BOARD MEETING STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD JOE SERNA JR. BUILDING CALEPA HEADQUARTERS BUILDING 1001 I STREET BYRON SHER AUDITORIUM SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2005 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 Mrs. Barbara Riordan, Acting Chairperson Ms. Sandra Berg Ms. Dorene D'Adamo Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Dr. Henry Gong Ms. Lydia Kennard Mayor Ronald Loveridge Supervisor Barbara Patrick Ms. Patricia Salas Pineda Supervisor Ron Roberts STAFF Ms. Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Michael Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Terrel Ferreira, Ombudsman Mr. Tony Andreoni, Manager, Process Evaluation Section Mr. Robert Barham, Assistant Chief, Stationary Source Division Mr. Richard Bode, Chief, Health and Exposure Assessment Branch PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii APPEARANCES CONTINUED STAFF Mr. Richard Corey, Chief, Research and Economics Branch Dr. Bart Croes, P.E., Chief, Research Division Ms. Vicky Davis, Staff Counsel Mr. Dan Donohoue, Chief, Emissions Assessment Branch Ms. Peggy Jenkins, Manager, Indoor Exposure and Assessment Branch Mr. Bob Jenne, Senior Staff Counsel Ms. Annmarie Mora, Air Pollution Specialist Mr. George Poppic, Senior Staff Counsel Ms. Dorothy Shimer, Research Division Ms. Linda Smith, Manager, Health and Ecosystems Assessment Section Mr. Hien Tran, Research Division ALSO PRESENT Ms. Susan Brinchman, Center for School Mold Help Ms. Denise Byrd, Center for School Mold Help Ms. Cynthia Cory, California Farm Bureau Mr. Manual Cunha, NISEI Farmers League Ms. Chris Felicijan, Center for School Mold Help Mr. Luke Harms, Maytag Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers Mr. Bonnie Holmes-Gen, American Lung Association of California Ms. Lee Hudson, NOW Enterprises, representing GASP & CCAP and self PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv APPEARANCES CONTINUED ALSO PRESENT Mr. Karl Lany, SCEC Air Quality Specialists Mr. Bob Morrelli, Western Power Product Company Ms. Laurie Nelson, Consumer Specialty Products Association Mr. Sam Pallesi, Fresno Equipment Company Mr. Charlie Simpson, Quinn Power Systems Mr. Joe Suchecki, Engine Manufacturers Association Mr. Joe Unseth, DEUTZ Ms. Teresa Westmoreland, Center for School Mold Help Mr. A.L. Wilson, Wilson Environmental Associates PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 v INDEX PAGE Opening remarks by Acting Chairperson Riordan 1 Pledge of Allegiance 1 Roll Call 1 Item 05-3-1 8 Acting Chairperson Riordan 8 Executive Officer Witherspoon 9 Staff Presentation 9 Board Discussion and Q&A 16 Item 05-3-2 19 Acting Chairperson Riordan 19 Staff Presentation 19 Board Discussion and Q&A 25 Motion 31 Vote 31 Item 05-3-4 32 Acting Chairperson Riordan 32 Executive Officer Witherspoon 33 Staff Presentation 34 Acting Ombudsman Ferreira 42 Board Discussion and Q&A 44 Manual Cunha 52 Bob Morrelli 57 Charlie Simpson 59 Joe Unseth 64 Karl Lany 67 Sam Pallesi 72 Joe Suchecki 73 Cynthia Cory 78 Board Discussion and Q&A 82 Motion 88 Vote 89 Item 05-3-3 93 Acting Chairperson Riordan 93 Executive Officer Witherspoon 93 Staff Presentation 94 Board Discussion and Q&A 114 Chris Felicijan 122 Susan Brinchman 126 Teresa Westmoreland 130 Denise Byrd 134 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 vi INDEX CONTINUED PAGE Item 05-3-3(cont'd) Luke Harms 143 Laurie Nelson 150 Bonnie Holmes-Gen 153 Lee Hudson 159 A.L. Wilson 162 Board Discussion and Q&A 164 Motion 165 Vote 166 Adjournment 166 Reporter's Certificate 167 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Good morning. Let 3 me call the meeting of the Air Resources Board to order 4 for March 17th, 2005. Noting March 17th, I have to say 5 Happy Saint Patrick's day to all of you. And to indicate 6 to you that this is hopefully a half day meeting, but we 7 do have an interest in moving forward quickly because we 8 are going to lose one of our members who has to attend a 9 funeral today. So I'm going to move right along. 10 Let me ask Ms. D'Adamo to lead us in the pledge 11 to the flag. If you'd all stand, please. 12 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was 13 Recited in unison.) 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. 15 Let me ask the clerk to call the roll, please. 16 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Ms. Berg? 17 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Here. 18 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Ms. D'Adamo? 19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here. 20 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Supervisor DeSaulnier? 21 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Here. 22 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Dr. Gong? 23 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Here. 24 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Ms. Kennard? 25 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Here. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Mayor Loveridge? 2 Supervisor Patrick? 3 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Here. 4 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Ms. Pineda? 5 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: Here. 6 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Supervisor Roberts? 7 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Here. 8 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Madam Chairman Riordan? 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Here. 10 Thank you very much. I would like to acknowledge 11 this morning an individual who's stepped in to help us and 12 that is Mr. Tom Jennings who is acting as our general 13 counsel. For those of who you do not know Tom, he's been 14 with the Air Resources Board for a number of years. And 15 I've come to know his good work, and I'm just delighted 16 you would do this, Tom, for us to keep us organized, and 17 that's a challenge. 18 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Thank you. 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Legal and organized, 20 that's an even bigger challenge. 21 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Thank you. 22 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: And also this 23 morning it's my pleasure, and I want to be sure he's in 24 the audience before I launch off. This is an unofficial 25 item. It's not on the agenda, but it's a very important PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 one. It's a resolution that is signed by the Board. It's 2 resolution 5-26. And it's to acknowledge the wonderful 3 work that a gentleman by the name of Dr. Shankar Prasad 4 has given to this Board for, low, many years. 5 And I have a resolution and Dr. Prasad, you sit 6 where you are, because it goes on for a little while. And 7 then I'm going to meet you down there and present it to 8 you, and then hopefully allow you a moment to speak to us. 9 The reason we're honoring him, for those of you 10 in the audience, our Secretary, Lloyd, has taken some key 11 staff from the Air Resources Board. Naturally, as the 12 Chairman of the Board, he knew the people to pick to take 13 with him. And Dr. Prasad is going to be elevated, I guess 14 is a good, word to the Secretary's office. And we're 15 delighted. 16 He joined the Air Resources Board in 1988 with a 17 fervent passion for public service, first as an air 18 pollution research specialist and most recently as a 19 health advisor to the Chairman and the Board, with a 20 5-year hiatus as a Health Effects Officer at the South 21 Coast Air Quality Management District. 22 Dr. Prasad a physician by training with 23 experience as a clinician and health effects researcher 24 has used his skills to develop and implement environmental 25 health policy in India, South America, United States, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 serving as an advisor on several federal and State 2 scientific and policy review panels, including the 3 Advisory Committee of the National Environmental Justice 4 Advisory Council, which adopted his pollution burden 5 matrix for assessing cumulative risk and impacts. 6 Dr. Prasad has been a tireless and effective 7 advocate for environmental justice, helping the Air 8 Resources Board turn from its abstract concept into sort 9 of a very robust practice. I kind of added a little bit 10 of that. 11 Dr. Prasad has brought together a broad spectrum 12 of interested parties to discuss and address environmental 13 justice in an ongoing basis, including the Environmental 14 Justice Symposium at the Sierra Health Foundation, 15 assisted CalEPA's Environmental Justice efforts, and 16 co-chairing the Neighborhood Assessment Program 17 Stakeholders Group and organizing the Environmental 18 Justice meetings for the ARB executive staff. 19 Dr. Prasad has also strengthened the ARB's Health 20 Research Program by organizing a workshop of health 21 scientists encouraging the formation of external advisory 22 committees for major epidemiological studies and promoting 23 additional health studies. 24 He is -- and this is the fun part. And I note 25 this whoever wrote this had a good sense of humor -- is an PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 intermittent disciple of both good wine and low-carb life 2 style. He knows the key of food as a motivator of wines, 3 pistachio nuts to his staff at meetings, organizing 4 post-work feasts and scouting out the very best 5 restaurants for his weary colleagues after long meetings. 6 Whereas, his generosity, humor and fine spirit 7 will be sadly missed as he joins Dr. Lloyd at CalEPA. 8 Now therefore, be it resolved, the Board commends 9 Dr. Prasad for his unskimping efforts to promote fair 10 treatment of all of California's residents in the 11 development, implementation and enforcement of the clean 12 air, policy, and congratulates him on his promotion. 13 Would you please join me in honoring him and 14 let's give him a round of applause. 15 (Applause.) 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Here, we'll come 17 downstairs. Congratulations. Dr. Gong has asked to join 18 me because we think it's so special what he's done for us. 19 For those of you who have not been on one of his famous 20 environmental justice tours, you've missed a wonderful 21 tour. 22 I'm a native of southern California and he showed 23 me things that I had never seen. And I so appreciated 24 what he did for us. And so besides this, you have my very 25 personal thanks. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 Now, please use the microphone and share a few 2 comments. 3 COMMUNITY HEALTH ADVISOR PRASAD: Thank you. I 4 really didn't expect it, but I really appreciate it. And, 5 Catherine, thank you. 6 What you have done today, in my opinion, actually 7 reflects the priority issue that this Board and the agency 8 has placed upon. In most of my presentations over these 9 last 6 years, I have been in my presentation saying that 10 it's a privilege and an honor to work for this Chair and 11 this agency. And my staff can vouch for that almost about 12 85 percent of my slides speak about that. And I really 13 mean it. 14 There's no better honor than working for this 15 agency, one of the most powerful international agencies 16 whose actions get vibrations across the country and 17 internationally. 18 Today, I'm proud to be a part of a small group 19 that accepted the challenge 6 years back looking at the 20 issue of environmental justice as a public health issue 21 not as a racial or as an economic issue. 22 Today, ARB sets the model for all the other State 23 agencies to follow, in contrast to where we started 6 24 years back. It was a challenge at the time -- a couple 25 of -- just one comment we heard was it's a land-use issue, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 why should ARB be dealing with it, was one of the 2 sentiments expressed when I interviewed some individuals 3 both inside and outside the agency. 4 But after 6 years we have come a long ways to 5 issue a land-use guidance document that will be before you 6 for the consideration next month. 7 It's both satisfying and gratifying to be a part 8 of the team that brought about the paradigm shifting this 9 agency. And that we could not have achieved without you 10 and the very wonderful leadership and support. The 11 framework we have in place, in my opinion, would certainly 12 make sure that all Californians have an equal right to the 13 clean air. 14 Each and every board member I have worked with 15 have had a very positive influence on me, and I'll always 16 cherish that and honor that. I'm also very, very thankful 17 for the support I have received from the staff of the Air 18 Resources Board across all the levels. And I want to name 19 a few, Catherine Witherspoon, Lynn Terry, Linda Murchison, 20 Peter Venturini, Bob Fletcher, Jerry Martin, Rob Oglesby. 21 And am sure I have missed quite a few, and I'm sorry for 22 that. 23 And also I'm thankful to a number of stakeholders 24 on both sides of the aisle who taught me about the issues 25 who -- people know I'm a really candid person, but many PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 work with me on that aspect of it. And Carlos Porras, 2 Cindy Tuck, Jane Williams, Joe Lou and others helped me to 3 understand this issue and bring it to you in a motion that 4 would be more acceptable where we can act upon. 5 Finally, I am indebted to Secretary Dr. Lloyd for 6 the confidence and trust he placed on me and gave me this 7 opportunity to do something that's right for all. 8 Thank you. 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. 10 (Applause.) 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you and 12 congratulations, again. And speaking of Secretary Lloyd, 13 he has joined us in the very back of the room. We say 14 congratulations to you, Secretary Lloyd, as he was 15 confirmed by the Rules Committee last month -- or last 16 week, pardon me. And so we're just delighted to continue 17 to work with you. And thank you very much. 18 Let me move on to the next item on the agenda, 19 which is agendized. And I'd like to remind anyone in the 20 audience who wishes to testify on today's agenda items, 21 please sign up with the clerk of the Board, right over 22 here. And also if you have a written statement, if you 23 would provide to her 30 copies. 24 The first item on today's agenda is 5-3-1, our 25 monthly informational health update. Today, we will hear PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 about 2 recent studies on the association between ozone 2 exposure and premature death. While the Board has heard 3 previously that particulate pollution can have a serious 4 adverse health effect, including premature deaths, that 5 finding has not been made before for ozone. So this is 6 particularly something that's new to us. 7 And Ms. Witherspoon I'd like to have you 8 introduce the item. 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Madam 10 Chairman. And good morning to all the board members. 11 Next month staff will be proposing a new 8-hour standard 12 for ozone. And you will hear extensive information about 13 the health effects of ozone at that time. However, we 14 wanted to give you a preview of what's changed since the 15 last time the Board considered a California ozone 16 standard. And in particular to draw your attention to a 17 new link between ozone exposure and mortality that has 18 been identified in recent studies. 19 Mr. Hien Tran from the Research Division will 20 update the Board on the findings. 21 Mr. Tran. 22 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 23 Presented as follows.) 24 MR. TRAN: Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon. Good 25 morning, Madam Chairman and members of the Board. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 In previous health updates, we've discussed the 2 relationship between ozone exposure and school absences 3 and asthma in the children's health study, and hospital 4 emissions in Atlanta. Other investigators have studied 5 the relationship between ozone and death counts. However, 6 their findings were inconsistent and interpretation of the 7 evidence was constrained by the limited range of 8 locations, the variability of the methods used and the 9 imprecision of the estimates. 10 The focus of today's presentation is on 2 11 recently published Motor City studies, which are among the 12 first to have addressed these issues. 13 --o0o-- 14 MR. TRAN: In the first study, Dr. Bell and 15 colleagues developed national approaches finalizing 16 multi-site data from 95 large U.S. urban communities from 17 1987 to 2000. These cities account for about 40 percent 18 of the total U.S. population. 19 For each city, the authors first estimated the 20 death rate associated with exposure to ozone. Then the 21 city-specific rates were combined to produce a national 22 estimate taking into account the variation across 23 locations. 24 The authors controlled for possible confounding 25 effects of weather by including temperature and dew point, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 and allowed for different baseline death rates by day of 2 the week and adjusted for seasonality and long-term 3 trends. 4 They found that 10 parts per billion increased in 5 the 1-hour maximum ozone level was associated with a 0.1 6 percent increase in the non-injury related death rate. 7 The confidence interval which reflects the uncertainty in 8 the estimate is from 0.05 to 0.16 percent. The rates were 9 similar across age groups and are higher for death in 10 heart and lung disease, and most strongly related to the 11 previous week's ozone. 12 The authors also demonstrated that the ozone 13 effect is independent of particulate matter. 14 --o0o-- 15 MR. TRAN: The second study which is authored by 16 Dr. Gryparis and colleagues comes from a major European 17 project that addresses air pollution and health. This 18 project included 23 cities throughout Europe with a total 19 population of more than 15 million. 20 Similar to the U.S. study, they initially fitted 21 for each city separately. The results were then combined 22 for an overall estimate. The models also adjusted for 23 potential confounders, such as weather. 24 The authors found that a 10 parts per billion 25 increase in summer-time 1-hour maximum ozone effect level PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 was associated with a 0.66 percent increase in daily 2 deaths and higher increases for death from heart and lung 3 disease. The confidence interval is from about 0.3 to 1 4 percent. No significant effects were observed during the 5 winter season. 6 The authors found the results to be independent 7 of sulfur dioxide and PM10, but somewhat confounded by 8 nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide. 9 --o0o-- 10 MR. TRAN: To put the results in perspective, we 11 compared the findings from these 2 studies to other 12 meta-analysis. For ease of comparison we converted our 13 results into consistent units. For the meta-analysis 14 having been published between 2001 and 2004, as you can 15 see the effect estimates from these meta-analysis shown in 16 the yellow range from 0.39 percent to 0.55 percent 17 increase in daily deaths per 10 ppb change in 1-hour 18 maximum ozone, compared to Bell's estimate of 0.1 percent 19 shown in green on the left. Ninety-five percent 20 confidence intervals are presented in vertical lines. 21 Dr. Bell postulates that the higher values found 22 by other investigators could be due to bias in 23 incorporating only single-city studies that show positive 24 effects. On the other hand, the modeling techniques 25 employed in the Bell study may over-control for the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 confounding effects of weather. 2 Results from the European study by Dr. Gryparis, 3 shown in green on the right, apply to the summer season 4 only. Since ozone is typically higher in the summer, it 5 is expected that the summer effect would be higher. The 6 difference in effect estimates between these studies and 7 between cities within the studies could be due to 8 differences in local pollutant mixture. The use of 9 air-conditioning, time spent indoors, versus outdoors, 10 home structure and differing ventilation rates, open or 11 closed windows, susceptibility of the effected population, 12 and socio-economic factors. 13 Questions remain on a treatment of whether season 14 and other pollutants in the statistical modeling of ozone 15 and death and the sensitivity of the models used remains 16 to be tested rigorously. 17 We note that U.S. EPA has funded 3 independent 18 meta-analyses of the most recent data on short-term 19 exposure to ozone and death. The result is expected to be 20 published in July of this year and we will report back to 21 the Board after the publication. 22 --o0o-- 23 MR. TRAN: ARB staff used results from the 2 24 studies discussed in this update and the 4 meta-analyses 25 just mentioned to estimate the health benefits of reducing PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 ozone exposure in California. 2 We calculate that annually about 480 deaths would 3 be avoided if the 1-hour standard for ambient ozone of 90 4 parts per billion were attained statewide. To determine 5 the range, staff applied the U.S. 95-city study for the 6 low-end estimate of 290 deaths. The summer-only European 7 study for the high-end estimate of 870 deaths and the 4 8 meta-analyses of the year-round effect for the estimate 9 are 580. 10 In this calculation we estimated the distribution 11 of ozone levels for a situation where the standard was 12 attained statewide. For the South Coast air basin, over 13 the past 2 decades we found that a control program has 14 reduced high, moderate and low ozone days consistently 15 based on one above the base level of 40 parts per billion, 16 which represents natural background. We assumed this 17 would occur into the future and for other air basins using 18 basin-specific data. 19 In addition, we assumed that ozone to daily death 20 rate applies to the statewide range of ozone levels. 21 Based on the European study that found the response to be 22 lenient even at low levels of ozone. Our methodology has 23 undergone peer review by several experts in the field of 24 air pollution health. 25 In addition, U.S. EPA published a health benefits PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 study in January the 2005. Using a different model, U.S. 2 EPA found a similar central estimate of 560 deaths for 3 California. 4 --o0o-- 5 MR. TRAN: In summary, the recent studies 6 covering that 95 large cities in the United States and 23 7 major cities in Europe strongly suggests a link between 8 exposure to ambient ozone and premature death. Research 9 into the biological mechanisms that could help explain 10 their association between ozone exposure and death has 11 just begun, and includes a study approved by the Board 12 last December. 13 Some leading hypotheses include activation of 14 inflammatory pathways and reduction in hot rate 15 variability, which is a risk factor for adverse health 16 related outcomes. 17 The 2 studies discussed today apply sophisticated 18 modeling techniques that account for the variability in 19 the data and the potential confounding factors which lead 20 to more precise estimates. Together, they add to the 21 substantial body of evidence of the public health benefits 22 from reducing ozone pollution. 23 --o0o-- 24 MR. TRAN: Finally, as you know, the Air 25 Resources Board is responsible for adopting ambient air PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 quality standards for major pollutants at levels that 2 adequately protect the health of the public, including 3 vulnerable populations such as children and the elderly. 4 The staff from ARB and the Office of 5 Environmental Health Hazard Assessment recently completed 6 an extensive review of the ambient air quality standard 7 for ozone. Last week, we released a report containing the 8 findings and recommendations for amending the State 9 standard. 10 Although the study discussed today did not serve 11 as the basis for the recommendations to amend the 12 standard, they were reviewed and discussed in the staff 13 report. The studies were also used for estimating 14 premature death effects as part of the ozone health 15 benefits assessment. 16 Staff intends to present the recommendations in 17 the report to the Board for your consideration next month. 18 Thank you for your attention, and I'll be happy to answer 19 your questions. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 21 Let me ask the Board if there are any questions or 22 comments? 23 Dr. Gong. 24 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Thank you very much for the 25 presentation. I think it answered some questions I have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 had. And I think you revised them very nicely, in terms 2 of -- especially showing the upper and lower boundaries of 3 deaths. 4 I was just wondering, I know statistically they 5 probably took out the PM-related deaths in these studies. 6 But we've heard so much about PM related deaths. Do you 7 remember any indication of what the PM related deaths were 8 in the same cities, because they must have looked at it as 9 well, in addition to ozone? I'm not trying to steal the 10 ozone thunder, but it is a mixed pollutant atmosphere 11 they're breathing. 12 DR. DRECHSLER: Those particular reviews focused 13 on ozone. I'm Deborah Drechsler from the Research 14 Division. The papers that Hien reported on this morning 15 focused on ozone, and they didn't really present 16 information about other pollutants, except to indicate 17 that the models had controlled for those pollutants. 18 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 19 Dr. Gong, this is Richard Bode. The first study that was 20 reported on, the study by Bell came out of the NMMAPS, 21 which is the National Morbidity and Mortality Air 22 Pollution Study. It released results on just PM, and I 23 believe those were released about 4 years ago. 24 MR. TRAN: That's right. 25 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 And those studies actually released also showed it. I 2 forget exactly what the amounts were, but those were in 3 the thousands of impact, at least for California thousands 4 of a. -- approximately 6,900 death a year from PM. 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Dr. Gong, the 6 rule of thumb we use based on all the studies is that PM 7 is about 10 times more potent in causing mortality than 8 ozone. So that gives you some sense of scale. But of 9 course it would vary by each study and each analysis. 10 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 11 So what the authors did in this study too, is instead of 12 looking strictly at PM not only did they look at the ozone 13 from the data sets and results, that they just looked at 14 the ozone compatibility. 15 BOARD MEMBER GONG: The fact that they're picking 16 and choosing the pollutants of interest doesn't detract 17 from the scientific validity of their findings, I assume? 18 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 19 That's correct. Yeah, it doesn't. And they actually 20 looked at that to look at the impacts from pollutants 21 because that was a major comment that they received, the 22 authors received, previously back 2, 3 years ago when the 23 PM mortality studies were coming out. That, you know, a 24 lot of these same data from these multi-city studies could 25 be used for whatever pollutants. They made sure they PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 weren't looking at the confounding effect -- measuring the 2 same impact twice. 3 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Thank you for a balanced 4 report. 5 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Any other questions 6 or comments from the Board? 