sometime typically on average within the 10 last year. 11 So that's the difference in the kinds of cars. 12 And, obviously, cars that fail smog check typically will 13 have very much higher hydrocarbon emissions than NOx, 14 which is why you get that ratio of high HC benefit, and 15 cars that are on the road would have a lesser difference 16 between them and the credit is both lower, and the 17 difference between the HC and NOx is less. 18 So you would expect there to be a difference 19 between these two types of programs if you're calculating 20 the real benefit. The question comes about is depending 21 on the extent of the scrap program are we picking up in 22 the credit program cars that avoided Smog Check or that, 23 after they passed smog check, had some catastrophic engine 24 problem that caused them to become a gross polluter and 25 then somebody decides to turn them in for scrap. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 230 1 And that scenario arguably we probably are 2 underestimating the benefit. ButAs these programs get 3 larger and more cars go into them, you know, the value has 4 to go towards the average car on the road. 5 MR. LUCAS: If I may. My suggestion was that you 6 asked the staff to take another look at the basis for 7 these assumptions and the methodology, not necessarily to 8 grant more credit to the credit program. I'm thinking 9 more in terms of the other programs that you're making 10 decisions about that might rely on fleet turnover and it's 11 benefit of accelerated retirement of these older vehicles. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. Calhoun. 13 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Let me ask a question. 14 Why is there such a large difference in the value paid for 15 vehicle in the Smog Check program and the credit program, 16 why is there such a, it seems to me, a very large 17 disparity there? 18 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: The principal 19 reason was that there was a fairly large amount of money 20 available from the State side to get cars scrapped through 21 the Smog Check program. And when they bumped the price 22 from typically around $500 to $1,000, a bunch more people 23 scrapped cars. It became more attractive to scrap it than 24 it did to repair it. 25 And that's how it happened. The ones on the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 231 1 enterprise price side are the people that are doing it for 2 credits. That's what the market determines the value of 3 the car is. 4 So, you know, basically BAR was offering double 5 the market or close to one and half to two times the 6 market value for cars under the Smog Check program. And 7 now that's changed, because a bunch of that money was 8 taken to go back and help with our deficit reduction 9 program. And now I think they're going to be bringing it 10 back down to -- that pot of money gone. They've got a 11 continuous stream of money and it probably only supports 12 the $400 to $500, so they'll be more on an equal basis. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. Leonard Trimlett, 14 Glenn Boire, Jack Wiltse. 15 MR. TRIMLETT: Good afternoon, ladies and 16 gentlemen. My name is Len Trimlett, I'm one of the ones 17 Senator Johanessen is talking about. 18 I'm the proud owner of a '65 Mustang, which would 19 probably not be on the road if it had not been for 20 wrecking yard parts. I bought the car after looking 21 around for about six months. I looked very closely at 22 what was in the market. I found the one I want. To me it 23 is a collector vehicle. 24 I went through that car from end to end, engine, 25 transmission, suspension, rear-end, the whole nine yards. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 232 1 I looked to see what was wrong with it. I looked to see 2 how I could fix I and make it solid on the road. I 3 consider myself to be environmentally sound. 4 Okay. Now let's talk about what the important 5 factors are in this regulation to meAs a car collector and 6 rebuilder. 7 Number one, parts availability. Parts 8 availability was a major decision in my choice to pick 9 that Mustang. I wanted something I could find those parts 10 in. Wrecking yard parts, they are more abundant for the 11 Mustangs. Wrecking yard parts they are generally more 12 reliable than the newer parts. I have heard endless 13 stories of people who have head after-market parts that 14 have failed. The wrecking yard parts are not as likely to 15 fail. 16 Number two, availability of parts. We have to 17 get the parts off the cars that come to us, specific 18 parts. Look at a carburation system on a Mustang, Boss 19 302, 429, specific parts. Those parts are worth a bunch. 20 We need to be able to get those parts to responsibly 21 rebuild those vehicles. 22 Okay, availability of those parts. Availability 23 should start when that car hits the wrecking yard, not 24 when they first call up. I support Senator Johanessen and 25 I support the proposal. I believe that we can be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 233 1 responsible car people and make something that is of 2 value. 3 I consider myself a responsible environmentalist. 4 I have been through the reformulated gas issue. Everybody 5 here knows my views. I ask you to support the amendments 6 which have been brought forward. 7 Thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 9 Questions? 10 Thank you. Glen Boire, Jack Wiltse, Frank 11 Bohanan and Roger Andriesse. 12 MR. BOIRE: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, 13 I'm a Glenn Boire, a member of the ACCC, the Association 14 of California Car Clubs. I'm speaking a little bit for 15 them and a lots fore myself. 16 I don't think anyone here is against clean air. 17 I'd be really surprised if any of us were. I have two 18 cars. I know it's going to be hard to believe this, I 19 have two cars that are actually older than I am. And 20 they're in pretty good running state. And the reason we 21 can do that is because parts are available for these cars, 22 not only through the after-market but in junkyardsAs we 23 call them, resalvage areas. 24 One of the things that your recommendations or 25 the staff recommendations is going to do is take at least PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 234 1 a good portion of that away from us. It's going to affect 2 really widely different groups of people. Those of us who 3 are collectors, who are trying to rebuild those old cars 4 and cars maybe not quite so old, but certainly cars in the 5 seventies and eighties, and those folks who are 6 economically disadvantaged who can't afford to keep the 7 newer cars on the road. 8 And no one is going to say that the newer cars 9 pollute more than the older cars. Everyone knows that the 10 older cars pollute more, but that's all some people can 11 afford. And what you're going to do is asking them, if 12 you remove the parts they can use from the junkyards or 13 salvage yards you make it a lot tougher on those folks. 14 You know, most of us collectors will find a way 15 around it, I think, a lot stuff. Ultimately someone will 16 build a new car, but it's a lot better to get the original 17 part. They usually fit better, even if they're older, and 18 they usually work better. 19 Now, I'm a meteorologist and I can't see for the 20 life of me, I was looking at how you're maybe saying 21 recycling only the nonemission parts and the nondrivetrain 22 parts. I know quite a bit about air quality and stuff and 23 I'm wrestling with myself trying to figure out how a break 24 drum off an old car can possibly affect the air quality in 25 California. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 235 1 I can't imagine that. I know that you're saying 2 that you can repair drivetrains of polluting cars that 3 way. But with your regulations, that's not going to 4 happen, because you're saying the cars have to pass a smog 5 check. That means in essence they're nonpolluting for 6 that particular year. 7 So I think that, you know, the stuff you're doing 8 is not really logical at least from my perspective. I 9 know it makes sense to you. But I have to the confess it 10 doesn't make sense to me in terms of withholding these 11 valuable parts from we collectors and from the people, in 12 some cases, who need it worse than I do, and those are the 13 economically disadvantaged. 14 And finally, I want to make one last comment. 15 This morning I think the staff made a great presentation 16 on where we've been in the last 20 years with you folks. 17 I think it was terrific. You showed a lot of progress. 18 One of the things that I was astounded by is the 19 fact that a lawn mower -- no, it was not. It was a 20 chainsaw running two hours makes more pollution than a car 21 driving around -- a modern car, driving round trip from 22 here to New York. 23 That's really hard for me to believe, but I 24 assume it's true. I have a question for you, a little 25 facetiously, of course, but does that mean we're going to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 236 1 scrap all chainsaws now. 2 Thank you. 3 (Laughter.) 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 5 Mr. McKinnon, Ms. D'Adamo with questions. 6 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Sir, I have a question 7 for the last speaker. Have you used the Internet system 8 to purchase scrap cars? 9 MR. BOIRE: No, I haven't, but I'm glad you 10 reminded me of that. I think that the issue, at least for 11 me, is not the seven days. I prefer to see it longer, but 12 it's when the clock starts ticking on that. 13 As I understand it now, the clock starts ticking 14 when the telephone call is made saying I want to do this. 15 And it means that in real time, in real life, the amount 16 of time you have once you notice the thing -- once it's 17 noticed to you and you have a chance to get your schedule 18 arranged to get a look at it, that you're down to just a 19 couple of days. 20 So it would be better if the time period was -- 21 even if it was seven days, if it started when the car 22 actually reached the scrappage person or scrappage 23 company's place. So, yeah, I'm glad you asked the 24 question. 25 Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 237 1 Any other questions? 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo. 3 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I had a question about, 4 did you say it was a brake drum that's included in 5 proposal? 6 MR. BOIRE: Yes. Well, all drivetrain parts in 7 your proposal are nonrecyclable, reusable, resellable, I 8 guess. And I guess you could recycle them by breaking 9 them up and melting them. But I'm talking about reusable. 10 And so a brake drum, for example, a drive shaft, 11 it depends -- a steering wheel, perhaps, those kind of 12 things -- I guess not a steering wheel, because that's not 13 part of the drivetrain. But certainly an axle or a brake 14 drum. They're not going to be available. And they're 15 their critical, because they have a tendency to wear out, 16 but you can still find really good old used ones that 17 really meet the safety requirements that you need on an 18 older car. I'm going through that right now. 19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: So are you saying that 20 they're not emission related. I just want to make sure. 21 MR. BOIRE: That's true. Yeah, absolutely not 22 emission related. 23 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay and then there would 24 be other parts that you don't have any argument with that 25 are included in the proposal that perhaps would be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 238 1 emission related? 2 MR. BOIRE: Yes, personally, that's true for me, 3 yes. 4 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay, could staff respond 5 to examples that you gave -- that the witness gaveAs being 6 nonemission related and what the justification would be to 7 include them? 8 SMOG CHECK POLICY ADVISOR VANN: We do under the 9 current draft of the regulations include brakes and the 10 drivetrain. If drivetrain to give a little more 11 explanation of what it is. The drivetrain is considered 12 to be the engine, the drive mechanism, transmission, 13 differential, axles and brakes. 14 Everything else would be nondrivetrain. And the 15 emission related components are actually listed in an ARB 16 document what are emission related components. 17 So things like doors, door handles, grilles, 18 hoods, windshields, those are considered to be nonemission 19 related, nondrivetrain. 20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, maybe somebody else 21 can help me that has a better understand, maybe Mr. 22 McKinnon or someone. I just thought that what we were 23 looking to achieve in this proposal was to place off 24 limits parts that could damage air quality, emission 25 related parts. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 239 1 And the witness is saying that there are certain 2 parts that are included, perhaps we've cast our net too 3 broadly. And I can't tell if staff's position is that 4 well that's because really in fact the parts that he says 5 are not emission related in fact they are or if there's 6 some other justificationAs why we're including those parts 7 that the witness say are not related to emissions. 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Ms. D'Adamo, we 9 actually don't think we had cast the net too broadly. 10 And, in fact, previously this item came before the Board. 11 And, at that time, what we proposed to the Board and the 12 Board agreed with was that no parts should be allowed. 13 In fact, if we're going to see this kind of 14 recycling for credit generation then what should happen is 15 that the entire vehicle should be crushed, whether it's 16 the drivetrain, whether it's the doors, door handles, 17 mirrors, essentially the car should be taken off the road 18 so that, in fact, those parts couldn't be used to maintain 19 some other similar car for a longer period of time on the 20 roadways. 21 So that what would happen is you'd truly have a 22 credit that was generated that had validity. What we were 23 proposing with the amendments today was essentially a 24 compromise. And what we were trying to do there was 25 recognize that there was a continued interest in having PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 240 1 some of these parts available. 