1 BOARD MEETING 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 3 AIR RESOURCES BOARD 4 5 6 7 CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD AUDITORIUM 8 9530 TELSTAR AVENUE EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2002 9:39 A.M. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Reported by: NEALY KENDRICK, CSR No. 11265 25 Job No.: 02-23580 1 1 APPEARANCES 2 BOARD MEMBERS Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D., Chairman 3 Dr. William A. Burke Joseph C. Calhoun, P.E. 4 Mark J. DeSaulnier Dorene D'Adamo 5 C. Hugh Friedman William F. Friedman, M.D. 6 Matthew R. McKinnon Barbara Riordan 7 STAFF MEMBERS 8 Michael Kenny, Executive Officer Tom Cackette, Deputy Executive Officer 9 Michael Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer 10 Kathleen Walsh, Chief Counsel Kathleen Tschogl, Ombudsperson 11 12 Dr. Dave Mazzera, Air Pollution Specialist, Research Division 13 Dr. Bart Ostro, Supervisor, Air Pollution Epidemiology Unit, OEHHA 14 Dr. Michael Kleinman, Chairman of the Air Quality Advisory Committee 15 Dr. Michael Lipsett, Ex Officio Member of Research Screening Committee 16 Bart Croes, P.E., Chief, Research Division Leslie Krinsk, Senior Staff Counsel, Legal Affairs 17 Linda Smith, Manager, Health and Ecosystems Assessment Section 18 Richard Bode, Chief, Health and Exposure Assessment Branch 19 Robert Fletcher, Chief, PTSD 20 Dale Shimp, Manager, Environmental Justice Section, Emission Inventory Branch, PTSD 21 Dr. Linda C. Murchison, Assistant Chief, PTSD Bruce Tuter, Air Pollution Specialist, Strategic 22 Analysis and Liaison Section, PTSD Gary Honcoop, Manager, Strategic Analysis and Liaison 23 Section, PTSD Cynthia Marvin, Chief, Air Quality & Transportation 24 Planning Branch, PTSD Bob Jenne, Senior Staff Counsel, Legal Affairs Office 25 2 1 I N D E X PAGE 2 Roll Call 5 3 Item 02-5-1 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the 4 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates 5 Chairman Lloyd 6 Executive Officer Kenny 8 6 Presentations: Dr. Mazzera 10, 30 7 Dr. Ostro 20 Mr. Scheible 33 8 Ms. Tschogl 35 Dr. Kleinman 37 9 Discussion 41 Witnesses: 10 Larry F. Greene, Yolo-Solano AQMD 58 Discussion 60 11 Dr. Chung Liu, SCAQMD 61 Dr. Jean Ospital, SCAQMD 62 12 Casimer Andary, Alliance of Automobile Mfrs. 65 Discussion 69 13 Jon Heuss, Air Improvement Resource, Inc. 70 Discussion 77 14 Cynthia Cory, California Farm Bureau 96 Discussion 103 15 Lunch Recess 114 Witnesses (continuing): 16 Joe Suchecki, Engine Manufacturers Assn. 114 Discussion 110 17 Stephanie Williams, California Trucking Assn. 132 Discussion 142 18 Jeb Stuart, Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition 157 19 Lisa Ohlund, Southern California Association of Publicly Owned Treatment Works 159 20 Todd Campbell, Coalition for Clean Air 161 Vandana Bali, Coalition for Clean Air 164 21 Renee Sharp, Environmental Working Group 166 Discussion 169 22 Bonnie Holmes-Gen, American Lung Assn. 172 Discussion 177 23 John S. Billheimer, Enviro-Realty 182 Ellen Garvey, Bay Area AQMD 184 24 Gretchen Hardison, LA Environmental Affairs Dept.; Nate Holden, 10th District 186 25 Discussion 188 3 1 I N D E X (continued) 2 PAGE Closing the record on 02-5-1 188 3 Ex parte statements Ms. D'Adamo 189 4 Mr. McKinnon 190 Discussion 190 5 Vote for/Adoption of Item 02-5-1 205 6 Break 205 7 Item 02-5-2 Public Meeting to Review the Status Report on 8 the Implementation of Environmental Justice Policies and Actions 9 Chairman Lloyd 205 Mr. Kenny 207 10 Staff presentation: Mr. Shimp 208 11 Discussion 220 Witnesses: 12 Joe Lyou, California League of Conservation Voters Education Fund 221 13 Discussion 227 Todd Campbell, Coalition for Clean Air 227 14 Discussion 229 15 Item 02-5-3 Public Meeting to Review the Status Report on 16 the Implementation of the San Francisco Bay Area's 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan 17 Chairman Lloyd 240 Executive Officer Kenny 241 18 Staff presentation: Mr. Tuter 242 19 Discussion 249 Witness: 20 Ellen Garvey, Bay Area AQMD 252 Discussion 255 21 Conclusion of Proceedings 260 22 Reporter's Certificate 261 23 24 25 4 1 EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2002 2 9:39 A.M. 3 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Good morning. The June 20, 5 2002, public meeting of the Air Resources Board will 6 now come to order. 7 Dr. Friedman, will you please lead us 8 in the Pledge of Allegiance. 9 (The Pledge of Allegiance was 10 recited.) 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you, Dr. Friedman. 12 Will the clerk of the board please 13 call the roll. 14 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Dr. Burke? 15 (No audible response.) 16 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Mr. Calhoun? 17 MR. CALHOUN: Here. 18 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Miss D'Adamo? 19 MS. D'ADAMO: Here. 20 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Supervisor DeSaulnier? 21 (No audible response.) 22 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Professor Friedman? 23 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Here. 24 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Dr. Friedman? 25 DR. FRIEDMAN: Here. 5 1 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Mr. McKinnon? 2 MR. McKINNON: Here. 3 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Supervisor Patrick? 4 (No audible response.) 5 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Mrs. Riordan? 6 MRS. RIORDAN: Here. 7 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Supervisor Roberts? 8 (No audible response.) 9 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Chairman Lloyd? 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Here. Thank you very much. 11 Again, it's good to be back in El 12 Monte again. And I'd like to thank the staff here 13 for the -- all the work they've done in preparing for 14 this board meeting and their great hospitality as 15 usual. So thank you all very much. 16 The first agenda item is 17 02-dash-5-dash-1. And I would like to remind anyone 18 in the audience who wishes to testify on today's 19 agenda item to please sign up with the Clerk of the 20 Board. Also if you have a written statement, please 21 provide 30 copies to the Clerk. 22 First item is the Public Hearing to 23 Consider Amendments to the Ambient Air Quality 24 Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates. As 25 the board will recall, in December, 2000, we approved 6 1 a joint ARB-OEHHA staff report on the adequacy of the 2 California air quality standards. Staff developed 3 that report as required by the Children's 4 Environmental Health Protection Act by Senator 5 Escutia, known as SB 25. 6 The Act directed the board to review 7 our existing health-based air quality standards to 8 ensure that they adequately protect the health of the 9 public, including infants and children. The 10 December, 2000, staff report recommended the 11 standards for particulate matter less than 10 microns 12 in diameter, or PM10, and sulfates be considered a 13 top priority for full review. 14 When we approved the report, I 15 emphasized my concern regarding the public health 16 impacts and directed staff to expedite the review and 17 prepare recommendations to amend the standards for 18 particulate matter by the spring of 2002. 19 Staff, working in consultation with 20 the Office of Environmental Health Hazard 21 Assessment -- OEHHA -- has developed recommendations 22 to amend and strengthen the PM10 standards based on 23 the review of the scientific literature. Today they 24 will present their recommendations for amendments to 25 the standards for particulate matter and sulfates. 7 1 And I would like to thank the staff, 2 both the staff of the ARB and OEHHA, for the 3 tremendous amount of work they've put in. And I 4 recognized that major accomplishment to bring us here 5 today. In the face of a lot of data, it's a tough 6 job. So thank you very much indeed. 7 At this point I'd like to turn it over 8 to Mr. Kenny to begin staff presentation. 9 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Dr. Lloyd and members 10 of the board. After many months of review by both 11 the staffs of the Air Resources Board and OEHHA, the 12 staffs are basically recommending modifications to 13 the particulate matter standard and to the sulfate 14 standard. 15 In addition, staff is proposing 16 revised monitoring methods and samplers to determine 17 ambient concentrations of PM and sulfates. 18 While staff originally proposed the 19 adoption of a new 24-hour average standard for fine 20 particulate -- PM2.5 standard for 24 hours, we have 21 recently learned about misapplication of a widely 22 used statistical software program which likely 23 affects several key short-term studies used to 24 support the level of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. 25 As a consequence, we believe it's 8 1 prudent to wait until the original authors have had a 2 chance to reanalyze their data and are currently 3 withdrawing, therefore, our recommendation for the 4 short-term PM2.5 standard until that reanalysis has 5 occurred. 6 The study supporting the annual 7 standards are not affected by this software problem. 8 Therefore, staff is recommending today that the board 9 approve the proposed annual average PM and sulfate 10 standards and associated changes for monitoring and 11 sampling. 12 These changes are based upon an 13 extensive review of the scientific data that suggest 14 a significant health impact to California residents 15 exposed to levels of PM at or near the current 16 standards. 17 Epidemiological studies in many cities 18 indicate strong associations between exposure to PM 19 and adverse health effects such as premature deaths 20 and illnesses from cardiopulmonary disease. 21 The staff recommendations presented 22 here today were peer-reviewed by the Air Quality 23 Advisory Committee, a scientific peer-review 24 committee whose members were appointed by the 25 president of the University of California and chaired 9 1 by Dr. Michael Kleinman. 2 Final staff recommendations were 3 developed in consideration of comments provided by 4 the Air Quality Advisory Committee and the public, 5 which participated during the public comment periods 6 for the board staff proposal set forth in the 7 document. 8 Dr. Dave Mazzera will provide the 9 summary of the proposal and present the staff's 10 recommendations. Dr. Bart Ostro, from OEHHA, will 11 present the scientific rationale for the staff's 12 recommendations. And following the staff's 13 presentation, Dr. Michael Kleinman will present an 14 overview of the Air Quality Advisory Committee's 15 review and its recommendations. 16 And with that, I'd like to turn it 17 over now to Dr. Mazzera. Dave? 18 DR. MAZZERA: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. 19 Good morning, Chairman Lloyd and 20 members of the board. I'm here this morning to 21 present staff recommendations to amend the ambient 22 air quality standards for particulate matter and 23 sulfates. 24 As you are all aware, we periodically 25 review California's ambient air quantity standards 10 1 for many important reasons, the most prominent of 2 which are to ensure that each of the state standards 3 provides adequate protection of public health for all 4 Californians, to ensure state standards are based on 5 the best available peer-reviewed information on 6 health effects as well as to comply with the 7 Children's Environmental Health Protection Act, 8 Senate Bill 25, authored by Senator Escutia in 1999. 9 The Act specifically requires that we 10 review all ambient air quality standards and that the 11 review gives special consideration to the potential 12 health impacts on infants and children. We are 13 further required to complete this first review, which 14 is the subject of today's hearing, by the end of this 15 year. 16 This process began in 2000, when staff 17 at the Office of Environmental Health Hazard 18 Assessment and external experts evaluated each of the 19 ambient air quality standards for public health 20 protection. It was determined that several may not 21 adequately protect public health, including that of 22 infants and children. 23 The priority for standard review is 24 then based on potential adverse health risks, with 25 first priority given to those posing the greatest 11 1 potential risk. It was determined that PM, or 2 particulate matter, at the current levels posed the 3 greatest risk to public health and should be reviewed 4 first. 5 Although the issues pertaining to 6 particulate matter exposure and health effects are 7 rather complex, it is quite clear that the associated 8 health effects, such as premature death and 9 cardiorespiratory disease, are significant and have 10 been reported by the scientific and medical 11 communities. 12 The body of evidence underlying these 13 findings is substantial and compelling and includes 14 peer-reviewed literature from studies across the 15 United States and around the world. In addition, we 16 are extremely concerned with the potential health 17 effects in especially vulnerable groups within the 18 overall population. 19 These groups include infants and 20 children; asthmatics; and those with preexisting 21 heart and lung disease, which often includes the 22 older segment of the population. 23 We also know that most Californians 24 are exposed to levels of PM above the current annual 25 standard, which directly implies that the health 12 1 benefits from lowering the PM levels will be 2 substantial and that a new more protective standard 3 will help us in obtaining these benefits. 4 This next slide diagrams the overall 5 standard review process with specifics related to 6 this review of the PM standards. 7 Last November, ARB and the OEHHA staff 8 released a draft report to the public and to the Air 9 Quality Advisory Committee, which is a peer-review 10 body established by legislation and appointed by the 11 University of California Office of the President. 12 The report to the committee contained 13 a comprehensive review of the pertinent peer-reviewed 14 literature and recommendations for revising the PM 15 standards. In addition, public workshops were 16 conducted at six locations last December. 17 Written comments and oral testimony 18 from the public were considered by the Air Quality 19 Advisory Committee during their public meetings to 20 consider the scientific basis for the proposed 21 recommendation in the initial draft staff report and 22 in the subsequent PM2.5 24-hour standard proposal 23 requested by the committee. 24 Public comments and the findings of 25 the committee were then considered in the development 13 1 of the final staff report, which was released on May 2 3 of this year. The release of the final report 3 opened the 45-day comment period; and during this 4 time, two additional public workshops were held. 5 Next, I'd like to mention how the 6 standard development process addressed the board's 7 strong commitment to incorporate environmental 8 justice into all of the ARB's programs. 9 First, I want to note that PM 10 standards, as well as others staff will bring to the 11 board, are intended to set protective public health 12 goals for all communities statewide. To inform the 13 public of our progress, our outreach efforts have 14 included public townhall meetings publicized with 15 direct phone calls and newspaper advertisements. 16 Also, as part of the standard-setting 17 process, we examined the health impacts of PM 18 exposure on vulnerable populations. 19 And, finally, it is important to point 20 out that environmental justice will be considered in 21 prioritizing and evaluating measures to reduce PM. 22 Communities with higher exposure will see greater 23 relative benefits from implementation of the 24 health-protective standards. 25 As many of you may be aware, there's 14 1 been a recent development that led us to modify 2 recommendations for the short-term, or 24-hour, PM 3 standards that are contained in the staff report. 4 Researchers have identified incorrect operation of a 5 statistical software package often used in short-term 6 studies that can bias results both up or down. 7 Based on a review by ARB and OEHHA 8 staff, we determined that the software was not used 9 in long-term studies that are the basis for the 10 annual average standards. Thus the problem did not 11 impact estimates for long-term studies used as the 12 basis for our annual average recommendations. 