7 Then I'll simply say thank you very much for an 8 excellent report. And it will obviously become even more 9 important to us at our next meeting. 10 Thank you. 11 We're going to move along to the next item then, 12 which is Item 5-3-2. There are 5 projects in all. And 13 they've been reviewed and approved by the Research 14 Screening Committee. 15 In summary, these projects will help improve air 16 pollution exposure estimates and the techniques we utilize 17 to identify sources and update our emission inventory. 18 Ms. Witherspoon or -- excuse me, Bart Croes let 19 me ask you to research -- as Chief to make any comments 20 about these proposals or any introduction? 21 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Annmarie Mora 22 from our staff will make a brief introduction for each 23 project. 24 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: Good morning 25 Madam Chairman and members of the Board. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 2 Presented as follows.) 3 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: Today, we are 4 presenting 5 research proposals for your approval. These 5 proposals have been reviewed by staff and approved by the 6 Research Screening Committee. I'll briefly explain the 7 problem each proposal will attempt to address, its 8 objectives, and the expected results. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The first project 11 is entitled Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New 12 Homes. Concerns have been raised regarding whether 13 windows, doors exhaust fans and other mechanical 14 ventilation devices are used enough to remove indoor air 15 pollutants and excess moisture in new homes. 16 The proposed field study will obtain information 17 on ventilation characteristics and indoor air quality in 18 new single-family detached homes. The homes will be 19 studied in at least 2 seasons and 2 regions of California. 20 For the first time California will have 21 representative, accurate and current information on 22 ventilation and indoor air quality in newer California 23 homes. Measured levels of ventilation and indoor air 24 quality will be compared to current guidelines and 25 standards. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 The California Energy Commission which is funding 2 this study will use this information to revise their 3 energy efficiency design standards from new single-family 4 homes. The ARB will use the information to update and 5 improve its indoor exposure estimates for toxic air 6 contaminants and other indoor air pollutants and to 7 develop recommendations for improving indoor air quality 8 in new homes. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The second 11 project is an augmentation to an existing project titled 12 Hourly In-Situ Quantitation of Organic Aerosol Marker 13 Compounds. In order to aid the interpretation of the 14 aerosol observations, it is extremely useful to measure a 15 suite of trace gases whose source types and atmospheric 16 life times are better known than those of aerosols. 17 The best suite of trace gases to observe when 18 studying sources of organic aerosols is gas phased 19 Volatile Organic Compounds or VOCs. The UCB investigators 20 have built and employed implementation for measuring a 21 wide variety of gas phase VOCs with hourly time 22 resolutions. And have shown that the data is very useful 23 for identification of source types through factor analysis 24 and correlation with tracers of known origin. 25 Quantitative knowledge of the composition of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 PM2.5 organic matter is key to tracing its sources and 2 understanding its formation and transformation processes. 3 This research will provide useful new data of the media 4 value for air quality attainment strategies for the 5 central valley and the development of the State 6 Implementation Plan. 7 These data will also be very useful for other 8 investigators who plan to conduct ARB sponsored field 9 measurements at the same site in Fresno. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The next project 12 is Development and Demonstration of an Aerosol Tracer 13 Technique, based on a neutron activation analysis for 14 studying cyclical deposition and resuspension of aerosol 15 air associated toxic contaminants. 16 New contaminants found in aerosols have adverse 17 effects on human health through inhalation and when 18 deposited on the health of aquatic and terrestrial 19 ecosystems. Large primary particles emitted as fugitive 20 material from roads, industrial facilities, et cetera have 21 large velocities and thus do not travel far from the point 22 of emission. 23 However, chemicals associated with the such 24 sources are widely distributed in dust and urban 25 environments. Little is known about the transport PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 processes that move these materials, but it is suspected 2 that cyclic resuspension and transport can spread 3 pollutants across the urban landscape. 4 The objective of this research is to test 5 tracer-based field methods on artificial surfaces to 6 quantify large particle transport by cyclic suspension, 7 deposition and resuspension. 8 Successful completion of this technique will 9 enable future experiments to perform unbiased comparison 10 of surface migration of particles across a wide spectrum 11 of source types without the necessity of direct chemical 12 tracing emitted material. 13 --o0o-- 14 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The next project 15 is titled Dairy Operations: an evaluation and comparison 16 of baseline and potential mitigation practices for 17 emissions reduction in the San Joaquin valley. 18 Dairies are a significant source of Reactive 19 Organic Gases and ammonia emissions in the San Joaquin 20 valley. Due to the lack of experimental data, accurate 21 quantification of these emissions has been difficult. 22 Also, there is currently very little scientific 23 information available to determine the most effective and 24 feasible methods to reduce emissions from dairies. 25 It is expected that this study will provide more PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 accurate estimates of ammonia and ROG emissions from 2 dairies than currently exists by means of the fuel 3 monitoring and ambient air quality sampling program. 4 It is also expected that the results of this 5 study will allow the quantification of the effect on 6 emissions of different manure managing practices and the 7 quantification of emission reductions that are achievable 8 from the use of varying emissions reductions technologies. 9 The results of this study will allow the Board to 10 better assess the need for regulatory strategies for 11 dairies in order to obtain ambient air quality standards. 12 --o0o-- 13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The next project 14 is The Collection and Development of Exhaust Speciation 15 Profiles from Modern Commercial Jet Aircraft Engines. 16 ARB's current chemical speciation profiles for 17 jet engine exhaust is based in part on data collected from 18 military engines back in the 1970's and the 1980's. 19 Jet engine technology has evolved tremendously 20 since then, and commercial engines are also significantly 21 different from military engines. These profiles are used 22 for estimating the impact of aircraft operation on local 23 and statewide air quality for planning purposes, 24 Environmental Impact Report purposes, health assessment 25 and other means. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 Considering these factors, it is clear that 2 updating the profile to reflect the modern commercial 3 engines is desirable. This project will develop up to 4 date chemical speciation profiles for the exhaust for 5 modern and commercial jet aircraft engines. The project 6 will sample and analyze the particulate matter in gaseous 7 exhaust components from the engines of subject aircraft 8 while parked in a stationary position. 9 This project is intended to provide updated data 10 to develop improved commercial jet engine exhaust 11 speciation profiles that can be used primarily for 12 inventory and planning needs, including Environmental 13 Impact Report development. 14 --o0o-- 15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: That concludes 16 the presentation. We hope that you approve these 17 proposals. And we'll be happy to answer any questions. 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. I know 19 some of them are very significant proposals for this 20 improvement of air quality. And particularly I'm noting 21 the one for Supervisor Patrick and Ms. D'Adamo for the 22 Fresno air. Obviously, that's a critical piece of the 23 research that needs to be done. 24 Are there any questions or comments, Board 25 Members, before we take these issues up? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 Dr. Gong. 2 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Just a quick comment. I 3 think that every time these research proposals are 4 presented as a package, I always try to think of what does 5 it all mean to me, as a researcher, as a public health 6 professional. 7 And these 6 or whatever proposals actually are 8 exposure related, so they're not directly health linked, 9 but they tell us what people are exposed to. And I think, 10 in essence, they seem to -- they're trying to respond to 11 gaps in our knowledge of exposures. 12 And to me that's very important. And I strongly 13 support these proposals presented today. 14 And I was just wondering on the last one, the 15 principal investigators from the University of Missouri, 16 I'm sure they're, if I remember correctly, well qualified 17 and have the resources. But could you briefly describe 18 why the University of Missouri as opposed to the 19 University of California? 20 RESEARCH AND ECONOMICS STUDIES BRANCH CHIEF 21 COREY: This is Richard Corey with the Research Division. 22 The University of Missouri, Rolla actually has the most -- 23 is recognized internationally in terms of testing 24 aircraft. And the testing of aircraft historically in 25 military work is done by them and recognized, extremely PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 well published. And that's why we put together a team, 2 including both Rolla, CCERT and a contractor as well. 3 And they have equipment worth millions of dollars 4 just to conduct these tests that require these sampling 5 ports that a number of safety issues have to be addressed 6 as well. 7 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Ms. Kennard. 8 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: I have a question as well 9 on this last proposal. Are you going to be testing a 10 range of types of commercial aircraft or -- 11 RESEARCH AND ECONOMICS STUDIES BRANCH CHIEF 12 COREY: The focus of this testing is on the most commonly 13 used commercial aircraft 737, particularly the 500 and 700 14 series to look at both of the more recent -- to 15 determine -- there's some other versions, but it's focused 16 on the 737s. 17 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: And how are you getting 18 access? Is that through the -- I would imagine not the 19 Aircraft Manufacturers? 20 RESEARCH AND ECONOMICS STUDIES BRANCH CHIEF 21 COREY: We have worked with -- in fact, the collaboration 22 with both the researchers I've mentioned with Oakland 23 International Airport, with the FAA, with the South Coast 24 Air Quality Management District, as well as an airport 25 that has stepped forward in negotiations and we're PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 confident in them, but at this point we're still having 2 those discussions. 3 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: And just as a note, I'm 4 sure you're well aware of this, there's a whole new 5 generation of aircraft coming on line and it's something 6 to think about going forward as to what the exhaust 7 profiles might be related to performance. 8 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank for your input 9 and your expertise. And any time that any board member 10 feels that they could add something to the staff's, you 11 know, background and thinking about what they might do in 12 the future and how to refine a study, please don't ever 13 hesitate to offer that. The staff is really very good 14 about accepting our comments and interests and knowledge. 15 Ms. D'Adamo. 16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Yes. Thank you, Madam 17 Chairman, just piggy-backing on to that, staff has been 18 very helpful in working with the Agricultural Air Quality 19 Advisory Committee on a number of studies, not just the 20 one before us today. But it's been very helpful to hone 21 in on issues of importance to the Agricultural 22 stakeholders. 23 It seems that one of the biggest concerns that 24 the stakeholders have is getting a better handle on 25 emissions. And then on the dairy issue emission reduction PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 technologies that can be met with proven success. 2 I did have a question regarding emissions 3 inventory. I know that there's another study that 4 Research is looking -- or working on, and just curious 5 about the status of it regarding the agricultural fumigant 6 pesticide emissions, and wondering if we could receive 7 some information on the status of that and when it might 8 be coming before us. 9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: We brought that 10 before you at the January meeting. And so we're trying to 11 get a contract underway for that. So we expect it to 12 start in the spring, early summer. And we are reviewing 13 projects for next year, so we're looking at some follow-on 14 projects for the 5/6 fiscal year. 15 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: For expansion of that? 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: Yes. 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Thank you. 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. 19 Yes, Ms. Pineda. 20 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: I actually have a question 21 and perhaps this is better off-line, but if it's something 22 that can be addressed briefly. I'm curious to know how 23 you prioritize research? And since a number of us are new 24 on the Board, I think that would be helpful. And also 25 what is the process to ensure that the research is not PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 redundant? 2 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: We have a public 3 solicitation process where we ask for ideas from the 4 public on what research they feel needs to be done. For 5 example, this in the 5/6 fiscal year we're putting the 6 process together. We received almost 200 ideas. And 7 they're currently under review by ARB staff. They're 8 reviewed by the Research Screening Committee by the 9 Executive Office. And then we'll bring them to the Board 10 either in June or July. 11 But we do look at what other organizations are 12 doing. And when we can collaborate, we do, and we know 13 this in evaluation that we do whether there's possible 14 collaboration with other agencies. 15 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Also the Research 16 Screening Committee includes members from other funded 17 agencies. That's another mechanism we use to identify any 18 overlap and avoid it. 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: And I think you 20 also, just by the nature of the business that we're in, 21 identify issues that we know we're going to need more 22 information on, and, you know, suggest and almost solicit 23 research projects that would help us very specifically in 24 an area where we know there's a gap. 25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: We have a 10-year PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 strategic research plan that we use as our guide. And we 2 ask for -- you know, the ideas are submitted to also look 3 at our strategic plan and where the Board is going and 4 what the goals are the next few years. 5 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Also, we try to 6 collaborate on money. And I have to congratulate the 7 staff because you'll notice that the Energy Commission has 8 offered to fund the first one on the indoor air quality 9 study. And I think that's very significant, because we 10 simply do not have that kind of money. We wish we did, 11 but we don't. 12 And so for them to allow for this collaboration I 13 think is a real step in the right direction. So we can 14 sometimes leverage. 15 Any other questions or comments? 16 There are some resolutions before us and I'll 17 entertain a motion to approve the resolutions that follow 18 with the required research. 19 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: So moved. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Ms. Pineda first. 21 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Second. 22 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Second. 23 Board members, any further discussion? 24 If not, those in favor of the motion, please 25 signify by saying aye? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 (Ayes.) 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Opposed, no? 3 Motion carries. 4 Thank you very much. And thank you staff. 5 We are going to make an adjustment in our agenda, 6 for those of you in the audience and Board members. I am 7 going to adjust by having the next item be the Item No. 8 5-3-4, which is a proposed emergency regulation. Because 9 one of our members need to leave early, we are going to 10 have this item first and then we'll follow by the next 11 item on the agenda. 12 Let staff get into position before I begin. 13 This is the emergency regulation to address the 14 availability of new stationary agricultural engines 15 between 50 and 175 horsepower. 16 Let me ask if the staff is ready? Are the 17 computers ready? 18 Okay. I don't want the rush anybody. And, I'm 19 sorry, maybe we caught you off guard with the change. But 20 this will work better for us as a Board. 21 For the new Board members, we in 2004 approved a 22 stationary diesel engine rule. The rule took effect on 23 January 1st of this year. And staff has recently 24 determined that only a very limited number of engines in 25 the 50 to 100 horsepower rating meet the current standard. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 And this was unexpected, since both the agricultural 2 industry and the engine manufacturers believe there would 3 be an ample supply of clean engines in time to meet the 4 new standards. Unfortunately that is not the case. 5 Staff believes that this lack of availability has 6 created a situation where some growers are unable to 7 obtain new or replacement engines needed to pump 8 irrigation water, according to the staff. This has 9 brought us to the need for an emergency adjustment 10 considered today. 11 Ms. Witherspoon, would you like to please 12 introduce this item? 13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Madam 14 chairman. As you indicated, we are proposing an emergency 15 regulation because there are very few compliant 16 agricultural pump engines in the 50 to 100 horsepower 17 range that meet our existing PM standard of 0.15 grams per 18 brake horsepower-hour. State law authorizes the Board to 19 take action on emergency regulation upon a finding that 20 the action is necessary for the immediate preservation of 21 the public peace, health and safety or general welfare. 22 We believe these criteria have been met relating 23 to the 50 to 100 horsepower engines. 24 If the Board takes this action today, staff will 25 return at the May Board hearing with a full regulatory PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 action as required by law. And emergency rule making is 2 only effective for 120 days. 3 We are still evaluating whether engines between 4 100 and 175 horsepower are sufficiently available to meet 5 our regulation. There appear to be several compliant 6 engines, but not in all sizes, and there may be an issue 7 of compatibility as well. 8 Large engines over 170 horsepower meet the PM 9 standard, so no changes are proposed for that size range. 10 Mr. Tony Andreoni, a manager of the Process 11 Evaluation Section in the Stationary Source Division will 12 be doing the staff's presentation. 13 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 14 Presented as follows.) 15 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER ANDREONI: 16 Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon. 17 Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the 18 Board. 19 Today I'm going to provide the Board current 20 information on the availability of diesel engines meeting 21 the stationary ATCM PM requirements for new agricultural 22 pumps. 23 Stationary ag pumps are used to irrigate crops. 24 Most ag pumps in California are powered by electric motors 25 requiring electric power near the motor. Other PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 applications of stationary pumps include the use of diesel 2 engines to power the water pump to assist in irrigation. 3 As shown in this slide, the green-colored engine 4 is attached directly a large pump to allow for drawing 5 water from a well or a canal to an open field. Most 6 diesel-powered pumps are designed and built by local 7 dealers based on individual customer specifications and 8 irrigation needs. 9 --o0o-- 10 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER ANDREONI: In 11 February of 2004, the Board adopted a stationary diesel 12 airborne toxic control measure, or ATCM. The new engine 13 requirements of this ATCM became effective January 1st, 14 2005. Among other things, the ATCM established PM 15 emission standards for new industrial, ag and emergency 16 standby stationary diesel engines. 17 The PM emission standards for industrial engines 18 is .01 grams per brake horsepower-hour. To achieve this 19 standard a diesel particulate filter will need to be 20 installed upon a new engine. 21 The PM emission standard for new ag and emergency 22 standby engines is .15 gram per brake horsepower-hour. 23 Achieving this standard does not require add-on controls. 24 --o0o-- 25 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER ANDREONI: The PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 main issue that has arisen about the new stationary engine 2 PM emission limit is the availability of engines suitable 3 for ag pumps that also meet the .15 PM limit. 4 Based upon meetings we have held with 5 manufacturers, distributors and dealers over the past six 6 weeks, we have found that: 7 1) There is very limited availability of .15 8 engines in the 50 to 100 horsepower category. 9 2) In the 101 to 175 horsepower category, .15 10 engines are available, but not in all sizes and not by all 11 the manufacturers that have traditionally offered engines. 12 3) In the greater than 175 horsepower category, 13 .15 engines are available. 14 For engines used in emergency standby generators, 15 there is also adequate availability. 16 --o0o-- 17 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER ANDREONI: The 18 actions we are asking the Board to take today are to: 19 1) Modify the stationary ATCM on an emergency 20 basis to allow new ag pumping engines in the 50 to 100 21 horsepower range to meet a .30 PM limit instead of the .15 22 limit specified in the current ATCM. The .3 PM limit is 23 the same as the Tier 2 off-road PM standard. 24 2) Direct the staff to return to the Board in 25 May with an amendment to the ATCM making the emergency PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 provisions permanent. 2 Also, direct staff to work with stakeholders and 3 determine if similar changes are needed for engines in the 4 101 to 175 horsepower category. If staff finds that the 5 additional changes are necessary, staff will bring the 6 proposed changes to the Board as part of the May 7 rule-making package. 8 --o0o-- 9 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER ANDREONI: Our 10 current statewide estimate of the number of stationary ag 11 engines is shown in this slide. 12 The engines that have availability concerns are 13 in the 50 to 100 and the 101 to 175 horsepower categories. 14 As shown here, we estimate that there are 15 approximately 200 engines in the 50 to 100 horsepower 16 category and about 2,000 engines in the 101 to 175 17 horsepower category. 18 --o0o-- 19 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER ANDREONI: 20 This slide shows our estimates of the number of 21 ag pump engines that will be replaced each year for the 22 next four years. These projections assume that over the 23 next several years the current pace of engine replacement 24 will continue. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER ANDREONI: The 2 Carl Moyer program has played a key role in providing 3 funding to replace older, dirtier engines used in ag. 4 Older, dirtier diesel engines used in ag are an attractive 5 source of emissions reductions under the Carl Moyer 6 program. Based on past experience, we expected the Moyer 7 program funding will provide 60 to 80 percent of cost of 8 the cost of replacing an engine. The remaining 20 to 40 9 percent is provided by the farmer. 10 Over the past five years the Carl Moyer program 11 has helped replace over 2,200 ag engines. 12 --o0o-- 13 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER ANDREONI: The 14 issue that has arisen is availability of engines in the 50 15 to 175 horsepower category that can meet the ATCM's .15 PM 16 limit. As you can see in this slide, only about 10 17 percent of the engines in the 50 to 100 horsepower 18 category meet this limit. In the 101 to 175 horsepower 19 category, about 50 percent of the engines currently 20 available meet the .15 limit. 21 --o0o-- 22 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER ANDREONI: 23 This slide provides more detailed information 24 about the engines available meeting the .15 PM limit in 25 the 50 to hundred horsepower range. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 Shown on top of the slide five major engine 2 manufacturers are listed as A through E, and horsepower 3 ranges are shown in the left-hand side. 4 And asterisk identifies that the manufacturer 5 does not offer any engines in that horsepower category. 6 --o0o-- 7 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER ANDREONI: 8 This slide is similar to the last slide but 9 focuses on the 101 to 175 horsepower category. 10 As you can see, engines are available across the 11 entire range of horsepower in this category. For most 12 size ranges at least two manufacturers offer a compliant 13 engine. 14 Also note, as horsepower increases, the number of 15 compliant engines also increase. 16 --o0o-- 17 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER ANDREONI: 18 This slide discusses the issues -- it goes over 19 the issues caused by a lack of availability in the .15 20 engines. 21 The 1st issue: Certain engines cannot be 22 replaced with a like model of the same manufacturer. 23 Currently there's approval of about 20 Moyer 24 applications that may be delayed or will need to be 25 amended. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 A delay in replacing older engines could 2 eventually delay emission reductions. 3 And the last bullet in this slide focuses on the 4 fact that some of the lower priced engines cannot be used 5 and not all brands of engines are available in all sizes. 6 --o0o-- 7 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER ANDREONI: 8 Continuing with the issues by a lack of 9 availability. 10 Certain manufacturers and dealers will lose 11 business to those with compliant engines. 12 Non-complying engines currently in inventory will 13 have to be sold outside of the state. 14 And, finally, growers may not be able to obtain 15 compliant engines for the spring growing season. 