2 And so we thought that what we would propose is 3 essentially taking these drivetrain parts off that 4 essentially are associated with the, kind of a function of 5 the vehicle, but at least at the same time provide an 6 option for the salvage operators to provide these other 7 parts, the door handles, the doors, fenders, you now, body 8 parts, essentially, that could be used for other vehicles. 9 And the theory there was that we would not be 10 essentially encouraging those other vehicles that are high 11 polluting to remain on the roads, particularly when the 12 credit that is being generated by this particular 13 entrepreneur is being used to essentially subsidize some 14 other type of emission activity. 15 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: What would the option be 16 then say for the previous witness that has a '65 Mustang 17 if he needs some parts, drivetrain parts, now they 18 wouldn't be available, are they available in some other 19 form from other vehicles or manufacturers? 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Well, I think on a 21 situation like the '65 Mustang, it's a little bit 22 inapplicable because the vehicle is clearly something that 23 many people have a high level of interest in. There are 24 Mustang car clubs all the over place. There are, you 25 know, huge numbers of people who essentially follow those PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 241 1 vehicles. And when they're looking for parts, they 2 advertise among themselves. And they essentially also are 3 looking for parts that are well known to be valuable. 4 And so I don't think we're going to see anybody 5 bring in a '65 Mustang or a '66 Mustang in for scrappage. 6 I just don't think that's going to happen. What we're 7 going to see is people brining, for example, a '75 Fiero, 8 you know an '82 Cavalier, you know, things like that. 9 And those are the kinds of cars that we actually 10 don't want to see being perpetuated on the roadway by 11 taking the parts off of one that's being scrapped and then 12 putting it back on the road. 13 So, you know, what we were trying to do is 14 through the seven-day notice is provide the opportunity 15 if, in fact, someone did, in the extraordinary unlikely 16 circumstance, bring in, you know, not a Mustang, but 17 something else that may be isn't quite as popular but has 18 some level of interest among collectors, they would have a 19 mechanism to be notified that, in fact, that car was 20 available for them to purchase instead having it scrapped. 21 And if, in fact, the timeframe that we've 22 associated with that, you know, is something that maybe 23 isn't working as well as we would hope it would work, you 24 know, I think that's a place where we can provide 25 additional time to ensure that, in fact, people have the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 242 1 opportunity to grab those cars, if, in fact, they think 2 there's some value to those. 3 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: There's not a 4 65 Mustang out there that's worth less than $1,000. So I 5 mean no one is going to put it through this program, 6 because they are a valuable car and someone else will 7 either take them for parts or try to restore them. 8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, but this is where my 9 ignorance is really showing, because would that Fiero or 10 Cavalier would some of those parts be interchangeable with 11 some of the more classic -- 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Not with the Mustang. 13 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Probably not. 14 MR. BOIRE: I don't think the issue is a 65 15 Mustang. I think the issue is whether the parts that are 16 nonemission related on an automobile could it be a 1965 17 Mustang really not appropriate for that, but it could be 18 the cars this gentleman has mentioned. 19 The fact that a brake drum, for example, or an 20 axle has got nothing to do at all with the 21 anti-pollution -- of any car, it could be the car that 22 you're driving today, it has nothing to do with it at all, 23 yes it well help keep it on the road. 24 And that's important, I think, for collectors as 25 well as for the economically disadvantaged to keep cars on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 243 1 the road, even though we know that a car that's ten years 2 old pollutes more than a newer car. 3 The only issue is not air quality. I know it's 4 the primary issue for this Board, but there's also the 5 quality of living for a lot of people in California. 6 We talk about air quality benefits, but forget 7 the benefits for a second, talk about the air quality, 8 that's what we're interested in. The benefits are 9 something that we're measuring things with. 10 So I think just to get back to the one simple 11 point I want to make is that, you know, the parts that 12 we're talk about on a car, in terms of the pollution 13 requirements on a car, there's no difference between a 14 door, a mirror, an axle or a wheel of anti-pollutant, and 15 I don't think anybody will argue with that. 16 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, I think 17 the point maybe is a little bit different. Again, in a 18 credit program the difficulty here is that we give a way a 19 right to pollute to someone else. And the question is are 20 we getting enough emission reductions out of the air to 21 justify that credit that we give away, and that's based on 22 modernization of the fleet, that there will be -- that an 23 old car will be taken off and be replaced by an eight-year 24 newer car. That's kind of the underlying principle. 25 And all these details that we're proposing to you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 244 1 and talking about kind of have to be looked at in that 2 construct. We tried to find a way of you know, remember 3 the rule said no parts scrapping at all, no doors, no 4 windows, everything had to be destroyed. And we tried to 5 fine some middle ground here. And it's certainly not a 6 precise principle that we're trying to implement, but I 7 think the general concept is these parts that have to do 8 with the drivetrain from a brake up through the engine, it 9 determines whether the car can run or not. 10 And so if those things are recycled, it allows a 11 car that's broken down to run. These other parts are 12 often not that case. People go around with bashed in 13 doors. People go around with cracked windshields, with 14 door handles that don't work and things like that. That 15 doesn't necessarily dictate the scrapping of a car. 16 And so putting those back on there probably 17 improves the quality of the vehicle that someone operates, 18 but problem doesn't affect that decision for that car. It 19 will eventually hit the graveyard and improve emissions. 20 But the drivetrain parts often do. It's not just 21 emission parts or we wouldn't be including transmissions, 22 but those are the things that they break, they make the 23 car go, and if you allow them to be replaced on these 24 cars, that means the car old higher emitting car is going 25 to be out there for another two years or whatever the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 245 1 number may be. 2 So that's kind of why we tried to divide the baby 3 a little bit that way. It's not precise, but it was in 4 the spirit of trying to find a compromise that would allow 5 more parts usage versus the status quo regulation that the 6 Board adopted, which was no parts usage. And, you know, I 7 don't know if we should have gone a little farther or a 8 little less, but that was the logic that we used. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. Calhoun. 10 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: When manufacturers submit 11 an application for a certification to the Air Resources 12 Board, axle ratio is an important -- is one of the factors 13 that gets listed. And so I don't think it's appropriate 14 to say that the axle ratio doesn't have anything to do 15 with emissions. 16 Every application that the Air Resources Board 17 gets from an auto manufacturer, they specify the axle 18 ratio. 19 MR. BOIRE: I'll give you that one. The axle 20 ratio does have something to do with it, but just the 21 pinion gear or the ring part of it, to buy one or the 22 other wouldn't have anything to do individually, nor would 23 the axle by itself. But you're right about axle ratio, 24 sure, just like an overdrive makes a difference or going 25 down hill. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 246 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 2 Jack Wiltse. 3 MR. WILTSE: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 4 board. My name is Jack Wiltse, and like the previous 5 speaker, I'm a director of the Association of California 6 Car Clubs. 7 The Association represents approximately 8,000 8 members throughout the State of California. We are 9 generally car collectors and restorers. And this law 10 concerns me to the effect of whether or not parts will be 11 available for my car. Personally, I drive,As a hobby, 12 I've restored a 65 Impalla convertible. It's a beautiful 13 red car and everyone seems to love it in the parade. And 14 it was on display at the west steps of the Capitol last 15 may and everybody loves it. 16 Everybody loves a car show. Everybody loves a 17 parade where antique and classic cars are displayed. Most 18 of our classic cars are very limited mileage cars. I 19 drove mine last year to Hot August Nights, local car 20 shows. We did the Cannibal cruise in Truckee and we did 21 the Cherry's Jubilee in Monterey and we had a great time. 22 My car traveled a total of 950 miles last year. 23 So I'm concerned that if cars are scrapped in entirety, 24 it's going to severely restrict the availability of parts 25 that will be necessary to keep my 36-year old convertible PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 247 1 on the road for the very limited usage that I get. 2 And I think more importantly, that if we crush in 3 entirety drivetrains, engines and related components, it's 4 going to -- to me it's a discriminatory situation where 5 people who may not be able to afford a new or almost new 6 automobile, like the elderly, the disabled, the working 7 poor, students, where will they get parts to keep their 8 automobile running? 9 It was interesting to note recently in the what 10 we call the major Sacramento newspaper, there was an 11 article where the County of Sacramento is actually giving 12 automobiles to welfare recipients so that that will enable 13 them to work. 14 The obvious equation is you need a car to work. 15 If your car doesn't pass smog, if it has to go to the 16 crusher, you can't afford to get it repaired, chances are 17 we're going to have another person on the welfare rolls. 18 Also, the recycling and business of automobile 19 recycling is a tremendous industry. If any of you've gone 20 down South Sunrise lately, you'll see that, as far as the 21 eye can see, there are dealers who recycle automotive 22 parts. And these aren't junkyards. These people are very 23 technical. They're very sophisticated. They're 24 computerized. They harvest serviceable parts, make them 25 available to perhaps local income people at about half the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 248 1 price of a new part. 2 To me, the implications of crushing a nice 1987 3 automobile, may sound very appealing, but I think there 4 are ramifications that we should be aware of. I think 5 this it's going to have an effect that could have -- there 6 really is no free lunch. My dad used to tell me that, if 7 you take someplace you're going to give somewhere else. 8 If we take an automobile and crush it into a 9 three-foot cube of metal, it doesn't just go away. That 10 crushed cube is comprised of glass, of aluminum, plastic, 11 cast iron, steel. So all that has to be taken apart and 12 put back together again. 13 And if anybody has ever seen the pictures of a 14 blast furnace where you take steel and make it molded to 15 make it into something else, you know the tremendous 16 energy that's required and the pollution that's emitted 17 from that kind of an operation. 18 So it's not all 100 percent. There are other 19 things I think that we should consider. Thousands of cars 20 are being scrapped daily. I think that the market will 21 determine the value of these parts. If there's no demand, 22 these dealers are not going to -- they're not going to put 23 them on the shelf, if someone doesn't need them. 24 So I think the market is going to take care of 25 it. The older cars are going away by attrition, and I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 249 1 think we should leave it that way. We like Option 3. 2 The collector car and the working poor need 3 replacement parts. I think you should -- we would go for 4 option 3. 5 Thank you very much. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 7 Questions? 8 Thank you. Frank Bohanan and Roger Andriesse. 9 MR. BOHANAN: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and 10 members of the Board. My name is Frank Bohanan. I'm the 11 technical consultant for the Specialty Equipment Market 12 Association. I also can address the joint comments which 13 were submitted by the Automotive Aftermarket Industry 14 Association, Automotive Engine Rebuilders Association and 15 the Automotive Parts Rebuilders Association. So that 16 would basically be Attachment 2 in the package that you 17 should be receiving. 18 So many things, so little time. I guess I'll try 19 to hit on the three points that I make in the document 20 that you receivedAs far as what we're asking for. I'll 21 also try to address some points that were made which I 22 believe are taken out of context or are in some case just 23 misinformation. 24 One thing I'd like to start out with are the very 25 simple, but unfortunately true statement relative to the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 250 1 these scrappage programs. There is no way of ensuring, 2 under the current structure, that the replacement vehicle, 3 if any, since there is no assurance there even will be a 4 replacement vehicle that that replacement vehicle is, in 5 fact, lower emitting than the vehicle which was scrapped. 6 There are a lot of studies out there, everything from 7 University of Denver, and just tons. 8 And it goes back to that old ten percent of the 9 cars cause 50 percent of the pollution, 20 percent cause 10 80 percent, you know, pick your number. The bottom line 11 is that in any population of vehicles by model year, a 12 very, very small fraction of the vehicles produce a very 13 very large proportion of the emissions, and the majority 14 of the vehicles are relatively clean. 