13 However, some of the short-term 14 exposure studies used for the 24-hour PM2.5 standard 15 were affected. There was insufficient time between 16 the discovery of this problem and today's hearing to 17 determine if the reanalysis of the short-term 18 exposure data would alter our recommended level for 19 the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. 20 In fact, it appears it will be many 21 months before all the reanalysis will be done. 22 Therefore, we will not be presenting a recommendation 23 for a new 24-hour PM2.5 standard today. However, we 24 are moving forward with the recommended annual 25 standards since the basis for these standards is not 15 1 in question. 2 Therefore, staff recommendations for 3 the particulate matter standards include the 4 following: 5 For the annual standards, we propose 6 to reduce the annual PM10 average standard from 30 7 micrograms per cubic meter to 20 micrograms per cubic 8 meter and to add an annual PM2.5 average standard of 9 12 micrograms per cubic meter. Both of the annual 10 averages will be based on arithmetic means and 11 are-not-be-exceeded standards. 12 In light of the recent findings, staff 13 recommendations for the short-term standards in the 14 May staff report have been modified to the following: 15 We propose to continue review of both 16 the 24-hour average PM2.5 and PM10 standards as new 17 information becomes available on the reanalysis of 18 studies affected by the identified statistical 19 software misapplication. 20 In addition, based on the available 21 evidence from unaffected studies, the existing PM10 22 24-hour standard will remain in effect. Furthermore, 23 for sulfates, we propose to retain the 24-hour 24 standard of 25 micrograms per cubic meter and to 25 establish alternate monitoring methods for sulfates. 16 1 We are further proposing the following 2 changes to the monitoring methods for particulate 3 matter and sulfates: 4 We propose to adopt the existing 5 federal reference methods for PM10 and PM2.5. In 6 doing so, we will be expanding the number of approved 7 monitors available in California and building upon a 8 network that has been implemented statewide over the 9 past several years for PM2.5. 10 It is important to note that the 11 federal-equivalent methods are not being proposed for 12 approval today, as they have been problematic in 13 California's atmosphere, rich in nitrate and volatile 14 carbon species. 15 We propose to designate three specific 16 continuous methods as acceptable for PM10 and PM2.5. 17 This has several advantages, such as supporting the 18 air quality index and allowing us to look at PM 19 levels over time periods less than 24 hours, using 20 samplers that have been tested in California and 21 approved by ARB. And we also propose to replace the 22 current total suspended-particulate-matter-based 23 method with the ARB PM10-based method for sulfates. 24 In this table, we compare the State's 25 proposed annual standards with current standards or 17 1 guidelines established by other regulatory advisory 2 institutions. We see the California's proposed 3 annual PM10 standards are indeed health protective 4 with a level that matches those proposed by the 5 European Union as Stage 2 limit values that will 6 require review prior to adoption. 7 In addition, our proposed annual PM2.5 8 standard is just below the range proposed in the 1996 9 US EPA staff paper as well as the final standard they 10 adopted. 11 While portions of the state are out of 12 attainment for the current annual PM10 standard, 13 several areas meet the current standard and will be 14 better protected by the proposed standard. This bar 15 graph illustrates the annual average levels of PM10 16 and PM2.5 for the year 2000 for various air basins in 17 California. 18 Relative to PM2.5, the graph shows 19 that two basins -- the South Coast and San Joaquin 20 Valley -- are well above the proposed standards but 21 that most other air basins are much closer to or even 22 slightly below the proposed levels. 23 Improving PM air quality from its 24 current level to the level of recommended standard 25 will result in a large number of significant annual 18 1 health benefits. 2 These include prevention of 3 approximately 6,500 premature deaths, 32,000 fewer 4 cases of bronchitis in children 8 to 12 years in age, 5 prevention of 340,000 asthma attacks, prevention of 6 almost 3 million lost workdays, and prevention of 7 thousands of cardiovascular and respiratory 8 hospitalizations among those older than 65. 9 It's important to point out to you 10 that only the hospitalization-benefit estimate was 11 affected by any of the recent statistical issues 12 mentioned earlier. Nonetheless, we continue to 13 expect substantial benefits in this area. 14 Finally, while we're moving forward 15 with the recommendations for the annual standards, I 16 want to reiterate that it's clear that long-term 17 studies are not affected by the statistical software 18 issue; that there is a high-level exposure to PM in 19 most of California; and that the epidemiology studies 20 provide clear, compelling evidence of significant 21 health effects associated with PM exposure. 22 That concludes this portion of the 23 presentation. I would now like to introduce Dr. Bart 24 Ostro, from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard 25 Assessment, who will present information on the basis 19 1 for the proposed standards. 2 DR. OSTRO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and 3 members of the board. 4 So what I'd like to do is provide a 5 brief review of some of the health evidence that was 6 used in developing our proposals for the annual 7 average standards for PM10 and PM2.5. Now, our PM 8 standards are based primarily on epidemiologic data 9 with some support from toxicological and clinical 10 evidence. 11 This is different than some other 12 standards which have been based more on clinical 13 evidence and chamber studies. However, in this case 14 we're able to consider the free-living population and 15 use real world exposures and health -- recognized 16 health outcomes as our basis. 17 In this case, we're able to actually 18 look at many different populations that may be 19 susceptible. We can look at asthmatics. We can look 20 at infants and children. And we can look at elderly 21 people with chronic heart and lung disease and see if 22 PM10 and PM2.5 are adversely affecting these groups. 23 So we're not being forced to 24 extrapolate, as we might in a toxicological study 25 from very high doses to very low doses; nor are we 20 1 extrapolating, as we might have to in a small chamber 2 study, from a group of a dozen or 20 subjects to the 3 whole population. Here we're using the population at 4 large. 5 In doing so, we're able to 6 explicitly -- implicitly incorporate a wide range of 7 behaviors, exposures, and underlying health status. 8 So the results of these studies, indeed, are very 9 powerful. 10 Since PM composition is very 11 complex -- it's heterogeneous regarding the size of 12 the particles and the chemical constituents -- 13 epidemiologic studies become more relevant because 14 it's very difficult to replicate what we see out in 15 the air, the ambient air, in a closed-chamber 16 setting. So the epidemiologic studies are very 17 practical and relevant for this standard. 18 Now, there's a vast body of evidence 19 relating health effects to particulate matter 20 exposure. Since our last review in the early 80's, 21 literally hundreds of studies have been published 22 relating PM10 and PM2 to a wide range of health 23 outcomes. 24 And we now have evidence of mortality 25 and morbidity effects from PM2 -- PM2.5 and PM10 in 21 1 over 200 cities in five different continents. And 2 the effects have been associated with both short-term 3 and long-term exposures and at current ambient 4 concentrations. So we're not talking about 5 high-exposure days but really at current ambient 6 concentrations. 7 Now, there are several studies that 8 have been published on long-term exposure -- by this, 9 I mean sometime between 1 year and up to 16 years of 10 exposure -- and then looking at mortality or survival 11 or life expectancy. These studies include the 12 Harvard Six-City Studies, which I'll be talking 13 about; the American Cancer Society Study; the AHSMOG, 14 Adventist health study from Southern California. 15 All three of these studies have 16 prospectively examined long-term exposure to PM 17 sulfates and/or PM2.5. In these studies, once the 18 subjects are recruited, they're then followed for up 19 to 16 years to see if air pollution relates to 20 survival in a given city. 21 And the analyses explicitly control 22 for many other individual level factors that might 23 relate to mortality -- things like age, gender, 24 weight, tobacco and alcohol use, occupational 25 exposure, diet, and a wide range of other individual 22 1 as well as city-level factors. 2 So once all these other factors are 3 taken into account and their effects on mortality are 4 considered, then the studies look at whether cities 5 that have higher air pollution levels tend to have 6 lower longevity. So they want to see if mortality is 7 explicitly related over a long period of exposure to 8 those exposure levels. 9 In the first study published in the 10 New England Journal of Medicine -- the Harvard 11 Six-City Study, published in '93 -- over 8,000 adults 12 were followed for up to 16 years. In this study, the 13 pollution monitors were set up to be specifically 14 representative of exposure in those cities. 15 So the monitors were set up 16 specifically for this study, and the findings 17 suggested that both PM2.5 and PM10 was associated 18 with cardiovascular disease as well as lung cancer. 19 These two graphs show you the results 20 of those two -- of this particular study. Just to 21 quickly run you through it, on this axis here, we 22 have the concentrations, the long-term 23 concentrations, of PM2.5. And each one of these 24 letters represents one of the six cities. 25 The lowest city was set at a level of 23 1 1, as a relative risk, the risk of -- the baseline 2 risk of mortality. And you can see from this 3 diagram, as the concentration, the long-term 4 concentrations of PM2.5 increase, the relative risks 5 of mortality increase in almost a linear dose- 6 response fashion. 7 We also see that, somewhere between 8 the 12 and 15-microgram-per-cubic level -- 9 microgram-per-cubic-meter level, the risks really 10 begin to increase. 11 We also have a diagram for PM10 -- 12 again, long-term exposures to PM10 -- and, again, 13 Topeka here is a little bit of an outlier -- but we 14 see a nice dose response or concentration response 15 function. And we also see that, in the lower 20's, 16 there's an increase in risk to mortality. This is 17 relating to cardiovascular and pulmonary disease. 18 The next study that was published was 19 the American Cancer Society, or the ACS, cohort. 20 This study, first published in 1995, was originally 21 funded by the National Cancer Institute. 22 It's a cohort of 550,000 individuals 23 in 151 cities initially followed for 7 years that 24 used a methodology similar to the methodology of the 25 Harvard Six-City study, which, again, let me assure 24 1 you, does not use the software that was discussed 2 earlier by Dr. Mazzera, of which problems have 3 developed. 4 And this study's also found reported 5 associations between PM2.5 and sulfate and both 6 cardiopulmonary mortality and lung cancer. And the 7 results of this study as well as the other study 8 implies significant reductions in life expectancy. 9 As an example, between the least and 10 most polluted cities in this study, which was about 11 24 micrograms per cubic meter, PM2.5, the average 12 pollution-associated decrease in life expectancy 13 between these two cities would be about 1 1/2 years. 14 So on average, you would expect a 15 person living in the more polluted city to die about 16 1 1/2 years earlier because of this 20, 24-microgram 17 difference in pollution. So it's a quite a 18 significant effect for the whole community. 19 Now, these studies were deemed to be 20 so important by the federal government in their 21 standard setting and by many other institutions that 22 the Health Effects Institute, a nonprofit institute 23 out of Cambridge, Mass, which is jointly funded by 24 the auto industry and by US EPA funded a massive 25 reanalysis of the data of these two data sets. 25 1 Basically they asked -- they hired 2 researchers from Canada to start from scratch; 3 basically reconstruct the entire data set; 4 reconstruct all the pollution data and all the health 5 data; and, first, see if they could replicate the 6 initial results. Then they were asked to do a 7 massive amount of sensitivity analysis. 8 So the sensitivity analysis included 9 looking at many other individual-level factors that 10 the original authors hadn't included as well as a lot 11 of citywide variables which some people had 12 postulated might affect the associations between 13 particulate matter and mortality. 14 So a whole lot of sensitivity 15 analysis -- in this case, we define "sensitivity 16 analysis" as taking the basic results and really 17 doing everything you can to see how sensitive those 18 results are to these different changes that you're 19 putting in -- different models, different types of 20 data, different pollutants, different functional 21 forums, different individual variables -- and really 22 trying to see how robust the relationships are. 23 And I want to just add, for the 24 record, that the term "sensitivity analysis" did not 25 emanate in California. Let's be clear about that 26 1 one. 2 So the extensive analysis basically 3 confirmed the associations with particulate matter 4 after all these other forums were considered. They 5 were very confirmatory. 6 Also recently, just several months 7 ago, there was an update of the American Cancer 8 Society study. And that used 16 years, rather than 9 the original 7 years, of data. 10 And it accounted for, again, a wide 11 range of other variables that hadn't been 12 considered -- about a hundred different dietary 13 factors and many other ways of looking at smoking and 14 alcohol use and occupational exposure. And, again, 15 these findings confirmed the original findings of 16 these authors. 17 So the Health Effects Institute review 18 committee concluded by saying, overall, the 19 reanalysis assured the quality of the original data, 20 replicated the original results, and tested those 21 results against alternative risk models and 22 analytical approaches without substantially altering 23 the original findings of an association between 24 indicators of particulate matter, air pollution, and 25 mortality. 27 1 So this was a very important 2 finding -- a 2-year, million-dollar reanalysis. 3 It's important to mention that 4 long-term exposure also affects morbidity in 5 children. All those mortality effects that we were 6 talking about focussed on adults, ages 30 and above. 7 It's important to recognize that there will be 8 morbidity effects. 9 And several published studies have 10 indicated that. For example, there are studies that 11 show a 1- or 2-year increase in particulate matter 12 will increase the risk of bronchitis and chronic 13 cough, particularly among individuals who already 14 have asthma. 15 There's some recent studies that have 16 been published in the last few years, including some 17 studies in Los Angeles, that show that PM exposure 18 during pregnancy are associated with low birth 19 weight, premature birth, and birth defects. 20 And, finally, there's a study funded 21 by the Air Resources Board, as part of the children's 22 health study, that showed, over a 4-year period, 23 PM10, PM2.5, coarse particles and acid vapors -- and 24 I know, too, it's hard to point out or indicate which 25 of the specific pollutants -- but this whole range of 28 1 pollutants were associated with reduced lung-function 2 growth in children. And reduced lung-function growth 3 is a good predictor of subsequent significant 4 morbidity and mortality. 