16 --o0o-- 17 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER ANDREONI: 18 Staff recommend that the Board approves 19 modification of the stationary engine, ATCM, on emergency 20 basis for new ag pumps, engines in the 50 to 100 21 horsepower category. 22 For these engines the applicable PM emission 23 standard would be .3 grams per brake horsepower-hour or 24 meet the current new off-road engine standard. 25 We believe that emergency action is justified for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 this category because it is clear that most users will not 2 be able to find any compliant engines. Without compliant 3 engines available, older, dirtier engines will not be 4 replaced. This would result in ongoing public exposure to 5 toxic diesel PM and ozone that otherwise would have been 6 reduced. 7 In addition, the farmer may not be able to 8 replace engines that break down or install new engines to 9 pump water. This would result in negative economic 10 impacts to the farmer, engine dealers and distributors. 11 Impacts on such farmers would be severe if they must wait 12 until the normal rule-making process is complete. By 13 doing this, the farmers will not be able to pump 14 irrigation water for their spring crops. 15 Staff should return in May with amendments to the 16 stationary diesel ATCM with rule making to make these 17 emergency changes permanent. 18 --o0o-- 19 PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER ANDREONI: 20 And, finally, on the last slide, relative to the engines 21 in the 101 to 175 horsepower range, staff does not believe 22 an emergency action is appropriate at this time. 23 We do though recommend that a full but expedited 24 rule making be used to determine if the rule changes for 25 this category should be included. Therefore, we are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 proposing to investigate further if similar changes are 2 needed for the 101 to 175 horsepower category. If staff 3 believes changes are appropriate, they should return to 4 the Board with recommendations. At the May hearing staff 5 should also recommend any conforming changes that are 6 needed or other minor changes that will improve the 7 overall clarity of the ATCM. 8 This completes my presentation. I'll be happy to 9 answer any questions the Board may have. 10 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Before we go to 11 those questions, let me ask our ombudsman -- who, by the 12 way, has stepped forward to help. 13 Terrel, if you'll identify yourself for the 14 record. We thank you for taking Kathryn's place. 15 ACTING OMBUDSMAN FERREIRA: Thank you. 16 My name is Terrel Ferreira and I work in the 17 Office of the Ombudsman. 18 I have a brief presentation this morning. 19 Madam Chairman and members of the Board, the item 20 before you has occurred because the industry is unable to 21 meet the standards for the stationary engines less than 22 175 horsepower. 23 In December 2004, one month before the regulation 24 came effective, several stakeholders informed staff that 25 only a limited number of engines are available to meet the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 .15 gram brake horsepower-hour PM standard. Consequently 2 staff initiated meetings with industry and stakeholders in 3 January. Since that time they have had several meetings 4 and conference calls with representatives from Cummins, 5 Caterpillar, John Deere, Detroit, CNH, the Engine 6 Manufacturers Association, and members of the Diesel PM 7 Agricultural Working Group. 8 In addition, they have also spoken with engine 9 dealers and distributors about the lack of availability of 10 engines. The Board meeting agenda was mailed and posted 11 to ARB's website on March 4th. 12 This concludes my comments. 13 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. 14 Also, because this is an unusual item to have an 15 emergency or urgency item before us, to our counsel, Mr. 16 Jennings, do you have any comments that need to be made? 17 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNINGS: The primary 18 comment that I would make is that, as the Executive 19 Officer indicated, the Board may adopt regulations on an 20 emergency basis only if they are determined to be 21 necessary for the immediate preservation of the public 22 peace, health and safety or general welfare. 23 We would very much encourage commenters who 24 provide testimony to you to try to provide as specific 25 facts as possible on any adverse consequences they believe PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 would occur if the Board were to not take emergency action 2 today and adopt them pursuant to the normal procedures in 3 May. 4 So we would very much encourage those facts, so 5 that they could -- so that you can evaluate them in 6 determining whether to take emergency action. 7 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: And again before I 8 go to the Board, let me just indicate there are eight 9 people wishing to testify. And I hope you've heard Mr. 10 Jennings say that we do need to understand what the 11 adverse impacts are and why this should be adopted as an 12 emergency measure. 13 I would like to also tell the speakers, because 14 I'm very mindful of the time and I want to accomplish this 15 before Ms. D'Adamo needs to leave, I am going to limit the 16 speakers to five minutes. And I'm really going to be very 17 clear about your timing and what is, you know, acceptable 18 in terms of going any further, because it's just not going 19 to happen because I want everybody to have a chance. So 20 while I'm asking the questions of Board members here or 21 asking for their questions or comments, please be thinking 22 how you can direct all of your emphasis in five minutes. 23 Yes, Ms. Pineda. 24 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: First of all, let me just 25 say that I strongly support the objective behind the ATCM, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 and I'm very interested to hear the speakers and the facts 2 that will be presented before the Board. 3 But I do have one question. What I don't 4 understand is what investigation did we undertake prior to 5 issuance of the regulation? I'm just concerned that a 6 regulation is passed; and then after the fact, we find out 7 that industry can't supply the equipment that's necessary. 8 And it just seems to me that, you know, we need to push 9 industry to meet more aggressive objectives. But I think 10 there has to be a balance. So I'm sort of curious to know 11 what was undertaken prior to issuance of the regulation in 12 the first place. 13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Ms. Pineda, let 14 me just start with a basic overview. Then staff can fill 15 in the more technical detail. 16 But principally when we started writing the 17 regulation it was with the expectation a trap would be 18 required on every engine. And so the big difference for 19 agricultural pumps and standby engines is that they 20 concluded that that was not going to be economically 21 viable. And so we instead aimed for the cleanest engine 22 that could happen with modern combustion controls. 23 And what has occurred is that there is not a big 24 enough market -- there's only 200 engines in the sub-100 25 horsepower category, there's not enough of a market to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 drive the investment to perfect those engines to the .15 2 part per million limit -- or grams per brake 3 horsepower-hour limit. And we simply didn't anticipate 4 that. The engine manufacturers didn't raise it when they 5 testified at the hearing in 2004. It didn't occur in the 6 larger engine categories and it's only half true in the 7 medium size. And so really it's just that -- and I'm sure 8 you're very familiar with this in the car industry, the 9 investment goes first to the biggest market, then it 10 trickles down, and stops sometimes without ever getting to 11 small categories. 12 That's my explanation. Perhaps staff want to add 13 anything else. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Any other questions? 15 Yes, Supervisor Patrick. 16 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Thank you. 17 I just wanted to ask, when would this become 18 effective if we vote on it today? 19 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNINGS: It would become 20 effective -- excuse me. We would need to file the 21 amendment with the Office of Administrative Law, which 22 would have ten days to review them. If OAL approves them 23 within those ten days, they would become immediately 24 effective. And then OAL files them with the Secretary of 25 State, which will occur on the same day. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: I see. 2 Then my second question is -- you know, if it's 3 to be brought back to us in May and we would vote on it 4 again, and then it would become permanent. How long is 5 permanent? I mean is there -- will there be an 6 opportunity in the future, do you think, to bring the 7 emission controls down to this level and we would revisit 8 it at that time? 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I asked Mr. 10 Scheible the same question, and his answer -- I'll let him 11 give it to you. 12 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: We would 13 change the standard to what we thought the engine supply 14 could comply with with that availability. Then we would 15 review that. And if more engines became available, then 16 we could modify the regulations and take advantage of 17 those engines. 18 The manufacturers are not making engines for the 19 California market. They're making them for the national 20 market. And what our regulations sought to do was take 21 advantage of the fact that a sizable percentage of the 22 engines are much cleaner than the standards required 23 nationally. And we wanted engines put into service in 24 California to be the cleanest engines. So that was the 25 principle behind the regulation. And we found for this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 one subset of engines, that -- for this one application, 2 that that is not true at least today. 3 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Thank you. 4 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: Dan 5 Donohoue. 6 Could I make -- I'd like to make one additional 7 comment on that. That the way the regulation, the 8 stationary diesel ATCM regulation is set up for new 9 engines is that as the off-road standards that are 10 approved by EPA and ARB become more stringent, the 11 standards in the regulation become more stringent because 12 the current standard is the applicable. So in all these 13 categories new engines will become more stringent, 14 consistent with the overall federal off-road -- federal 15 and state off-road standards. So there is already an 16 escalator built in. But there is an opportunity for us as 17 we go through the process to come in and look and see if 18 we can go beyond those requirements. 19 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Great. And that's kind of 20 what I wanted to clarify. 21 Thank you very much. 22 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. 23 Ms. D'Adamo. 24 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: A comment and then a 25 couple of questions. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 It's my hope that that number of 200 could also 2 be replaced if we can get electricity out to farms, which 3 I know that staff is working closely with the PUC on a 4 number of other -- environmental and ag stakeholders. So 5 hopefully all is not lost. 6 The other question is: With the significant 7 turnover in the last several years of engines through the 8 use of the Carl Moyer funds, we're not talking about the 9 oldest of the oldest engines that are out there right 10 now -- or are we? -- the remaining number that you're 11 targeting. Would they -- what the average age of the 12 engine? 13 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Well, staff 14 might be able to provide the specifics. There's still 15 quite a number of engines that were produced before any 16 effective emission standards were applied. And those are 17 going through the Carl Moyer funding, and we expect that 18 will do so for the next few years. 19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. And then regarding 20 the other category that staff will be looking at, the 100 21 to 175 horsepower, I had a couple of questions. 22 If we adopt this emergency regulation today, it 23 will go into effect prior to the May hearing and then the 24 May hearing it would go permanent. What about the other 25 category, the 100 to 175? If staff comes back with the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 recommendation at the May hearing, would that 2 automatically go into effect, or would the time lag that 3 which we are considering for the smaller engine? 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: If we believe the 5 conditions for the engine are present for that category, 6 we could propose emergency rule making for that element in 7 May. And so it to would take effect, you know, in the 8 brief OAL review period following the hearing. 9 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And are there any issues 10 with farmers that are in the queue right now for Carl 11 Moyer funds? The reason we're going today on the smaller 12 engines is because of spring irrigation. Would there 13 be -- would that lag present any problem with the Carl 14 Moyer application? Or what do we do -- what can we do to 15 work with the districts so that those applications stay in 16 queue and if the regulation does get adopted in May, those 17 engines can still be replaced as soon as possible with the 18 incentive dollars. 19 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: Dan 20 Donohoue. 21 With respect to the engines in the 100 to 175 22 category, there are applications in the queue right now 23 that have not been acted on by the districts. So what 24 would need to be done with respect to those engines since 25 we're not proposing to have emergency relief on that was PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 that the -- they would have to either delay action on that 2 until after, you know, we make a change. If that happens 3 before, they're going to have to reevaluate the 4 application, see if they can in fact find a .15 engine to 5 meet the requirements. 6 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I know we talked about 7 this with staff briefly. I'm just curious if we need to 8 consider the issue of the approval of the application 9 versus just the application being filed, would there be 10 any issues of qualification that we could help out with as 11 part of the regulatory process, or would it even be 12 needed? 13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: It's the 14 district's process for issuing the Carl Moyer funds. The 15 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and what 16 they require is conformance with state standards. 17 And so my sense is that they're going to hold -- 18 they're not going to throw anyone out of the queue. But 19 if someone wants to get money sooner rather than wait to 20 see what happens in May, as Dan Donohoue just indicated, 21 they would need to search out another 50 percent of 22 complying, you know, .15 engines and if -- or they could 23 wait till May to see what the Board decides at that point 24 and stick with the engine they want to buy. But they 25 won't lose their place in the queue, I don't think. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 There's plenty of money, and ag engines are very high 2 priority for funding in San Joaquin Valley. 3 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. 4 Any other questions or comments? 5 Then let's move right along to the speakers. 6 And let me -- Manual Cunha, Bob Morrelli, and 7 Charlie Simpson. 8 eo, welcome. 9 MR. CUNHA: Thank you very much. 10 At this time you have a letter before you. But 11 before I start that, Madam Chair, thank you very much for 12 allowing me to be here. Board members, staff. 13 I would like us to take a moment of silence for a 14 good friend of ours. Peter Venturini and his family have 15 gone through some pretty rough times this week. And -- 16 with his family and his daughter. And I'd just like to 17 take a moment of silence for hoping that everything is 18 well with his daughter in her situation. 19 So at this time if we could take a second please, 20 I would really appreciate it. He's been a friend of 21 agriculture for years. 22 (Moment of Silence.) 23 MR. CUNHA: Thank you very much. 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. 25 MR. CUNHA: You have a letter before you, Madam PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 Chairman and Board members from Kuckenbecker Tractor 2 Company. They were unable to be here this morning. The 3 letter, in summary, very clearly states that they do not 4 have -- and I won't read it because this is their 5 comments -- but you have it before you very clearly, they 6 do not and cannot produce one setup from zero for 50 7 horsepower to 175 at all. They do not have any Ford New 8 Holland engines, because they serve in Madera and Fresno 9 counties, Fresno County being the largest agricultural 10 growing community in the world. 11 So I'm greatly concerned what I read from Sperry 12 or Ford New Holland Tractor, that they are unable to 13 produce the 50 as well as the 175, up to that engine. 14 They cannot produce those engines, which means a great 15 impact to their farmers that have bought their engines 16 over the past years. 17 I think, as you will hear from other people -- 18 but as far as NISEI Farmers League, we've worked very hard 19 on this whole entire issue of engines. The economic 20 picture is important. The Carl Moyer funding is 21 important. But there's also another issue that the staff 22 is not held accountable for, but they're responsible for, 23 and, that is, SB 700, which requires the San Joaquin 24 Valley to adopt a more stringent requirement on engines 25 than the state is because of Mr. Flores' bill, SB 700. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 That means those engines must have an ATCM requirement on 2 them. 3 Tier 2's into that category, tier 3's in that 4 category, are not even there. Two's or three's are not 5 even being built. 6 So now we have farmers trying to develop their 7 farming programs, trying to comply with a law, by July 8 even, with getting their permits in line, trying to deal 9 with Title 5 under the Federal Clean Air Act because of 10 the situation they're in; makes the farmers right now in a 11 very, very awkward situation what there is. And when I 12 look at those numbers or I hear staff's report, that 13 there's 38 engines out there out of 70, you must remember 14 that's all types of engines. And those are engines that 15 are probably of 20 some-odd different dealers, that are 16 either foreign dealers, out of the United States -- in 17 which our farmers don't even buy their engines, don't even 18 have them on their farms. They may be on their farms, 19 they may not. But when I look at that and I look at the 20 dealers today that are going to testify in the San Joaquin 21 Valley, the majority of my farmers are running 22 Caterpillars, Cummins, John Deere, Ford New Holland, 23 Massey Ferguson, International -- those types of engines. 24 What really kind of upsets me, Madam Chair, is 25 that from 0 to 50 there's nothing, we have a small number PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 of engines. But from 101 to 175 -- I'm in the same 2 situation. There is not those engines. I just read you a 3 letter from Ford New Holland that they cannot manufacture 4 those engines right now. And in the letter, if you 5 notice, they said at least for a year. 6 And I appreciate Barbara Patrick's question about 7 do we want to change this engine out? The answer is, yes, 8 we do. We've got to do it in a way that makes economic 9 sense to the growers. Why buy a Tier 2 engine today, 10 because what's what I would have to do, and replace it in 11 three years again with Carl Moyer to meet the new ATCM 12 requirements for the San Joaquin Valley? That would be 13 throwing money down the drain. And that's not the way 14 that we worked to get Carl Moyer or the DMV monies. We 15 have a lot of things to spend money on and we shouldn't 16 waste it foolishly. 17 So I would hope -- and I need very clear 18 clarification on this from legal counsel -- that if the 19 staff today and the Board votes only on the 50 to 100 and 20 we meet -- we meet with staff and the engine people over 21 the next 120 days to determine the issues of 101 to 175 22 horsepower, that if there is not sufficient ample dealers 23 that my farmers deal with on honesty, integrity, and trust 24 over the years, would that also be suspended in May at the 25 hearing, or do they have to go through another 120 days PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 and go through all of this again? Because if we have to, 2 then I would ask for you to go from 50 to 175, because we 3 do not have the information, we do not have those engines, 4 and our farmers should not have to spend money or figure 5 out this is so crazy I don't even know whether I'm going 6 to -- spend any money. I'm not going to do this because I 7 don't think the state's got it together and even the 8 district. 9 So I would hope that that is very clear on what 10 we do about that 175 to 101. 11 And I appreciate your time, and I know that 12 you've got other speakers. And thank you very much. 13 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. 14 While you're there though, staff, would you like 15 to respond to the speaker for a moment? 16 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Our intent, 17 and we believe we can do it, is to follow the full 18 regulatory process and bring back to the Board in May for 19 a decision the regulation and completely resolve the issue 20 at that time. And it can be done within a 120-day period, 21 and then we're not restricted by the temporary nature of 22 the emergency finding and we can consider all issues under 23 the effective rule making as opposed to just those 24 necessary to justify an emergency. 25 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 Thank you, eo. 2 MR. CUNHA: Okay. We look forward to working 3 with the staff very closely over the next 120 days. If we 4 have to live up here, we'd be happy to. 5 Thank you very much. 6 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Well, that's the way 7 you're going to -- that certainly is generous of you. 8 Thanks again. 9 Bob Morrelli and Charlie Simpson and Joe Unseth. 10 MR. MORRELLI: Hi. My name's Bob Morelli. I'm 11 representing Western Power Products. We're the John Deere 12 engine distributor for the State of California. And I'm a 13 territory manager, plus I take care of all emission issues 14 related with our company. 15 Thank you very much for taking the time to give 16 us a chance and opportunity to talk in front of the Board. 17 First of all, I think there's a lack of 18 understanding of ATCM by air districts, by dealers, and 19 also by end users. There's a lot of gray area and a lot 20 of room for interpretation the way it's written. 21 Second of all, there's going to be a lot of loss 22 of revenue for the farmers, the end users, and also the 23 distributors. Us as a distributor for John Deere products 24 have to forecast our engines about six months in advance. 25 And we had engines in inventory at the time this ruling PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 took that now we can't sell them in state, that we have to 2 sell outside the state of California. 3 There's a potential that we may have to lay off 4 personnel at our dealership in all areas of our dealer. 5 Third of all, the different manufacturers -- all 6 engine manufacturers have different features and benefits 7 of their engines that -- that's the choices that the 8 farmers have to buy different products. 9 In fortifying, I've submitted a couple of letters 10 from two farmers in Ventura County, Don Tschirhart and 11 also Pete Hansen. And this letter was sent to them by 12 Jerry Mason out of Ventura County, the APCD. And the 13 farmers weren't aware of the ATCM till Jerry sent this 14 letter to them. 15 And they called me and asked me what engines they 16 were able to buy. And I told them we only have a limited 17 number of engines that we could sell to meet the ATCM. 18 And I gave them the pricing on those and went through it 19 with the ag dealer that represents us. And at this time 20 they have chosen not to change out their noncertified 21 engines because they don't want -- they can't buy the 22 engine that they need. It would cost them an additional 23 three to four thousand dollars to change their pump to go 24 along with the engine that they need. And at this time 25 they didn't want to do that. But they were willing to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 upgrade to the latest technology to change those out. 2 We have several other customers that I don't have 3 letters from throughout the State of California, some in 4 northern California, some in central California, and some 5 in southern California. 6 Last week I also received a call from a local 7 farmer in the San Joaquin Valley. He wanted to put in 8 electric pumps. And he just planted 600 acres of grapes 9 that cost him several million dollars to install. He had 10 talked to PG&E, and they told him it was a six to eight 11 week lead time to have the electric pumps hooked up. They 12 went ahead and put in 12 electric motors, called back 13 PG&E. About two weeks before they were supposed to be out 14 to install them he talked to PG&E again, and now they're 15 telling him he's got to wait 6 to 12 months to irrigate 16 his crops. He called me looking for 12 generator sets so 17 he could hook up and irrigate his crops until he could get 18 the electric power out there from PG&E. 19 Thank you very much for your time. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. 21 Morrelli. I thank you for that testimony about 22 particularly the grape farmer. 23 Mr. Simpson. 24 MR. SIMPSON: Good morning. Thank you very much 25 for the opportunity to the staff, the Board to allow us to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 get up here today and give a little bit of our side of "in 2 the trenches" on what's going on in the industry. 3 Definitely we're not professional speakers, so 4 please keep that in mind and help us out a little bit. 5 I'd like to start with some basic information. 6 My name is Charlie Simpson and I work for Quinn Company. 7 We're a Caterpillar dealership in Fresno, California. We 8 cover from Fresno area across to Monterey, all the way 9 down through Los Angeles and Orange County, coming back up 10 through Kern County. 11 As we look at the history of part of this ruling, 12 the EPA and CARB certified standards for PM for these two 13 models that staff is talking about today, for the 50 to 14 100 is .30 and for the 101 through 175 is .22. ATCM is 15 asking for .15. So in order for me to understand it as a 16 dealer, I came back to CARB's database and what they call 17 a Cert database, which shows all engines that are 18 certified through EPA and CARB. Here is what I found. 19 Out of all of the engines in the 50 to 100 20 horsepower range, 83 percent of those engines do not meet 21 the ATCM. So, hence, here we're in emergency regulation. 22 What I don't understand is in the 101 through 175 23 horsepower, 70 percent of those engines do not meet the 24 ATCM. 25 From that, I started going forward and I thought, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 imagine if one day any of us walked into a grocery store 2 and as we look on the shelf that 70 to 80 percent of the 3 products that we used to buy from the store are no longer 4 on the shelf. And that's what we're faced with today. 