15 That's one of the things that I'm sure you've 16 heard in addressing Smog Check, that you're screening a 17 lot of cars to try and catch the gross polluters. Well, 18 the unfortunate things about these scrappage programs is 19 that they don't do a very good job of ensuring that you're 20 getting the gross polluters. 21 As a matter of fact, they don't even do a very 22 good job of ensuring that the cars you're getting are, in 23 fact, being driven on a regular basis or polluting at all. 24 It's totally conceivable that a vehicle which was not used 25 on a regular basis, was sitting in somebody's backyard, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 251 1 they throw a couple of bucks at it to get it barely 2 running and then they bring it in and get $1,000. The 3 currency that Tom referred to, in many cases, may, in 4 fact, be counterfeit is my point. 5 Now, one of the things the staff is suggesting is 6 that you make the programs comparable, you have harmony, 7 parody, a statutory requirement. Fine, we agree with 8 that. 9 The problem is there's two ways to do it. You 10 can either weaken the ARB criteria down to the BAR level 11 or can you raise the BAR level up to the ARB criteria. We 12 vote for the latter. And we'd actually like to add 13 something on top of that, but first things first. 14 In the staff report, I give you a couple of 15 quotations. 16 Quotation one, "In fact, many 17 interested parties consider the BAR 18 vehicle eligibility regulations to be 19 much less stringent than the ARB vehicle 20 eligibility regulations," end quote. 21 Quote two, "However, it should be 22 noted that the more stringent ARB 23 regulations attempt to ensure that a 24 vehicle is being driven on a regular 25 basis prior to retirement to ensure that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 252 1 emission credit is not given or taken 2 for vehicles that are, in reality, 3 sitting idle and not being driven," end 4 quote. 5 Quote three, "An increase in 6 emissions can actually result when an 7 infrequently driven or nonoperating 8 vehicle is retired once the credit is 9 used," end quote. 10 So it's obvious that the staff has recognized 11 that going down, weakening, the criteria to the BAR level 12 has some problems associated with it, yet that's what 13 they're suggesting that you do. 14 We vote for the opposite. The BAR program is run 15 by ARB guidelines. We say make the BAR program up the 16 ante, not the other way round. Further more, we would 17 suggest that you increase the stringency of both programs 18 or actually three, if you want to include M1 at some 19 future date, by putting a mileage based criteria on top of 20 that. 21 We believe that, again, you want that currency to 22 be real. You want to make sure that if you're claiming an 23 emission credit that you are, in fact, realizing an 24 emission benefit. We believe a very good way of doing 25 that is to use odometer data. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 253 1 Now, you've heard and you've seen in the staff 2 report that there is some problems with odometer data, the 3 VIDAs some problems. The data that was mentioned was that 4 of ten million records they have to toss four million 40, 5 percent. Forty percent of the VID database is unusable 6 data. We have a problem with that. 7 Every single mobile source calculation that is 8 used in the other programs that you deal with relies on 9 VMT. Where do you think VMT comes from some? People this 10 morning talked about VMT. Your VMT number is based on 40 11 percent of the data being thrown out. 12 Do you want that? If you're going to sit there 13 and say that the VID is not got enough to use for this 14 purpose, then you also ought to be saying that the VID is 15 not good enough to be used for a whole lot of other things 16 that you're making some much more expensive decisions on. 17 So we would simply say fix the VID. Then you can 18 use the VID on a case-by-case basis to help you make sure 19 that these vehicles are being driven, they are emission 20 contributors, and if you scrap them you are getting 21 something that we, the public, are paying for. If you 22 don't do it, you're kidding yourselves by using a number 23 that is 40 percent inaccurate. 24 So you said you had an interest in VMT this 25 morning. Look under VMT to VID, because that's where it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 254 1 comes from. 2 The next thing I would address is the parts 3 issue. We've heard a lot about parts. First of all, the 4 staff is recommending Option 2. They're recommending 5 Option 2As a compromise. We don't believe it's very much 6 of a compromise, because when you look at all the 7 administrative burdens that are attached to Option 2, we 8 believe Option 2 is, in fact, Option 1 in disguise. 9 There are so many requirements in terms of 10 segregating the vehicles, record keeping things like that, 11 that the risk for a dismantler to implement Option 2 is so 12 high that we can't see any of them really wanting to take 13 the risk. 14 We have a fundamental disagreement with the 15 assumptions that are being made relative to what happens 16 when you make parts available for resale. We do not agree 17 that these vehicles are going to be kept on the road any 18 longer than they otherwise would have. 19 We believe that the reason the vehicle is kept on 20 the road is primarily economic necessity. Somebody can't 21 afford to buy a better vehicle, period. To the extent 22 that they need inexpensive parts to keep that vehicle 23 running, nobody is going to go to a junk yard or 24 dismantlers facilities and buy a part, spend money to make 25 their car run worse. Nobody is going to buy a car to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 255 1 reduce the performance of the vehicle and increase the 2 emissions. They're buying that part to make it better. 3 And they're going to a dismantler's facility 4 because they can't afford to go and buy a new part, orAs 5 we like to say, that new part -- that part may not be at 6 the dismantler's facility. 7 Which brings up the issue of percentages. Staff 8 loves to use the argument of percentages. This is only .3 9 percent of the vehicle population. Well, we would argue 10 well if it's such a small population, it really not 11 contributing very much to the emissions. That in and of 12 itself, let's talk about it from the standpoint of the 13 people who need the parts. 14 You've heard some people say if I'm looking for a 15 particular part for a particular vehicle, I need that 16 specific rare, unique part. I can't get it from a 17 nonprogram vehicle. I can't get it from somebody making a 18 new or reman or resto or something like that. It's a 19 question of rare, unique, specific parts. 20 Percentages do not address the issue. I guess, I 21 would say if these parts were an endangered species, 22 nobody would be concerned about percentages. And I really 23 ask you to think about it in terms of how little 24 percentages tell the true story here. 25 These parts, if your somebody who's restoring a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 256 1 vehicle to try to meet a certain classification when you 2 go and show a vehicle. For example, Corvettes have what 3 they call Bloomington Gold. You need all the numbers to 4 match. You need the engine block, the cylinder heads, and 5 so on all the casting numbers to match. 6 If those parts get destroyed unnecessarily, they 7 are not available ever again to people who need those 8 parts. Likewise, a low-income person who needs a 9 particular part to fix their vehicle so this can pass Smog 10 Check, they may not be able to go get a consolidated part 11 or a repair part from Pep Boys or something. They need a 12 particular. Percentages don't tell the story. 13 Likewise, Section 44120 of the Health and Safety 14 Code tries to address this issue specifically by saying 15 that these parts should be available, that you should 16 maximize the salvageability, tradeability, reuse, resale 17 and so forth. I won't specifically. I'm sure you've 18 heard the concept. 19 We do not believe that that means recycling scrap 20 materials. For that person who's trying to restore a car 21 or that low-income person who needs a particular part to 22 make their car run better, giving them a cube of metal 23 doesn't help. They need a part. The Section 441220 was 24 about parts, not scrap material. 25 We also believed on some level that this is an PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 257 1 environmental justice issue. We believe that because the 2 people who tend to need these parts are, in essence, being 3 discriminated against, that you need to consider the fact 4 that this regulation that destroying these parts does 5 unfairly affect some people more than others. 6 Not only in a direct sense, but Virtue of they 7 won't be able to get the parts, and they may not be able 8 to drive the vehicle legally, because the vehicle can't 9 pass smog, but also in an indirect sense, because to the 10 extent that this program uses scrappage to offset 11 reductions from other places, like stationary sources, to 12 the extent that scrapping cars means that some smoke 13 stacks somewhere doesn't get retrofitted, that not being 14 retrofitted means people who live near that smoke stack 15 still have to breathe more than they otherwise would have 16 breathed if this vehicle wasn't offsetting it. 17 Never mind the fact that you're talking two 18 totally different sets of emissions. I mean, what comes 19 out of a smoke stack and what comes out of a car are 20 totally different. But the fact of the matter is the 21 basic assumptions of the MCERT program are inherently 22 discriminatory and they do not eliminate hotspots, which 23 result from stationary sources. 24 If anything, they prolong hot spots. And those 25 hot spots are, as you well know, an environmental justice PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 258 1 advertises issue. 2 Last but not least -- well, actually one more 3 thing on parts. You heard some comments about, you know, 4 a Cavalier part not going on a Mustang. True, a Cavalier 5 pant doesn't go on a Mustang, but a Fairmont part does, a 6 Zephyr part does. 7 Nobody is likely to be collecting a Fairmont or a 8 Zephyr. But the parts on a Fairmont or a Zephyr or on a 9 Plymouth Satellite versus a Roadrunner, those noncollector 10 cars do have parts that are of great interest to 11 collectors. And sometimes those noncollector cars are 12 able to be optioned with the rare engines. 13 You can find a Hemi in a Satellite. It's not a 14 Roadrunner, not a GTX. It's possible to find the good 15 stuff in a plain vanilla car. 16 So you can't just tell by the exterior of the car 17 whether or not you may lose valuable parts, which now is a 18 segue way to the issue about the holding period. 19 The current language relative to the holding 20 period says, the seven-day holding period starts when the 21 vehicle is first offered for sale. It is first offered 22 for sale when the consumer calls up and schedules and 23 appointment. 24 By the time that vehicle actually gets to the 25 dismantler's facility, they've probably already blown that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 259 1 whole holding period. The only thing that stops those 2 vehicles from being scrapped instantly is the need for the 3 DMV paperwork to clear two, three. So the seven day 4 holding period does not exist currently. 5 It is not being used. These cars are being 6 scrapped as soon as the paperwork clears, period. We're 7 asking that you change that to make the seven days start 8 when the vehicle is brought to the facility when the 9 transaction occurs. 10 You've even heard a couple of other people say 11 that that's preferable and to tell you the truth a lot of 12 the people in the hobby would like to see it a lot longer 13 than seven days. We know the dismantlers have a problem 14 with that. So that would be point one is make the 15 seven-day clock start when the transaction occurs. 16 Secondary to that making the clock start at seven 17 days doesn't do anybody any good if you don't know the 18 vehicles are there. 19 Now, when 1610, Rule 1610, in the South Coast was 20 in place, there actually was a reasonably good method of 21 informing the public about when and where these vehicles 22 would be. I know because I got the information. 23 They sent the information too CEMA. SEMASput it 24 on its web site and maybe it available through fax on 25 demand. Car clubs, members of the public could look all PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 260 1 of this up and they can go and show up. 2 When the information was available, people went, 3 people bought cars, people bought parts. The information 4 is not a available now. I've gone onto the web sites of 5 the different districts. I can find nothing that gives a 6 listing of these cars. I don't get lists anymore from the 7 dismantlers. 8 So if you're going to do the seven days, which 9 obviously we hope you do from when the vehicle is actually 10 delivered, we also hope that the notification requirements 11 will be beefed up as well to be meaningful so that people 12 can actually be there to buy these cars and/or parts. 13 And I guess I would say that it has to be both, 14 not just buy the whole car, nobody is going to buy a whole 15 car -- well I shouldn't say nobody, very few people would 16 be willing to buy a whole car if they need an intake 17 manifold or a single part, and that was actually what the 18 staff had proposedAs a solution that well, you could still 19 buy the whole car so that's good enough. No, it's not. 20 So I guess that pretty much wraps it up. I hope 21 you have some questions because we've had a lot of the 22 details in Attachment 1 and Attachment 2, and I realize 23 this is a fairly complex situation with a lot of different 24 word twists that have made the wrong impression. So I 25 hope I've cleared some things and I hope I can clear up PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 261 1 some more. So thank you very much for your time. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. I think staff can 3 respond to at least some of those issues. I know Tom was 4 looking at one in terms of the calculation of the VMT. 5 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I think the 6 conclusion we reach that the VMT date is not reliable 7 means it's not reliable for an individual car. That could 8 be the car where they reverse the numbers or somebody put 9 them in wrong. To use it in the emission factor model and 10 other things we use that have VMT implications, what we do 11 is we go through all that data and there's a computer 12 program that's run to try to call out obviously bad pieces 13 of data. 14 We go back and look at whether the data is, you 15 know, the car can't go from 50,000 miles to 40,000 miles, 16 for example, things like that. And at that point, then we 17 use it on an average basis. So obviously there could be 18 some cars that were supposed to be 62,000 that got put 19 into 26,000, but their can be a car that's exactly the 20 opposite way. And all kind of balances out in the end. 21 So on an average basis I think it's a very 22 reliable database, but for an individual car it's got 23 these problems. 24 MR. BOHANAN: And we would say we certainly don't 25 want you to use bad data. We're just saying that instead PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 262 1 of accepting 40 percent bad data, you ought to be table to 2 do better. 3 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: And we do 4 because we screen out a lot of the obvious bad data. And 5 when you do it on average, things balance out, as I said. 6 On the other things about bringing our standards 7 up to -- BAR standards up to ours and vice versa, that's 8 again a balancing point here. 9 And, obviously, Mr. Bohanan would like to see as 10 few stars scrappedAs possible. And obviously raising the 11 eligibility requirements means there's fewer cars 12 scrapped. On the other hand the other witnesses -- one of 13 the other witnesses would like to see more cars scrapped 14 so more credits are availableAs possible more cost 15 effective way of reducing pollution. 16 And so we want to relax the eligibility 17 requirements to scrap as manyAs possible. And, again, we 18 tried to find a middle many point. I think, we chose the 19 BAR approach with the two exceptions which make ours a 20 little bit more stringent. 21 MR. BOHANAN: I would say I prefer quality to 22 quantity. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Any other questions from the 24 Board? 25 Thank you very much. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 263 1 Mr. Andriesse. 2 MR. ANDRIESSE: Chairman Lloyd, Members of the 3 Board. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. And I'm 4 sure everyone is pleased that I'm the last speaker of the 5 day. I know it's been a long day for everybody. 6 My name is Roger Andriesse. I am the President 7 of the Shelby American Automobile Club. This club is 8 probably the largest of the classic automobile clubs in 9 the United States. I represent two classes of people 10 within that club. Those are the people that own the 11 original cars. And these cars are range in value from 12 somewhere in the order of $200,000 to $4.5 million, which 13 was the last one that was sold. So we're talking about a 14 population looking for vehicles. 15 And also I represent a class of people that have 16 replicas of these cars. It is the most replicated vehicle 17 in the country at the present time. And the owners of 18 these replicas seek to,As closelyAs possible, duplicate 19 the original cars, which means they're looking for 20 original drivetrains. 21 And we are particularly offended by staff's 22 recommendation that the drivetrains from these vehicles be 23 crushed. 24 A couple of points to make, your legislative 25 representative either, and I would hope a mistake, rather PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 264 1 than a deliberate piece of misinformation to the Board. I 2 spoke with Senator Johanessen right after his 3 presentation. And he was absolutely emphatic that he 4 supports the full recycling of all parts on vehicles. And 5 I very much doubt that he would have stood by and allowed 6 you to getaway with what you just said. 7 As for the other staff members, I'm afraid that 8 you're a little out of touch with reality. I'm not going 9 to deal with those people that are looking to go out and 10 buy a 1985 -- a part for a 1985 car that is a polluting 11 vehicle. I'm here to address the very classic parts, the 12 absolutely irreplaceable parts. 13 They don't show up in the original vehicles. In 14 the sixties, you were able to order a vehicle with any 15 combination of special parts on it. 16 That's not available today. It's not common 17 places today. So what you find is you'll have a vehicle 18 that has probably no collector value, but has a drivetrain 19 that is absolutely irreplaceable. I found one in 20 Chowchilla, California, a couple of weeks ago that had a 21 high performance 289 motor that would sell for about 22 $5,000 in an unrestored state sitting in a 19 -- it 23 actually had been replaced and put in a 1964 Falcon. 24 That Falcon had absolutely in value, but the 25 drivetrain in that vehicle is worth about $5,000. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 265 1 Now, under staff's proposal that vehicle should 2 be crushed, so $5,000 worth of intrinsic value is 3 dismissed. We live in a free-market economy. We don't 4 live in totalitarian regime that is run by bureaucrats. 5 Let the free-market determine what parts the recyclers 6 will save from the vehicles they take. 7 In other words, if a recycler gets a vehicle in 8 that has a valuable part in it, let the recycler take that 9 part from the vehicle and hold it for sale, the rest of 10 the vehicle can be scrapped. 11 But under the proposal that staff comes up with, 12 and, in fact, under the philosophy of the staff proposal, 13 and having heard all of the members of the staff speak 14 today, I'm troubled by this philosophy. The philosophy is 15 a scorched earth policy it is totally unnecessary. 16 Let the free market determine what parts are 17 available for sale. The recycling industry in this State, 18 particularly,As very sophisticated industry. If you give 19 the recycling industry the opportunity to remove the parts 20 from the car and hold those parts for sale that have 21 intrinsic value, that is what they will do. 22 Let the free market rule. If you destroy total 23 drivetrains or if you destroy total vehicles, you destroy 24 irreplaceable parts. I have spent the last two years 25 looking for a particular -- for an A-4 Block for a Boss PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 266 1 Mustang that meets a certain numbered criteria. I can't 2 find one. 3 I would be very upset to walk into a recycler and 4 someone tell me because of a staff proposal, that last 5 week we destroyed a vehicle that had that block in it, and 6 this is what it's all about. 7 Many members of our organization have spoken with 8 your staff over the last year. We find it hard to 9 understand where their philosophy comes from. If their 10 philosophy is get every old car off the road regardless of 11 its intrinsic value, and that's what comes across in 12 conversations with your staff. 13 This is not right. The collectors out there have 14 the right to have those vehicles. The money that these 15 people are willing to spend and restore these vehicles, 16 they're not going to have a polluting part or a polluting 17 vehicle. My average car, my road cars run under 1,000 18 miles a year. I also vintage race, so for each of my 19 vintage race cars, I have one or two spare motors. And 20 I'm out looking for spare parts for those motors at all 21 times. And so are all my companions and friends in these 22 organizations. 23 Under the proposal that staff comes up with, 24 these parts are going to be removed. They can't be 25 replaced. The predecessor, if this was a spotted owl, we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 267 1 wouldn't be having this conversation, but it's not. It's 2 an easy target, because it's easy to say these are old 3 cars, they're polluting, let's get rid of them. 4 But we need to look past that easy statement. We 5 need to look at what it's all about. And I'm afraid that 6 what appears to come across are the personal agenda of 7 many staff, rather than what is really good for everybody 8 concerned here. 9 And what is good for everybody concerned is to 10 let the market determine what parts are kept and what 11 parts are destroyed. 12 Thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 14 Mr. McKinnon. 15 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yes. I'll give you a 16 worst example. A 327 crankshaft is only found in a few 17 cars. And it happens to be found in old utility trucks. 18 And that's troubling to me, but I also want to talk about 19 scrappage programs with you. And maybe it is a personal 20 agenda. And this is what makes this very, very difficult 21 to decide. 22 And it, to a certain extent, rebuts the kind of 23 environmental justice discussion that came up a few 24 minutes ago, is how this all starts out is someone with an 25 old car that in BAR, anyway, that can't pass smog that's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 268 1 going to take a lot of money to repair, says hey I've got 2 a better idea. I'm going to just get rid of it and get 3 another one and I can get paid for it. 4 Now, to the extent that car is being paid for by 5 the taxpayers to no longer pollute, it isn't a free market 6 anymore, it's the taxpayers paid for something. They paid 7 for it. And what's troubling, what's difficult, is I 8 absolutely understand the problem that you're defining in 9 terms of parts availability. 10 The difficult is if the balances -- if the 11 taxpayers are paying for that old drivetrain, if you will, 12 because it's not the whole car anymore in this proposal, 13 if the taxpayers are paying for that, what have we 14 delivered, if, in effect, that drivetrain ends up back out 15 on the road, sometimes not by a collector that does a good 16 job. I mean, you know, if you're talking collector's 17 parts, collectors tend to do a good job and a careful job. 18 If you're talking about parts to repair a 19 vehicle, all sorts of jobs get done at repairing vehicles. 20 That's the balance. I don't think its personal agendas. 21 It's we're having taxpayers pay to get cars off the road 22 that are dirty. 23 MR. ANDRIESSE: Mr. McKinnon, I fully agree with 24 what you're saying that we're using taxpayer dollars. Of 25 course, one would have to ask is that a really economic PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 269 1 use of taxpayer dollars, but that's a whole another 2 discussion. 3 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: You bet it is, and it's 4 not one we get to particularly decide. 5 (Laughter.) 6 MR. ANDRIESSE: Again, what I'm saying to you is 7 that when a recycler recognizes that a part is valuable 8 and let them market that part, because more often than 9 not, the more valuable parts are going to be a high dollar 10 item than are not going to be purchased by an individual 11 to be keep a gross polluting vehicle on the road. 12 Now, one of the easy ways around it, which 13 satisfies the needs of my constituents, is you put a cut 14 off. You have a year, call it '74, '76. Now, that's 15 going to upset a lot of other people, but that satisfies 16 my personal agenda, because what I'm interested in is 17 basically pre-73. 18 I really don't care that a 1988 Chevy Cavalier 19 emission system, you know, crush it. But what I am saying 20 is don't crush a 19968 Ranchero that may have an F-8 motor 21 in it. That doesn't make sense, that it's worth $5,000 or 22 $6,000. 23 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: For staff, has anybody 24 looked at the numbers of what having a cutoff like that 25 might do? There's certainly -- you certainly would limit PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 270 1 to collectors. I mean, I can imagine it would cause other 2 political problems. 3 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: I think one of the 4 problems, Mr. McKinnon -- 5 MR. ANDRIESSE: If you followed the same 6 guidelinesAs do for nonrequirement for Smog Check, which 7 is pre-73, it then works. Pre-73 cars are not required to 8 be checked. Use pre-73 for your cutoff or some other date 9 that brings it back to the collectors. 10 There's not lot of 1988 Chevy's and Fords that 11 are collector vehicles, but there a lot of 1960s and early 12 seventies that are. 13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: If I might suggest, I 14 think one of the difficulties with having that kind of a 15 cutoff, is if someone was to bring in a car that actually 16 was under the cutoff, we will telling people essentially 17 that we're not buying their cars, despite the fact that 18 there may be an air quality benefit associated with them. 19 And we won't allow essentially the private 20 entrepreneurs to buy their cars for that same reason 21 either. And what we're going to do is we're going to tell 22 them that the only option available to you is to go find 23 somebody in the private market to get your car. 24 I think a potential better solution would to look 25 at the notification system that we've talked about and the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 271 1 amount of time we are providing before the cars are 2 crushed, and to ensure that, in fact, people have an 3 opportunity to know that, you know, for example, we may 4 have, you know, a pre-1973 vehicle and if someone wants it 5 then they have an opportunity to come and look at that and 6 actually potentially purchase that before it's crushed. 7 MR. ANDRIESSE: Mr. Kenny, this is exactly what 8 I'm talking about. You know, this is a classic example of 9 a lack of knowledge of how it works. 10 Now, I don't know how much research you do, Mr. 11 Kenny, but that 1964 Falcon with the 289 high power motor, 12 if that had been brought in, no one would have been 13 interested in it. It wasn't until someone looked under 14 the hood and saw that it was a 289 high power motor that 15 that motor was worth $5,000. 16 If you say to people pre-73 we'll still buy your 17 car, but the recycler has the option of taking parts off 18 that car that the recycler determines have a market value, 19 then you have a situation that works. 20 This morning, it was suggested you think outside 21 the box. Now is an opportunity for you to do it, Mr. 22 Kenny. 