5 So what was the rationale, ultimately, 6 for the annual average standards? 7 First, that there were several large 8 studies that I've indicated that suggest significant 9 health effects related to chronic long-term exposure 10 to particulate matter, both PM2.5 and PM10; that 11 long-term exposure has a large impact on mortality. 12 The effects are quite significant. 13 Also the need for a separate PM2.5 14 standard, since PM2.5 generally has different 15 sources, different penetration rates inside, and 16 different lung deposition patterns than PM10. And 17 the goal was that, by lowering the annual average 18 PM10 standard and adding a PM2.5 annual average, 19 we'll be reducing the entire distribution of 20 particles and long-term exposure. 21 So that's our goal is to lower the 22 entire distribution of particles PM10 and PM2.5. And 23 our proposed standards, that I've indicated, are 24 below the concentrations at which adverse health 25 effects have been consistently observed. 29 1 It's also important to notice that, as 2 the annual average decrease, we expect that some of 3 the health effects that are associated with 4 short-term exposures will also decrease. 5 So we believe that and the evidence 6 supports that reducing PM10 distributions and PM2.5 7 distributions will reduce not only mortality due to 8 short-term exposures but morbidity. 9 And some of the studies recently have 10 indicated that particles exposure is associated with 11 heart attacks and arrhythmias, with hospital 12 admissions and emergency room visits, with asthma 13 attacks and other respiratory symptoms, and with work 14 loss and school lost days. 15 So I think I will stop here and turn 16 it back to Dave. 17 DR. MAZZERA: Thank you, Bart. 18 Next, I'll present a brief summary of 19 some of the comments received during the comment 20 period and at the workshops. 21 First, we received over 1,400 letters 22 of general support from individuals. In addition, 73 23 more detailed comments were received, most 24 supportive, with 17 expressing opposition to the 25 review process or to staff's proposals and 2 30 1 expressing the standards were not stringent enough to 2 protect public health. Many of these complaints were 3 reiterated at the public workshops on this item. 4 Four main types of comments were found 5 in the 17 letters that I felt -- that felt the 6 proposed standards were too stringent. I'll briefly 7 summarize each type of comment and staff's response 8 to each. 9 The first type of comment was that 10 additional time was needed to review staff proposals. 11 In response, the proposed amendments 12 were developed after an extensive peer-review 13 process, starting in November of last year, and 14 included two public comment periods with eight public 15 workshops and peer review by the Air Quality Advisory 16 Committee. 17 The second was that the recently 18 identified statistical software problem created 19 uncertainty in many studies and necessitates a delay 20 in the board action. 21 In response, none of the long-term 22 studies that support the staff recommendations for 23 the annual average standards for PM10 and PM2.5 used 24 the statistical software package in question. 25 Estimates of PM-related health effects, including 31 1 premature death, are not affected. 2 A comment was received that the 3 economic impacts of future controls should be 4 considered prior to board action. 5 In response, the Children's 6 Environmental Health Protection Act requires the 7 standards must be based on health impacts and not 8 based on control consequences. 9 California law requires that the 10 assessment of health impacts of pollutants be 11 separate from the consideration of regulatory control 12 measures to reduce public health risk. Furthermore, 13 any future regulatory proposal to control emissions 14 will be fully considered and discussed with 15 stakeholders prior to adoption. 16 And the last type of comment -- that 17 the proposed standards are too lenient. 18 In response, the proposed levels of 19 the standards underwent an independent peer review by 20 the Air Quality Advisory Committee, which endorsed 21 the level of the scientific rationale of the proposed 22 recommendations. 23 Finally, I would like to briefly recap 24 the staff's recommendations, in very general terms, 25 for revising the PM standards. The recommendations, 32 1 once again, are to update annual standards for PM10; 2 establish an annual standard for PM 2.5; revise 3 monitoring methods; and continue review of the 4 short-term, 24-hour standards. 5 We have the ability today to take the 6 first steps to prevent annually approximately 6,500 7 deaths, thousands of cardiovascular and respiratory 8 hospitalizations, tens of thousands of cases 9 bronchitis, hundreds of thousands of incidences of 10 lower respiratory disease, and millions of work 11 lost -- millions of workdays lost by attaining the 12 proposed standards. 13 That concludes our presentation. ARB 14 and OEHHA staff will be happy to answer any questions 15 the board may have. Thank you. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 17 MR. SCHEIBLE: I'd like to address one thing 18 that we didn't -- my microphone's not on? Is it on 19 yet? I'm pretty close. Okay. I get much closer, 20 it'd get dangerous for one of the two of us. 21 On the 24-hour standard, the issues 22 that were -- we found out about approximately three 23 weeks ago were with how the original researchers 24 applied statistical evaluation techniques. We've 25 seen some of the reanalysis that have been done, but 33 1 we don't control how the timing and when that will 2 occur. 3 The original researchers have to go 4 back to their data, apply the tools. We think it's 5 prudent that that process go on, that there be some 6 publishing and peer review of that. 7 And once we get that, then we look at 8 the data and go back to the Air Quality Advisory 9 Committee. So it's going to take us some period of 10 time. We want to do that as soon as possible because 11 we continue to be convinced that there are short-term 12 effects that the annual standards will not be fully 13 protective against. 14 But it will probably be some time in 15 the next year before we can get the information and 16 complete a review inside the state. So that's how 17 that aspect of the proposal lies in terms of the 18 staff's opinion. Thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 20 Any other questions from staff? 21 I'd just like to ask Madam Ombudsman: 22 Would you please describe the public-participation 23 process that occurred while this item was being 24 developed and share any concerns or comments that you 25 may have with the board at this time. 34 1 MS. TSCHOGL: Be glad to. Mr. Chairman and 2 members of the board, the proposed amendments were 3 developed after an extensive public review process. 4 That process included an initial set of public 5 workshops at six locations in December, 2001, to 6 explain to the public the health impacts of 7 particulate air pollution. 8 These workshops were held in 9 Sacramento, Oakland, Bakersfield, El Monte, Mira 10 Loma, and Huntington Park. Staff was also invited to 11 a townhall meeting in February of 2002 in Mira Loma 12 to discuss staff recommendations on PM. Additional 13 workshops were held -- in June, 2002 -- in Sacramento 14 and in El Monte. 15 The Air Quality Advisory Committee 16 held two public meetings, one on January 23, 2002, 17 and the other on April 3, 2002. Both meetings were 18 noticed, open, and attended by the public. 19 The public was allowed to submit 20 written comments for the committee's review, and time 21 was made available at both meetings for oral comments 22 by the public. Attendance at these workshops and 23 meetings ranged from 10, in Bakersfield, which was an 24 evening session, to 40 at the advisory committee 25 meetings. 35 1 Workshop notices were sent out to over 2 2,800 people. Staff has developed a fact sheet and a 3 website. A list serve to notify stakeholders via the 4 Internet was also developed. List-served notices 5 were sent to approximately 1,700 people. 6 Also, informational phone calls were 7 made to environmental justice stakeholders, which 8 originated from a list developed by the Planning and 9 Technical Support Division of ARB. All workshops 10 were noticed in the local newspapers and on ARB's 11 "Calendar of Events" schedule. 12 An extended public comment period 13 began on November 30, 2001, with the public release 14 of the first draft staff review and recommendations. 15 Comments received from the public and the advisory 16 committee were incorporated into the final staff 17 report released on May 3, 2002. 18 This report includes comments received 19 during the public and peer-review process staff 20 responses and the Air Quality Advisory Committee 21 findings. May 3 was also the beginning of a new 22 45-day public comment period for the board's review 23 and consideration. Thank you. And that concludes my 24 comments. 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 36 1 We skipped over a very important piece 2 here. And that's Dr. Michael Kleinman, who is 3 Chairman of the Air Quality Advisory group. And 4 obviously they played an important role in bringing 5 this process before the board. So, Dr. Kleinman, I'm 6 sorry for skipping over you. 7 DR. KLEINMAN: Chairman Lloyd, members of the 8 board, thank you very much for allowing me to present 9 this information. 10 As has been mentioned several times 11 now, the Air Quality Advisory Committee was 12 established by the or appointed by the Office of the 13 President of the University of California. And under 14 that aegis, we were asked to review the draft 15 document -- the review of the California ambient air 16 quality standards for particulate matter and 17 sulfates. 18 And as part of that review -- 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mike, can you speak up a 20 little bit? Or is the mike on? 21 DR. KLEINMAN: Is that better? 22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: That's better. 23 DR. KLEINMAN: Okay. As part of that review, 24 we investigated, as a committee, whether the relevant 25 studies on air quality and health were identified and 37 1 appropriately interpreted, whether there were 2 critical studies that might have been omitted, 3 whether the recommendations were consistent with the 4 best available scientific evidence. 5 In terms of the review, we also 6 considered other factors -- whether there was 7 appropriate consideration given to the various types 8 of populations that might be more susceptible to the 9 effects of air pollution; whether there were 10 omissions in the groups that were considered in the 11 staff document; and most importantly, whether the 12 data on infants and children were appropriately 13 considered, given that a major driving force for this 14 review was the Children's Health Initiative. 15 We also wished to determine whether 16 there were uncertainties in the process and 17 whether -- where those uncertainties were noted, that 18 they were clearly demarked and discussed. 19 The draft document was posted and 20 disseminated, and a comment period was allowed. And 21 comments were received both from the members of the 22 Air Quality Advisory Committee and from the public. 23 Those comments were transmitted to the staffs of ARB 24 and OEHHA. And they took those into consideration 25 and provided us with a modified review. 38 1 In our public meeting on January 23 2 and 24, we reviewed written public comments, heard 3 oral public statements, and received briefings from 4 members of the staff of ARB and OEHHA. 5 And at that time the Air Quality 6 Advisory Committee endorsed the recommendations in 7 that report, which involved lowering the PM10 annual 8 average standard to 20 micrograms per cubic meter and 9 also revising the averaging method to the annual 10 mean. 11 We endorsed retaining the PM10 24-hour 12 standard and establishing a PM2.5 annual average 13 arithmetic means standard at 12 micrograms per cubic 14 meter and retaining the current 15 25-microgram-per-cubic-meter sulfate standard with 16 the change in monitoring methodology. 17 However, the original report stated 18 that the evidence was not sufficient to establish a 19 24-hour PM2.5 standard. And based on the health 20 information available and the information presented 21 to us at the briefings, the Air Quality Advisory 22 Committee requested that a recommendation for a 23 24-hour PM2.5 standard be produced. 24 That 24-hour proposal was prepared and 25 disseminated to the committee, posted, and allowed 39 1 time for public comment. And on April 3, the AQAC 2 met, heard public comments, reviewed, and endorsed a 3 recommended PM2.5 24-hour standard. 4 Subsequent to that review, it was 5 determined that the statistical-analysis methods used 6 in some of the studies that were provided as a basis 7 for setting this 24-hour standard were in error. And 8 the impact of that error is now being actively 9 pursued by the appropriate people at ARB and OEHHA 10 as well as the US EPA and a number of other 11 organizations as well. 12 In the meantime, the proposed 2.5 13 short-term standard, which we had endorsed, was 14 withdrawn and will need to be reassessed. And it's 15 important to note that those are the only standards 16 that are being withdrawn, as I understand it. 17 The basis for the PM10 standards and 18 the annual standards were not affected by the 19 software problem. 20 The investigation of the problematical 21 studies, which are basically time-series studies, 22 will be conducted and reported back. And at the time 23 that this review is completed by OEHHA and ARB, the 24 Air Quality Advisory Committee will have an 25 opportunity to review and comment on the findings. 40 1 And, finally, I would like to 2 personally thank and congratulate the ARB and OEHHA 3 staff who participated in preparing the document, 4 preparing the scientific briefings that our committee 5 received. It was done with excellent 6 professionalism, and it was an excellent review. 7 And I just wanted to pass on one very 8 brief comment that was made by Dr. Bates, who is an 9 eminent epidemiologist in the field of air pollution, 10 at a meeting of the National Research Council, who 11 said to the EPA staffers who were present that they 12 should carefully review the document prepared by ARB 13 and OEHHA as a model for future criteria documents. 14 And with that, I thank you. And I'd 15 be happy to answer any questions. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, Dr. 17 Kleinman. That's very high praise indeed from 18 Dr. Bates. 19 Any questions for Dr. Kleinman or the 20 staff? 21 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Yes, sir. 22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Professor Friedman. 23 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: My question is for the 24 staff. Thank you, Dr. Kleinman. 25 I wanted to know what the effect of 41 1 adopting these standards would have if we are yet 2 awaiting another day to consider and adopt control 3 measures and when, I assume, we would then take into 4 account the cost-benefit analysis that we're required 5 to do for those who will be subject to these as 6 sources of emissions. 7 So could you clarify that? 8 MR. KENNY: Yes. I mean historically what we 9 have done and what's required under California law is 10 that we actually establish the air quality standards 11 by looking at what is required under the health 12 assessments. And so the air quality standards solely 13 reflect what the scientific data shows as being 14 protective of public health. 15 The second step, once we have gone 16 through that, is then to look at essentially the 17 measures that would be utilized to achieve those 18 standards. And those measures are generally the 19 control measures that we bring to you. And those 20 control measures then do look at essentially the 21 economics, the cost implications for adopting those 22 measures. 23 And so at that particular point in 24 time, the board then does balance the cost versus the 25 benefits of a particular control measure in ways 42 1 that, again, attempt to achieve these particular 2 standards that are before you today. 