5 Much like some of the other dealers have said, it 6 takes two to six to eight months to get product out of the 7 factory out to our dealers. Farmers need this equipment 8 right away when their crops are in the ground or else they 9 will lose their crops. 10 The ATCM was adopted on the final draft on 11 December 8th of 2004, went into effect January the 1st of 12 2005. I see that manufacturers, dealers and our customers 13 need a little more time to deal with this situation as 14 fast as it came to us. 15 I'd like to also talk about some of the customer 16 impacts of the ATCM. I really feel this is a punishment 17 to customers that went out before they were required to 18 and replaced their noncertified with certified engines. 19 An engine that was replaced in the Moyer program in this 20 horsepower range in December of 2004 will not meet this 21 ATCM. Something's wrong. 22 I also believe that there will be a lot of 23 customers that will not replace their engines going 24 forward under the Moyer program mainly due to: They may 25 have a choice of an engine that fits their application PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 and/or the confusion that the ATCM has brought into the 2 industry. 3 Another question I have as far as impacts on 4 customers is is as you reduce supply of any type of 5 product, what's going to happen to the cost. I don't 6 think anybody can answer that at this point. Whether it's 7 50 percent -- which my records show it's much less. But 8 any time you reduce supply of any type of product, the 9 cost goes up. It was announced this morning that our fuel 10 costs are at an all-time high. And the reason they said 11 that is the supply is down, demand is up. 12 Administration. Administration of this rule is 13 very difficult. Under some of the engines that were 14 brought to you today in that 50 percent, these engines 15 that are on your website are certified on the Cert 16 database that says that they will not meet the rule. But 17 under certain manufacturer data that's provided outside 18 the EPA family member, they do meet it. I see this as 19 going to be causing a huge confusion between our 20 customers, dealers, as well as our air districts and Carl 21 Moyer program throughout as to what will be allowed to be 22 used and what will not. 23 In closing, I would just like to ask that CARB 24 look at a few things. We all want cleaner air. That's 25 what we're all here for. But I would like you to look at PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 current, available, certified technology. And I think 2 that's where we need to go forward. 3 Thank you very much. 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: There are things 5 about this rule that I think we haven't brought to the 6 surface and, that is, that this witness is talking about 7 certified levels. There are EPA and state standards for 8 emission rates that are higher than the ATCM. And what 9 the ATCM does is, say, to seek out the engine 10 manufacturers that are overcomplying with certification 11 levels. And so the witness talked about lack of 12 transparency, that you have to look at the database to 13 know both who met the standard and legal -- for sale and 14 who overcomplies with the standard and meets .15. Because 15 the standard he talked about was .22. And I think that 16 that wasn't clear before, that that was the theory behind 17 the ATCM, to seek out the cleanest engines, the 18 overcompliant engines, especially because so much public 19 money is going into their purchase. And we still like 20 that theory. But we have to temper it with realism about 21 what's available and other distortions that are created in 22 the marketplace and burdens we're placing on agriculture. 23 So that's why we're here today. 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. Mr. Simpson, 25 your time is just about over. So just one little -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 MR. SIMPSON: Real quick, and just in response to 2 those levels. I would just like the Board to know, and 3 I'm sure staff already knows, that with all of the engines 4 that are under the certification, this is the only range 5 that was brought below those standards. Hence, I think 6 that's where our issue is, is that this particular 7 horsepower range is set below all of the rest of the 8 standards. 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 10 Joe Unseth, followed by Karl Lany and Sam 11 Pallesi. 12 Mr. Unseth. 13 MR. UNSETH: Good morning. My name is Joe Unseth 14 and I'm Manager of Environmental Compliance for DEUTZ 15 corporation. And DEUTZ is a manufacturer of industrial 16 engines that are widely used in the California ag market. 17 And I'm also representing our distributors in the state. 18 They're independent distributors. Some of the key 19 distributors are not available to be here today. They had 20 previously scheduled sales commitments. 21 So I'm speaking for DEUTZ, the engine 22 manufacturer, and our distributors. 23 DEUTZ -- I want to express that DEUTZ and our 24 independent distributors are very concerned and highly 25 impacted by the stationary ATCM which took effect January PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 1st of this year. 2 I provided you with two pages of notes specific 3 to our comments. 4 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Yes, we have those 5 in front of us right now. 6 MR. UNSETH: I'll quickly go through those. 7 The key points -- I have four key points: 8 1) Engine customers purchase the product that 9 best meets their needs. Customers do not purchase engines 10 that do not meet their needs. 11 It sounds simple, but it's key to this issue. 12 2) The 0.15 gram per horsepower limit severe 13 restricts the ag customers's choice in the 50 to 175 14 horsepower category. 15 And as -- I think I'm echoing previous comments, 16 that not only is the 50 to 100 horsepower category an 17 urgent issue, but the 100 to 175 category is also a hot, 18 urgent issue. 19 From the engine distributors perspective, No. 3, 20 the ATCM rule had -- I believe it actually had negative 21 lead time. Our distributors were ordering engines in 22 October and November for this spring. We have 23 distributors who are going to take delivery later this 24 month of engines that they ordered four or five months 25 ago. So between the time they ordered the engines and the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 time they will receive the engines, the engines will 2 become illegal, which is very difficult to handle. 3 4) The subject engine models were developed and 4 certified for EPA -- U.S. EPA and California ARB Tier 2 in 5 the '02-'03 timeframe. So the engines that fall under 6 this new regulation were developed and certified for the 7 national standards three years ago. And engine 8 manufacturers cannot turn back the clock and redesign 9 engines for this specific market. 10 And, in summary, I want to state that the 11 California ag market and engine suppliers need access to 12 all Tier 2 certified engines above 50 horsepower. 13 On the second page I have a simple chart showing 14 the distribution of DEUTZ particulate emissions. We have 15 a significant number of engines below the .15 limit. We 16 have a significant number above the .15 limit. I've 17 highlighted four specific models that are key to the 18 California ag market. They range from 0.16 to 0.22. 19 And I put two notes on that page: One, these 20 four engine models are 75 percent of DEUTZ' California ag 21 sales. So basically 75 percent of our ag sales are at 22 stake. 23 And second note: To give the Board an idea of 24 the economic -- potential economic impact of this rule, 25 these agricultural engines are over 50 percent of our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 distributors' business. And that business is primarily in 2 the 100 to 175 horsepower category. 3 So to make the specific points that Mr. Jennings 4 requested regarding adverse effects, I would say the 5 economic hardship to our California-based distributors is 6 harsh and severe. I wish they could be here to express 7 that more clearly. And, number 2, this rule is currently 8 delaying introduction of new cleaner engines. 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you so much. 10 MR. UNSETH: All right. Thank you. 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: We appreciate your 12 comments. 13 Mr. Lany, followed by Mr. Pallesi, Joe Suchecki. 14 MR. LANY: Thank you for allowing me to speak. 15 I'm Karl Lany, Vice President with SCEC Air Quality 16 Consultants, located in Orange. 17 Our clients come from a wide variety of 18 industries, both manufacturing and other types of 19 commercial entities; also essential public services, water 20 purveyors, waste water treatment facilities, police 21 statements, air pollution stations, other essential 22 municipal operations. We also work closely with 23 Caterpillar and its California dealers. 24 But the comments that I'm making today really 25 come from the perspective of someone who has to work day PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 in and day out with the local districts in obtaining 2 permits for engines; and who will have to do so, as we 3 have 30-some different districts attempting to implement 4 the ATCM over the next few years and, unfortunately, in 5 30-some different manners. 6 I support the action that the staff is presenting 7 to you today. But I do have to caution that it falls 8 short in two ways, first of which: 9 The product's limitations in the unavailability 10 of the product does not extend only to the agricultural 11 engine market. It stretches over to the stationary 12 emergency engine market. 13 Second, the product limitation is not applicable 14 only to engines rated below 100 horsepower, but does 15 indeed extend up to 175 horsepower. 16 Mr. Simpson talked with you a little bit this 17 morning about 82 percent nonavailability and 70 percent 18 nonavailability. The strongest tool that the districts 19 have in making a compliance determination in permitting 20 today for a stationary emergency engine or other low-use 21 diesel engine is indeed the CARB non-road certification. 22 The non-road program has evolved into BACT for 23 stationary engines across many districts in the state and 24 it serves as a foundation for the ATCM for stationary 25 engines. So it only makes sense that the local districts PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 would use this as their primary tool in issuing permits. 2 But when I looked at Charlie's information, I 3 actually saw that perhaps Charlie was being a little bit 4 too generous in his assessment specifically. Several of 5 the families that are certified at .15 grams or lower are 6 high speed engines. They're certified with model ratings 7 at 2,000 to 2500 horsepower -- or, excuse me -- RPM, not 8 the 1800 RPM ratings that are used in generators. 9 Also, some of the families are certified specific 10 to non-pump and non-generator applications: Mobile 11 applications, backhoes forklifts and the like. And those 12 engines are not necessarily being packaged in with 13 generator or pump packages by OEM. 14 And, finally, some of the families of engines 15 that are certified to .15 gram or lower are in fact 16 families of one, meaning that they contain only a single 17 engine model and a single engine rating. 18 Taking a further look at some of the data that 19 Charlie was looking at, I saw that in the 100 to 175 20 horsepower range of engines, only two families were 21 certified, taking advantage of the generator certification 22 program and certified specifically for generator purposes. 23 Both of those families were families of one engine. 24 Now, in all fairness, there are other 25 certification groupings, more general industrial engines. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 But even at that, I saw only four families in the 100 to 2 175 power range that were certified to .15 gram or lower. 3 Combined these statistics indicate to me that 4 Charlie's assessment is perhaps too generous. 5 CARB -- in discussing this with us over the past 6 few weeks, some people in CARB have come up with what they 7 saw as a viable alternative. And it recognizes the 8 reality that CARB certification might be more conservative 9 than the true emissions for a specific rating that's 10 contained in that certification family. And CARB 11 suggested that there are other ways that we could deal 12 with engine-specific data from the manufacturer, from 13 field tests or anything like that to assist us and to 14 assist the local districts in permitting. 15 However, I don't see this as a tool for us or a 16 solution to the problem. Again, the districts see the 17 certification, the executive order, as their primary tool 18 in making a compliance determination or making a 19 permitting decision. 20 The non-road engine program is ten years old, at 21 least. But the reality is that the local district 22 engineers don't truly understand how non-road 23 certification data is obtained. They don't have the 24 wherewithal to assess its accuracy or its validity 25 relative to the accuracy or validity of what it comes PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 from, me or a manufacturer. What they do know is that 2 that certification is CARB-sealed approval. To them it's 3 gospel truth. And they have absolutely no reason to 4 consider anything that I give to them that might appear to 5 be in conflict with certified emissions data. 6 We do that today. And every time we do it I just 7 shudder because I know that I'm up for a debate. I know 8 my credibility is going to be questioned because I'm 9 giving them data that appears to be in conflict with 10 CARB's data. 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Let me just share 12 with you, however, your time is finished. 13 MR. LANY: Thank you. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 15 And we appreciate your comments. 16 Staff, I don't know if you have any comments to 17 the last speaker. 18 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: This 19 is Dan Donohoue. 20 With respect to the issue about the information 21 that would go into determining whether an engine meets the 22 requirements of the ATCM or not, we have stepped forward 23 and, particularly in helping with the Moyer applications, 24 taking engine -- taking engine manufacturer data and going 25 through the actual cert information and making those PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 determinations, listing those engines that we have 2 determined to comply with the requirement. We will 3 continue to do that. We will begin posting those on the 4 website as far as engines that we feel based on our review 5 meet the requirements. It does require participation on 6 the engine manufacturers side to actually supply the 7 mobile date to us. That does usually take some time to 8 get that. But we've been working with them on the engines 9 that they believe the testing should certify and we will 10 continue to do that. 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 12 Mr. Pallesi and finally Cynthia Cory. And then, 13 Mr. Pallesi, you're followed by Mr. -- and I'm just 14 terribly sorry, I think I've probably misstated his 15 name -- Joe Suchecki. 16 Mr. Pallesi: 17 MR. PALLESI: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, 18 staff, and the Board. My name is Sam Pallesi, and I'm in 19 sales at Fresno Equipment Company, what is a John Deere 20 dealer in Fresno, California, which is in Fresno County. 21 And the proposal that I'd like to make today is 22 that we have to -- give us some time, like a year or a 23 year and a half, as what one of the other dealers said. 24 What is happening, is my perspective, is selling 25 an engine does not walk in like a loaf of bread and you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 buy it. Some of these customers that we have sold engines 2 to, we've worked on them for maybe six months, a year, 3 sometimes a year and a half. When the time comes to 4 purchase, they -- then we have the engine for them. But 5 this is just -- it takes a lot of work and a lot of time 6 to sell these engines. 7 Then comes along -- we have engines now in stock 8 that we have purchased to sell and now, with the new 9 regulations, we can't sell that engine. So what's going 10 to happen is it's going to create a hardship on the 11 dealership. It's also going to create a hardship on our 12 sales staff, me personally, and also the economy of Fresno 13 County. And probably -- there's a lot of engines up and 14 down the state that dealers have that are not -- will not 15 comply. So we need the extension. And I would like to 16 ask you for that extension. 17 So thank you for your time. 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you for your 19 time. Appreciate it, the fact that you've come. 20 Let me move on. Now, help me to pronounce your 21 name. 22 MR. SUCHECKI: Good morning. 23 It's Suchecki. A good Irish name for St. 24 Patrick's Day. 25 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Of course. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 MR. SUCHECKI: I'm Joe Suchecki and I'm Director 2 of Public Affairs for Engine Manufacturers Association. 3 And we represent manufacturers of these engines in the 4 stationary market. 5 And I want to first say that we certainly support 6 the need for regulatory relief from the current ATCM 7 requirements. Specifically, we believe that the change in 8 the PM standard is warranted not only for the 50 to 100 9 horsepower agricultural engines, but also for all engines 10 in the 50 to 170 horsepower range. 11 And while EMA, as you know, at least it disagree 12 with the staff of the Air Resources Board, actually this 13 is not a new issue. It's not something that's just come 14 up. EMA commented on this during our comments to the 15 staff and to the Board that the .15 standard was not 16 achievable, and addressed this issue of that there simply 17 will not be engines available if this were to go into 18 effect. 19 So from our standpoint of view this is not a new 20 issue, that we did address it in our comments. In fact, I 21 happen to have a letter here from us dated April 11th, 22 2003, is when we first brought up this issue. So I wanted 23 to correct that statement. 24 The reality of the situation is that as a 25 consequence of the current ATCM standard, the California PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 marketplace has lost many of the best engine options that 2 are needed for agricultural and emergency generators. 3 Suitable engines are not now available to those who need 4 agricultural engines or emergency generators of this size 5 range. And the painful result is that engine users are 6 left with no options, causing operational and financial 7 disruptions for all participants. 8 As I said, staff's recommendation is a good 9 start, but it needs to go further and it should be 10 extended to all the -- to the 175 horsepower engines as 11 well. 12 And just to clarify a couple things, and as other 13 folks might have mentioned. But, you know, just because 14 we have some engines that meet the .15 standard does not 15 mean that the problem is at all solved. Engines must meet 16 use specifications and the performance requirements of the 17 application. The same engine that is suitable for use in 18 a small portable generator cannot be used to pump 19 irrigation water. 20 So the very limited number of engines available 21 that can meet the .15 standards does not assure that 22 engines are suitable for use in other applications. 23 In fact, several manufacturers have indicated 24 that the engine models most suitable for agricultural use 25 simply do not meet the current standards. So, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 consequently, partial relief is really no relief at all. 2 And, secondly, as was mentioned, the engines that 3 may meet this .15 standard are below the standard, as 4 you've heard, which is either .22 or .30. But those 5 engines are certified to meet those standards. And it's 6 really just the individual test data from the engines that 7 meet the .15. So, consequently, from the engine 8 manufacturer's standpoint, there's no guarantee that these 9 engines will meet that .15 level. And local air 10 districts, as you've heard, might not approve an engine 11 since it's at a different certification level. 12 And, finally, those PM emissions that are at that 13 .15 level might not be available in the future. The Tier 14 3 standards for these engines and the -- will go into 15 effect shortly. And those new Tier 3 requirements only 16 address NOx standards. So the NOx emissions will have to 17 be reduced, but the PM standards remain the same. And 18 unfortunately there is a relationship between NOx and PM. 19 So that as manufacturers reduce NOx emissions to meet 20 those new Tier 3 standards, it is very likely that the PM 21 emissions levels are going to go up. So if you have a .15 22 engine now, when we have to meet the new NOx levels that 23 engine might be available to meet that as well. 24 So the bottom line is that while some engines 25 that could meet the .15 level are available, they're not PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 suitable for all applications and could not necessarily be 2 used to fill the product void created by the ATCM. And 3 the solution is to harmonize the ATCM's PM emission 4 standards for the 50 to 174 horsepower range with the 5 non-road requirements. This is logical and make sense, 6 especially since this is exactly what you did for all the 7 other power ranges when the ATCM was adopted. 8 Making this change immediately would relieve the 9 availability problem. And, importantly, since we're 10 talking about seldomly used emergency engines and very 11 small differences in emission rates, providing relief will 12 not affect air quality. 13 So, finally -- I mean we support the efforts to 14 provide relief. And we just believe that it's very futile 15 for you at this time to make emergency determinations 16 regarding all engines, both agricultural and emergency, in 17 the 50 to 170 horsepower range. 18 Thank you. 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. Thank 20 you very much for your testimony. 21 Staff, do you want to respond? 22 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: Dan 23 Donohoue. 24 I did want to make a comment with respect to the 25 availability of engines outside of the ag pump PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 application. And particularly the last two speakers have 2 raised issues with respect to the availability of 3 emergency standby or backup generator engines. It's our 4 position, based upon the review of the data that's 5 available through certification and the dealings that 6 we've had so far with various people who have been 7 installing those type of engines, that there is sufficient 8 availability across the entire horsepower range for 9 engines that are for the emergency -- stationary emergency 10 standby or backup generator applications. 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. Thank you 12 very much. Thank you. 13 Cynthia Cory. 14 And, Cynthia, I'm pleased that you're going to be 15 the last speaker, because you truly represent those people 16 who are most affected in terms of this issue. So if you 17 could give us some of those adverse impacts that your 18 membership is feeling at this time. 19 MS. CORY: Chairman Riordan, staff, and members 20 of the Board. Thank you very much for the opportunity to 21 be here today. Just going to make a few quick comments. 22 And I think most of my points have been made by the Engine 23 Manufacturers and Manual Cunha, who does -- Production 24 Agriculture. 25 I want to be really clear that Production PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 Agriculture supports the concept of, you know, putting new 2 engine standards on engines. And that when we go out and 3 buy them, then we are complying with the regulations, 4 we're supplying cleaner air, because absolutely that's the 5 easiest way for us to do it. 6 You know, having to put after-market devices on, 7 record keeping, all that, that's not our gig. But, you 8 know, going out and buying a clean new engine is something 9 that we fully support. 10 But I think in this instance, "build it and they 11 will come" didn't exactly pan out. And I appreciate that 12 you're going back to look at this and address it. 13 We fully support the -- what I see as staff 14 recommendation for the 50 to 100 range. We think that's 15 important. But I would, as has been said here before, 16 encourage you to look at the 101 to 175 range also. I am 17 not an engine expert. You know, I get information from my 18 farmers, try to represent them. It's my understanding 19 that even if you only have one engine type in that 20 category, you can't necessarily just go -- you know, trade 21 and put it on your other pump head. 22 So I encourage you to possibly -- I've got a 23 couple ideas. Since we're going to emergency regs and 24 you're going to all this trouble, which we very much 25 appreciate, and it's for 120 days, and we're not PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 absolutely clear what the situation is out there, what 2 concerns me is we're approaching planting season. And I 3 don't care if it's one farmer that's got 600 acres of 4 grapes or if it's two farmers that have 50 acres of 5 organic vegetables, I think it's important. 6 If they need an engine that's in the 100 to 175 7 range, then we're not going to be able to take care of 8 their issue. So I would ask that you include that range 9 in your emergency regulation today. That gives you the 10 opportunity to come back in May for further information. 11 If you want to not go further beyond May, then that 12 decision could be made. But we'll have clear information. 13 If that is not comfortable, possibly consider 14 that you would talk about doing it on a case-by-case basis 15 and somehow articulate in your regulation that if someone 16 needs 100 to 175 range and he cannot do it, this would be 17 an accommodation or review of that to make sure that that 18 engine is not available. 19 I took to heart the gentleman's point that we 20 need to make on the public health issue. A couple things. 21 It was mentioned the number of engines that have been 22 cleaned under the Carl Moyer program. I think it was 23 2,200. The number's actually 3,117 engines in San Joaquin 24 have been retrofitted pump engines. And actually 584 farm 25 implements. So I mean that's just important to know that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 we are very much interested in upgrading our engines, 2 especially when we're able to use Carl Moyer money. And 3 so the engines out there might not be as dirty even if 4 we'd have to take a little relaxation here for a short 5 period of time. 6 Secondly, on the public health issue, I want to 7 emphasize that it has been suggested that if you need a 8 175 horsepower engine -- and there are definitely engines 9 available above 175 -- go out and buy a 250 horsepower 10 engine. Well, to me that's a little bit counterintuitive, 11 because, for one thing, I don't care how clean these 12 engines are. A bigger engine is going to put out more 13 emissions. And, secondly, there's going be a financial 14 impact to that grower for the more fuel that they'll have 15 to use. So I don't see that as a solution at all. 16 So I hope you would consider either of these two 17 suggestions. 18 Thanks for your time. 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 20 We appreciate your comments and input. 21 Ms. Witherspoon, are there further comments from 22 staff at this time? 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Actually I would 24 like to ask our General Counsel to respond to the two 25 suggestions Ms. Cory just made about a temporary emergency PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 exemption, the second category. Failing that, I assume 2 that the Executive Officer has discretion to grant 3 case-by-case exemptions. 