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: The difficulty I see 24 with the proposal is what we are doing is we are trying to 25 essentially craft a general rule to address the one PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 272 1 exception. And what ends up happening is that again what 2 we're trying to do is ensure that the air quality credits 3 that are being generated buy these particular vehicles 4 being taken off the roads actually have some value and 5 some merit to them. 6 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: One other 7 thing too is in many of these cases, I'm presuming, and I 8 think it's a correct presumption that the scrappage people 9 will look under the hood and know whether it's got a 10 $5,000 drivetrain in it. If it has a $5,000 drivetrain, 11 they're not going to pay somebody $450 for it, they're 12 going to buy it for scrap and take the drivetrain out and 13 sell it. 14 And it will not be in the scrap program. We're 15 not making people scrap the program. They just say gee, I 16 like this car. Instead of giving you $450 I'll give you 17 $850 for it and turned around and sell it for $5,000. I 18 mean unless it's so -- you know, I can understand where 19 there are situations where it's so obtuse to getting down 20 to looking for a certain VIN number range where that might 21 happen. But the entrepreneur is the people do the 22 scrapping, they're pretty knowledgeable of what's the 23 value of these parts on the car. 24 MR. ANDRIESSE: The objection we have to this 25 whole proposal from staff is this scorched earth policy. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 273 1 There are parts out there on these vehicles that can be 2 used, whether it be collectors or low-income. My 3 predecessors speaking up here have addressed the 4 low-income issue, I don't intend to. But for a 5 collector's point of view, let's not destroy parts that 6 have value and we're talking about entire drivetrains. 7 You know, a Ford nine-inch rear-end does not 8 pollute. Why are we destroying Ford nine-inch rear-ends 9 that are on all these sixties and seventies high 10 performance Fords, and it doesn't have to be an extremely 11 exotic vehicle. They came on Falcons. They came on 12 Fairlanes, they came on Galaxy's, them came on Mavericks. 13 I'm afraid their net has been cast a little too 14 broad. Again, you know, I watched the presentation this 15 morning. I was fascinated by it.As Board, you have done a 16 wonderful job, you know, we are seeing great things, but 17 your staff needs to think outside the box. They need to 18 look further than just emission reduction. They need to 19 look at the big picture. 20 And part of a big picture is everyone makes up 21 that picture. And to turn around and casually say 22 collectors are unimportant or low-income is unimportant is 23 a rather elitist statement. 24 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Sir, I don't think 25 anybody has said either of those things. So what I'm PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 274 1 trying to do and I think what staff is trying to do is 2 explore a solution that doesn't end up impacting something 3 else. If the taxpayers have paid for something to be off 4 the road, they're entitled to some benefit, okay. 5 So I guess my final question, and I've talked way 6 too long here. My final question is if I can't figure out 7 a way to resolve this issue, then I end up going back to 8 doing better at the noticing period and noticing people of 9 what cars are available. 10 I understand there's some cars that slip through 11 that may have parts of value. Is that particular approach 12 where there's three days and seven days and a waiting 13 period and good reporting and what -- I guess on the 14 Internet a way of looking up searching what cars have been 15 turned in, is that helpful, does that get us any -- 16 MR. ANDRIESSE: It's really not. In talking to 17 my members that is not a resource that they have used. 18 They've normally -- cars are found a lot by word of mouth. 19 What I would think, if you had a year, date cutoff that 20 pre a certain date the salvage operator was allowed to 21 part out the car rather than destroy the car and then post 22 that date the car was automatically destroyed, I think 23 that would be the best of all worlds, because the majority 24 of the parts that are being sought by people that have 25 gross polluting cars are probably post-1973. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 275 1 It's the late seventies through the mid-eighties 2 you know into the early nineties, the majority of the 3 vehicles on the road causing the pollution. 4 I challenge staff to tell me how many pre-1973 5 cars are out there right now? 6 It's an infinitesimal amount of pre-73 cars that 7 are out there being driven on a daily basis. In my 8 membership I look that's probably the third or fourth car 9 that is likely to be driven. You know, with the 10 collection of cars that I have, all my pre-73 cars, I 11 doubt that I do in all four of them, I doubt that I do 12 5,000 miles a year. 13 And the race cars are all trailered so it's not 14 an issue. And most of the members that I have even those 15 that have built replicas, those cars run less than a 16 couple of thousand miles a year. 17 So having a cut-off date gives you the best of 18 both worlds. It allows you to get rid of that large 19 number of cars that are polluting, that's post-1973 20 through to late eighties, but retains the cars with the 21 high -- the potential for a high intrinsic value for 22 irreplaceable parts by allowing the salvage operator who 23 has that car to choose whether to crush it or not or 24 whether to part it out. 25 And as we're talking about such a small number of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 276 1 cars in that pre-73, it's hard to understand why there 2 would be an objection. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: What is the implementation 4 date of this rule? 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: The rule is in effect 6 right now. What we're talking about is amendments to the 7 rule to make parts more available. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So that would go into 9 effect -- 10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: We would actually put 11 it into effect essentially as fast as we could get it onto 12 the books an through OAL. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So about six months or so. 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: It would probably be in 15 effect in about six months. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo. 17 I was going to say this is clearly a tough issue. 18 The last two witnesses are very persuasive for one thing, 19 but I also realize that the staff has struggled with this 20 a lot. And it's a real tough one. 21 I think Mr. McKinnon was also trying to figure 22 out away in which we could basically have our cake and eat 23 it here. And it's clearly very tough. 24 MR. ANDRIESSE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your 25 dilemma, but I can say that in speaking to my membership PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 277 1 that anytime that they have spoken with staff, staff has 2 been very inflexible. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo. 4 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, I'm looking at the 5 current statute as well as the proposed legislation by 6 Johanessen and even though I appreciate some of the 7 arguments that you're making and think that there may be 8 certain circumstances, althoughAs I hear more testimony I 9 think it's probably notAs free frequent maybe I initially 10 thought. 11 The example that Mr. Cackette gave I think helps 12 to illustrate it. If there's a part worth $5,000, it's 13 not going to get scrapped anyway. So we're getting down 14 to some of the more fine lines. 15 But if you look at the statute, the statute is 16 quite clear that this Board shall, first of all, allow for 17 the trading, sale and resale of the vehicles between 18 licensed auto dismantlers or other appropriate parties, 19 which is the whole idea behind the seven-day period to 20 allow for the vehicle, instead of being scrapped, to be 21 sold elsewhere. 22 So that section is quite clear. And the purpose 23 of that is to allow for recycling of the parts, but that's 24 when the vehicle is resold to another party or sold to 25 another party. Then there's another section that refers PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 278 1 to the classic cars are set aside and resale to the public 2 any vehicles with special collector interests. It goes on 3 to say no emission reduction credits shall be generated 4 for vehicles that are resold to the public. 5 So the legislative intent is quite clear. When 6 you look at the Johanessen Bill he's taken a different 7 approach. He's trying to add and entirely new section 8 that would specifically encourage and actually require us 9 to establish a program that results in the maximum 10 availability of vehicles and parts, but that didn't pass. 11 So I think that -- it sounds like you've already 12 got his attention. I think that we have to follow the 13 law. And unless we're told otherwise by the Legislature 14 in a subsequent bill that clarifies the existing statute, 15 I think our hands are on somewhat tied. 16 MR. ANDRIESSE: Well, you also have the option of 17 taking Option 3 in the SEMA proposal, and that is -- this 18 is being done by regulation. You know, we are having 19 almost legislation by regulation right now. 20 We're having a bureaucrat interpret something 21 that was passed by the legislature. All right, let's say 22 that that's a given. Let's get the best out of it. 23 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Oh, I would agree. From 24 what I can tell, that looks like that's what staff 25 attempted to do with the seven-day period. And I think PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 279 1 that Mr. McKinnon has made some suggestions as to, as well 2 as many witnesses, as to how we can perhaps expand that 3 period and make it so that it is more useable and 4 consistent with the intent under the statute, and that is 5 to allow for the entire car to be resold. 6 MR. ANDRIESSE: Ms. D'Adamo, if we are seeking, 7 and I really support the fact that we should get polluting 8 cars off the road, we don't want to resell the whole car. 9 We want to resell the parts of that car. 10 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: To another part that will 11 then part it out. 12 MR. ANDRIESSE: That will then part it out. You 13 know, selling the whole car, potentially puts that car 14 back on the road again. The VIN number game is played 15 every day with cars. I mean, you buy a car and you can 16 take 90 percent of the car that you bought and rebuild it 17 and you can use three different cars, you've got a choice 18 of three VIN numbers to go play with. 19 But that's again another issue. But what is the 20 issue here is let's really think what we have an 21 opportunity of doing right now. You know, if you can say 22 pre-1973, allow those -- you can't sell the whole car, or 23 maybe you can, but it needs to be a parted out vehicle. 24 Post-73, let's take the cars right off the road. 25 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Andriesse, you've had PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 280 1 a great deal of time to make your argument and I've been 2 listening to you. 3 However, it seems to me you're pretty immovable 4 about 1973. Well, I have to tell you, I have no basis to 5 honor that year anymore than any other year. I could take 6 1960, I could take 1962. I really think you're getting a 7 benefit of a relaxation in what this Board has previously 8 done. And I think if I were you, I might appreciate that 9 relaxation. And if there's a change in the law, come back 10 and we'll talk about it. 11 But I will tell you upfront and honestly, what's 12 so magical about 1973. But please don't answer, please 13 don't answer, because I can't make that analysis without 14 some basis of my own research, and that just isn't allowed 15 to me. 16 MR. ANDRIESSE: SB 92. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: He did have a basis for 1973. 18 Anyway, Mr. McKinnon. 19 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I've got to ask staff, do 20 we know how many cars or what percentage of the cars on 21 the road are more than 30 years old. 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Well, we do know 23 whether we have it hear or not is the question. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Does the court reporter need 25 a break or something? I don't know. I mean, I don't want PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 281 1 to prolong it, and I want to make sure that we have a 2 number that comes from somebody who counts cars. 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Actually, Mr. McKinnon, 4 we do have a number. It is going to be a very small 5 percentage. From an emissions contribution standpoint, 6 it's going to be larger than, for example, a similar 7 percentage of newer cars. We can get you that number, and 8 we can try to get itAs quicklyAs possible. 9 MR. BOHANAN: Pre-74 cars are about four percent 10 of the fleet. 11 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: That's 28 years. So that 12 gives me an idea. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: But then how much of the 14 percentage of the VMT? 15 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: They're 16 about -- that age cars is about half of a new car, so it 17 would be about half of a VMT, but then of course in 18 emissions they would be twice as -- way, way more than an 19 average car. 20 MR. BOHANAN: If you look at the MFACT model, the 21 new cars come in at about 13,000 miles per year, a 1955 22 vehicle, which I totally disagree with this number, is 23 listed at about 5,000 miles per year. I'm sure you could 24 find the people here that would say 5,000 is a ridiculous 25 number. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 282 1 But if you want to use the computer model data, 2 it's 5,000 for a 55, about five and a half 6,000 for early 3 sixties and 13,000 for a '99. 4 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: You cutoff, Tom. I was 5 asking if it's double. Is it four percent of the cars, 6 how much of the bad air? 7 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, it's 8 going to be more than four percent. 