3 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Just a follow-up 4 question. What -- I don't know if this is feasible 5 or conceivable, but what if a standard that we adopt 6 cannot practically be achieved under existing 7 techniques for control measures or at least not 8 without putting people completely out of business? 9 MR. KENNY: I think that -- 10 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: That would have to do 11 with time line, then, or -- 12 MR. KENNY: It will have to do with the time 13 line. And that's the balancing act that the board 14 will engage in as it looks at control measures. 15 I think, if we were to look back 25, 16 30 years ago to the ozone levels that were 17 essentially being, you know, found throughout the 18 State of California at that time and to the standard 19 that was in place at that time and, you know, what 20 has happened -- I think people very much would have 21 thought 25, 30 years ago that the chances of ever 22 achieving the ozone standard were quite, quite slim. 23 And yet where we are today is that we 24 have a number of portions of the State of California 25 that are actually getting very close to achieving 43 1 those standards and, in fact, are likely to achieve 2 those standards in the next number of years. 3 So what we try to do and what we're 4 required to do is simply look at what we -- what the 5 health science tells us about what is protective of 6 public health and then provide that to you. And then 7 we go to the next step and do the balancing act when 8 we get into the control measures. 9 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: So we declare these as 10 our standards for health benefits and desired 11 societal benefits. And then we take on the task of 12 figuring out how to achieve those? 13 MR. KENNY: That's correct. And what will 14 happen is that, at times, as we look at those 15 different control measures, the cost may be higher 16 than is essentially reasonable at that particular 17 point in time. And so we will then scale them back 18 in order to keep the cost down. 19 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Or defer the time line 20 to -- 21 MR. KENNY: Or defer the time lines. That's 22 absolutely -- 23 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: -- incentivize. 24 MR. KENNY: Absolutely correct. 25 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Okay. Thank you. 44 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo. 2 MS. D'ADAMO: Just as a follow-up to that, if 3 we could turn to -- let's see. It must be -- looks 4 like Slide Number 11, the PM10-and-2.5-by-air-basin 5 slide. The question that I have kind of goes along 6 with what Professor Friedman had just raised and that 7 is "What if it's not practical to attain the 8 standard?" 9 And I'm looking at, in particular -- 10 well, there are some of the air basins where 11 obviously there are large number of populations or 12 that there may be control measures that could be 13 adopted, setting aside the issue about whether or not 14 it's economically feasible to do so. 15 But then if you look at some of these 16 areas -- Salton Sea, for example, on the PM10 -- what 17 could be done in a community where there are geologic 18 conditions? I'm assuming that's why their PM10 rates 19 are so high. 20 MR. KENNY: I don't know what the answer is to 21 what could be done to essentially bring these levels 22 down. I mean that's one of those things where we 23 actually look to try to achieve reductions based on 24 what technologies are that are available. 25 What we try to do, really, in this 45 1 process, though, is simply identify what is 2 protective of public health so that, in fact, we can 3 provide information to the public about what they 4 need to be aware of and what, in fact, can be at 5 least attempted to bring public health into the 6 greatest focus possible. 7 As we go into the debate about the 8 control measures which will achieve the standards -- 9 and the Salton Sea's a very good example -- and there 10 can be a lot of geologic issues associated with 11 that -- it is possible that it could take a very long 12 time to achieve that standard. 13 But the baseline is that the standard 14 still reflects public health and that the effort 15 essentially should be to just try to strive to 16 achieve that standard and to make these strides on 17 kind of an expeditious basis but also recognize that 18 there are economic consequences to that effort. 19 MS. D'ADAMO: Yes. Now, as far as getting 20 back to the Salton Sea, do we have information about 21 the -- or do we have a best guess about what these 22 other communities would look like if it wasn't for 23 urbanization population? 24 What would, say, for example, San 25 Diego County, San Joaquin Valley look like if we had 46 1 populations similar to Salton Sea, in other words, 2 just simply looking at the geologic effects of PM10? 3 MR. KENNY: We do have information on 4 essentially what the background numbers are like. So 5 that information is available to us. 6 MS. D'ADAMO: I'd like to get it -- 7 MR. KENNY: Okay. 8 MS. D'ADAMO: -- maybe a report at a future 9 date. I think it would be interesting. Do you have 10 that on the 2.5 as well? 11 MR. KENNY: Yes. 12 MR. SCHEIBLE: And I believe that the 13 background level's substantially below each annual 14 standard for both 2.5 and for 10. It's a little 15 difficult 'cause many of the areas that have high 16 readings now of windblown dust have had significant 17 anthropogenic activities that have disturbed the area 18 so the background is higher now than it used to be. 19 But our standards are attainable. The 20 background levels will not prevent attainment of the 21 standards. They may make it somewhat more difficult, 22 but they don't prevent it. 23 MS. D'ADAMO: Well, but just getting back to 24 Salton Sea, that's not background that makes that 25 area so high? 47 1 MR. KENNY: I think Salton Sea is a unique 2 situation. And what's happening right now is there's 3 a fair amount of effort being undertaken there to 4 understand kind of all the issues surrounding Salton 5 Sea. 6 And so a lot of that is essentially 7 the reduction in the size of the sea itself and sort 8 of the exposed dry lakebeds and some of the windblown 9 dust which is associated with that. 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. Kenny, also, don't we 11 have some experience from the Great Basin where we 12 have a similar type of situation? 13 MR. KENNY: We do. And I think part of the 14 issue there that is essentially, just following up a 15 little bit on what Mike was saying, you know, the 16 Salton Sea at one point in time was substantially 17 larger but essentially diversions have occurred that 18 reduction in the size of the sea has resulted in 19 these dry lakebeds essentially being exposed. 20 And then when you get geologic -- when 21 you get essentially meteorologic activity, you get 22 windblown dust, which then sends some of these 23 numbers up higher. 24 So I mean I think our effort and our 25 task is going to be, in the future, trying to 48 1 essentially achieve this. And there's no question 2 that, in fact, the task is going to be a difficult 3 one, just as it was and has and continues to be with 4 ozone. I mean it is a difficult task. 5 What we try to do is make sure that 6 people do have a good understanding of what's 7 protective of their health, and then we make the kind 8 of routine effort and daily effort to try to 9 essentially achieve those levels. 10 MS. D'ADAMO: I had some additional questions 11 for the gentleman from OEHHA. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Dr. Ostro? Yeah. 13 MS. D'ADAMO: Ostro, Dr. Ostro. Okay. On, I 14 believe, it would be your seventh slide -- the 15 analysis and updating of studies, you referred to the 16 sensitivity analysis. 17 How is that analysis done? Is data -- 18 is the data available in the studies already so that 19 the analysis can occur? Or is it assumed that as to 20 the additional factors? What's the process for going 21 through a sensitivity analysis? 22 DR. OSTRO: Okay. The process depends on the 23 individual study. But typically, when a researcher 24 looks at the data, he or she will put together what 25 they think is the best way of looking at the data. 49 1 They'll do their own little sensitivity analysis 2 before that paper is published. But it never will be 3 an exhaustive look at everything that's in the data 4 set. 5 When you talk about this American 6 Cancer Society data base, it's a huge data base 7 'cause it was trying to explain differences in 8 cancers. So it had a lot of factors like these 9 dietary factors that had hundreds of different 10 dietary factors and different factors relating to 11 smoking and drinking and other things that might be 12 related to cancer. 13 So the original authors didn't think 14 some of these things necessarily related to risks 15 from air pollution. So they didn't include some of 16 these things. So the sensitivity analysis, then, 17 takes that original finding and looks at lots of 18 other different variables. 19 It also could look at other citywide 20 variables to see if those played a role, like weather 21 factors and things like that. They also look at 22 different statistical forums -- you know, nonlinear 23 functions and a lot more sophisticated statistical 24 analysis. So there's a wide range of things that 25 people can do as part of this sensitivity analysis. 50 1 And the whole point is to see how 2 robust the findings are to all these analyses. And 3 in this case, they found that the results were 4 extremely robust to all these analyses. 5 MS. D'ADAMO: And, then, on Slide 5, the 6 mortality risk -- you referred to the "relative 7 risk." And I think you may have used the term "at 8 relative risk of 1.0 as being acceptable"? 9 What exactly -- how is that risk level 10 established as -- and I don't know if I'm correct in 11 the terminology. But is it acceptable? And if so, 12 how do you get to the determination that 1.0 is 13 acceptable but a higher or lower level wouldn't be 14 appropriate? 15 DR. OSTRO: Well, "1.0" just means there would 16 be no difference in risk between the exposed and the 17 unexposed people. There's no excess risk from 18 exposure. 19 In this case, the lowest city -- which 20 was Portage, Wisconsin, a suburb of Madison, 21 Wisconsin -- was basically arbitrarily assigned 1.0 22 as a scaler and -- 'cause it had the lowest pollution 23 levels. 24 And so it was pretty much assigned a 25 value of 1. And then the test was to see whether 51 1 there were increases in that relative risk above the 2 lowest pollution city. So in this case, it was a 3 matter of convenience. 4 MS. D'ADAMO: Okay. Thank you. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: One thing I think -- maybe 6 just reconfirm this with staff -- I think that one of 7 the comments was "Well, why don't we hold off until 8 we get the results of the reanalysis of the 24-hour 9 PM2.5?" 10 And as I understand it, there are two 11 issues here. One, we have the constraint with the 12 legislation. For the other side, we went back and 13 talked directly to the researchers who were doing the 14 reanalysis and that they weren't definitive in terms 15 of the time. It was a matter of maybe up to a year 16 before they did that, maybe that time frame. Can you 17 confirm that? 18 DR. OSTRO: Right. We've contacted a lot of 19 the researchers who published some of these studies. 20 In fact, we published some ourselves. And some are 21 already in -- have been sent to journals for review. 22 Others will take several months before they actually 23 can pull the data sets together and do the analysis. 24 We should be aware, however, that 25 there are studies out there for PM10 where other 52 1 methods have been used besides the questionable 2 statistical software. In fact, some of the papers 3 explicitly were published to compare the different 4 statistical techniques. And many of those papers 5 showed no difference between the findings using this 6 S-Plus technology versus others. 7 The problem is, with PM2.5, most of 8 the studies have been published only in the last few 9 years. And all of those -- I think basically all of 10 those did use this other software. So there's 11 nothing to compare it to. So, for PM10, we would 12 have less of a problem. So it should be about six 13 months or so. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Dr. Lipsett, did you want to 15 say something? Dr. Lipsett is also here and also an 16 ex officio member of our research screening 17 committee. 18 DR. LIPSETT: Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. I just 19 wanted to add to that, that in addition to 20 reanalyzing the studies that have been previously 21 done, there's a whole slew of new studies. And it's 22 ongoing. And researchers are aware of the problem, 23 and so we should be seeing a whole new group of 24 studies as well. 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. Calhoun. 53 1 MR. CALHOUN: I'd just like to follow up on a 2 question that Professor Friedman asked a few moments 3 ago relative to the legal requirements for setting 4 standards. 5 Mike, I think you described those. 6 And I was wondering if the board has ever rejected a 7 staff recommendation for a standard, based on costs. 8 MR. KENNY: Well, an air quality standard 9 wouldn't be rejected on the basis of cost, but an 10 emission-control standard could be rejected on the 11 basis of cost. And so I'm trying to think if there 12 would have been one. 13 MR. CALHOUN: I don't recall. I was just -- 14 MR. KENNY: I don't think there's ever been an 15 outright rejection. I think they are routinely 16 modified. And what we end up doing is we use a 17 15-day comment period to essentially reflect those 18 modifications. 19 And that seems to be -- that happens 20 almost in every emission-control standard which is 21 brought to the board. There's some level of 22 modification that's proposed by the board which we 23 then take additional comment on and then ultimately 24 adopt. 25 And basically most of the auto, you 54 1 know -- most of the vehicle standards would reflect 2 that. The consumer products standard would reflect 3 that. The -- I was just trying think if the recent 4 outboard motor and jet-ski standards -- whether or 5 not there were modifications in those standards. And 6 actually I don't recall at the moment whether the 7 board modified those or accepted them. 8 MRS. RIORDAN: I don't think those were 9 modified. 10 MR. KENNY: Yeah. I think those were pretty 11 much accepted as is. But I mean, I think if I was to 12 provide a percentage to the proposals by staff and 13 those that are modified, it's probably roughly in the 14 60, 75 percent range that reflect modifications. 15 That would be a conservative estimate. 16 MR. CALHOUN: Well, I didn't have reference to 17 recommendations that the staff made on its own. I'm 18 just asking about the ones that have been presented 19 to the board, if the board rejected any of the staff 20 recommendations or -- 21 MR. KENNY: Yeah. I don't think we've ever 22 had an outright rejection of a proposal by the staff. 23 I think they've always been modified by the board. 24 There's nothing I can recall, at least. 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Do you see this as an 55 1 opportunity, Mr. Calhoun? 2 MR. CALHOUN: How's that? 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Do you see an opportunity 4 ahead? 5 MR. CALHOUN: No. No. 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any other questions from the 7 board? 8 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Just to -- 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Professor Friedman. 10 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: -- just to beat a dead 11 horse, Mr. Kenny, I just want to be sure I understand 12 in my own mind clearly: The control measures will 13 come along in due course. 14 MR. KENNY: Correct. 15 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: And at that time, we will 16 have to take into account, as part of our 17 responsibility, the impact of the suggested measures 18 or recommended measures to attain these standards on 19 those who will be subject to them -- 20 MR. KENNY: That's correct. And, in fact -- 21 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: -- and the cost versus 22 the benefit and so forth. And so that's the time, as 23 I understand it, to be addressing those concerns, 24 which are important concerns. 