4 Tom, could you speak to whether sufficient basis 5 exists to do either of those things. 6 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Well, I think 7 that that's ultimately the decision that the Board members 8 are going to have to make. That's why you're on the 9 Board, to make those questions. If you feel that there is 10 adequate evidence that there are -- that there's 11 insufficient availability of ag engines in the 100 to 175 12 category and that that has severe economic hardships on 13 members of the public and the farming community, you could 14 make that determination. 15 We don't have a mechanism right now for making 16 exceptions on a case-by-case basis. But if you feel that 17 that would be appropriate, it's possible we could trying 18 to put together something for -- 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: For the Executive 20 Officer to do? 21 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Yes. 22 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. Thank you, 23 Mr. Jennings. 24 Board members, questions or comments? 25 Yes, Supervisor Roberts. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Yeah. Just going through 2 this process, I'm wondering if there's any lesson that we 3 could learn here. 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The one that's 5 very clear to me is there should have been a longer 6 sell-through period. But the thing we're also finding is 7 that even a longer sell-through wouldn't resolve it in the 8 small engines if there's never going to be the standard 9 we're looking for in enough numbers. So it needs to be a 10 permanent exemption probably in a low category until many 11 more years go by. That's what I'm learning from it. 12 And every diesel rule we've had has been one of a 13 kind. And we're trying to regulate every diesel engine 14 there is in California. And so I would say we learned 15 something on each and every rule making and we have to 16 regroup constantly as we go into the next one to apply our 17 lessons. 18 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Yeah, I guess I'm 19 wondering why we didn't discover some of this as we went 20 through it the first time. 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, as I 22 mentioned earlier, there was availability and there is 23 availability for most of the engines that are subject to 24 the regulation. And it's in the small category ag pumps 25 where we didn't pick up the constricted supply. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 And also we were so focused on the difference 2 between requiring traps versus the best engine combustion 3 design and exempting ag from the trap requirement, that we 4 didn't go all away through the rest of it for what all the 5 engines appear in time. 6 And the ag industry supported the rule when it 7 was before the Board. The engine manufacturers supported 8 the rule. I don't know quite what to make of the 9 testimony, "We told you there would be a supply problem." 10 Because by the time we were in rule making, we seemed to 11 have a winner. 12 And it was just in the months before going in -- 13 one feature we didn't pick up is that there were advanced 14 purchases going on of engines in the valley because of the 15 availability of Carl Moyer funding and the adoption of 16 selling more engines than one ordinarily would. And we're 17 also trying to get a -- early about our standards, you 18 know, "Please anticipate the standards are coming. You're 19 not going to be able to sell after a certain date." But 20 we had confounding signals going on here where money was 21 available and so people were putting more engines in stock 22 than they would have, which is why we should have had a 23 longer sell-through. But you need to see that. It was 24 just below the surface. 25 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 I just have one additional comment, since I was 2 very much involved in the three-year process that we went 3 through of developing the initial stationary ATCM. And I 4 think one of the things that's important, and kind of what 5 Abraham Lincoln said back in 1863, that there's no way to 6 develop a law that anticipates every situation and event 7 that will come up as you go through the process. And I 8 think that's what's happened here. 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Supervisor Roberts. 10 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Well, I -- made sense, and 11 I appreciate Abraham Lincoln. But I think we ought to 12 also learn from these things when they happen. Okay? 13 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: I 14 agree. 15 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: We tout our successes. 16 And we ought to learn from the things that are less than 17 that. 18 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 19 And that's exactly why we're here. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Supervisor Patrick. 21 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Thank you. 22 I believe that Mr. Jennings clarified that we do 23 have the ability today to include the 101 to 175 24 horsepower engine today in the emergency. 25 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNINGS: That's correct. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 I'm making the appropriate findings you could do that. 2 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Great. I think that 3 that's the direction that we need to go in. 4 And so my question is: If you're going to come 5 back in May with that and at that time you're going to -- 6 in the meantime you're going to develop a rule making 7 or -- does the rule making just -- if we do not approve 8 the 101 to 175, then we do accelerated rule making which 9 comes back us in May. I'm having -- and what does this 10 two-month window do for folks? I'm a little unclear. 11 Maybe you could help me with that. 12 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Well, first, as 13 Mr. Scheible indicated, the staff is planning on doing 14 further evaluation at the 100 to 175 category. And if the 15 staff believes that there should be an exception made for 16 them as well, that the expedited rule making that we bring 17 you in May could include that. And since we would be 18 following the full APA procedures, as soon as that was 19 completed within the 120-day period following the 20 emergency regulation going into effect, that the 100 to 21 175 provisions could go into effect quite quickly. 22 It would not, however, unless you acted today, be 23 covered by the proposed action during the period between 24 now and that 120 -- during that 120-day period -- excuse 25 me -- unless you act on it today. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: But Supervisor or 2 Patrick, let me -- there was a two parter in your 3 question. We have to do a follow-up rule making no matter 4 what, because it's what makes the small engine exemption 5 permanent. And if you expand it to the 100 to 175, you're 6 asking would we add that and make it permanent? 7 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Yes. 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: And given that -- 9 from the Board, we certainly would lean in that direction. 10 But we would do due diligence on it. And if staff felt 11 there was a problem or that maybe you shouldn't be quite 12 so sweeping, we would tell you that in May and give you 13 what we think the regulation should say in May for both of 14 these size ranges and also whether it's just ag pumps or 15 it's ag pumps plus emergency engines, because you heard 16 conflicting testimony about that. So we'll refine it for 17 you. Because we'll certainly take your direction as a 18 signal that that's where the Board thinks we should end 19 up. 20 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: And that's something that 21 I think we need to clarify. Because when you were talking 22 about the backup generators, there was a lot of, you know, 23 head nodding and making of faces back there and so forth. 24 So I would feel -- not many other people. 25 (Laughter.) PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: -- I would feel more 2 comfortable if we would have you at least reference that 3 in what you're bringing back in May. 4 And it seems to me that we need to go with the 50 5 to 100 and then the 101 to 175 as emergency action today 6 and then bring both back for May. 7 That's a motion. 8 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Second. 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: There's a motion and 10 a second. 11 And, Ms. Pineda, did you want to ask a question 12 or -- 13 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: I would just only comment 14 that I very much support this direction. And I guess I 15 would like to have a more solid grasp of the facts at that 16 time. And I understand that there appears to be a 17 conflict. And I think that we need the reassurance that 18 we really do have a good set of facts before us. 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: And I'm sure staff 20 and the stakeholders will provide that for us. 21 Yes, Mrs. Berg. 22 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I just wanted to add that I'm 23 in favor of erring in favor of the farmers for the midsize 24 horsepower. But I do want staff to come back with the 25 recommendation based on the facts and with the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 stakeholders on how we should move forward. I'm not 2 voting for sending a direction saying that this is where I 3 feel that the mid-range should be. I don't know. 4 And, secondly, I would like clarification too by 5 May on the issue of the non-road conflict. And if we are 6 sending out conflictual information, how do people comply, 7 just so that they are able to do the right thing? Because 8 I do get the sense from the community that they want to do 9 the right thing, and so I'd like to be able to make sure 10 that we provide that information. 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. There's a 12 motion on the floor and a second. 13 Any further discussion? 14 All those in favor signify by saying aye. 15 (Ayes.) 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Opposed, no. 17 Motion carries. 18 Oh, I don't believe there's any ex partes. 19 Is there, Mr. Jennings, this morning? Or 20 anybody. 21 Excuse me. There is. 22 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNINGS: I think it would 23 be appropriate. 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Yes. If I would 25 also read my agenda, I would note this. And I apologize PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 to the Board members. And it's a little out of order, but 2 important. 3 And, Ms. D'Adamo, do you have one? 4 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Yes, I do. I spoke with 5 Manual Cunha with the State Farmers League yesterday, 6 March 16th, regarding the issues that he raised today. 7 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Are there any others 8 on the right-hand side? 9 Left? 10 Supervisor Patrick. 11 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Thank you. 12 Yes, I also spoke to Mr. Cunha yesterday about 13 this issue. And his comments mirrored what he has 14 testified today. 15 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. So this would 16 essentially -- what the -- 17 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Chairwoman? 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Yes. 19 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Let me raise one 20 thing. We did prepare a resolution, Resolution 05-29. Is 21 it my understanding -- 22 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: We've amended it. 23 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Is it my 24 understanding that you voted to adopt that with the 25 modifications of adding the 100 to 175? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Yes, that was my motion. 2 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Thank you. 3 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Mr. Jennings, thank 4 you very much. We've amended that motion -- or that 5 inclusion without him saying it -- for resolution. 6 Let me indicate to the Board that I think it 7 would be wise for our court reporter and for staff to take 8 a ten-minute break. So we'll reconvene about 11:23. 9 I do want to thank all of those persons that came 10 today to testify on this particular item. I appreciate 11 your comments and I thank you for taking that time. It's 12 very helpful to the Board. And obviously we made some 13 accommodations here. And hopefully in may we will have 14 very clear information, but continue to want your input. 15 Thank you very much. 16 (Thereupon a recess was taken.) 17 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: We'll call the 18 meeting back to order. I have interest in moving us 19 along. 20 Mayor Loveridge has an announcement that he would 21 like to make. I think we'll take it while people are sort 22 of finding their seats. 23 Mayor Loveridge. 24 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Well, this is really a 25 memorandum from Barry Wallerstein to Catherine PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 Witherspoon. But it's I think an important memorandum and 2 it is an historic agreement that's been reached a 3 decision. And this is -- it's titled "BP litigation 4 settlement". And this is the -- this has to do with the 5 records. 6 So I'm pleased to announce that the final 7 settlement is reached in the BP litigation approved by 8 Judge West. The terms of the agreement are as follows: 9 $25 million in civil penalties; 6 million in back emission 10 fees; 20 million in refinery emission reduction projects 11 not otherwise required by law; and 30 million in community 12 benefit programs, like asthma vans or clinics or 13 beneficial air pollution reduction projects, at $3 million 14 dollars per year for 10 years. 15 In addition, BP will invest approximately 25 16 million to replace the water system that caused H2S 17 releases affecting local schools as part of an earlier 18 agreement reached during the litigation. 19 In total our cause of action will result in over 20 $100 million in penalties, fees and facility improvements 21 to the public benefit programs. 22 An editorial comment: This truly landmark 23 settlement could not have happened without a governing 24 board's unwavering limited justice and deterrent to future 25 violations by companies of any size. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 We think this is an historic settlement, the 2 number. And I thought I would like to share it with the 3 members of the Air Resources Board. 4 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Mayor 5 Loveridge. We appreciate that. And afterwards people may 6 want to ask you for more information. 7 But while we are on our timetable, let us move 8 forward to our last agenda item for today, which is Item 9 No. 05-3-3, which is an informational report to the State 10 Legislature on indoor air pollution. 11 In January, the Board heard about high ozone 12 levels generated by some types of indoor air cleaners. 13 Today we are going to hear much more about other pollutant 14 sources that affect indoor air quality. 15 Staff is also going to speak about the health 16 impacts of these pollutants and the costs of indoor air 17 pollution. 18 And, finally, we'll hear staff's suggestions for 19 preventing and reducing indoor air pollution. 20 This is a report that's now going to move onto 21 the legislative body. But we have the obligation to hear 22 from our staff what is included. 23 Ms. Witherspoon, would you like to introduce this 24 item. 25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Madam PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 Chair. 2 The report before you today is a comprehensive 3 look at indoor air pollution and summarizes all the 4 research done to date. It has undergone extensive public 5 review and also went before a scientific review panel 6 comprised of University of California scientists. 7 Dorothy Shimer from the Research Division Indoor 8 Air Quality Group was the project lead and will make the 9 staff presentation. 10 Ms. Shimer. 11 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 12 Presented as follows.) 13 MS. SHIMER: Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon. And 14 good morning, Madam Chairman and members of the Board. 15 Today we are presenting the highlights of a 16 comprehensive report on indoor air quality developed in 17 response to Assembly Bill 1173 authored by Assemblyman 18 Keeley in 2002. 19 As was stated, the report has had extensive 20 public review and was also reviewed by a scientific peer 21 review committee and by several other state agencies. And 22 we will discuss those reviews near the end of the 23 presentation. 24 --o0o-- 25 MS. SHIMER: The key conclusions of our report PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 are shown here. There are many indoor sources of both 2 criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. 3 Consequently, indoor sources cause significant health 4 effects and have substantial economic consequences. 5 There are a variety of ways to address indoor 6 pollution. Some solutions to indoor air quality problems 7 are relatively easy to implement. However, for some 8 problems there is little or no authority within either a 9 state or federal government to address the problem on a 10 comprehensive basis. 11 --o0o-- 12 MS. SHIMER: Some of the more important 13 categories of indoor sources are highlighted here: 14 Ozone generating air cleaners are important 15 sources that we discussed in January. 16 Biological contaminants such as mold, pollen, 17 house dust mites and other allergens and asthma triggers 18 are sometimes found in greater abundance in some indoor 19 environments. 20 Building materials and furnishings are important 21 sources, because in materials such as plywood and particle 22 board often are gas formaldehyde and other chemicals for 23 several years. 24 Combustion appliances that are unvented, such as 25 most gas stoves, emit carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 directly into the living space. Fireplaces and wood 2 stoves can be a major source of particles. 3 Tobacco smoke from cigarettes and cigars has a 4 major well documented impact on indoor air quality. 5 Uranium-containing soil and rock are the source 6 of radon gas, which seeps into buildings through cracks 7 and openings. 8 Treated municipal water chlorinated to keep it 9 sanitary can result in exposure to chloroform, especially 10 during showers, dish washing and clothes washing. 11 Agricultural coatings and consumer -- 12 architectural coatings and consumer products can be a 13 source of certain harmful volatile organic chemicals, or 14 VOC's. 15 Office equipment such as laser printers and 16 copiers have been shown to emit VOC's, fine particles and 17 ozone. 18 And, finally, pesticides are used frequently in 19 homes. Recent studies indicate that pesticides may be 20 more persistent indoors due to the lack of weathering. 21 --o0o-- 22 MS. SHIMER: Indoor exposures are a major 23 determinant of people's total exposure and risk for 24 several reasons. 25 Californians, like others from industrialized PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 nations, spend most of their time indoors. As the pie 2 chart on the right shows, we spend an average of 87 3 percent of our time indoors across a 24-hour day. 4 Additionally, buildings partially trap pollutants 5 emitted from indoor sources. This leads to an extended 6 time that the pollutants are present indoors and, thus, a 7 longer possible duration of exposure. 8 People's personal activities such as cooking or 9 the use of aerosols puts them in very close proximity to 10 indoor sources and the pollutants they emit, further 11 increasing the likelihood of inhaling pollutants emitted 12 indoors. 13 Because of these factors, several investigators 14 have calculated the rule of 1,000, which generally states 15 that a molecule of pollutant emitted indoors is about a 16 thousand times more likely to be inhaled than a molecule 17 of the same pollutant emitted outdoors by outdoor sources. 18 --o0o-- 19 MS. SHIMER: The scientific studies indicate that 20 indoor air pollution poses significant health risks in 21 many environments. Studies have repeatedly measured some 22 indoor pollutants at levels above benchmarks established 23 to protect health. Indoor pollutants can exacerbate 24 asthma and allergies, cause cancer, contribute to 25 premature death, increase respiratory and heart disease PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 and produce serious irritant effects. 2 --o0o-- 3 MS. SHIMER: Asthma is a major public health 4 concern, and indoor air contains a large number of 5 substances that can trigger asthma attacks. The Institute 6 of Medicine within the National Academy of Sciences 7 released a report on the link between indoor air quality 8 and asthma. The report confirmed the association of 9 traditionally known indoor triggers, such as mold, pollen 10 animal dander and house dust mites, with the exacerbation 11 of asthma. 12 More importantly, the Institute found sufficient 13 evidence for exacerbation of asthma by ETS for 14 preschoolers and by high levels of indoor nitrogen 15 dioxide. The Institute also found limited evidence that 16 formaldehyde, fragrances and ETS in other age groups also 17 exacerbate asthma. 18 Studies published since the Institute's report 19 have found further associations of asthma with 20 formaldehyde, other VOC's and work place cleaning 21 products, although the findings of these studies are 22 largely preliminary. 23 --o0o-- 24 MS. SHIMER: A substantial number of common 25 indoor pollutants have been classified as carcinogens. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 This figure shows the estimated cancer burden from indoor 2 and outdoor air toxics per year in California on a Year 3 2000 basis. 4 OEHHA's current cancer estimates for 5 environmental tobacco smoke shown in the first bar are 6 comparable to the total cancer burden from outdoor toxics 7 shown in the last bar. The middle bar shows that indoor 8 sources are estimated to cause 230 excess cancer cases per 9 year from selected toxics, including aldehydes, 10 chlorinated solvents, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and 11 others. This estimate is comparable to the total cancer 12 burden estimated for diesel exhaust particles. 13 The greatest contributor to the indoor estimate 14 is formaldehyde, estimated to cause about 62 excess cancer 15 cases per year. 16 Radon is not included in this graph. The 17 Department of Health Services has developed a preliminary 18 estimate extrapolated from national data that shows that 19 radon hay contribute to about 1500 excess lung cancer 20 deaths per year in California. However, we do not believe 21 the risks from radon should be pooled with other air 22 pollutants. As noted by the National Research Council, 23 the risks from radon cannot be fully separated from the 24 risks associated with exposure to tobacco smoke. Most 25 cancers induced by radon will be among smokers. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 Additionally, California has very low average 2 radon levels, and the potency of radon at low levels is 3 not known. 4 --o0o-- 5 MS. SHIMER: Indoor pollutants also cause 6 premature death and increased disease other than that from 7 asthma and cancer. 8 Indoor sources of PM are a major health concern. 9 Outdoor PM has been associated with thousands of premature 10 deaths and illnesses from lung and heart disease. Studies 11 of the impact of indoor generated PM have not yet been 12 conducted. However, indoor PM has many similarities to 13 outdoor PM. And indoor PM emissions are likely to 14 contribute to similar adverse health impacts. 15 Death from carbon monoxide are well documented. 16 About two-thirds of the accidental deaths that occur each 17 year in California due to carbon monoxide poison result 18 from indoor sources such as gas furnaces and stoves and 19 the indoor use of charcoal grills. Hundreds to thousands 20 of hospitalizations and flu-like illnesses are also 21 estimated to occur from CO poisoning. 22 Nitrogen dioxide and ozone from indoor sources 23 can cause lung damage and respiratory damage just as they 24 do outdoors. 25 Communicable diseases such as tuberculosis and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 legionnaires disease are readily transmitted in the indoor 2 environment. 3 Many indoor pollutants cause serious eye, nose, 4 throat and respiratory tract irritation. Formaldehyde is 5 the most come irritant. And indoor formaldehyde 6 concentrations nearly always exceed guideline levels for 7 preventing irritant effects as well as the Proposition 65 8 one-in-a-hundred-thousand cancer risk level. 9 Sick buildings syndrome typically refers to new 10 or remodeled buildings in which a large number of building 11 occupants experience irritant effects, congestion, 12 headaches, fatigue or other symptoms with no obvious 13 cause. The symptoms improve when the people are away from 14 the building. Sick building episodes have been well 15 documented, can affect a large number of workers and have 16 resulted in high costs to some businesses. 17 --o0o-- 18 MS. SHIMER: These health effects can have large 19 economic consequences. The pie chart in this slide 20 summarizes the costs of indoor pollution in California 21 estimated to total $45 billion per year adjusted to a Year 22 2000 basis. 23 The major portion of this estimate is the cost of 24 premature deaths, estimated at $36 billion per year. The 25 bar chart on the right side of the slide shows the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 contribution of each pollutant type to the premature death 2 total. Heart disease deaths from ETS exposure and lung 3 cancer deaths from ETS and radon contribute the lion's 4 share. 5 Other costs are from carbon monoxide poisoning, 6 cancer from certain toxic air contaminants and premature 7 death from mold and moisture-related asthma and other 8 illnesses. 9 Returning to the pie chart, worker productivity 10 losses due to sick building syndrome in offices and school 11 buildings are estimated to cost at least $8.5 billion per 12 year. 13 Finally, total medical costs are estimated at 14 $600 million per year. Medical costs include a direct 15 cost such as hospitalization, medication and doctor 16 visits. 17 These cost estimates are likely to underestimate 18 the full cost of indoor air pollution in California, 19 because the necessary quantitative data are not available 20 for all known impacts or costs. For example, other 21 pollutants such as indoor PM, lead, pesticide, and 22 airborne infectious diseases are not included in the 23 estimates. 24 In addition, data for some of the indirect costs 25 are not available, the costs of pain and suffering are not PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 included. 2 --o0o-- 3 MS. SHIMER: The health impacts and costs we have 4 discussed can be avoided through the methods shown on this 5 slide. 6 Source control is the most reliable approach to 7 assuring good indoor air quality. Source control includes 8 using alternative products with lower emissions, removing 9 sources and modifying sources at the manufacturing level 10 through reformulation or engineering approaches. 11 Ventilation is essential for assuring good indoor 12 air quality and comfort even if the major pollutant 13 sources have been reduced. Most commercial buildings have 14 mechanical ventilation systems that filter and condition 15 the air. Homes usually rely on natural ventilation 16 through windows and doors, but it's not always sufficient. 