9 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Eight, six? 10 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I can't tell 11 you. I don't know the number off the top Of my head. I 12 just know that when we looked at the bill that exempted 13 the pre-74 cars from Smog Check that this isn't an answer 14 directly, but it was about five percent of the total 15 benefit of Smog Check was lost. So it gives you a sense 16 of their importance, and certainly at least in proportion 17 to their numbers. 18 Also, the VMT thing, I'll just caution you a 19 little bit, remember these cars have evaporative emissions 20 and tailpipe emissions. And when they're sitting in the 21 garage doing nothing, they're emitting large amounts of 22 hydrocarbons that typically equal -- can equal, depending 23 on the age of the vehicle, their exhaust. 24 And so they're not, you know, harmless by the 25 fact that they're not driven. And anything before 1972, I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 283 1 think it is, you know, has no evaporative emission 2 controls, which means it emits typically about 30 grams 3 per day sitting around. The standard for a new car for 4 that is half a gram, so it's a big sources of emissions. 5 And we take that into consideration in the scrap value of 6 the car, too. 7 But, again, one other thing is that the issue on 8 the number of vehicles, I think, goes to whether that 9 small number of vehicles that four percent of whatever it 10 is, are available for credit programs. 11 If you ask Mr. Lucas, he would Say I want those 12 in there, because it gives me a chance to generate more 13 emission credits. When we get down to the value and the 14 legitimacy of the currency it's just a vehicle to vehicle 15 issue. I mean, it doesn't matter the vehicle is, is we 16 want to make sure that that one vehicle, whether it's '72, 17 '84, '66 is scrapped that we know what its emissions 18 reduction is and that we don't generate a credit that's 19 any bigger than that, so it's got to go on a vehicle to 20 vehicle basis. 21 So all we would be doing by exempting vehicles 22 prior to '73, I think, -- I mean, the one option would 23 make the most sense in terms of keeping the legitimacy of 24 the currency is that you can't have a scrap program for 25 those vehicles. You can't generate an emission credit PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 284 1 under this program for an old vehicle. 2 The other option of course is to say well, we'll 3 generate the emission credit, but then we'll let them use 4 all the parts. In which case our argument would be that 5 you gave too large of a credit to the person that's only 6 to use it to meet some other pollution obligation and 7 didn't get enough back out of the air and it results in a 8 net increase of pollution, not decrease. 9 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: It seems to me if we 10 excluded them from credit, therefore they were not part of 11 the program, and they are such a small percentage of the 12 cars that are available, therefore it would be a small 13 percentage of the cars that might be turned in for the 14 purposes of credits. 15 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, we gave 16 you the four percent number, I think, was probably of all 17 cars, wasn't it, Frank? 18 MR. BOHANAN: Yeah, the four percent, 74 -- 19 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: The pool of 20 scrappage cars is not all cars. The pool of scrappage 21 cars is probably something in the -- what did you say the 22 outreach was? 23 SMOG CHECK POLICY ADVISOR VANN: Under BAR's 24 program the average year scrapped is 1984. And remember 25 they can only scrap vehicles subject to Smog Check, so PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 285 1 they don't scrap any 1973 and olders. 2 Any 1973 and olders that are scrapped under the 3 credit program, probably the credit program operators 4 would probably tell you that those are the more valuable 5 cars to those doing the credit programs. 6 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: My point is 7 that the four percent is not a hundred percent, but is 8 going to be of some subset of vehicles, which are those 9 that are eligible for scrap. Non one scraps, you know, a 10 1990 car, for example, because it has too much value. 11 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Okay. 12 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Voluntarily 13 scraps it. 14 MR. BOHANAN: Mr. Chairman I'd just like to make 15 about Mr. McKinnon's question. You raise a very valid 16 point about if public funds are used to claim a certain 17 benefit. Obviously, I spoke before about whether or not 18 you're really getting that benefit, so I won't repeat 19 myself. 20 But to the point about will that powertrain be 21 turned around and put into another vehicle without any 22 intervention? First of all, when that was being discussed 23 with the South Coast, Rule 1610, they said only about one 24 percent of the engines that they get in -- or the vehicles 25 that they get in have their engines sold. So it's one PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 286 1 percent of a fairly small number to begin with. 2 Beyond that, we suggested something which Senator 3 Johanessen touched on, and that was something that 4 actually was written into Rule 1610 until the ARB 5 guidelines forced it to be taken out. And that was the 6 concept of rendering the engine inoperable. To ensure 7 exactly the thing you're concerned about couldn't happen, 8 what they did was they put sand in two adjacent cylinders 9 and cranked the engine over. 10 Basically, that mention you couldn't then just 11 take that engine out and put it into another vehicle. The 12 only thing you could then do at that point was to take the 13 engine and have it rebuilt. And the expense of having 14 that engine rebuilt was far more than anybody who would be 15 using that engine just transportation purposes would 16 absorb. 17 The only people who would do that were, somebody 18 like my friend here, who needs a particular engine for a 19 collector vehicle, and they were going to rebuild it 20 anyway. 21 So my point is your question is a valid question 22 and it was addressed, and it was actually written into 23 Rule 1610 and adopted. And everybody was happy with it. 24 Only when the total parts destruction mandate came down 25 was that taken out. So there is a way to handle your PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 287 1 concern. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Can staff respond to that. 3 MR. ANDRIESSE: Chairman Lloyd, thank you. 4 MR. LUCAS: Just one brief comment, if I might. 5 With regard to the potential that you may be considering 6 an exemptions here. From a policy perspective, we would 7 urge you not to do this. These cars were already exempted 8 from Smog Check and we think unfortunately to the State. 9 The primary emphasis, I would think, we would 10 believe for your programs would be fleet turnover and to 11 get the emission reductions that you can get from fleet 12 turnover. These cars are incredibly dirty, even by 13 comparison to the 1980 vehicles, much less to the new 14 vehicles at the zero emission level. There have to be 15 other ways to deal with this situation. 16 Thank you. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: You're more perceptive than 18 I, Bob, in terms of what we were planning to do, but thank 19 you. 20 (Laughter.) 21 MR. LUCAS: But our view of what we hope you 22 might want to do. 23 (Laughter.) 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Does staff want to respond, 25 particularly on the issues of 1610. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 288 1 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: We were 2 having side bar on getting Matt the numbers about how much 3 the emissions went up and I apologize but I didn't hear 4 the question. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Oh. My simple question when 6 Mr. Bohanan was saying there are some merits to maybe 7 looking at Rule 1610. So I was asking you does that have 8 any relevance here. Can we learn anything from that or is 9 it not applicable? 10 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: That's the 11 South Coast Scrap Rule? 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Yeah. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And that one provision he was 14 talking about in making the engine inoperable. 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Yeah, 1610 essentially 16 allows for scrappage in lieu of compliance with other 17 rules. I mean, I don't think we have any numbers or any 18 history with regard to 1610 that we could actually provide 19 to the Board at this point. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. Well, I guess let me 21 just say at this time, I guess we'll officially close the 22 record on this agenda item. However, the record will be 23 reopened when the 15-day notice of public availability is 24 issued. 25 Written or oral comments received after this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 289 1 hearing date, but before the 15-day notice is issued will 2 not be accepted as part of the official record on this 3 agenda item. When the record is reopened for a 15-day 4 commend period, the public may submit written comments on 5 the proposed changes which would be considered and 6 responded to in the final statement of reasons for the 7 regulation. 8 Again, my colleagues if you have any ex parte 9 communications to -- 10 No. Okay, well, I guess we could probably 11 continue discussion on this item. Mr. McKinnon, you were 12 leading the charge -- I don't know whether you have -- 13 clearly, from I was seeing there's a couple of areas here. 14 One was the seven-day, what's the reference point, should 15 that be extended. 16 The other point that Mr. Bohanan said that more 17 widely advertised and the availability of parts. Putting 18 a cutoff in terms of the vehicles. So a number of issues 19 there. 20 Mr. McKinnon. 21 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I 22 learned a lesson today about getting my briefing earlier, 23 because I put it off until yesterday, and it didn't give 24 me time to really kind of react, and I ended up reacting 25 today. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 290 1 And I guess my inclination is not to fiddle with 2 the period of time to resell the vehicle. My inclination 3 is to fiddle with exempting or excluding cars from the 4 scrappage program that are older. That's my inclination, 5 because I think there really is an issue. I think it's 6 hard to figure that fiddling with the time period is going 7 to make a huge effect. If nobody is using it now, I'm 8 wondering about that. 9 And if the reason nobody is using it now is that 10 it's not worth it to buy a whole car to get one crankshaft 11 or one intake manifold, that it's rare, then fiddling with 12 the time period to buy and sell the car and whether or not 13 it's in or out isn't going to have a lot of effect. 14 I am amenable to discussion or encourage 15 discussion of a number, 30 years is a number that I am 16 thinking about. But if there's a number that gives us 17 less drastic of an effect, you know, I'd like to hear that 18 number, but I guess I would propose an amendment that 19 excludes people's cars from 30 years old or older. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think Mr. Kenny had a 21 comment on that. 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I do want to at least 23 raise one concern. And that has been in the context of 24 Smog Check, one of the things that we have been fighting 25 for some time now has been kind of a number, which is that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 291 1 vehicle that are 30 years or older should be exempt from 2 Smog Check. And it's some that we actually would like to 3 see repealed in legislation. 4 We think it actually hurts us from an emissions 5 standpoint. And so I would have some concerns if the 6 Board was to move toward a particular number, because what 7 it will do is it will ratify and validate, sort of, the 8 idea in the Smog Check Program that vehicles beyond a 9 certain should be ignored. 10 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: What do you think of the 11 idea? 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Sorry. 13 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Well, then I could set a 14 year, and then you'd have a diminishing problem, but it 15 would be -- 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: It would be actually 17 the same issue. 18 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah. 19 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: What's the cutoff year on 20 the exemption from the Smog Check program? 21 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yeah, it will 22 be pre-74. It is pre-74. And then it becomes a rolling 23 30-year average, I think, in one or two more years. So 24 each year it will become pre-75, pre-76, pre-77. 25 It's a very unfortunate result, because it leaves PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 292 1 a lot of dirty cars out that there should be cleaned up 2 through Smog Check. Maybe I could -- just so that we 3 didn't give you a fact that would anyway mislead the 4 discussion here, I looked at the emission levels of cars. 5 And if you pick maybe a '91As being the average car, it 6 would be ten years old. I think average cars I think are 7 eight or ten years old. 8 The hydrocarbon emissions from a 70or 71 car are 9 ten times higher per mile, and the NOx emissions are about 10 three to four times higher per mile than the average car. 11 So those cars -- if you tried to do that calculation four 12 percent, but half the VMT, but, you know, maybe six or 13 seven times the emissions, that gives you a sense of what 14 their emission impact probably is. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Those numbers, Tom, are all 16 emission, not just tailpipe, running loss evaporation? 17 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: That's just 18 the hydrocarbon exhaust and NOx exhaust. I didn't have 19 the evaporative emissions. The evaporative emissions 20 would be on that order of at least probably, you five to 21 12 times, something in that order, high than the average 22 car as well. 23 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: What do you think the 24 likelihood of getting something through the Legislature 25 that would take away the current exemption. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 293 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Well, we actually did 2 have approval from the Governor's office this past year to 3 try to repeal that 30-year rolling exemption. 4 In looking for an author to essentially carry 5 that, we had an author for one week, and that was it, and 6 then we lost our author. And it is something that in the 7 past we have committed to the environmental community that 8 we would try to get legislative change on. But at least 9 this year it was pretty unproductive. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. Oglvie, have you got any 11 -- shed any additional light on that? 12 MR. OGILVE: The Legislature was less than 13 enthusiastic at revisiting that issue. 14 (Laughter.) 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mrs. Riordan. 16 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yes. Mr. McKinnon, I hate 17 to say this, but I viewed this totally the reverse of I 18 guess what you did, which was I was willing to give a few 19 more days on the opportunity for people, but just I feel 20 immovable about the year, because I do think there is a 21 negative effect on the air. 22 And, I mean, it doesn't sound like it and those 23 who have testified, I know you feel that there aren't that 24 many emissions. And you seem like we're just, you know, 25 trying to negate such a small public that would be very PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 294 1 helpful to you. 2 However, when I think about the little tiny 3 amount of pollution that we go after with hair spray, with 4 perfume, with things that, you know, I mean, this is, it 5 seems to me, isAs bigAs some of those. And I'm just not 6 willing to move that time. I'm only telling you my 7 perception here. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, before Ms. D'Adamo, 9 I'll just mention that's where I thought Mr. McKinnon was 10 going to go also. 11 Ms. D'Adamo. 12 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, I think we might 13 have something emerging here, because I kind of felt the 14 same way, too. You know, there's the carrot and the 15 stick, and we don't have the stick for the cars that are 16 30 years old. 17 And if we eliminate the carrot, then we've got 18 nothing else. So I think that we need to keep itAs 19 flexible as possible for those older cars. And there's a 20 market anyway. There's a market anyway for those that 21 don't want to scrap their car if they're really classics, 22 they're going to be -- like Tom was saying earlier, a 23 classic Mustang, it's not going to go through this 24 program. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: But also I think while saying PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 295 1 what I just stated, there does seem to be -- and I hope 2 that this time period will allow us to be more 3 sensitive -- at least give more opportunities. But I was 4 a little bit pained when I heard the testimony that we 5 give the impression, both staff and board, that we really 6 don't care about these cars out there. 7 And I think that's the wrong impression. I 8 wonder if there's anything that we can do to more 9 aggressively try to, at least, help some of those older 10 parts and whatnot and be maybe more outgoing. And that if 11 we do move ahead and modify this, but also give some 12 additional time or other things that my colleagues are 13 suggesting come back over a relatively shorter period of 14 time and see how we can work more closely together. 15 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: If I can make 16 one comment on the -- we approached this -- since we 17 already had regulations in place, we approached thisAs 18 kind of a stakeholders consensus -- looking for consensus 19 and we didn't find anything on this issue of notification. 20 I mean people were no, don't make any change, 21 yes, make some change. So that's why we didn't try to 22 divide the baby on that one and come up with somewhere 23 half in between. 24 If the Board's sense is to make a change in that 25 area, I presume the stakeholders might revisit the issue PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 296 1 from finding some consensus, so we probably could, you 2 know, do a better job in terms of this notification issue, 3 and seeing if more cars -- and we can get more people to 4 see this if there's a better way of describing the cars, 5 if holding them for a different period of time makes more 6 sense. 7 As long as, you know, people know that there's 8 going to be a change in that direction, they're more 9 likely to help us find a consensus. 10 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: What's the outer limit as 11 far as the dismantlers are concerned? I think someone 12 mentioned that if we have two length of a period, it would 13 upset them? 14 SMOG CHECK POLICY ADVISOR VANN: This staff 15 report didn't go into detail in the level of discussion on 16 this. This issue of waiting period actually came up in 17 the very last workshop, and the proposal that was put 18 forth by the dismantlers. And they put this forth because 19 their had been no calls during the seven-day waiting 20 period. 21 They proposed to notice the vehicle for three 22 days. As soon as they know that someone is interested in 23 bringing a vehicle in, put a notice out for three days, 24 via the Internet. And if there is even one phone call of 25 interest in looking at that vehicle, then they would hold PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 297 1 the vehicle for an additional seven days beyond that 2 period. 3 And there was a counter proposal by one of the 4 participants to say well, how about if we make that five 5 days -- I think it was five days, maybe it was seven days 6 on the initial side, and then if there is a phone call, 7 then extend it an additional seven. 8 Well, at that point in time, the dismantler said, 9 no that -- you know we're better off staying with the 10 status quo. 11 In a nutshell, the dismantlers issue is, we have 12 a consumer that wants to scrap their vehicle, and what the 13 dismantler must tell them now is we can't do that today. 14 If you wanted to crap your vehicle, you can't do it today, 15 but we'll notice it. And if you'll come in seven days 16 later and there's been no interest, then we can go ahead 17 and pay you and scrap the vehicle. 18 Their other concern is if they do the 19 alternative, if they actually purchase the vehicle, then 20 they are whatever cost that vehicle is, when they're told 21 now you have to hold it for a certain period of time, 22 they're worried about what the cost of that float really 23 is to the dismantler. 24 From the classic car perspective, the longer that 25 a vehicle is held and noticed, the better because more PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 298 1 eyes will, of course, have a chance to see if there's 2 anything on that vehicle that they would prefer. 3 When we discussed this,As was referred to, we 4 tried to come to a consensus, but there really was no 5 meeting of the minds. And since seven days was already in 6 the existing ARB regulation, and it appeared -- until that 7 day of that workshop, it appeared to be working okay, we 8 just opted to leave it where it was or recommend that we 9 leave it where it was. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 11 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Well, there's growing 12 evidence that I'm going to be outvoted on an amendment on 13 the 30 days -- on the 30-years. But I kind of -- if 14 people are not going the use the other modification, I 15 would argue that we're not looking at -- we're looking at 16 leaving those 30 or more year old cars out of the 17 scrappage program. It doesn't mean they won't be scrapped 18 for other reasons, because they go to a junkyard. It 19 doesn't mean that they're all in disrepair and it doesn't 20 mean that they'll all be driven frequently. 21 Well, anyway, I'm going to propose it as an 22 amendment and vote up, vote down, whatever. I would like 23 to propose an amendment. Maybe, I don't even get a second 24 that we exempt cars 30 years and older from the program. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Supervisor DeSaulnier. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 299 1 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Before we take any 2 action on Matt's brave attempt at, maybe Matt, political 3 masochism. 4 (Laughter.) 5 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: This has been an odd 6 day for me because I've had to be quiet all day. First on 7 the last, I haven't lived in the country very often, so I 8 told a couple people I felt like Ava Gabore in Green Acres 9 during that. 10 (Laughter.) 11 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: And I couldn't repair a 12 car if my life depended it, so I was trying to think of an 13 analogy on an old show, and I guess I'm Jim Nabors in 14 Mayberry RFD trying to repair a car. 15 I guess my question, so struggling with that lack 16 of familiarity and that's why I trust you, Matt, in the 17 position you're on here and your attempt to try to do 18 something that addresses the concerns, it's either your 19 amendment, and maybe Tom can respond to this suggesting 20 that we go ahead with the resolution and direct you to go 21 back to the group and try to reach a consensus that may 22 not be what they want, but does something either with the 23 timeframe is what you're suggesting. 24 So I'm a little twisted between the two. You 25 gave us an opportunity to go ahead and move on the staff PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 300 1 recommendation, but with that direction that perhaps you 2 could reconvene the stakeholders and work out something 3 that was a little bit more appealing to them. 4 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yeah, I think 5 what could happen on the notification suggestion was the 6 Board could adopt the regulations with a direction in the 7 resolution that you want to see the notification period 8 extended or made more effective from the perspective of 9 those who would like to buy parts or vehicles. 10 And then we would go back, have one more meeting, 11 down kind of sit down, so okay we're going to make this 12 change, so how do we best do this and we put out a 15-day 13 notice and get on with it. I think it would be fairly 14 narrow within the kind of constraints that Leon laid out. 15 If the Board's comfortable with that, we can do that. 16 On the 30-year issue, I mean, that's your call. 17 I don't think we have a way of deciding whether it's 29, 18 30 or anything like that. We've kind of suggested what 19 some of the implications are and that's the best we can 20 do. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: While you say it's our call, 22 Mr. Cackette, I think that Mr. Kenny laid out, and I think 23 the Board concurred with his suggestion last year that 24 we're then sending a mixed message, because we are 25 concerned about the exemption on smog check, and now we're PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 301 1 going to come back another way. So I'm also concerned 2 about consistency in that viewpoint. 3 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I agree. I 4 didn't mean to suggest that it was not an issue. I mean, 5 I think -- 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: You were being very nice. 7 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I think you 8 know where the staff stands on the issueAs what I was 9 trying to say nicely. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. Kenny made that very 11 clear, yes. I say, I think he points out very clearly is 12 that where I also stand on that, is that when you pointed 13 that out, it doesn't put us in a good spot there, but this 14 is also an issue, the more you listen to some of the 15 witnessed the more you understand, the more difficult it 16 is to take action on some of these issues here. 17 So I appreciate the -- I hope the witnesses 18 appreciate, you can see how much we're trying to 19 deliberate on this issue. It's a tough one, and you did a 20 very good job of explaining the position. 21 We're trying to craft something here. On the 22 other hand, as we heard when we have some legislation 23 there, in spite of Senator Johanessen's eloquent testimony 24 and convincing testimony, his bill didn't get through the 25 Legislature, so we have that to contend with as well. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 302 1 We currently, I guess, have a potential amendment 2 here. I didn't hear any second. 3 I guess -- 4 (laughter.) 5 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Do you want a second, 6 so you could vote it down. 7 (Laughter.) 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: But that was a very 9 sincere -- I think -- 10 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes. 12 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Let me see if I can make 13 some sense out of this. If we were to support the 14 resolution that's before us with the additional request of 15 staff to go back with the stakeholders to make some sort 16 of adjustments, perhaps in the timeframe of notification, 17 I'd like to move that. 18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Second. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: What form would that take, 20 because I would like to see that. But, again, I just 21 don't want it to be a sort of pro forma exercise, I want 22 it to be a meaningful exchange there. Can we do that 23 within this context. And then if we move with that 24 recommendation and you were able to work some additional 25 stuff, how would that come back then into the regulation? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 303 1 Would that be in the 15-day notice or how would that work? 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: What would happen is 3 that we would propose a modification to the seven-day 4 notification period that currently exists as a way of 5 trying to find something that could be a consensus 6 oriented approach. If we could get agreement upon that, 7 we can then put that into a 15-day notice package. 8 And once it goes through the 15-day notice 9 package, then what can happen is if the Board so chooses 10 they can delegate to me the ability to adopt that and to 11 make it part of the regulation. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And that could be done 13 relatively quickly? 