25 MR. KENNY: We would agree they are important 56 1 concerns, and that is the appropriate time to look at 2 them. And what we try to do is to provide some 3 assistance to the board in addressing those concerns 4 as we will do a socioeconomic analysis. We do 5 cost-effectiveness analyses. And we do comparisons 6 of the cost effectiveness so that, in fact, it can be 7 put in a broader picture. 8 And so we do try to provide a wealth 9 of information that does assist the board in making 10 some of the economic benefits -- the 11 economic-cost-versus-the-environmental-benefit 12 balancing determination. 13 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: And, as in the past, we 14 would have a routine, a regularized routine, of 15 workshops when these proposals are put out or to 16 develop them. And then when they are -- as they are 17 refined and developed into proposals, there would be 18 further ample opportunities for hearings and comment. 19 MR. KENNY: That's correct. 20 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Okay. I just wanted to 21 understand the process. 22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: And, as you know, Professor 23 Friedman, under our EJ policies, these will be 24 carried out in various parts of the state, including 25 those in low-income and minority communities as well. 57 1 Any other comments? With that, I'll 2 go into the public witness list. 3 I'd like to call up the first witness 4 who has signed up to speak. And so would Larry 5 Greene please come up. Then we have Dr. Chung Liu 6 and Dr. Jean Ospital and Mr. Andary. 7 MR. GREENE: Good morning, Dr. Lloyd and 8 members of the board. I'm Larry Greene. I'm the Air 9 Pollution Control Officer at Yolo-Solano Air Quality 10 Management District. And I'm speaking today on 11 behalf of the California Air Pollution Control 12 Officers Association. 13 You have a letter which we have put 14 into the record, and I will paraphrase some of the 15 comments there. We have long-standing policies 16 pertaining to the adoption of ambient air quality 17 standards. 18 I'd like to review three of those -- 19 that state and local agencies protect localized 20 environmental, property, and human values through the 21 adoption of ambient quality standards which are more 22 stringent than national goals as needed; that CARB 23 should conduct evaluation and analysis of current 24 ambient air quality standards and determine if 25 California air quality standards are adequate to 58 1 protect human health and welfare, reduce agricultural 2 crop and vegetative damage, and improve visibility; 3 and that CARB should retain the present health-based 4 system to protect public health with an adequate 5 margin of safety. 6 In light of these positions and the 7 extensive documentation supporting the adoption of 8 the new PM standards, CAPCOA supports the ARB staff 9 proposal. And we stand ready to work cooperatively 10 with the ARB staff on the implementation of the new 11 standards. 12 And I would also like to mention, 13 pertaining to the question that Dr. Friedman asked, 14 that at the district level, we also have to work on 15 those issues of balancing the health standard with 16 the effect on industry and business. We struggle 17 with that just like the Air Resources Board does. 18 And that's always present in our mind. 19 We do the health-based standards now. 20 But, just like the Air Resources Board for state, at 21 the local level we will be dealing with that impact 22 and balancing the people and the effect to business 23 over time as we implement these. 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 25 MR. GREENE: Any questions? 59 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I have a question. In the 2 letter from Dr. Wallerstein, you don't address the 3 issue of the short-term PM2.5 standard. 4 MR. GREENE: We were aware that you were 5 looking at pulling that for this particular meeting 6 when we were dealing with this. Based on -- and we 7 had quite an extensive discussion. A lot of the air 8 districts felt that should be left in there. But, 9 you know, we would defer to the staff's decision on 10 that. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: So CAPCOA didn't carry out 12 any independent analysis? 13 MR. GREENE: No. But we had a number of 14 our -- a number of the staffs, particularly South 15 Coast and some of the bigger districts, have people 16 who actually do this kind of work all the time. And 17 we had this extensively reviewed by some of these 18 people. 19 We had a long conference call where 20 they went over the ARB position, the staff study. 21 And they were very supportive of the extensive 22 evidence supporting these PM standards as being 23 protective of health and an appropriate step for us 24 to take here in California. 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Thanks very much. 60 1 Dr. Liu? 2 DR. LIU: Good morning, Chairman Lloyd, 3 members of the board. My name's Chung Liu. I'm the 4 deputy executive officer and chief scientist for the 5 South Coast Air Quality Management District. I'm 6 very happy to be here, have the opportunity to 7 express the staff's support for the ARB's adoption of 8 the proposed revision of PM10 ambient air quality 9 standards and the adoption of that new standard for 10 PM2.5. 11 As your board knows, the South Coast 12 district has a severe air quality problem. Ambient 13 particulate levels are among the highest in the 14 United States. We have a long history with working 15 with ARB staff to achieve the healthful air quality 16 and to adopt new standards as necessary to adequately 17 protect the public. 18 We understand ARB staff has postponed 19 the consideration of the 24-hour standards for 20 particulate matter because of the problem in 21 statistical analysis in several epidemiology studies. 22 There is evidence, however, from studies not affected 23 by this portion, that there are serious health facts 24 associated with short-term concentration of 25 particulate pollutants. 61 1 We therefore urge ARB to conduct the 2 necessary reanalysis of the statistical calculations 3 and to proceed as soon as possible with adoption of 4 the new 24-hour standards for particulate matter. 5 Nevertheless, there should be no delay 6 in approving the annual average air standard 7 proposals that are before your board for 8 consideration. 9 At this time I would like to introduce 10 the district's Health Effects Officer, Dr. Jean 11 Ospital, who will give you additional comments on the 12 proposed particulate standards. 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you, Dr. Liu. 14 DR. OSPITAL: Good morning -- 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Good morning. 16 DR. OSPITAL: -- Chairman Lloyd, members of 17 the board. My name is Jean Ospital. And I'm the 18 Health Effects Officer for the South Coast Air 19 Quality Management District. I've been at the 20 district for about 2 years now in this position. 21 Before coming to the district, I've 22 got about 20 years experience in environmental health 23 field. I've been conducting risk assessments and 24 conducting and managing health impacts research. My 25 doctorate is in public health from the Environmental 62 1 Health Sciences Department at UCLA. 2 I would, first of all, like to 3 compliment the Air Resources Board staff and OEHHA 4 staff for their compilation and careful review of the 5 health effects of particulate matter. 6 Moreover, the concurrence by your Air 7 Quality Advisory Committee with the staff report and 8 their proposal which -- and the committee contains 9 many nationally recognized experts on air pollution 10 health effects research -- provide a sound foundation 11 for approval of the proposed standards. 12 In addition, I've also reviewed the 13 recent literature on the health effects associated 14 with the long-term exposure to particulate matter. 15 And I offer the following personal observations: 16 There are numerous studies that have 17 shown that adverse health effects are associated with 18 elevated long-term average levels of ambient 19 particulate matter, measured either as PM10 or as 20 PM2.5. Several of these studies included data from 21 California. 22 The effects include elevated mortality 23 and elevated morbidity related to cardiovascular and 24 respiratory disease. As noted in the reports by the 25 staff of the ARB and OEHHA, these serious adverse 63 1 health effects have been found to occur below the 2 current annual air quality standards for particulate 3 matter. 4 Moreover, the recent reports from the 5 children's health study that's being conducted at 6 University of Southern California School of Medicine 7 have shown adverse health effects in children's 8 lung-function growth associated with particulate 9 levels and nitrogen oxides. 10 This effect was shown to be 11 reversible, to some extent, when children moved out 12 of the Southern California area to areas of cleaner 13 air. These findings demonstrate, I think, that 14 improving air quality can lead to improved public 15 health. 16 In summary, the proposed annual 17 standards are consistent with protecting public 18 health from known effects with a margin of safety. 19 And I urge you to adopt these proposed standards. 20 Thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, 22 Dr. Ospital. 23 Question for either Dr. Liu or Dr. 24 Ospital? Thank you very much. 25 One thing I would mention here -- I 64 1 know we have a number of people going to -- people 2 opposed now. I would appreciate, again, if the 3 comments are kept to the proposed standards as before 4 us today and not comment on the one that's been taken 5 off the books, which is the short-term 24-hour 6 standard because clearly that's -- we've taken that 7 off. We recognize the problem with that standard. 8 So I would appreciate that. 9 So we have Casimer Andary, Jon Heuss, 10 and Cynthia Cory. 11 MR. ANDARY: Good morning. My name is Cass 12 Andary. I'm the Director of Regulatory Programs for 13 the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. The 14 Alliance is a group of 12 automakers that account for 15 90 percent of the sales in the United States. 16 I'm here today because we are vitally 17 interested in ARB's process for developing and 18 setting new statewide ambient air quality standards 19 for particulate matter and sulfates, recognizing that 20 these standards could have far-reaching statewide 21 implications. 22 We are in favor of protective 23 health-based standards that are firmly based on good 24 science and solid scientific methodology. Given the 25 importance of this issue, we hope that the ARB 65 1 ensures a comprehensive and thorough review. 2 There are several issues that we would 3 like to comment on that need to be considered as part 4 of the ongoing PM standard review prior to the 5 standards being finalized. On May 30, the Health 6 Effects Institute announced that there was a 7 significant software problem due to the use of poor 8 convergence criterion. 9 Other PM studies using the same 10 software and same model are also being reevaluated. 11 We agree that the decision by the staff to defer the 12 24-hour 2.5 standard was a procedural decision based 13 on sound science. 14 A careful evaluation of the 15 interrelationship and potential impact on the annual 16 standards-setting process should also be conducted, 17 and this should be subject to a scientific and public 18 review. 19 Only within the last couple of weeks 20 has the staff made that determination that the annual 21 standard is unaffected and proposes that the board 22 adopt these new annual standards. We are concerned 23 that neither the AQAC nor the public had the 24 opportunity to review the staff's determination that 25 recent developments do not impact the annual 66 1 standard. 2 Therefore, the board should recommend 3 that all of these issues be subject to scientific and 4 public review prior to adoption of either the 24 or 5 the annual standards. 6 Of note is the fact that EPA is moving 7 forward with a different form of PM standards than 8 California because of a recent federal court 9 decision. Rather than promulgating PM10 and PM2.5 10 standards, EPA will promulgate a PM10 less than the 11 2.5 standard or not including the 2.5-micron 12 particles. 13 We recommend that the California do 14 the same to avoid overlapping standards. We would 15 also like to point out that several scientific 16 reviews are expected later this year that will help 17 inform California regarding this proposal for 18 health-based clean air standards and accompanying 19 research recommendations. 20 US EPA will be conducting evaluations 21 of these new findings on its entire sweep of PM 22 standards at the Clean Air Science -- at its advisory 23 committee meeting within a few weeks although the EPA 24 and other groups, including HEI, will be reevaluating 25 various studies and are expected to issue their 67 1 findings on impact of new science on the prior 2 conclusions. 3 Related to the review process of this 4 important issue, the two workshops that were 5 conducted on the proposed PM ambient air quality 6 standards were each only two hours in duration. 7 Moreover, the workshops were held only two weeks 8 prior to this hearing. 9 This left little time for the staff to 10 consider and incorporate the public input in its 11 evaluation and little time to evaluate the full 12 impact of the statistical software error. 13 Understandably at these workshops, the emphasis was 14 on the impact of the software error on the 24-hour 15 standard. 16 In closing, we'd like to emphasize, 17 again, that there will be upcoming scientific 18 evaluation from a variety of sources to help the ARB. 19 These will occur soon, far in advance of any 20 statutory deadlines to review the ambient air quality 21 standards. 22 And we strongly encourage ARB to 23 consider these developments and recommend that staff 24 ensure a comprehensive and thorough review of both 25 the 24-hour and the annual standards recommendation 68 1 prior to the standards being finalized. Thank you. 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 3 Questions? Dr. Friedman. 4 DR. FRIEDMAN: Well, I -- could you, 5 Mr. Andary, be specific and tell me what analytical 6 problems you think exist with respect to the 7 calculation of the annual standards. 8 MR. ANDARY: That's -- 9 DR. FRIEDMAN: Be specific, please. 10 MR. ANDARY: That specific topic is going to 11 be covered by John Heuss in the next presentation. 12 DR. FRIEDMAN: I thought that you must have 13 some notion of that since you spent about one third 14 of your time discussing the fact that that was a 15 reason to delay our determinations. So did someone 16 write that for you? Or -- 17 MR. HEUSS: My written statement includes that 18 material, sir. 19 DR. FRIEDMAN: Fine. We'll wait. 20 MR. ANDARY: Thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. 22 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: That's what I was going 23 to say. I do have some questions about your 24 comments. But I'm noticing that Mr. "Huse"? 25 "Hoyce" -- 69 1 MR. HEUSS: "Hice." 2 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: "Hice." 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: "Hice." 4 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Sorry. Mr. Heuss is 5 following you with -- again, for the Alliance of Auto 6 Manufacturers -- with a more detailed scientific 7 presentation. I'll wait and hold my questions until 8 then. 9 MR. ANDARY: Thank you. 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Mr. Heuss. And 11 Cynthia Cory. Joe Suchecki. 12 MR. HEUSS: Okay. Bear with me. Thank you. 13 I am Jon Heuss with Air Improvement Resource. And I 14 am speaking today as a consultant for the Alliance of 15 Automobile Manufacturers. 16 Setting air quality standards for 17 particulate matter is more complex than setting 18 standards for other pollutants because PM is a 19 complex mixture of particles made up of thousands of 20 different chemical and biological components from 21 many different manmade and natural sources. And it's 22 extremely unlikely that all these different chemicals 23 have the same toxicity. Next. 24 The evidence for PM health effects 25 comes primarily from observational studies. Now, 70 1 many of these relied on by OEHHA used the simple 2 package that gives unreliable results. 