17 The proper operation and maintenance of buildings 18 is critical to maintain healthy air quality. 19 Professional training and public education 20 programs are useful tools that can lead to better choices 21 that minimize adverse health impacts. 22 Air cleaning devices include both central air 23 systems and portable devices. They're effective in some 24 situations. But portable devices generally have only 25 limited effectiveness in removing pollutants, especially PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 gases. 2 --o0o-- 3 MS. SHIMER: Although several agencies are 4 involved in activities affecting indoor air quality, the 5 authority for most is limited and actions are 6 uncoordinated. 7 CalOSHA's workplace standards and regulations 8 apply to nearly all work places in the state and include 9 personal exposure limits for air contaminants and 10 regulations for ventilation, mold and moisture. The 11 personal exposure limits are designed to protect only 12 healthy adults during an eight-hour exposure period. 13 The California Energy Commission sets design 14 standards for minimum levels of ventilation in new 15 buildings and -- new offices and public buildings and sets 16 energy efficiency standards for residences, which has 17 reduced the outdoor air exchange in new homes. 18 AB 13, passed in 1995, has essentially eliminated 19 smoking in virtually all indoor work places in California, 20 with just a few exceptions. 21 The Federal Consumer Products Safety Commission 22 is the only agency with authority to regulate indoor 23 products for their impact on health and safety. However, 24 the CPSC has regulated only a few indoor products, focuses 25 on safety more than health, and relies heavily on labeling PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 requirements. ARB regulates consumer products for the 2 purpose of reducing smog in California. There is a 3 noticeable gap. 4 Source emission limits and other source-related 5 measures for most types of indoor sources are lacking. 6 And, finally, voluntarily guidelines have been 7 developed by a number of government agencies and other 8 organizations that address many aspects of indoor air 9 quality. Industry groups such as the Carpet and Rug 10 Institute and the Composite Panel Association have 11 developed various emission testing and labeling programs 12 for their products. 13 --o0o-- 14 MS. SHIMER: In preparing this report the 15 legislation directed that we prioritize pollutants for 16 control strategies. Because sources typically emit 17 multiple pollutants and because mitigation actions are 18 best implemented by source, we prioritized by source 19 categories. This slide shows, in alphabetical order, the 20 six source categories that we believe are a high priority 21 for mitigation. 22 Air cleaners are a high priority because those 23 that intentionally generate ozone can contribute to indoor 24 ozone levels greater than Stage 1 smog alert levels and 25 safe alternatives are available. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 Biological contaminants are listed here because 2 of their ubiquitous presence and their widespread health 3 effects. 4 Building materials and furnishings are a high 5 priority for mitigation because they often emit multiple 6 toxic air pollutants, especially when new, and have a high 7 loading level in indoor environments, resulting in high 8 exposures for occupants. Again, low emitting alternatives 9 are available. 10 Combustion appliances, primarily unvented ones, 11 are a concern because they release pollutants directly 12 into the living space and they are used by most of the 13 population. Automatic exhaust fans and direct vent models 14 of gas appliances are two readily available mitigation 15 options. 16 Despite California's great progress in reducing 17 cigarette smoking, environmental tobacco smoke causes 18 thousands of death from heart and respiratory disease each 19 year. Children's exposure remains a special concern in 20 homes and vehicles where smokers are present. 21 Radon is estimated to pose a very high lung 22 cancer risk and, thus, is ranked high priority. However, 23 due to its linkage to smoking and the very low levels 24 measured in most California homes, mitigation is best 25 achieved through increased outreach and education. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 --o0o-- 2 MS. SHIMER: This slide shows the source 3 categories that we ranked as medium priority. These 4 sources have been placed in medium priority primarily 5 because, for all but the household and office equipment 6 category, indoor emissions are partially addressed through 7 existing regulatory programs even though those programs 8 are not explicitly focused on indoor air quality. 9 Further emission reductions are needed to address 10 those products within these categories that are not yet 11 regulated and to explicitly focus on indoor emissions. 12 Household appliances and office equipment are a 13 concern because they can emit multiple pollutants and are 14 used by nearly all households. However, they require 15 additional study to identify emissions from current models 16 of appliances and the best mitigation approach. 17 Finally, pesticides are regulated by the 18 Department of Pesticide Regulation. By their nature they 19 pose a risk when used indoors, especially to children who 20 spend time on the floor and can be exposed through dermal 21 absorption and ingestion as well as through inhalation. 22 Increased public education, especially regarding 23 integrated pest management, is needed. Children are again 24 a top priority here. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 MS. SHIMER: Returning to our highest priority 2 category for a moment. As you requested in January, we 3 have developed a mitigation plan for air cleaners that 4 purposely generate ozone. 5 First, our Legal Office has submitted a request 6 to the Attorney General's office to take action to address 7 ozone generators. 8 Next we will develop public and professional 9 guidance materials and a strong outreach program with a 10 special focus on doctors, building managers, and other 11 professional groups. 12 We also plan to initiate conversation with 13 manufacturers of ozone generators and manufacturers 14 organizations. 15 Additionally, there is a need to develop 16 standardized test protocols to measure ozone emissions 17 from air cleaners. 18 And, finally, ozone emission limits are needed. 19 They would provide the greatest assurance of risk 20 reduction. 21 --o0o-- 22 MS. SHIMER: As required by the legislation, we 23 have developed a list of mitigation options for improving 24 indoor air quality in California. Most notably, a 25 comprehensive management program is needed to assess PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 indoor air problems, identify the best solutions, and 2 develop guidelines, emission limits or other requirements 3 to address those problems. Many agencies have a role to 4 play in improving indoor air quality, but efforts to date 5 have been piecemeal. 6 Emission limits for some sources are needed to 7 assure risk reduction. But unlike ventilation and work 8 place issues, no agency has such authority. Additionally, 9 with or without the development of emission limits, 10 requirements for emission tests of building materials, 11 furnishings, combustion appliances and consumer products 12 would provide information needed for informed choices. 13 Children's health should be a top priority in 14 improving air quality in homes and schools. And I'll 15 comment more on that in the next slide. 16 Indoor air quality guidelines should be developed 17 for homes, schools and other non-industrial buildings to 18 focus on protecting children's health as well as that of 19 other sensitive groups. For some problems, amendments to 20 the building code could address indoor combustion sources 21 and prevent moisture and mold problems. 22 And education, training and outreach programs 23 that focuses on key professionals as well as the public 24 could also go far to address many of the known indoor air 25 quality problems. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 More research is needed in several areas, such as 2 the health impacts of indoor generated particles, indoor 3 chemistry reaction products, and emerging pollutants of 4 concern. Additionally, an innovative clean air technology 5 program to foster the development and commercialization of 6 legitimate cost effective technologies that improve indoor 7 air quality could have a major impact on reducing indoor 8 air pollution while bringing jobs to California. 9 --o0o-- 10 MS. SHIMER: The legislation also requires us to 11 provide mitigation options to address indoor air quality 12 in schools. ARB and the Department of Health Services 13 jointly developed mitigation recommendations specific to 14 California schools as part of the recent report to the 15 Legislature on environmental health conditions in 16 California's portable classrooms. That report includes 16 17 specific recommendations which you have previously 18 reviewed and which are summarized in the four general 19 recommendations shown on the slide. 20 Some steps have been taken to implement a few 21 recommendations in the portable classroom report, but a 22 more focused effort is needed. 23 --o0o-- 24 MS. SHIMER: Several study have documented the 25 economic benefits of improving indoor air quality. In a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 Seattle healthy home program, intervention in low income 2 households with asthmatic children to identify and control 3 indoor asthma triggers reduced asthma medical costs by 4 $1300 to $1800 per child over four years. 5 Several grade schools in California and other 6 states have demonstrated that improving indoor air quality 7 improves student health. For example, one San Francisco 8 school found that after implementing an indoor air quality 9 management plan, student use of asthma inhalers dropped by 10 50 percent. A school in Illinois found that improving 11 ventilation and reducing indoor pollutant sources improved 12 student attendance by 5 percent. 13 In a study of office workers, task performance 14 was significantly improved by removing indoor pollutant 15 sources and increasing ventilation rates. Economic 16 analyses indicate that such improvements would pay for 17 themselves in two years and that the benefits would be 60 18 times greater than the cost of the improvements. 19 These and other studies show that improving 20 indoor air quality can pay for itself in terms of reduced 21 illness, reduced medical costs and improved student 22 performance and worker productivity. 23 --o0o-- 24 MS. SHIMER: To meet the mandate of AB 1173, ARB 25 obtained input from various groups. We held two public PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 workshops and two public comment periods on the draft 2 report prior to the comment period associated with this 3 Board meeting. We received numerous comments from a broad 4 range of interested stakeholders but primarily from 5 various industries. 6 As required under the bill, a scientific review 7 committee reviewed the draft report. 8 We also solicited and received substantial input 9 from a number of state agencies. 10 The current draft report reflects a substantial 11 number of changes that were made in response to the 12 comments we received. 13 --o0o-- 14 MS. SHIMER: This slide highlights the main 15 comments from the public and peer review committee. To 16 address these comments we modified the prioritization 17 tables, but did not undertake a quantitative assessment 18 because we believe that is beyond the scope of the current 19 report. 20 More information was added to the report on 21 biological contaminants and the cost of radon. 22 The scientific peer review committee was 23 generally supportive of the report and agreed that the 24 topic is not well addressed by government at any level. 25 They suggested a tiered approach for addressing indoor air PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 quality so that policies can be pursued now for pollutant 2 issues that are well defined while additional information 3 is gathered on other sources on pollutants. 4 At their suggestion, we expanded the section on 5 methods of mitigation. And there's a section on 6 nonindustrial work place exposures, incorporated some 7 additional references, and made other technical changes 8 suggested. 9 --o0o-- 10 MS. SHIMER: In summary, there are many 11 unmitigated sources of indoor pollutants. Pollutant 12 emissions from indoor sources have significant health 13 impacts that cost Californians a minimum of $45 billion 14 per year. 15 Efforts to reduce indoor pollution are not 16 commensurate with the risk it presents. 17 There are some other options -- there are some 18 options available for reducing indoor pollution that could 19 be readily implemented if resources are available. 20 However, authority is lacking for other areas, and there 21 is no comprehensive program focused on achieving some of 22 the known solutions. 23 Finally, a focus on protecting children's health 24 from indoor pollution should be the highest priority. 25 And this concludes my presentation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 I would like to say that in the last two days we 2 have received ten comments. I think the Board members 3 have those. Would you like me to summarize those or -- 4 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: I think we'll make 5 them part of the record. But we do have them in front of 6 us. 7 Thank you. 8 MS. SHIMER: Okay. Thank you. 9 And we'd be happy to take any questions or 10 comments. 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: And we will be 12 directing those questions to you. 13 First let me say to the staff, I think that was 14 certainly a very good summation of what was a very lengthy 15 complete report. 16 Let me open it first to Board members who might 17 have questions. 18 Yes, Mayor Loveridge. 19 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: If my office has great 20 indoor air or my office has terrible indoor air and my 21 house has great indoor air or my house has terrible indoor 22 air, how do I know? 23 MS. SHIMER: Well, we've received many -- we take 24 many phone calls from the public. And one thing is just 25 "Do you feel bad?" I mean, "Do you have irritation?" PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 That's kind of the beginning. 2 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: That's the kind of -- 3 that's a very soft -- soft method. I mean just -- the 4 question -- how do we know? Are some buildings -- not all 5 buildings are the same. Not all our houses are the same. 6 Maybe some are -- how does one know what the air quality 7 is, whether it's in an office or home or whatever -- 8 school or wherever we want to look? 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, I would say 10 you don't. The irritation's just one signal, a small 11 fraction of what you're exposed to indoors. What we found 12 over the years is that people don't realize, for example, 13 they shouldn't be riding around in cars with fresh 14 dry-cleaning that's off-gassing in the car. And then we 15 bring it to their attention and they realize. I see Ms. 16 Pineda looking nervous. But, you know, it's best to let 17 it air out a bit before being contained. 18 Basically people don't know about formaldehyde 19 off-gassing from building materials. People don't know 20 about particulates coming from combustion appliances. 21 They are aware of carbon monoxide poisoning. That gets 22 press attention. But generally if it's invisible, then 23 they don't know. But we know. And part of what you're 24 seeing here is our -- not just the beginning -- we've been 25 at this for several years -- but the most comprehensive PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 report this agency has ever issued on the nature of indoor 2 air pollution. 3 And the level of public awareness is growing 4 slowly. It's dominated by mold in most recent years and a 5 few other categories and the -- sensitive individuals like 6 the -- coal mine. But all people are being exposed to 7 pollutants and don't know it in their homes, and we could 8 do something about that. 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Ms. Pineda. 10 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: I feel privileged that I 11 have an expedited awareness just in such a short time. 12 Just a quick question. You talked about sort of 13 the principles of indoor air quality improvement and then 14 you talked about the proven benefits of healthy home 15 programs. Can you just sort of give a snapshot of what 16 that program entailed? I mean I can see the principles 17 that ventilation is a key component. But how did you -- 18 what did people do to reduce these asthma medical costs? 19 INDOOR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 20 JENKINS: For the -- This is Peggy Jenkins. I'll answer 21 that. 22 Tom Phillips was the one -- the lead on that part 23 of our report. The healthy home project included a lot of 24 what they call sort of asthma intervention. They're home 25 visits. People worked with the families, and I think in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 this case they were low income, to help them identify what 2 the various asthma triggers are in their home, then the 3 best way to mitigate them. 4 So often it's a matter of a different approach to 5 cleaning, reducing the particle loading. If there's 6 carpet, that can be an issue. Sometimes there's not 7 enough ventilation in homes. Sometimes there's a lot of 8 pest issues, cock roaches and so on that some children 9 react to very strongly. 10 So it's usually kind of a walk-through and 11 interview, and then provision of information to the 12 families with guidelines on what they can do to improve 13 the situation. There are some other studies where the 14 researchers actually made improvements, some of which 15 included treating the carpets for house dust mites. 16 Everyone has house dust mites if you've had a carpet for a 17 couple years. So there's different approaches depending 18 on each home, the situation in each home. 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: I think -- Mr. 20 Phillips, do you want to add anything to that? 21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST PHILLIPS: I think that 22 covers it pretty well. 23 All right. Very good. 24 Question? 25 Ms. Kennard. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Question. I believe that 2 in improving benefits you noted the elementary school was 3 not in California. Could you speak to what other states, 4 if any, are doing relative to indoor air quality? 5 INDOOR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 6 JENKINS: Again that might be Tom. 7 This is other states. 8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST PHILLIPS: Other states 9 have different programs ranging from just basic public 10 information and brochures and so on, and sometimes they 11 use our brochures, to research programs which are fairly 12 sophisticated, include chamber testing of emission 13 materials and looking at building ventilation problems. 14 Some of them have gone even further. Several 15 years ago, in fact, two states, Minnesota and Washington, 16 adopted home ventilation standards for new homes that do 17 require mechanical ventilation to bring in fresh air, 18 filter it, and do it constantly. And they also include 19 gas appliances that won't leak into the homes and so on. 20 And in the case of Washington, they require low 21 emission formaldehyde products from -- in terms of plywood 22 and particle board and also homes that are resistant to 23 radon infiltrating from the soil. So those are two prime 24 examples in Canada and in some other countries that are 25 similar programs. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Thank you. 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Any other questions? 3 Dr. Gong. 4 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I want to compliment the 5 staff for a very extensive review. This is a very 6 difficult review, I might add, to look at so many 7 different types of sources and exposures and possible 8 health effects. 9 And I think also I'd congratulate the scientific 10 peer reviewers. I know some of them are very high quality 11 peer reviewers of this document. I also am not envious of 12 your task of responding to all the public and individual 13 industrial comments that you undoubtedly categorize. 14 I have just a comment about the -- could you 15 refresh me as to how you established this high priority, 16 medium priority source categorization for mitigation. I 17 noticed that in many of the letters the writer said, "I 18 shouldn't be on that list." For once they don't want to 19 be in the limelight here. 20 But I guess in regards to that, I know that you 21 probably have revised some of the wording to make it more 22 prudent or accurate in terms of your statements about 23 certain sources. But I'm sure we'll hear some comments 24 from the audience as well. 25 But could you just refresh my memory about that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 process? 2 INDOOR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 3 JENKINS: Peggy Jenkins. I'll answer that. 4 Yes, you're right, we did receive quite a few 5 comments of that nature. Most were looking for a very 6 specific quantitative prioritization in which we would 7 look at the emissions data, the risks from the different 8 pollutants. Just kind of a detailed multiplication you 9 come up with scoring criteria. We felt that really was 10 beyond the scope of what the bill was asking for. 11 We tried to lay this out in the report. We 12 looked at factors such as the known emissions; what we 13 knew about the products or the components that comprise 14 each of the source categories; what the seriousness of 15 those health effects were, if there were carcinogens or 16 particles of emissions that we knew had clearly defined 17 health effects. 18 Also, the extent of use in the population. 19 Materials that are used in everyone's home are appliances 20 that exist in everyone's home, so we felt were generally 21 going to be of greater importance than those that maybe 22 are used in just a very small percent of homes. So we had 23 some general criteria that we did use, and it is a rough 24 prioritization. 25 And there's -- we placed them alphabetically PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 within the high and medium groups on purpose. We didn't 2 rank them within a group. It's just the high or those 3 that we felt really should have more immediate attention, 4 and not necessarily every kind of product or material that 5 falls into those categories. Certainly one in each 6 category there's certain specific sources that jump to 7 mind and we try to identify those in the text. 8 The medium we felt could be dealt with in a -- 9 more in the future. 10 We did make a number of changes that I would like 11 to definitely say. After the first draft we changed our 12 prioritization substantially. We went into those two 13 general groups rather than doing any kind of ranking. So 14 we felt we were responsive to the extent we could be 15 without doing a fully quantitative prioritization. 16 Certainly if the program were to be developed that would 17 tackle, you know, air quality on a comprehensive basis, 18 there a more quantitative effort we thought would be 19 appropriate. But not specifically for this report. 20 BOARD MEMBER GONG: It's a difficult task. 21 INDOOR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 22 JENKINS: It was. Thank you. 23 BOARD MEMBER GONG: And there won't be a perfect 24 system no matter what, you know, all the criticism of it. 25 But we can quibble about I would put this over here and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 put this over there. 2 Does this document fulfill AB 1173? 3 INDOOR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 4 JENKINS: We believe it does. 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes, I believe it 6 does. 7 BOARD MEMBER GONG: All right. Is the next step 8 we send it to the Legislature? 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: No, the next step 10 we send it to the Governor and the Governor sends it to 11 the Legislature. 12 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Oh, okay. 13 Okay. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Very good. 15 We have several speakers. And let me just share 16 with you. The first four, that's Chris Felicijan, Susan 17 Brinchman, Teresa Westmoreland, and Denise Byrd, are all 18 from the Center for School Mold Help. I'm assuming you 19 coordinated your presentations, and I appreciate that. 20 If you'd like -- whichever order you want to go 21 in, you each have five minutes. And come to the 22 microphone and give us your name and again who you 23 represent and your presentation. 24 MS. FELICIJAN: Hello. My name is Chris 25 Felicijan and I'm with the Center for School Mold Help. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 We are a California nonprofit corporation 2 promoting the health of the students and staff in 3 educational institutions by providing comprehensive 4 information and education about school mold. We'd like to 5 thank you for having this public forum. 6 There will be people who will tell you that 7 school mold is not a major concern. But the hazards of 8 moldy buildings have been known for many years. In fact, 9 1400 years before the birth of Christ people understood 10 the dangers of mold in buildings. This could be 11 demonstrated in Leviticus Chapters 13 through 14. They 12 had strict laws dealing with the proper remediation of 13 molds because they knew the lack of enforcement would lead 14 to costly damage to buildings and people. 15 Your own report estimates that $221 million per 16 year could be saved in mortality and asthma-related issues 17 if there were a large portion of these containments 18 mitigated. 19 What it didn't mention is that indoor air quality 20 and student performance, the EPA report of August 2000, 21 found that poor indoor air quality causes increased 22 absence and also decreases concentration calculations and 23 memory, which is critical to the learning process. 24 That EPA report on indoor air quality in schools, 25 actions for improving indoor air quality, September 19, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 1999, indicated that if $370 were spent per year over 22 2 years, we would have saved $1.5 million. Obviously this 3 is a serious problem that has a deep economic input in 4 California. 5 You cite in your report the damage to indoor 6 spaces and health, Institute of Medicine report of 2004. 7 The CD -- this is a little misleading in your report 8 because the CDC commissioned the report to look at adverse 9 health effects especially related to respiratory emergent 10 issues. They did their last selected research in 2002, 11 which means it's three years out of date. But they did 12 find nonallergic toxic and inflammatory effects related to 13 mold exposure, and they best indicated there are 14 significant gaps in their knowledge related to this. 15 Regarding your recommendations. School 16 environmental health must be mandated with very strict 17 standards. The record of school district indicates the 18 protection of children is not paramount, as seen in their 19 lack of functioning -- protection plans from the recent 20 case of Williams versus State of California and the 21 failure to adopt EPA's Tools for Schools Program. 22 In addition, we have many portable buildings with 23 issues. Many of the buildings are unserviceable, but 24 there's no regulations mandating that. In addition, they 25 are put on the ground usually with pressure treated PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 lumber, which allows for water intrusion into the 2 building, leading to mold with an overlay of chemical 3 exposures. 