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: It could be done very 15 quickly. I mean, basically -- 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So the meeting could be set 17 up in the next month or couple of months. 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I think the first 19 meeting would probably happen within the next month. The 20 only real difficulty here is trying to see whether or not 21 the parties could reach some level of consensus on this. 22 And so I think what you'd be asking us to do is we 23 currently have a seven-day notification period that may or 24 may not work well. 25 And maybe what we would do is propose for example PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 304 1 a ten-day notification period or something along those 2 lines that would give people additional time, and then 3 also take into account that the notification that is 4 currently utilized, despite the timeframe, may not be one 5 that works very well. 6 And so we would look at some mechanism to, in 7 fact, make the notification more effective in terms of the 8 people that it reaches. 9 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: And when I said 10 stakeholders, the dismantlers are not here, and the 11 storage yards, and I want their input too, because they 12 seek it from another perspective that I think we need to 13 also have -- or somebody needs to have before a decision 14 is made. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think Mr. Vann said this 16 really was not a focus, I think Mr. Cackette also, this 17 wasn't a focus of the discussions here until late in the 18 game. 19 I'm comfortable with. 20 Okay, any other questions? 21 A side bar. 22 MEMBER RIORDAN: But a good one, which would be 23 that you would bring back to us the resolution of that 24 meeting as it were. 25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I'd be happy to report PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 305 1 back. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: A clarification there. Are 3 we saying that before that could be implemented, you'd 4 take it back to us? 5 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: No, I think we just wanted 6 to know what was the resolution, if there was a 7 resolution. 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: My understanding, and 9 correct me if I'm wrong -- 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We delegate that authority to 11 you. 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Yeah, I'm assuming a 13 delegation and then I report back so that the Board is 14 actually informedAs what the ultimately resolution is. 15 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Exactly. That's within my 16 motion. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes. And, again, it would 18 also be appreciative if this basically goes nowhere early 19 on let us know also. 20 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Mr. Chairman. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 22 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: So I understand the 23 motion, it will include at least ten days, is that -- 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That's one of the options 25 being looked at, I think. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 306 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I missed that. 2 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: So I understand the 3 motion, it will include at least ten days -- 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Yes. 5 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: -- from the Point the car 6 arrives? 7 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: We'd include 8 thatAs on option, but I think we need to look at it and 9 see if there's something that makes more sense. It might 10 be like dividing the days up or where the car actually is. 11 But the point would be,As understand your concern, is that 12 we make sure that more people that are interested in these 13 cars, get a fair chance. They don't have to go down the 14 next day to look at this thing, but they've got a chance 15 to go down on the weekend. 16 And they've got as much information and time to 17 do thisAs reasonable given the economic concerns of the 18 scrap people. 19 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yeah. I want the scrap 20 people's input to that, because it's just as sure as 21 shootin, we make the recommendation of ten-days and that 22 thereAs very legitimate reason why that won't work and we 23 need to understand that. 24 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Well, they're not going 25 to like it, we know that right? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 307 1 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Well, I don't know. I 2 have no way of knowing. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think they seem to -- 4 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: They were 5 open -- I can't they were open to change, but, I mean, 6 they were engaged in the debate. I'ts just that when it 7 wasn't a consensus, what happens is everybody drops the 8 status quo, which is what we have now, but you've clearly 9 said the status quo is not adequate from your viewpoint, 10 so we need to make a change. 11 I think that will change the way people look at 12 the issue and then open this to find a better solution. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And we hope that some of the 14 witnesses today can be as persuasive in the meeting with 15 the dismantlers as they can be. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: With that, I guess we have a 17 motion. We had a second. 18 So all in favor say aye? 19 (Ayes.) 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Anybody against? 21 Thank you. 22 Thank you staff and thank you witnesses. 23 The court reporter is going to need a break. 24 (Thereupon a brief recess was taken.) 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Before we go to the last two PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 308 1 items, I'd just like to mention something here. And that 2 is that a person familiar to several of us, I would say 3 maybe many of us, Dr. Robert Zweig died just nearly a week 4 ago. 5 And I personally can attest to Dr. Zweig's 6 unfailing efforts in promoting cleaner fuel, particularly 7 hydrogen and to improve air quality within the State. And 8 I know when I went to Riverside in the seventies, he then 9 gave of himself tirelessly to help people to educate 10 people on clean air. 11 So thanks to staff. We have a resolution I'd 12 like to read and ask my colleagues to sign today, and then 13 we'll get it done, because there is a memorial service for 14 him on March the 2nd in Riverside and I'd like to have 15 this read there. 16 It says, "Whereas Dr. Robert Zweig was medical 17 doctor and scientist who dedicated his life to improving 18 Southern California's air quality; 19 "Whereas Dr. Zweig was As clean air visionary who 20 saw hydrogen as the fuel of the future and worked 21 indefatigably to make his vision a reality; 22 "Whereas Dr. Zweig presented papers funded and 23 fostered research, and provided key leadership in 24 promoting fuel cell technology worldwide, and also founded 25 Clean Air Now; PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 309 1 "Whereas Dr. Zweig was a rare individual who 2 combined revolutionary zeal with down-to-earth compassion 3 to accomplish tangible benefits for millions of people in 4 his lifetime; 5 Whereas Dr. Zweig has received numerous honors 6 and awards for his many years of exemplary work and served 7 in a leadership capacity on myriad boards, commissions and 8 other associations over five decades of public service; 9 "Whereas Dr. Zweig's concern for his patients 10 with respiratory problems blossomed into a life-long 11 campaign to develop tangible ways to improve air quality; 12 "Whereas Dr. Zweig embraced life with enormous 13 passion and practiced his principles in every aspect of 14 his being; 15 "Whereas Dr. ZweigAs vast accomplishments are an 16 eloquent testimony to a life fully lived for human kind. 17 "Now therefore be it resolved that the Air 18 Resources Board respectfully wishes to observe Dr. Zweig's 19 passing with deep gratitude for his exemplary life and 20 significant contribution to air quality in California. 21 "Be it further resolved that the Board offers 22 theirs condolences to Dr. Zweig's family for a profound 23 loss that affects us all and expresses hope that comfort 24 an inspiration ill be gained from Dr. Zweigs's memory." 25 Executed in Sacramento this 21st day of February PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 310 1 2002. 2 Among my many memories I have of Dr. Zweig in the 3 early nineties, I think, when he actually had a stroke, 4 but then came to a meeting and testified at South Caste 5 AQMD. In recent years he recovered remarkably well from 6 that stroke while getting frailer all the time, but it's 7 very rare you get somebody of that caliber, again, in 8 public services and private service with a dedication and 9 a zeal. 10 And I'm sure many of you, I've certainly 11 received, and I know the Governor has received many, many 12 E-mails from Bob persistently striving for us to get 13 cleaner air for all of California. 14 So its with sadness, but on the other hand, with 15 great joy, I look back on his many accomplishmentsAs 16 stated in the Riverside Press Enterprise article on his 17 passing, his wife Delores stated that at least he could 18 see now that the vision and the efforts that he had been 19 fighting for for all these years, and, in fact, maybe 20 including obviously getting hydrogen there, he can see and 21 lived long enough to see that that is now becoming a 22 reality. And that must have been a great satisfaction to 23 him so that, in fact, when it come that he could have had 24 an option of a second operation, or to be pulled from life 25 support, he chose the latter, and I'm sure he went PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 311 1 contently in what he was able to accomplish in his 2 lifetime. 3 Thank you. 4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Do you need a motion, Mr. 5 Chairman? 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Do I need a motion. 7 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: No. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: No. Thank you very much. 9 I'll sign it and pass it down to my colleagues. 10 We will move on rather briskly to the two items 11 left. And that is the Agenda Item 02-1-6, and that is on 12 the research proposals. We have two before the Board 13 today. Does the Board have any questions of staff in 14 terms of these two proposals that we have before us? 15 I think we certainly have been briefed on that. 16 They look, as we saw today, continuing studies that 17 research division has placed before us and continuing 18 great results. 19 So do we have a motion. Wait a minute. 20 We can't. 21 Gee, yes, I understand. 22 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I can see Matt. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I guess -- 24 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Matt. You can't see 25 him? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 312 1 (Laughter) 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I guess we can have a motion. 3 No. We're saved. 4 (Laughter.) 5 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: You know, I'm glad I 6 didn't second that amendment. 7 (Laughter.) 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The issue before the Board, 9 obviously was the approval for two research proposals. So 10 do I have a motion. 11 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Motion. 12 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Second. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: All in favor say aye? 14 (Ayes.) 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So a unanimous vote. 16 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, may we just 17 move on to the next item, which is the reallocation of the 18 rice straw funding. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I would concur with that 20 suggestion. 21 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I think we've read it, and 22 I would be happy to move approval of the resolution that 23 accomplishes that that the staff is recommending. 24 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Second. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And I think this is the only PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 313 1 option we have for the reallocation of these funds. 2 So all in favor say aye? 3 (Ayes.) 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Unanimous. 5 Are there any other items, any other business? 6 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Nothing more. 7 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: And we hope your project 8 is doing well, that rice straw. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Thank you for 10 your presentation, Jeff. 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: My pleasure. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Very persuasive. 13 Well, if there is no other business, I will 14 officially bring this month's meeting to a close, the 15 February 21st, 2002 meeting to a close. 16 Thank you all. 17 (Thereupon the California Air Resources 18 Board meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 314 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 I, JAMES F. PETERS, a Certified Shorthand 3 Reporter of the State of California, and Registered 4 Professional Reporter, do hereby certify: 5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 6 foregoing California Air Resources Board meeting was 7 reported in shorthand by me, James F. Peters, a Certified 8 Shorthand Reporter of the State of California, and 9 thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 10 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 11 attorney for any of the parties to said meeting nor in any 12 way interested in the outcome of said meeting. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 14 this 22nd day of March, 2001. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR 24 Certified Shorthand Reporter 25 License No. 10063 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345