3 And the information available through 4 the Health Effects Institute for the 88 U.S. cities 5 studied in the massive NMMAPS program is that the new 6 software basically reduces the magnitude of the 7 effects substantially and importantly reduces the 8 confidence that they are statistically significant. 9 In fact, for the 88 cities, only 2 10 were statistically significant. So we feel, with 11 this 88 sample, when more studies are done, that 12 basically the existing data in several of these 13 studies now overestimates the magnitude of the 14 effects and overestimates the confidence in the 15 findings. And this is, again, why that standard is 16 being deferred. And we agree with that. 17 Now, the decision as to whether or not 18 this impacts annual average standards is a little 19 more complex. The factors involved in this decision 20 were not subject to public or peer review. And my 21 written statement documents how the short-term 22 studies did influence the chain of assumptions. 23 For example, in developing specific 24 recommendations for both the annual standards, the 25 staff report indicates that substantial weight was 71 1 given to the long-term exposure studies using the ACS 2 and Six-City studies -- those are the ones discussed 3 by Dr. Ostro -- but it also indicates that 4 significant or considerable weight was given with the 5 time-series studies. 6 And this statistical issue has 7 ramifications that go beyond the deferred standard. 8 If it affects many of the studies in several of the 9 tables in the staff report, it could affect the 10 agency's conclusion regarding the compelling nature 11 of the overall evidence. 12 One thing it definitely does affect is 13 the conclusions regarding the relative importance of 14 fine, which is PM2.5, or coarse PM, which is, of 15 course, the PM between 2 1/2 and 10 microns because 16 almost all the studies that address this question use 17 the suspect software. 18 So the question of whether to set 19 standards for both PM2.5 and set the standard for 20 coarse between 10 and 2 1/2 or the relative 21 stringency of the 10 and 2 1/2 standards and where to 22 focus those controls, whether they're the geological 23 sources or whether combustion sources or so forth -- 24 those will be affected by the software consideration. 25 And, finally, it will affect the 72 1 interpretation of the consistency and coherence of 2 the data. The difference in the NMMAPS results that 3 have now been made available, at least on their 4 website, do suggest a very different interpretation 5 of PM10 mortality than is included in the staff 6 report. 7 For these reasons, the statistical 8 issue does affect the chain of assumptions and 9 choices that were made in developing the proposed 10 standards. So I urge you to address these effects on 11 the proposed standards during any future actions to 12 adjust the ambient air quality standards. Next. 13 Now I'm going to talk a little bit 14 about a separate set of critical scientific concerns 15 that were put on the record with the interpretation 16 of the long-term studies. Now, these are long-term 17 studies primarily used to set the annual standards. 18 There are really four major long-term 19 studies, and they have inconsistent results. And 20 when analyzing California effects, they actually show 21 little or no effect. 22 The California Adventist health study 23 on smog is shown here where the cardiopulmonary risk 24 is not significant compared to the American 25 "Chemical" Society study nationwide, where the same 73 1 risk is much, much larger and statistically 2 significant. So the California study, which followed 3 a cohort of people for 17 years, I believe is not 4 significant. Next. 5 Even this ACS study, when looked at on 6 a regional basis, shows a big difference. This is 7 material that was presented by the US EPA to their 8 Clean Air Science Advisory Committee in 2001. And it 9 followed up on the information that was available 10 about regional differences in short-term PM10 studies 11 and broke that ACS study into different regions. 12 And you can see, in the Northeast, 13 Industrial Midwest, and Southeast, a strong excess 14 risk that is significant in at least two of the 15 regions. But in the West -- and the "West" here was 16 combined cities from the Northwest, Southwest, 17 Southern California, and the Upper Midwest, really 18 everything west of the Mississippi -- there was not a 19 association suggesting a mortality effect in the 20 West. 21 Another issue that's involved here, in 22 the ACS study -- it showed that SO2 had stronger 23 associations than PM. And the OEHHA documents argue 24 that it's not likely that SO2 per se is causing the 25 health effects. 74 1 However, when the difference between 2 these regional things is considered, along with the 3 SO2, it suggests possibly something associated with 4 sulfur pollution, either heavy, historic heavy 5 industry in the Midwest and so forth and coal use in 6 those areas might be what is causing those 7 associations or effects. 8 These regional variances need to be 9 evaluated to determine to what extent the ACS results 10 are applicable in California. We will note that the 11 CASAC committee has requested that EPA consider 12 regional differences in its upcoming PM assessment. 13 Next. 14 My written statement documents six 15 additional concerns with the ACS study. I'm not 16 going to go through these, but they are included 17 there with footnotes to information that was put in 18 the record. OEHHA didn't fully address these 19 concerns because it interpreted the short-term signal 20 as consistent and compelling and therefore assumed 21 that there must be a long-term exposure signal in the 22 data. 23 I think they assumed that the two 24 studies, long-term studies, that don't show 25 effects -- there must be something wrong with those. 75 1 Maybe they're all right and that the heterogeneity, 2 the differences in composition of PM, are indeed what 3 caused the differences. 4 So we think this should be considered 5 and that a reevaluation of the assumption and 6 interpretation concerning the long-term studies is 7 important too. Next. 8 Closing, we believe that the 9 statistical issue does have ramifications for the 10 annual standards, including the weight of evidence 11 regarding PM health effects and the important 12 question of whether to focus on fine or coarse PM. 13 And the way you set standards will 14 determine that focus. A place that exceeds one and 15 does not exceed the other will determine which type 16 of PM gets controlled. 17 In addition to the statistical issue, 18 several scientific analyses, as I've pointed out, of 19 long-term data show little or no association between 20 PM exposure and mortality in California. Regional 21 differences, we think, should be evaluated prior to 22 setting the PM10 standards. 23 There will be significant scientific 24 reviews of PM health issues, including the impact of 25 the recent statistical issue, on both annual and 76 1 short-term PM standards conducted in the next few 2 months, including a review at the July meeting of the 3 Clean Air Science Advisory Committee. We think ARB 4 would benefit from attending and participating in 5 these reviews and considering that in its evaluation 6 of annual and short-term standards. 7 So today I urge the board to defer 8 action until all the ramifications of the statistical 9 issue are evaluated. The EPA is undertaking such an 10 expedited review with CASAC input. Thank you. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 12 Any questions? And then I'd like the 13 staff to respond that. 14 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Yeah. I was going to ask 15 the staff to respond to those points. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Professor Friedman. 17 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Did you have something -- 18 DR. FRIEDMAN: No. No. I would like to hear 19 not only from the staff but I'd like to hear from 20 Professor Kleinman and from OEHHA. My own reading of 21 your letter about Dr. Tager's comments are not 22 necessarily consistent with your conclusion about 23 those comments. 24 But I would like to hear from our 25 staff, from OEHHA, and perhaps from the professor. 77 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Dr. Ostro? 2 DR. OSTRO: Okay. A couple issues. The first 3 regarding Dr. Tager's comments -- I think Dr. Tager 4 probably puts more faith in the short-term studies 5 than in the long-term studies, long-term exposure 6 studies. 7 But I don't think he negates the 8 findings of those long-term studies but does indicate 9 that it's not clear exactly what the exposure period 10 is that is relevant to the effects that we're 11 measuring. 12 Regarding the issue of whether you 13 need to have the short-term effects to support the 14 long-term -- the conclusions that we made on the 15 long-term averages, I personally think that the 16 long-term studies stand by themselves. 17 We did think it was of note that there 18 were lots of short-term exposure studies to support 19 them. And we think that, software glitches aside, 20 there still are a lot of short-term studies on both 21 mortality and morbidity that did not use the 22 methodology that is under question for PM10 and have 23 reported so in the literature. 24 We know there's reanalyses that have 25 been undertaken that are going to show that the 78 1 effects do not change when the software glitch is 2 corrected. Apparently the NMMAPS results are going 3 to be -- so far as I've heard, unofficially -- are 4 going to be the worst in terms of what the 5 differences are. 6 Most of the other studies, most of the 7 other people who are reanalyzing the results don't 8 find such large changes in the PM10 effects. We also 9 know, unofficially -- it's not published yet -- that 10 there will be studies showing PM2.5 short-term 11 effects as well. 12 So we're very confident that the 13 short-term effects of mortality and morbidity are 14 still there relating to PM10 and PM2.5 but, further, 15 that we don't actually need them in order to go ahead 16 and look at the ramifications of the long-term 17 exposure studies. 18 Now, regarding the lack of effects, as 19 you report them, for California, let me just address 20 that briefly. First of all, for fine particles -- I 21 mean we can't decide which cities are included in the 22 study. That was just decided about 25 years ago. 23 And unfortunately there's only four 24 cities in the American Cancer Society cohort that are 25 in -- that have fine-particle data that are in 79 1 California. So you really don't have enough there to 2 see what's going on. 3 There's eight cities that had sulfate 4 data that are in the cohort. So you really can't say 5 much about California. As the commenter indicated, 6 that analysis that's considered for the West includes 7 cities in the Southwest, the Northwest, and the Upper 8 Midwest. 9 So it's not really not a test of 10 whether California cities fit into the pattern or 11 not. And I think -- I'm sure that, if there was 12 enough California cities in there, we would see 13 effects consistent with the study as a whole. 14 And regarding the size of the effects, 15 it might be the case that, if historical exposures 16 were much greater than what was measured in the 17 study -- these measurements were occurring around 18 1979 to 1986-87; and then the more recent analysis 19 goes all the way into the '99-2000 data. 20 But we don't have measurements going 21 back into the 40's and 50's when the historical 22 differences might have been greater. If we thought 23 that those exposures at a very early age was what's 24 driving these things, then, in fact, those relative 25 risks might be overestimated. 80 1 But one has to counterbalance that 2 with the well-understood aspects of measurement 3 error -- that we're measuring exposure, in this case, 4 with error and it's very likely that, in fact, the 5 relative risks are underestimated because of the 6 measurement error, a very classic problem in 7 biostatistics. 8 So that may or may not offset the 9 possible overestimation -- the fact that we've 10 underestimated because of the measurement error. So, 11 in balance, we really don't know which way the 12 ultimate direction would go. But we do think that, 13 looking at 151 cities with a wide range of attendant 14 covariants and a massive amount of sensitivity 15 analysis, provides very compelling evidence. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. Professor Friedman. 17 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: That made me work -- to 18 follow that. But I'd like the staff to respond to 19 two points that were made. One has to do with the 20 statistical issue and the position that staff is 21 taking that it won't affect the annual standards and 22 the argument that this decision was made in the last 23 few weeks without the benefit of public comment or 24 review. 25 If that's the case, how should we deal 81 1 with that? I mean I'm not hearing -- but then I'm 2 not qualified to, I don't think -- any specific 3 argument that it does affect the long-term effects -- 4 that is, the annual. 5 You have said it didn't. You've 6 checked with the people who did this statistical 7 analysis. They've anecdotally confirmed to you that 8 it has no effect on the annual statistics. 9 But how do you respond that there was 10 no scientific or public review? 11 MR. KENNY: Let me start with the kind of the 12 timing issue. What happened was that, roughly about 13 two weeks ago, we did learn that the Health Effects 14 Institute had concerns about the work that had been 15 done at Johns Hopkins University with regard to the 16 statistical effort. 17 And so they did inform us that there 18 was a question there. What we did is we actually 19 talked among ARB staff. We talked with the OEHHA 20 staff. And we did learn that, in fact, the 21 statistical analysis did go to the PM2.5 24-hour 22 standard. 23 And so that is why we have pulled that 24 standard because, at least, at this particular point 25 in time, although we do think that there is evidence 82 1 that there was a sufficient question around the 2 statistical analysis, that it was only fair to 3 provide more time for that. 4 As that additional discussion 5 occurred, however, it did become clear -- and I'm 6 going to defer to them in a moment to sort of give 7 you a better rationale than I can give with regard to 8 why that statistical package does not affect the 9 annual averages -- but it did become clear to us that 10 the statistical package did not affect the annual 11 averages. 12 And so consequently we felt very 13 comfortable in bringing to you the annual average 14 proposals. 15 But in terms of the amount of time 16 that the public has had, with regard to the annual 17 average, we have been basically been doing this in a 18 very public process for quite a number of months at 19 this point in time. It's actually probably pretty 20 close to a year that we have been going through this 21 process. 22 The 24-hour PM2.5 standard was on a 23 shorter course. As a result of the AQAC's 24 recommendations to us, we did basically go back and 25 propose a PM2.5 24-hour standard, you know, roughly 83 1 only about probably 80 days ago. 2 And so when the statistical problems 3 arose -- you know, the combination of a lesser amount 4 of time on the PM2.5 24-hour standard combined with 5 the statistical software issues which had arisen -- 6 it really did, at least, compel us to provide 7 additional time to try to resolve those issues, which 8 is why it is not before you today. 9 But to go to your second question, let 10 me turn it over to Mike. And he can provide you a 11 more scientifically based answer with regard to why 12 we do not believe the 24-hour -- why we don't believe 13 the annual average is dependent upon the statistical 14 software package. 15 MR. SCHEIBLE: When we were informed about 16 this issue, we had staff investigate several things. 17 One: "What was the likely effect?" 