4 It is important that we allow local jurisdictions 5 to have an input into the building of schools and 6 construction because they have an interest as they are in 7 the community and dealing with these issues. 8 Most importantly, in summary, classrooms are not 9 occupied in the same manner as office spaces. So they 10 must have regulations that are significantly different 11 from office spaces. Children often vomit in rooms, 12 accidentally urinate, sit and eat on the floors, rub their 13 hands on everything. So we must understand that the rules 14 have to take into account those issues related to toxic 15 exposure. 16 For this reason we would like you to set some 17 minimum precautionary exposure standards related to 18 schools, both for mold and biological toxins and their 19 interplay with chemical toxins. 20 We also think it's important that there be an 21 environmental protection agency that would allow her 22 parents and teachers to file complaints, to set mandated 23 standards, announced inspections involving molds and other 24 chemical toxins. We also would like you to fine people 25 who withhold state funding for schools so that you could PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 keep tabs on what schools are doing. 2 In addition, we would have an environmental 3 report card that would allow parents and teachers and 4 everybody concerned in the public to take a look at what 5 schools are doing on a case-by-case study, to see what 6 they're doing to protect schools and the children. 7 We would also like you to adopt some regional 8 agencies so that parents and teachers can be made informed 9 of the problems that are out there and how they can file 10 complaints and be educated in that. 11 I thank you for taking your time to listen to me 12 and to our association. It's very important that the 13 teachers and the children especially in California are 14 given the protections they need in order to learn. If we 15 do not do this, it will have a significant economic impact 16 on this state and our society as a whole. 17 Thank you very much. 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 19 Maybe staff can respond to all four at one time. 20 Is this Susan speaking? 21 MS. BRINCHMAN: Yes, I'm Susan Brinchman. 22 Good afternoon, members of the California Air 23 Resources Board and staff. And thank you for your 24 extensive report. We really appreciate it. 25 My name is Susan Brinchman. I'm the Executive PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 Director of the Center for School Mold Help. 2 We want you to know that school mold is a serious 3 California problem and also a national problem, and that 4 mold can and should be considered a toxic air pollutant. 5 It's not being properly addressed. 6 We've made a display for you. Wish it was 7 PowerPoint, but the next time. And I'll explain what is 8 on these pictures. 9 These are the five stages of school mold. And I 10 didn't understand this several years ago. Now I know it 11 firsthand. 12 Right here we've got water intrusion and various 13 sources of excess moisture. 14 The reason we made this was to show you that the 15 school districts' solutions are very, very inadequate, 16 such as putting 12 trash cans in a room to catch the 17 leaks. If this was a school district auditorium you might 18 have a hundred trash cans. Or plastic tarps or garbage 19 bags over things that get wet. If the ceiling tiles fell 20 in this room, they'd probably just leave them open -- 21 leave it open or they'd replace them. The source of the 22 moisture would not be addressed. 23 Then that leads to water buildup. This is a 24 picture of just ceiling tiles that are stained. That's 25 really telling. If you go into California schools and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 look up, you'll see that at least half of those schools 2 have those ceiling tiles stained from water leaks. 3 They're unaddressed. 4 And then this one is a picture of an interior 5 wall with bricks. It has a wet rug at the base of it. 6 And the bricks are exuding I think it's called 7 efflorescence. And that's just a sign that the wall is 8 wet. And nothing was done in this particular school, 9 which I worked in for decades, probably 30 years over 10 this. 11 And then the next step is fungal growth, Stage 4. 12 We've got some books -- library books with mold growing 13 inside of them. Can you imagine how extensive that, you 14 know, is in that room to have these books sprout mold 15 inside books that are closed. And then we've got -- you 16 know, it's just an indication. You can see other 17 indications. You'll have mold on the walls, or you'll 18 have mold behind the walls more commonly, as the report 19 shows, it's not visible often. And so it will be above 20 the ceiling, behind the walls, under the carpets. 21 And here's is a -- our final stage is the sixth 22 school. We happen to see mold growing on the walls of 23 this classroom, which had running water going down the 24 walls every time it rained. Or, you know, any moisture 25 that was occurring outside, it would come inside and run PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 down the walls. And people are learning and working in 2 these environments. 3 You talk about close proximity. Somebody's 4 sitting at that, you know, chair, working right next to 5 that mold. 6 And these things are everyday occurrences in 7 California schools and in our nation's schools. It's very 8 frightening. 9 So school districts are not addressing these 10 problems. That's the main -- and they will not address 11 these problems without being forced to. They don't want 12 to. Education's not the answer only. It's part of the 13 answer. They must be mandated to correct these problems, 14 because it's a lot cheaper to ignore them and to keep 15 replacing people like me who get sick from it. It's much 16 cheaper for them. So we have to think about that, if we 17 want to have our citizenry healthy, we have to have 18 mandates. 19 Some people even die. They become chronically 20 ill and some die. This is an autopsy report from my 21 colleague who told me she was very ill from mold a year 22 before she died. And some of the symptoms that she died 23 from, she died from secondary symptoms to do with mold's 24 problems, in my opinion. It's all typical mold problems. 25 So now we have two testimonies for you from the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 Center for School Mold Help. And I hope I didn't go over 2 my five minutes. 3 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: No, you didn't. And 4 I appreciate that. 5 MS. BRINCHMAN: Our first one is Teresa. 6 MS. WESTMORELAND: Hi. My name is Teresa 7 Westmoreland. And I am a middle school health teacher. I 8 have not taught in my profession since February 26th, 9 2003. I'm currently drawing my teachers retirement 10 disability as well as disability from a private policy 11 that I have obtained. Although, you know, as much as my 12 doctors tell me it's going to take longer than what I am 13 imagining in my mind, I'm still hoping to be back to work 14 in the next couple of years for sure. I'm not willing to 15 give up yet. The quest is still on. 16 I want to start with just talking to you a little 17 bit about what happened in my classroom. And imagine this 18 in an office building, and see if you can imagine this 19 happening maybe in your office building that you work in. 20 Every time it rains and there's a little bit of wind, the 21 rain comes across your entire room on the ceiling tiles, 22 not on the roof, on the ceiling tiles. And every time 23 that happens the ceiling tiles become soaked with the 24 rain. And eventually those ceiling tiles get so water 25 drenched that they actually crumble and break in your PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 office, in your room. 2 And then imagine, one falls, that the custodial 3 staff and the maintenance staff have an argument about 4 who's going to replace ceiling tiles. So when the ceiling 5 tile cracks and crumbles from water moisture into your 6 classroom or office and then you've reported it to 7 maintenance staff, you report it to the custodial staff 8 and ask someone to please replace the ceiling tile, and 9 they say, "No, it's their job and not our job," and 10 they're in disagreement and we don't know whose job it is. 11 And then imagine the next time it rains and there's no 12 ceiling tile. 13 So, guess what, it's raining in your office, in 14 your room. This is what happened to me and this happened 15 over a course of seven years while I was in that 16 classroom, continual, constant water damage in the 17 classroom. 18 And this couldn't seem to get resolved because it 19 was an issue of money. And that's pretty much what it's 20 always about. It's always about money. As you know -- I 21 heard on the news this morning when we got up that the 22 Governor is calling for changes in education which result 23 in funding changes. And it's always about not enough 24 money, and the government always saying that there's too 25 much money, not enough taxes. We all know the whole PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 story. And what the solution is, I'm not sure. 2 But what I do know is without regulations and 3 without some sort of stiff penalty in place, these kinds 4 of things are going to continue to occur in school 5 classrooms across the nation, because maintenance is not a 6 high priority for schools right now. The high priority is 7 getting those tests passed for No Child Left Behind, the 8 test passed for each individual stay that they have. 9 Those are where the priorities are right now. 10 And so as far as ceiling tiles getting replaced 11 and the source of the water intrusion being dealt with, 12 it's not going to happen. The money just isn't there or 13 it's not being spent in that way. 14 When I started researching and finding about -- 15 more about sick building syndrome, I came across a book 16 that said that typically governmental agencies and 17 insurance agencies and administrators in the school 18 districts handle sick building syndrome with the 3D's. 19 And I've kept in mind and -- research to learn about this. 20 The 3D's are defensiveness, denial, and discrediting. And 21 first I thought, "Well, what are these 3D's?" But 22 unfortunately I'm here to tell you I've gotten to 23 experience all of them, and it hasn't been pleasant, let 24 me tell you. 25 Defensiveness, you know, in my district started PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 off by saying -- when my doctors -- I had two doctors 2 write a letter that said they didn't feel it was safe, not 3 just for me but the teacher who took my place, to be in 4 that room and that the issue needed to be addressed. The 5 district responded with saying, "There isn't a problem 6 here. It's her particular immune system that has caused 7 this illness. It's not going to happen to a" -- 8 quote-unquote -- "'healthy person' so we're not going to 9 worry about it at this point in time." 10 Then as other people became sick and the issue 11 became larger than just one single person, we got into the 12 denial issue. And this is the part that I'd really like 13 you to consider when you adopt your recommendations and 14 regulations. Whenever an issue comes up that involves an 15 insurance industry, and it involves money, there's going 16 to be a conflict of interest. There just has to be, 17 because the school district has an insurer, and then the 18 insurer wants to make sure that there are not claims paid 19 out, that they are not liable for injuries. 20 And imagine you have a building of 600 children 21 and 45 staff members and 24 of those staff members are 22 saying they're ill from the building, the liability issue 23 is huge. So the insurance in response is just denying, 24 denying, denying, "There's no problem here. We've done 25 everything we can. We just can't do anything about it." PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 134 1 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Excuse me. Teresa, 2 I'm going to have to ask you to speed up to finish. 3 I'll give you one last summation. 4 MS. WESTMORELAND: Okay. So with only one last 5 summation, I'm going to end with the piece -- I have a 6 quote from Dr. Kaye H. Kilburn out of USC. And he's one 7 of the lead researchers in this area of neurotoxins and 8 their impact on human health. 9 He says that: "Recognition by the medical 10 profession and by the public that mold causes neurological 11 and/or respiratory damage is important because these 12 illnesses are often progressive and irreversible. The 13 social, personal and economic consequences are immense. 14 Prevention by avoidance of the exposure is imperative." 15 And especially I would like you to consider that 16 children do not have a choice. They can't switch jobs. 17 They can't ask for a transfer to a different classroom. 18 They're there. And we need to protect them. Someone 19 needs to have a voice for our children. 20 Thank you for your time. 21 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. 22 Denise Byrd. 23 MS. BYRD: Hi. My name is Denise Byrd. I'm 24 going to read mine because I get nervous. 25 I'm from Orange County and speaking on behalf of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 135 1 teachers from California and everywhere in the United 2 States. Teachers that cannot speak out because they are 3 too sick, too afraid of a district's retaliation or 4 harassment. They may be intimidated or have their jobs or 5 lives' threatened. 6 Some teachers may not even know they're sick and 7 are being told by school district doctors they just have 8 allergies or it's in their head. 9 Mold is a national health problem. It is one of 10 the biggest coverup stories across the nation. According 11 to the APA, I believe it's one in two, maybe one in three 12 schools are affected by poor air quality. 13 I've been an educator for nearly 20 years. I've 14 won many awards and my students won many awards. I was 15 honored to be nominated teacher of the year. I was 16 trained by the U.S. Olympic Tennis Team. I was teaching 17 tennis to fifth graders at the school at the time I began 18 to get sick. This was the beginning of my American dream 19 that started to die. I was super-active at school and my 20 personal life. I was living the American dream. I had a 21 great job, great friends, loving life traveling and loving 22 what I was doing, and that's teaching. 23 I was hoping to get married and have kids and 24 continue teaching until I retired. I had taught fourth 25 grade for ten years in a normal classroom. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 136 1 In 1998 I was ready for a change and transferred 2 to fifth grade in a portable classroom. The district 3 school officials knew the room was bad. Teachers before 4 me had gotten sick and asked for transfers out of the 5 portable. I was in a severe water-damaged classroom for 6 almost three years. I was breathing intoxi -- molds, 7 formaldehydes, and other glues. I had no idea what was 8 happening to my body for three years. 9 My health began to deteriorate within the first 10 two or three months and progressively got worse. I had 11 dry and scratchy eyes; nose -- ear, nose, throat problems; 12 continued sinus problems; wheezing; coughing; daily 13 fatigue; malaise; cardiopulmonary distress; 14 gastrointestinal problems; pneumonia in summer in 15 California; reproductive problems; systematic 16 dermatological problems; damaged lungs and reactive airway 17 problems. 18 These problems started small and progressively 19 got worse. My immune system became so damaged I could no 20 longer function in the classroom. My students kept 21 telling me around January 2001 that I was allergic to 22 something in the classroom. I would fill better when I 23 would leave the classroom on weekends and long breaks. I 24 would start feeling a little better. 25 All these symptoms were progressively getting PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 137 1 worse and that of sleeping, sitting up at home because I 2 could not breathe. 3 I left my classroom in March 2001 and began all 4 the proper steps with the district to seek help. I 5 reported it to workers' comp, which the district denied. 6 I was forced to go to the district's choice of doctor, and 7 he -- the district's doctor would not give me my medical 8 report for almost two weeks. I wanted to know why I could 9 not breathe. Then I was told I had to get my medical 10 report from the school district's risk management office. 11 I went there. They tried to intimidate me by sending the 12 school police on me. They said I would be arrested for 13 trespassing just to get my doctor's report. 14 They gave me an incomplete report, pages had been 15 removed. 16 I began my own research about toxic mold in 17 chemicals. I did a lot of Internet searching to find out 18 what was wrong with me. Management told our school we had 19 mold and testing would be done. Testing was not done 20 properly for my room. In fact, other teachers were given 21 surveys, about 15 or so. Almost all the surveys came up 22 with health problems and water damaged rooms. 23 When the company came out to test our school they 24 did not receive my survey or even ask me about my room. 25 They received others, but mine was missing. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 138 1 After the encounter with the district's doctor, I 2 knew something was not right so I began to seek proper 3 medical attention. I had blood taken by a toxicologist 4 every three weeks. My blood showed super high levels of 5 12 toxic molds, including stachybotrys, aspergillus, and 6 et cetera. 7 The blood tests showed my immune system being in 8 a state of autoimmune, which means there's so many 9 chemicals swarming in my body that the good cells are 10 being attacked. I was checked for lupus, cancer and HIV. 11 My diagnosis ended up being chemical sensitivities. All 12 my doctors were highly qualified and they were all 13 specialists in their field, USC, UCLA and other prominent 14 areas. Each one had dealt with chemically contaminated 15 clients. 16 I went through many detox programs for about a 17 year. I began to feel a little better and thought I'd try 18 to go back in September 2002. 19 All this time I was sending doctors' notes and 20 letters saying I could not return to a water damaged or 21 contaminated classroom. I continually sent letters to my 22 principal, risk management, the superintendent, the board. 23 No answers. Dead silence. They all turned a deaf ear to 24 me. 25 One lady from the teacher's union confronted the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 139 1 district as to why the district was not testing my 2 classroom properly. They answered her with an early 3 retirement. 4 I tried to transfer. There were many positions 5 open. "Please do not put me back in the same classroom." 6 Well, I was forced to go back in the same classroom. I 7 was there for six weeks and got recontaminated. I believe 8 the district -- 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Excuse me. While 10 you're doing very well, you are running out of time. Can 11 you go down -- 12 MS. BYRD: One more paragraph. 13 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: All right. Good. 14 MS. BYRD: I have never been quite the same. I 15 do not have the same energy as I once did. I lost my 16 health. I have chronic fatigue, multiple sensitivities, 17 lung damage, not asthma. 18 Sixty percent of my students came down with 19 asthma that year. Was it really asthma or chemically 20 induced? I have lost seven quality years of my life due 21 to toxic mold and chemicals from teaching. 22 In part of my story that I shared with you I want 23 you to remember I am not the only one. This is happening 24 all over America. It is a national health problem and it 25 must stop. We are teachers of tomorrow's leaders, your PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 140 1 children. It should never happen that a dedicated healthy 2 teacher become chronically ill, harassed, intimidated, 3 forced to retire, and treated like a criminal just because 4 we report a health hazard. We need to put a stop to bad 5 air quality, toxic mold, formaldehyde and other chemicals 6 in our schools. Who else would protect our kids and 7 leaders of tomorrow? A child will be left behind when 8 chemicals interfere with their ability to concentrate and 9 learn. 10 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. I'm going 11 to -- 12 MS. BYRD: Okay. So, truly, no child will be 13 left behind. Our children of today will have a chance to 14 live and learn in a clean, healthy environment. 15 Thank you. 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Very good. You did 17 very well. And I apologize. I wish we had a lot more 18 time, but we just simply don't. 19 Now, let me ask staff if they -- obviously the 20 last speakers are very supportive of our report. Other 21 comments that you might have on the next steps where they 22 might be supported if we move forward with this report. 23 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Yeah, this is 24 Bart Croes. I just want highlight the concerns about mold 25 contamination in schools. It was one of the primary PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 141 1 motivations for Assembly Bill 2872, which led ARB and the 2 Department of Health Services to do a joint report on 3 indoor conditions at California schools. I'm going to 4 have Peggy Jenkins summarize the results from our surveys 5 for both contamination and discuss the proper authorities 6 that have regulatory oversight over this issue. 7 INDOOR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 8 JENKINS: Right. I think some of you recall our portable 9 classroom study report that we presented a couple of years 10 ago. We did find -- and that study was a statewide study. 11 It included both portable and traditional classrooms. We 12 did find mold -- obvious mold in about 3 percent of the 13 classrooms. 14 And I think, more importantly, the water stains 15 some of the speakers referred to are unfortunately fairly 16 prevalent. And I don't recall the percent, but it's I 17 think a range of 20 to 30 percent of the classrooms had 18 obvious ceiling or wall or floor stains from water damage. 19 This is a problem that exists in some of our schools and 20 some of our school districts. 21 And then we did include in that study a number of 22 teacher surveys and a fairly extensive reporting by 23 teachers of water damage and related impacts. 24 In that report, we did have some recommendations 25 that would directly address this. I think the most PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 142 1 important one really is that within schools many people 2 don't realize they are covered by CalOSHA's workplace 3 rules and regulations and standards. 4 CalOSHA does have now a sanitation standard or 5 regulation that addresses the prevention and remediation 6 of water damage and mold. Schools are subject to these, 7 so we did include it. It's really our very first 8 recommendation in our portable classroom study report, 9 that schools do need to pay attention to the CalOSHA 10 regulations that apply to them. Basically they're out of 11 compliance, so to speak, with meeting the requirements of 12 those regulations. 13 Obviously many schools weren't aware -- they had 14 told us they were not aware that those regulations apply 15 to them. So I think part of our recommendation was that 16 the state make an effort to get that information out to 17 them. 18 And what we've done since our report, we did I 19 guess put together what you would call a school advisory, 20 a two pager that -- I mean we also put together other 21 materials that we put on a website. It included also some 22 outdoor air quality information. We really went to a 23 fairly extensive outreach effort, sent those materials out 24 to every single school district in the state. So we 25 certainly, you know, made I think a very staunch effort to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 143 1 try to advise schools about these issues and to -- we gave 2 them the CalOSHA 800 numbers and who to contact and so on. 3 So, I think those problems do still exist. But that's 4 kind of where we are. 5 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: But through CalOSHA. 6 And that's a good resource. 7 Thank you very much. 8 We have three other speakers. Let me ask Luke 9 Harms to come forward as our next speaker, Bonnie 10 Holmes-Gen and followed by Lee Hudson. And then we'll 11 conclude with -- 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We do have one 13 more witness, Laurie Nelson. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Oh, sorry. Laurie 15 Nelson. I apologize, I apologize. 16 Who do we have, Luke Harms right now? 17 Luke, you go right ahead. 18 And then, Laurie, I'll fit you right in behind 19 Luke. 20 MR. HARMS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. 21 My name is Luke Harms. I'm here representing 22 Maytag Corporation. And we'll also speak on behalf of the 23 Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. I appreciate 24 the opportunity to testify before you today. 25 Maytag is a manufacturer of home and commercial PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 144 1 appliances, including gas ranges and floor care products. 2 In fact, we operate a small manufacturing facility in 3 Brea, California, which manufacturers high-end glass 4 cooking products. 5 We continue to have serious concern about several 6 of the conclusions and statements in the draft report, and 7 urge the Board to correct the technical and substantial 8 errors before the report is finalized. 9 With regard to gas ranges, in Section 6, we 10 believe combustion appliances should not be listed as a 11 high priority. Many of the claims and assertions in the 12 report with regard to gas ranges are based on a few cases 13 of improper use and not maintaining gas appliances in a 14 proper form. 15 These products should not be removed from the 16 choices of California citizens based on a few cases of 17 misuse and poor maintenance. And unlike many of the parts 18 in the draft report, gas ranges are used on an 19 intermittent basis, not all the time. And the report 20 makes no mention of that. 21 You may also know that the California Energy 22 Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy have both 23 studied this issue and concluded that carbon monoxide and 24 nitrous oxide emissions from gas ranges are insignificant 25 due to the very nature of their product use. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 145 1 The written comments that were submitted by 2 Maytag and by AHAM go into further detail about many of 3 our concerns. And I hope you will take a close look and 4 consider them. 5 One further point I want to make that was touched 6 on earlier is that under high priority, combustion 7 appliances are all put in one category. But when you 8 break down the numbers of actual carbon monoxide related 9 death instance, almost all of them are from furnaces, not 10 from gas ranges, yet gas ranges are the ones that are 11 targeted by the mitigation efforts in the report. That 12 sends a very misleading message to the Legislature, in my 13 opinion. 14 With regard to vacuum cleaners, Maytag believes 15 vacuum cleaners should be removed from the list of medium 16 priorities. There is no substantial information or 17 evidence in this report that shows that vacuum cleaners 18 release harmful emissions or that properly maintained 19 vacuum cleaners have a harmful effect on indoor air 20 quality. In fact, we believe vacuum cleaners are in fact 21 a tool for significantly reducing pollutant particles in 22 indoor air. 23 We also think the report needs to be corrected to 24 note that there are industry consensus standards for 25 testing performance of vacuum cleaners. The report says PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 146 1 there are not. ASTM International has established 28 2 different vacuum cleaner performance standards that are 3 used by Maytag and other manufacturers to measure and 4 evaluate performance. 5 The last thing I want to touch on today is 6 emissions limits. 7 We object to the emissions limits proposed in 8 Section 7. There is already an existing safety standards 9 process that ARB and other state agencies should work 10 through to ensure products are safe and effective. We 11 work with ANSR and ASTM and comply with standards that are 12 designed to ensure product safety and protect the quality 13 of indoor air. We think the ARB should work through those 14 organizations rather than establishing its own standards 15 here in the State of California. 16 I thank the ARB for the opportunity to speak here 17 today. And I look forward to working with all of you as 18 you finalize the draft report. 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Luke. 20 Let me ask staff for a response. 21 INDOOR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 22 JENKINS: Yes, very briefly. We certainly appreciated 23 Maytag's and a AHAM's comments and had made a number of 24 changes to the report. 25 I think the remaining issues, the gas range has PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 147 1 been part of an oxide issue. We look at carbon monoxide 2 in gas appliances beyond just the deaths. The deaths are 3 kind of the tip of the iceberg. There's some exposures 4 underneath that that are non-fatal illnesses. And perhaps 5 more importantly, nitrogen dioxide is an important concern 6 from gas appliances that really have not been addressed, 7 and I think an increasing concern. 8 And Mr. Harms mentioned the industry standards. 9 We're definitely familiar with those standards. We will 10 embellish that aspect of the report. But they do apply to 11 performance of the equipment and to safety. And the 12 measures for carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide that are 13 used to judge what's safe or not safe is quite different 14 from what we here in California have identified as 15 appropriate levels. 16 I think in general their -- some of the 17 information they have we'd be glad to add additional 18 information to the report. But we've been relying instead 19 of on, for example, national data, our -- we have a state 20 CO mortality study, for example, that spans a ten-year 21 timeframe that we'd relied on for our information. 22 So I think -- the vacuum cleaners I think is the 23 last comment there. Certainly all vacuum cleaners aren't 24 bad. They're very good and we all need them. What we've 25 seen in some studies though is that some vacuum cleaners PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 148 1 resuspend particles. And what we've seen is particles 2 that are in carpets and on people's floors actually kind 3 of accumulate quite a few harmful toxics. When you're 4 resuspended, we're concerned because then they're right 5 there from the breathing going on with the vacuum -- 6 usually they last for awhile indoors so the family members 7 could be exposed. 8 The vacuum cleaner performance standards that are 9 available typically focus primarily on their ability to 10 suction and to perform in terms of durability. They don't 11 generally address the emissions that result in the indoor 12 environment. 13 So we all need vacuums. There's no doubt about 14 it. But some may produce an emission that we feel isn't 15 necessary. 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. 17 MR. HARMS: Can I make just one quick comment? 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: One quick one. 19 MR. HARMS: We think it would be beneficial to 20 break down the information in the statistics in the report 21 with regard to each of the specific appliances, just -- 22 because if you do enact emissions limits on appliances, 23 it's not going to be on combustion appliances. It's going 24 to be on gas ranges. It's going to be on furnaces. It's 25 going to be on specific appliances. So if legislators are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 149 1 able to see that this is based on each part of a category 2 rather than the overall category of combustion appliances, 3 I think it would helpful to them. 4 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. I 5 appreciate that. 6 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Laurie Nelson. 7 Yes. 8 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 9 Could I add one comment to what he brought up -- 10 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Yes. 11 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 12 -- just to make sure we -- nowhere in the report 13 do we advocate abolishing gas stoves. That was one of the 14 comments I thought he brought up. 15 One of the reasons that these appliances were 16 high on the list, because, one, they're in everybody's 17 home. Ventilation actually is one of the major concerns 18 that we've focused on, because there is an automatic use 19 of the hood range. In some older homes they basically 20 recirculate back. So that was one of the -- the little 21 things that those -- that section was aimed at. 22 And the vacuum cleaners themselves, I think we -- 23 we'd all admit would be really low priority. In fact, a 24 lot of what was left in vacuum cleaners were left over 25 from the early draft that didn't get removed. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 150 1 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. Well, at 2 least you're sensitive to it. 3 Laurie Nelson, whom I skipped over accidentally. 4 I'm sorry. Then followed by Bonnie Holmes-Gen and Lee 5 Hudson. 6 MS. NELSON: Madam Chair, members. Laurie Nelson 7 on behalf of the Consumer Specialty Products Association. 8 We're a voluntary nonprofit association of about 240 9 consumer product companies. We manufacture, formulate, 10 distribute consumer products for household, institutional, 11 industrial, commercial use. And these are products that 12 are used to help clean, disinfect your homes, your 13 schools, your hospitals, your offices. 14 First off I want to acknowledge that we really do 15 appreciate the changes that staff has made to the original 16 draft in response to some of our earlier comments. 17 Unfortunately, we do continue to have major concerns with 18 the content and some of the tone of this report. 19 For example, we think the report does little to 20 recognize the importance and benefits of consumer products 21 in improving the health of consumers in indoor 22 environments. We also think you failed to consider these 23 safety assessments that are made on these products, both 24 acute and toxic effects, considering proper use. And also 25 any reasonably foreseeable misuse of these products. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 151 1 We think the report greatly underestimates the 2 serious health risk to Californians from indoor air 3 exposure to biological contaminants. We think these are 4 significant and proven factors in the increase and 5 worsening of asthma. I want to give you three quick 6 examples. 7 The first came out in the New England Journal of 8 Medicine, where kids who were allergic to cockroaches or 9 exposed to those allergens three and a half times more 10 likely to be hospitalized. 11 The second one's a recent study. It's funded in 12 part by the National Institute of Environmental Health 13 Sciences. And they found -- and I quote -- "Cockroach 14 allergen is the primary contributor to childhood asthma in 15 innercity home environments." They do go on to note that 16 general cleaning practices, proven extermination 17 techniques and consistent maintenance methods can bring 18 these allergen levels under control. 19 Finally, there's also a recent study on home 20 dampness involved in asthma in children. It's a six-year 21 study. And it strengthens the independent effects of the 22 evidence of parental disposition but also exposure to 23 molds on the development of asthma. This is actual 24 causation, which shows exactly that home damage and mold 25 strongly contributes to the risk of children developing PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 152 1 asthma. And, remember, it takes more than soap and water 2 to kill mold. 3 And these examples relate back to my original 4 point of the benefits of consumer products. These are 5 products that are developed to reduce or eliminate these 6 contaminants and to meet consumers needs. These aren't 7 just pollutants in a can. 8 And instead of recognizing the importance and 9 usefulness of those products, I'm afraid the report has a 10 rather cavalier attitude to suggest that we simply 11 reformulate -- those of you who have been on the Board 12 know that we have reformulated, in some cases repeatedly, 13 a number of these products -- or to use products with zero 14 emissions without any recognition of the importance of 15 maintaining the efficacy of these products. 16 In fact, we even had the same concern with comp 17 in the peer group, and who thought that the discussion of 18 the consumer product program was far removed from indoor 19 air quality. And we would strongly disagree with that. 20 In addition, the benefits I just noted we are 21 approaching the 50 percent mark in emission reductions 22 from consumer product category. And although these 23 emission regulations were developed to address outdoor 24 air, virtually all of these products are used indoors. 25 And surely that's not only relevant in any report on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 153 1 indoor air quality, but also I think a 50-percent 2 reduction is something to celebrate and not just brush 3 aside. 4 So in closing we would respectfully request that 5 these proven key health hazards posed by exposures to 6 biological contaminants as well as the important role 7 consumer products can play in your reduction or 8 elimination of such exposure be highlighted and reflected 9 in the final report that this Board sends to the 10 Legislature. 11 Thank you. 12 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much, 13 Laurie. And we recognize what your industry is doing and 14 the necessity to do two things: One, to make products 15 that are, you know, not emitting pollutants, as well as 16 retaining the ability to clean up whatever we're cleaning 17 up. So it's a balancing act. 18 Thank you. 19 MS. NELSON: Thank you. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Bonnie Holmes-Gen. 21 MS. HOLMES-GEN: Good afternoon. Bonnie 22 Holmes-Gen with the American Lung Association of 23 California. 24 First I'd like to express my and our appreciation 25 to the staff for the work that's been done, the dedication PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 154 1 to produce this very extensive report. It's very thorough 2 and comprehensive. 3 And, you know, I think that the previous 4 testimony of individuals who were working at schools and 5 dealt with some indoor air quality problems just gives you 6 a tip of the iceberg of what's out there in terms of 7 public concern and public upset over these problems. And 8 public health obviously affects some of these problems of 9 indoor air quality, indoor air pollution. 10 I just -- the information about the cancer risk 11 from indoor air pollution is really quite stunning. I 12 haven't heard a lot of discussion about it. But you were 13 just presented with information that the cancer risk from 14 indoor air pollution approaches the level of cancer risk 15 from diesel exhaust, which is obviously a top priority for 16 Board action. And this tells me -- it tells us in the 17 American Lung Association that this indoor air quality 18 problem should receive a much higher priority of attention 19 and concern. 20 The number I believe were 230 excess cancer cases 21 attributed to indoor air pollution compared to 260 excess 22 cancer cases per year attributed to diesel pollution. 23 And, you know, with diesel pollution, obviously, 24 you know, these are different problems, but they're both 25 having a tremendous impact on public health. The diesel PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 155 1 pollution we have a risk reduction plan. We have a 2 75-percent reduction goal by 2010 and 85 percent by 2020, 3 I believe. And, you know, we have a whole program and 4 action steps that are on the agenda to be taken. And it 5 seems that we need some level of effort. Obviously I 6 don't know that you can marshal that same level of effort, 7 but it certainly seems like we need a higher profile 8 action plan on resolving some of these problems with 9 indoor air pollution. 10 You know, it's difficult of course. There's a 11 broad array of sources. There's -- you know, it takes 12 some time to define how we can best move forward. But 13 there are some steps that have been identified here. And 14 I think there are, you know, some fairly easy steps that 15 we can take now if we all agree and decide to take action. 16 The schools issue and children's health is 17 obviously a top priority. In terms of the school's health 18 issue, we already have, you know, readily available 19 materials and programs to help reduce indoor air pollution 20 in schools. We have them in existing schools. We have 21 the tool -- EPA tools for schools program, which is 22 discussed in your report, which is cost effective. It's 23 free. There's EPA training on it. It has resulted in 24 some of the reductions in use of asthma medications and 25 the reductions -- reductions of asthma attacks that were PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 156 1 cited in your report. 2 This program has been proven effective. Yet only 3 about 11 percent of schools in California are using this 4 program. And this is something that we, the Lung 5 Association, are trying to address the legislation, and so 6 far we haven't been successful. We're hoping that by 7 raising this today and continuing to work with you, we can 8 be successful. 9 In terms of new school buildings, there's a lot 10 that can be done. And the California Collaborative of 11 High Performance Schools has four volumes of best 12 practices, peer reviewed information. Again, it's readily 13 available. These best practices can be incorporated into 14 the design and the building, construction of schools that 15 would -- and these best practices can help improve their 16 efficiency and improve indoor air quality and other 17 environmental attributes. But, still, we don't have -- 18 you know, those are not being utilized nearly enough. 19 There's only I think 12 school districts that have 20 resolutions to use those CCHPS best practices in their new 21 construction. 22 We have huge investments from the state over the 23 next 20 years, billions of dollars going into new school 24 construction and modernization. And, you know, this is a 25 tremendous opportunity to address this issue with state PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 157 1 funds, and we need to do this. We have legislation this 2 year, AB 315, by Loni Hancock, that would require, for 3 schools that are going to take advantage of new bond 4 funds, that they would have to utilize those best 5 practices in the design and construction of schools. And 6 these are some types of measures that we can take. We 7 hope that you can be supportive of us in that legislative 8 effort. 9 But, you know, beyond that, you know, we think of 10 other things that the Board can do. I think this report 11 deserves some more attention in the Legislature. You 12 know, I appreciate that it's done, very much appreciate 13 it. But it would be great if you could hold some 14 legislative briefings to try to get this information out 15 in a more public way. And maybe have more press releases 16 and more public information about this problem. 17 I mentioned the idea of developing some kind of 18 risk reduction goals for indoor air quality. 19 I'm getting near the end of my time here. 20 The bottom line -- 21 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Are you at the end 22 of your time? 23 MS. HOLMES-GEN: I didn't think it was nearly 24 five minutes, you know. 25 You know, I would really like to see some action PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 158 1 steps. And, again, we're very appreciative of the report. 2 But I hope that we can work together and you can schedule 3 for a future Board hearing some action steps. You know, 4 you're report says that you've lifted all your mitigation 5 measures and say all of the suggested mitigation options 6 are feasible if appropriate mandates and resources are 7 provided. 8 Well, clearly that's a big "if". But, well, 9 which ones are feasible? I mean which ones can you move 10 forward with now with -- and they're lacking authority, 11 which ones do you need more authority? And these are 12 questions that you could come back and look at and maybe 13 have a little more Board discussion and decide on some 14 action. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Time. 16 Thank you. 17 MS. HOLMES-GEN: Thank you for your time. 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: And we do look 19 forward to working with you. And yours is -- this is a 20 collaborative effort because it's going to take the Lung 21 Association working in the halls of the Legislature to 22 help us bring this issue to the fore. 23 Thank you very much. 24 Lee Hudson, and then Mr. A. L. Wilson has signed 25 up to speak. And that concludes our speakers. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 159 1 MS. HUDSON: Lee Hudson. I had no idea I was 2 going to be here, so it's kind of scattered. 3 But just to give you some background. I've spent 4 the last 30 years of my life working in issues regarding 5 pesticides, hazardous materials, forestry, organic 6 farming, you name it. I founded and chaired a number of 7 environmental NGO's. 8 And one of the things that we've always looked at 9 is: How do you get the public over to your side? Well, 10 one way that I've done it is -- well, I don't even want to 11 say it that way. 12 I want to get back to what you said. You asked 13 the question, sir, about people who experience -- how do 14 they know when they're healthy and when they're not 15 healthy? And the fact is they don't know, because people 16 who experience chronic exposure come to think of that as 17 normal. And when you do approach them, what you get from 18 the public is what you got from your agencies: 19 Defensiveness, denial and discrediting. I love that. 20 That's exactly what happens. People don't want to change 21 their behavior. The only way to make them change in the 22 public sector is to provide them with alternatives so that 23 they get some kind of positive reinforcement rather 24 than -- what we used to do was shake our finger at people. 25 You know, they don't respond well to that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 160 1 The other thing that I have done many, many times 2 is used your example when giving testimony before other 3 bodies -- regulatory bodies who say, "Oh, we can't do this 4 because industry would just have a fit." And what I quote 5 is that the Air Resources Board has a clear history of 6 promulgating regulations which industry couldn't possibly 7 meet until the regulation comes down. And guess what? In 8 a very short period of time they meet it. They step up to 9 whatever the plate is and they meet it. And you have done 10 it year after year. All your faces are new to me. You 11 haven't seen me here in ten years. Some of your faces 12 down here are familiar, but -- anyway. 13 Let's see. Oh, I wanted to touch on -- the 14 medical model is that people are allergic, that if they 15 have some kind of a problem, "You're allergic." The Air 16 Resources Board model is that you're sensitive. But the 17 reality is you're injured. It's not about an allergy that 18 doesn't follow the medical model, which is why they can 19 discredit you. And you're not really sensitive. You may 20 be somewhat more sensitive than other individuals. But 21 the fact is we've experienced -- I'm one of those. And as 22 a matter of fact, I want to get to that one. 23 Sorry, Mr. Maytag person, but my respiratory 24 ailment began with a stove. It wasn't a Maytag, I don't 25 think. But it was a pilot light on the stove. And I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 161 1 think there have been some industry corrections along 2 those lines. 3 Anyway, then I want to get to ventilation. The 4 one thing that I have a problem with in the report -- and 5 I haven't had a chance to really read it -- but 6 ventilation improvements simply create outdoor pollution. 7 They simply remove the contaminant from indoors and put it 8 outdoors. But it doesn't really solve the problem. You 9 have to prevent the problem, and it has to be a nontoxic 10 alternative. 11 So ventilation is sort of a palliative, which 12 also allows people to not tackle the source of the 13 problem. And sort of like with mold -- and disinfecting 14 the mold, by the way, is not the way to cure it. The way 15 to cure a mold is to not have it in the first place. And 16 that's the same thing about the ventilation solution. 17 We disinfect ourselves to death. I call it the 18 Louis Pasteur syndrome. We have had about 80 million 19 years as mammals to adjust to the bacteria, the virus and 20 the other so-called contaminants in our environment. 21 We've had what, 50 to accommodate physically the insults 22 that we receive from all the disinfectants and the diesel 23 fuels and all those things. That's what's wrong with us. 24 That's why cancer is now the second leading cause of 25 death, instead of when I was a girl, something -- it was PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 162 1 virtually unheard of. So I would like to caution people 2 about being overzealous of disinfectants. 3 And I think that's about it. Thank you. 4 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: You're right on 5 time. 6 MS. HUDSON: Just a little to add on to, if you 7 didn't already know that. 8 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 9 A. L. Wilson please. 10 MR. WILSON: Yes. Thank you FOR letting me 11 speak. I had not intended to speak today. But I heard 12 one of your staff members -- oh, by the way, my name is A. 13 L. Wilson. I'm an environmental consultant from Irvine 14 specializing in indoor air quality issues. 15 But I heard one of your staff members -- Richard 16 I think a little while ago said that it was not the 17 staff's intent to abolish gas stoves. Well, if I could, 18 could I turn your attention to one page in the -- in your 19 handout here. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: What page. 21 MR. WILSON: Well, it's page 38 of the staff -- 22 of the Board proceedings, or page 24 -- I'm too old to see 23 without my glasses on -- or page 24 of the draft report. 24 And there's an Item 6 at the bottom of the page. 25 And it begins "Amend building codes..." PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 163 1 Do you have that? 2 If you read the second line of that paragraph, 3 it's quite clear that it says, for example, "unvented cook 4 stoves, ovens, and combustion appliances should not be 5 allowed in residences." Now, this is -- and it's repeated 6 in another section of the report. But this -- you know, I 7 really am glad that Richard said it's not the staff's -- 8 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Mr. Wilson, I don't 9 want to interrupt you. But I think the operative word is 10 "unvented". 11 Am I right, staff? 12 INDOOR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 13 JENKINS: Yes. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Staff the not -- in 15 other words you better vent your appliances. 16 MR. WILSON: Well, a gas stove is not vented, 17 okay, unless they're using vented in a way that's not used 18 in the gas industry. 19 But all -- I'm not trying to be argumentative 20 here at all. But if it's not your intent to abolish gas 21 stoves, I'd suggest modifying this sentence or maybe 22 stating here openly that it's your intent to abolish gas 23 stoves. 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. 25 Wilson. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 164 1 MR. WILSON: Thank you. 2 Staff do you want to comment? 3 INDOOR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER 4 JENKINS: Just to make a brief comment. There are 5 sentences that follow that sentence are the clarifying 6 comments. What we're saying is that we believe that even 7 the currently unvented gas stoves should be vented to the 8 outdoors. And we try to point out there are some models 9 available that are called direct vent. Another 10 alternative is to have an automatic exhaust so that it 11 will pull the fumes emissions out. That's what we're 12 trying to express there. And we'd be glad to try to 13 clarify that. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Maybe then it would 15 take away the sensitivity. 16 Staff, are there any final comments that any of 17 you have on this item? 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Nothing further. 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: All right. Board 20 members, any questions or comments before we go to the 21 resolution? 22 Mayor Loveridge. 23 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Just a follow on the 24 point I said began with -- you know, one time we add 25 something called energy audits where you could -- a check PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 165 1 list you could go through and make judgments about what 2 was taking place in terms of energy use. Maybe for some 3 audits if there's some kind of check list you could use in 4 terms of your home or your office. 5 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. 6 Any other questions? 7 Yes. 8 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Yes, I have just kind of 9 an observation. It struck me that -- especially with 10 respect to the school comments, that what's probably the 11 most vulnerable at public buildings where there's a lack 12 of investment, an ability to fix these sources of the 13 mold. 14 And in addition to schools, obviously public 15 housing -- the State of California has a huge inventory of 16 public housing. And I know that that has implications in 17 EJ and all sorts of other things. But I just wanted to 18 make the comment that public housing is a huge inventory 19 and probably a big source of the problem. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Point well taken. 21 There is a resolution before us, numbered 05-28. 22 I'll entertain a motion to support that. 23 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: So moved. 24 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Second. 25 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Second. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 166 1 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. 2 There's a motion, a second to approve the 3 resolution. 4 All those in favor say aye. 5 (Ayes.) 6 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Opposed, no. 7 Motion carries. 8 Let me indicate to all of you that that concludes 9 our agenda today. And I thank you, for those of you who 10 stayed to make the quorum, I'm very grateful. 11 And we will adjourn this meeting and we will 12 reconvene in El Monte in the month of April. 13 Thank you very much. 14 Thank you, staff. 15 (Thereupon the California Air Resources 16 Board Meeting adjourned at 1:10 p.m.) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 167 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 28th day of March, 2005. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR 23 Certified Shorthand Reporter 24 License No. 10063 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345