18 The conclusion there was that it 19 wasn't going to change the conclusion about the 20 nature and the severe impacts of PM on health. 21 Second was "What's the implications 22 for the studies that were used as key components of 23 any -- of all aspects of our proposals?" 24 And to pursue that, they actually had 25 to learn about the statistical package -- how it was 84 1 applied and where and actually go back to the 2 researchers and ask questions about "Was this used?" 3 or find out whether it was used. 4 The nature of the package that was 5 used was that it's used for looking at daily 6 time-series analysis. And our conclusion was that it 7 was used as part of the studies we had based the 8 recommended level for the 24-hour PM2.5. 9 It was not at all relevant in terms of 10 the recommended level or the studies that related to 11 the annual standard and that therefore it was safe to 12 proceed with that without an extensive reanalysis. 13 On the 24-hour standard, we obviously 14 thought it was prudent to wait until those studies 15 were reanalyzed and we saw results of that before we 16 come back and say, "We are now able to recommend a 17 level." 18 And if staff would like to elaborate 19 any, they're welcome to. 20 MR. CROES: I'd just like to add one thing is, 21 when this issue came up, both the Health Effects 22 Institute and the US EPA put out letters describing 23 the problem but they just limited the concerns to 24 short-term studies. So they didn't mention the 25 annual studies at all. 85 1 So consequently we called both the 2 president of the Health Effects Institute as well as 3 the lead policy person at US EPA. And they 4 confirmed that there was no effect of the software 5 glitch on the long-term studies. 6 And as a consequence, we informed 7 Dr. Kleinman of this statistical problem. And that's 8 when they withdrew their support for the short-term 9 standards. 10 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: So what I'm hearing is 11 that Dr. Heuss's argument that the statistical issue 12 does have ramifications for the annual standard 13 stands in solitary loneliness without any -- as far 14 as the staff is aware -- any support from any other 15 source? 16 MR. HEUSS: Might I respond? 17 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Yeah. I think it's fair. 18 MR. HEUSS: Thank you. I guess I'd like -- 19 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: I'm not the chair but -- 20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Oh, that's fine. 21 MR. HEUSS: Mr. Chairman, sir? 22 I guess I would ask the board members 23 to think about the issue of what it is we're trying 24 to control. PM is such a variable mixture of things, 25 including biological materials. The hay fever that 86 1 people get in the spring -- that's not from 2 combustion from vehicles. It may or may not be 3 worsened by combustion from vehicles. We don't know 4 for sure. 5 But the geological materials and all 6 these other things, when you come to do controls, you 7 will reduce whatever you decide to reduce. 8 The fact that you don't want to 9 tighten your sulfate standards suggests you don't 10 really think it's sulfate. The comments that you 11 don't think it's SO2 per se -- that's a gas. So 12 you're going to control something. 13 And the assumptions in all your 14 benefit analysis have to do with the assumption that, 15 whenever I reduce PM in total, by mass -- whether 16 it's I reduce the nitrate, the sulfate, the carbon or 17 if I reduce the carbon and let the nitrate go up or 18 vice versa -- that I will get health benefits. 19 There's a great deal of uncertainty in 20 that, which is acknowledged by the AQAC. They think 21 that the way to proceed in the next round of reviews 22 in 5 years or so is to try understand to what extent 23 we should be getting rid of carbon, organic carbon, 24 polynuclears, nitrate, sulfate and those sorts of 25 things, which is the same way we do with the gases or 87 1 the air toxics. So that's one key issue. 2 And that really revolves around the 3 fact that you've set a particular ratio between 4 PM2.5 and 10 that you want to get to. And it's not 5 clear if that's the right ratio. You might want to 6 make one more stringent, the other less stringent. 7 We don't know that. 8 And that will be affected by this 9 statistical issue. That's my point. 10 And on the long-term studies, I would 11 only point out that Dr. Ostro -- he's sure that there 12 is an effect in Los Angeles. My suggestion is that 13 the -- as may already be underway -- that the 14 Adventist study now be updated another 7 years to 15 about 22 years and see what the effects are or not 16 'cause these are people that have lived out here and 17 you've had very high-levels -- we all know that. 18 I started coming out here in 1965, 19 dealing with that, when cars put out 500 milligrams 20 per mile. Now they put out 5 in the way of direct 21 particulate. 22 But these are people that were exposed 23 in the 40's, 50's, and 60's -- and I'm old enough to 24 remember those years -- where there were much higher 25 levels. And so that's an issue. I'm trying to 88 1 understand all the uncertainties about what's going 2 on. 3 I would point out this issue of the 4 West -- although there are not that many California 5 cities when this was done for sulfate by the Health 6 Effects Institute -- they found the same negative 7 association of sulfate in the West. And that 8 included 42 cities throughout the West. That's all I 9 have to say at this point. Thank you. 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Dr. Ostro. And then Dr. 11 Friedman, a question. And then Miss D'Adamo and then 12 Mr. McKinnon. 13 DR. OSTRO: Quick response on the Seven-Day 14 Adventist AHSMOG studies. As we reported the 15 document, those studies -- there's some problems with 16 those studies. 17 The biggest one is that they don't use 18 PM10 and PM2.5 directly. PM10 has historically been 19 estimated from TSP, which we know is problematic. 20 And PM2.5 has been estimated from "airport extinction 21 coefficients." I actually was a coauthor on that 22 paper. 23 Nevertheless, we do report in our 24 document that the study has shown -- these studies, 25 series of studies have shown that long-term exposure 89 1 to PM10 is associated with new cases of chronic 2 bronchitis, according to one of their studies. 3 They also find associations with lung 4 cancer in one of their papers. And when you look at 5 a '99 paper written by "McConnell" for the California 6 cities using PM2.5, looking at high-density 7 populations -- those people living in high-density 8 areas -- they do find a effect on cardiovascular 9 mortality, in fact, very consistent with the ACS and 10 the Harvard Six-City studies. 11 So the evidence is there, as well, 12 from some of those studies. But given the 13 measurement problems, we chose not to put too much 14 emphasis on that particular set of studies. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Dr. Friedman. 16 DR. FRIEDMAN: Well, I was just going to say I 17 agree with what Dr. Ostro's just mentioned. But this 18 board, Mr. Heuss, is very aware of the fact that the 19 composition of individual particles is extremely 20 complex. 21 And we've heard the notion that 22 perhaps we should wait until we can define what every 23 particle of every size contains as an individual 24 particle before we make any decisions on anything. 25 That's not a surprise to me that that kind of an 90 1 argument would be made because -- 2 MR. HEUSS: That's not my argument, sir. 3 DR. FRIEDMAN: Well, that's what I heard. And 4 it seems to me that, when you talk about finding 5 reasons to delay relatively common sensical 6 determinations, that that argument is specious. 7 The fact is that I'm not aware that 8 anyone is ever going to complete -- in my lifetime is 9 ever going to completely define what every particle 10 contains -- the composition of every particle. But I 11 would guarantee that the particles that may emanate 12 from a lakebed are probably not as likely as the 13 particles that emanate from an automobile to be the 14 cause and to contain as many specific chemical 15 components or biological components. 16 And every single time, over the years, 17 I've sat in any meeting of this board that has 18 implications vis-a-vis long-term regulation changes, 19 I've heard arguments that speak to the notion of 20 delay, delay, delay, delay. 21 But we've delayed it in many, many, 22 many areas. It's time, I think, to take the studies 23 that have come out in the last couple of years and 24 act on them -- the studies that clearly indicate, to 25 me, that there are major negative health effects from 91 1 our lack of action in the past. 2 And it is time, in my opinion, that we 3 move forward and actually start a process to improve 4 the health of the population of California. And so I 5 think it is high time that we did move on these 6 annual standards. 7 I think it's perfectly appropriate to 8 wait for the folks who are involved, especially the 9 Hopkins people in the initial studies that may have 10 had a statistical problem. And then we'll make a 11 determination as to what to do about daily standards. 12 But I find no real reason to just keep 13 delaying, delaying, delaying something that is years 14 past its prime. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Miss D'Adamo. 16 MS. D'ADAMO: Pass. 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: She passes. 18 DR. FRIEDMAN: Does Dr. Kleinman want to make 19 a comment? 20 I had asked if the advisory board 21 representative had wanted to make a comment as well. 22 DR. KLEINMAN: Yes. Thank you very much. 23 The advisory board reviewed both the 24 annual and the short-term standards as proposed by 25 the report. Dr. Tager had made some comments that 92 1 indicated that he was not necessarily fully in sync 2 with the conclusions from some of the annual studies, 3 longer-term studies. 4 His comments were mainly 5 methodological and discussions on appropriate ways of 6 determining confidence limits. However, when the 7 issue arose about endorsing the long-term standard, 8 he voted along with the rest of the committee. 9 And another point is that, on the 10 issue of whether there was a need for a short-term 11 PM2.5 standard, the committee felt that the reason 12 for pursuing that was that it was felt, based on the 13 data available, the annual standard for PM2.5 and the 14 proposed PM10 short-term standard might still not 15 offer adequate protection. 16 And therefore Dr. Tager felt that the 17 annual standard still might not be adequately 18 protective. So I think that's more of his 19 reservation then anything else. I don't think he was 20 saying that he did not want that annual standard in 21 place. 22 Now, our committee has not had an 23 opportunity to meet. And our meetings have to be 24 public. So we've not discussed the S-Plus issue 25 directly as a committee. 93 1 However, it is important to keep in 2 mind, when you look at the methodology for the 3 studies, especially the Six-City studies, where this 4 is a long-term effort, they not only use 5 central-monitoring-site data but they actually did 6 monitoring at the participants' homes. They really 7 knew what the exposures were. 8 In that respect, it's probably one of 9 the most intensive investigations of the health 10 effects of air pollution that have ever been carried 11 out. And that study has tremendous weight. 12 And when you look at the data, it's 13 very clear that there is an increased risk of illness 14 and death with increasing levels of pollution as you 15 go across the different cities, controlling for all 16 of the socioeconomic and other factors. 17 The methodology that they used to 18 analyze that data is a very, very different from the 19 time-series approach, where you have to look at 20 correlations between mortality and morbidity 21 statistics and changes in daily levels of air 22 pollution measured at central sites. 23 There's really no overlap in that type 24 of methodology. And so those long-term studies 25 really do stand by themselves. And I think our 94 1 committee -- speaking for myself, I feel that. And I 2 believe the committee would probably have agreed with 3 that. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Miss D'Adamo, do 5 you have a question? 6 MS. D'ADAMO: No. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: With that -- 8 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Oh, I just had -- one 9 final point that was made that I thought deserved 10 some comment from the staff is that there are 11 upcoming scientific reviews, I'm sure, here and 12 abroad; that particulate-matter health issues are 13 continually generating studies and analyses; and that 14 we should defer any action until these upcoming 15 studies that are referred to in July. 16 MR. SCHEIBLE: Well, I think we believe there 17 are upcoming reviews that, if you wait a week and you 18 will have several new studies -- we have hundreds 19 now -- and that the body of evidence is so compelling 20 that we're on a solid basis moving ahead and that we 21 should periodically review those rules to see whether 22 or not we can improve what we're recommending today. 23 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Yeah. And I assume that 24 you are continuing to monitor this kind of 25 literature, these studies. And if something develops 95 1 that has a strong scientific basis that would affect 2 what we've done today, assuming we adopt these 3 standards, that would come back to us. It's always 4 subject to being reviewed or reevaluated. 5 MR. SCHEIBLE: That's correct. 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: We'll continue with the next 7 witness -- Cynthia Cory. We'll say that we're going 8 to take a luncheon break at quarter of 12:00 for 9 half an hour also to give the court reporter a break 10 as well -- well deserved. 11 MS. CORY: Oh, good. I slipped in right 12 before everybody eats lunch so they won't come back 13 and be all full of food and tired. 14 Chairman Lloyd and members, Cynthia 15 Cory from the California Farm Bureau. I would -- I 16 want to start off by saying that we believe that the 17 State should pursue ambient air quality standards 18 that are based on sound science and try to achieve 19 realistic air goals. But we don't think that's 20 what's before you today. 21 I've been really busy the last couple 22 months dealing with a Title V, a little Title V 23 issue. But when I did find the time, recently, to 24 look at this proposal, because I was getting a lot of 25 calls from people telling me I needed to be really 96 1 concerned, the first thing I did was I talked to two 2 air scientists for the State that are friends of mine 3 and I trust a lot. 4 And I said, "Tell me. Let's start 5 from the beginning on this." 6 And they said -- the one thing that I 7 remember of everything they told me was that at 8 the -- now, this isn't going to win me any friends 9 and this is in all deference to our scientists that 10 are here today and the chairman of the Air Quality 11 Advisory Committee -- but I was told that these two 12 scientists that were at that April 3 meeting, when 13 they were setting the standards, said it was more 14 like a dart game than a scientific dialog. 15 And they kind of looked at the lowest 16 citation that they could possibly find, and that's 17 the number they went with. And that was how this 18 subject was introduced to me. And so it certainly 19 put a lot of concern in my mind about -- as I went 20 forth and tried to learn more. 21 I think that the gentleman before 22 me -- although I don't know him, and I don't think 23 I've ever talked to him before -- brought up a lot of 24 valid points and questions that other people have 25 brought up to me. And I do hope we get further 97 1 answers to those questions. 2 I'm not going to belabor the software 3 point. It's been talked about enough. 4 But I do want to let you know that, 5 from a very, you know -- from an agricultural 6 standpoint of view, we look at it and we go, "Okay. 7 So we've got this big question out there. Why did US 8 EPA pull back on setting their standards, but we're 9 not?" 10 We're pulling back on one of them. 11 But US EPA's going forward -- is not going to go 12 forward. They're going to wait till July 18 and 19 13 and bring their advisory group back together and 14 review it again before going forward. 15 I guess I would just ask the board to 16 consider doing that also and that our staff would be 17 there at that meeting, collaborate with US EPA, and 18 then make a decision. I just don't feel comfortable 19 going forward at this point, with the questions that 20 have been put forth here today, to make this 21 decision. I don't understand what the rush is, with 22 these questions out there. 23 I -- I don't understand, I mean, why 24 we can take the same body of data and the State of 25 California can decide that we need standards that are 98 1 two to three times lower than what the feds think 2 they need for the rest of the nation. 3 I'm, you know, not -- I don't know all 4 the body of law on air, but I'm pretty sure that the 5 federal government is required to meet the same 6 standards that we needed to make. We need to look at 7 infants and children and elderly when we set our 8 environmental regulations. 9 They're required to do that too. They 10 need look at people of all races and cultures and 11 economic levels, just like we are. So why are our 12 standards so much lower? That, I -- you know what? 13 And that's just something I haven't been able to find 14 in this report. And if I have to look that hard, I 15 don't feel comfortable with that. 16 But I do want to point out something 17 in the staff report -- I don't know if you have it 18 with you -- but this was a little easier for me to 19 find. It's on Page 2.9, and it's Section 2.6 -- "The 20 Environmental and Economic Impacts." 21 First sentence: "The proposed ambient 22 air quality standards will in and of themselves have 23 no environmental or economic impacts." 24 Okay. So that's the final statement. 25 These aren't going to have any impact -- 99 1 environmental or economic. 2 You go back to Page 2.1 under "Setting 3 California Ambient Air Quality Standards." And -- 4 excuse me -- but I'm just going to read just a little 5 bit here. Section 39606-A2 of the Health and Safety 6 Code authorizes the ARB to adopt standards for 7 ambient air quality -- in quotes -- "In consideration 8 of public health, safety, and welfare including, but 9 not limited to, health, illness, irritation to the 10 senses, aesthetic value, interference with visibility 11 and effects on the economy." 12 I guess I don't understand if this is 13 your statute that authorizes this board to set 14 standards and you're -- it says here that you can and 15 are expected to look at effects on the economy. And 16 we have one statement in this a hundred-jillion-page 17 document, and it says that there are no impacts 18 economically. 19 Indulge me just a few -- I hate -- I 20 hate reading. I hate people who read. But anyway 21 I'm going to go, read one more 'cause this is in the 22 staff report and I think it's important to point out. 23 "An air, ambient air quality standard 24 adopted by the board is implemented, achieved, and 25 maintained by the adoption, implementation of control 100 1 measures through rules and regulations that are 2 separate from the standard itself." 3 We've talked about -- there've been 4 some questions about that here today. 5 "These rules and regulations are 6 primarily, through not exclusively, emissions 7 limitations that apply to specific source categories 8 of pollutants established by the regional and local 9 air pollution control and air quality management 10 districts for stationary sources and by the board for 11 vehicular sources." 12 Two things, I want to point out there. 13 And that is emission limitations on stationary 14 sources. As I said, I've been busy for the past 15 three weeks of my life because agriculture is about 16 to be considered possibly a stationary source. 17 This is going to be really new to us. 18 I've been telling my members, "Dairies will now be 19 regulated like a factory with smokestacks." 20 So if you're going to look at these 21 standards -- you're setting these standards -- and 22 the way that you implement them is to limit emissions 23 on stationary sources, I just want to let you know I 24 believe that the agricultural industry is going to 25 have severe economic impact. 101 1 And I do believe you have the 2 authority and the requirement to consider that before 3 you set the standard, not after you set the standard. 4 I do want to say and be, maybe win a 5 little bit of goodwill here, that in dealing with the 6 Title V issue, I do very much appreciate ARB -- 7 Dr. Lloyd and Mike Kenny's efforts to point out that 8 there was insufficient data to go forward on this 9 point. But as we well know, the courts are pushing 10 us along. 11 The point is we're going to be -- 12 we're going to be severely affected by these 13 standards. We can't meet the standard now. Now 14 agriculture's going to be pulled in, and we're 15 setting much lower standards than the feds are going 16 doing. 17 It's really important to protect 18 human health. Believe me. I'm a serious backpacker, 19 an outdoor person. But if there is no safety -- if 20 there's no margin for economic activity from these 21 standards, what are we going to do? 22 Miss D'Adamo asked the question about 23 background levels. I have been told by some of the 24 scientists here today that these standards are very 25 close to the background level and that it leaves 102 1 hardly any margin for economic activity. I'm just 2 asking, "What do we accomplish if we do that?" 3 In closing, I have four requests. I 4 ask that you delay, at least, not forever, just at a 5 minimum, till after the July 18 meeting and that your 6 staff participates in that meeting and there is 7 collaboration with US EPA and, after that time, that 8 we have public -- we initiate public review again. 9 And I want to be able to see 10 succinctly and easily why we are -- our standards are 11 different from US EPA standards, why we have to be 12 two to three times lower. I want to understand that 13 as a layperson. 14 And I hope that, during that time, 15 there will also be a little bit of consideration 16 about the economic impact of these or at least take 17 out the sentence that says there will be no economic 18 impact. Thank you. Any questions? 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Does staff have any response? 20 MR. SCHEIBLE: I'd like to respond to some of 21 the issues. First, on the -- 22 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: I think we need more 23 microphone for the gentleman here, please. Thank 24 you. 25 MR. SCHEIBLE: In response to the issue about 103 1 what are the requirements of state law recommending 2 economic effects standards -- that was interpreted by 3 the State Supreme Court a couple of decades ago and 4 litigated. 5 And it's very clear that, under state 6 law, we must determine the impacts that air pollution 7 has on the economy; that we're not required, as part 8 of the process, to consider the impacts of actions to 9 achieve standards that are set -- set during the 10 standard-setting process, anyway -- out on the 11 economy. 12 So we have met our legal obligation 13 there in carrying out the policy intent that says, 14 "When you set standards, you set them at levels that 15 are health protective." 16 When we implement standards, we are to 17 do it in a way that is protective of both health and 18 the economy. 19 With respect to the statement that 20 standards, in and of themselves, do not have a direct 21 economic impact, the statement immediately 22 thereafter -- implementation efforts of the standards 23 do have economic impacts. And those will have to be 24 fully considered. 25 If you set a standard at a level that 104 1 we already meet, it doesn't have an economic impact. 2 If you set a standard at levels that we have to do 3 more to achieve, then clearly the implementation 4 actions have impacts. 5 So I think the economic issue is 6 covered in a way that's consistent with what the 7 policy we've been given by the state legislature and 8 this board has historically carried out and the legal 9 requirements of state law. 10 In respect to "Why do we need 11 standards that are more stringent than the federal 12 standards?" I think it goes down to the assessment 13 of, if we put in the level that the federal standards 14 provide in terms of protection and we look at the 15 health effects and adverse impact on death and 16 illness that occur at those levels, they're simply 17 unacceptable. 18 So aligning with a standard that, with 19 the technical and health analysis, clearly is 20 inadequate to protect health is not an option. The 21 federal process is going to grind on for a fair 22 amount of time. 23 I don't expect that a July meeting of 24 CASAC is to have any clearly definitive outcome. We 25 don't know whether they're going to act in 2003 or 105 1 2004 or 2005 or how they're going to act. 2 So the staff feels strongly that 3 there's compelling and sufficient information now for 4 California to say, "We need more protective goals. 5 And these are -- these targets that we're 6 recommending are well supported in the science and 7 meet our legal obligation." 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon and Dr. 9 Friedman. 10 MR. McKINNON: Yeah. I'm not going to touch 11 federal versus state. I think -- I think that my 12 experience in worker health and safety is that 13 standards oftentimes are political in their final 14 assessment. And I think we have a responsibility to 15 try not to do that. 16 My question really goes to staff. And 17 here's kind of my rough layman's way to lay this out 18 'cause it seems to me that particles -- the 19 discussion around particles and people getting sick 20 comes down to sort of two issues. 21 Is it the mass of particles that makes 22 people sick? Or is it the toxics? And my guess is 23 that it's probably more the mass than the toxics. So 24 if we set a standard that is derived in dealing with 25 the mass of particles, are we going to send ourselves 106 1 into control measures? Okay. 2 I don't have a problem with what's 3 been laid out -- a standard that's right on the line, 4 as far as what is a basis for deciding whether or not 5 people are healthy or whether or not they get sick, 6 basically. Where it gets tricky is when we start 7 talking about control measures. 8 And if we're headed into controlling 9 the mass of particles rather than the toxics, it 10 seems to me that, in many cases, we'll get into 11 things like sand and dust and some naturally 12 occurring particles. 13 And if that's where we're headed, we 14 need to be very, very clear that that's where we're 15 headed. And I would hope -- and I think Miss D'Adamo 16 asked the question earlier -- I would hope that we 17 have the data to look at, you know, it's not just 18 regionally. 19 And -- God forbid -- I'm not going to 20 talk about the Upper Northwest and the Upper Midwest 21 and regional. I mean regions in California where 22 there may be dust that's agriculture related that is 23 not toxic or we think is not toxic, that control 24 measures need to be thought about differently than a 25 lot of particles from sulfur, from diesel in the 107 1 Alameda corridor. 2 Those are sort of different things. 3 And if we're heading into -- I have no problem 4 separating, say, "This is the health standard." But 5 if we're heading into control measures that are going 6 to be not doable in some parts of the state in some 7 industries, that is an economic impact. Maybe it's 8 an economic impact of the control measure. 9 But when we do decide those things, 10 we're going to have to consider a lot more 11 information than we've been given today. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. Kenny. 13 MR. KENNY: I think you will be considering a 14 lot of different types of information. And, in part, 15 it's going to break down to the type of control 16 measure we're talking about and the type of standard 17 we're trying to attain. 18 I mean, what we're talking about today 19 are really two types of PM standards -- a PM2.5 and a 20 PM10. And the implications of that really do have 21 consequences for different types of industries. When 22 you're down in the PM2.5 arrangement or range, you're 23 really talking about combustion sources, generally. 24 And so consequently -- 25 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Talking about what? 108 1 MR. KENNY: Combustion sources. And so when 2 we look at PM2.5 controls, we're primarily looking at 3 combustion-source controls. 4 When you move into PM10, you're 5 talking about a wider range of controls that could be 6 potentially needed. And those could include dust and 7 the kinds of dust you're talking about. 8 And so it really depends on kind of 9 what we're trying to accomplish and what standard 10 we're trying to achieve in terms of the different 11 types of control measures that we will be proposing 12 to you. 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Professor Friedman. 14 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: First of all, I wanted to 15 comment, Ms. Cory, that it's pretty fundamental in 16 our system that the states were reserved, under the 17 United States Constitution, to legislate for the 18 health and the welfare of their citizens within each 19 state. And each state was reserved the right to, 20 under its police power, to do what we're doing here. 21 Of course, the federal government can 22 regulate for federal standards. But the federal 23 government politics aside, obviously has to consider 24 what is the standard that applies to 50 states -- 25 well, and the district. And there's such a variation 109 1 that sometimes they are much lower -- have a lower 2 common denominator in terms of various standards. 3 But California historically has had 4 its special problems, if not unique. And we are 5 legally, in my opinion, clearly not only entitled but 6 we have a responsibility to consider what's best for 7 our state. 8 And I know, anecdotally, that the 9 heads of children's hospitals whom I know, have told 10 me they have never seen -- in their 20 years, 30 11 years -- more cases of asthma -- youth, children -- 12 more cases of respiratory problems -- the single 13 biggest area of health concern for young people and 14 for the elderly. 15 And that's got something to do with 16 what you breathe. And it's got to have something to 17 do with the air, which is what we do breathe. And so 18 we're trying, the best way we know how, to deal with 19 it. 20 Now, we regulate in terms of the 21 control measures that have yet to be considered, have 22 yet to be aired, commented on, workshopped, and 23 eventually recommended, and in an open forum 24 considered by this board, yet to be adopted. 25 We will be looking at control measures 110 1 primarily for mobile sources, for the combustion 2 issues. But stationary sources, which you 3 mentioned -- primarily I think that would apply to 4 agriculture, except for the tractors and any moving 5 equipment -- would be something that the local air 6 quality control districts would have to consider. 7 And in any case, whether it's us, as a 8 state board, or the local districts -- they're 9 mandated to take into account the cost -- the 10 economic concerns that I mentioned earlier, that 11 others have raised. 12 And I can assure you that -- I know I 13 speak not only for myself but for all of our board -- 14 we take that very seriously. We don't want to put 15 any legitimate enterprises out of business. We don't 16 want to cause undue economic hardship. 17 It's very important to our economy and 18 to people who are employed in legitimate enterprises 19 as employees and who, in your case, representing the 20 Farm Bureau who grow things that we eat -- it's very 21 important to us -- and including what we drink, in 22 the way of dairy -- that what we do is balanced 23 against the economic impact. 24 So but that is a matter that we have 25 to struggle with later. It's true. Control measures 111 1 are governed to achieve certain standards. But what 2 we're doing, in my terms, is aspirational. We're 3 saying, "This is the kind of air we want. And we 4 want it free, to this extent, of particulate matter." 5 And yet to be resolved is there's 6 particulate matter and particulate matter, and some 7 is more toxic than others -- some. And how we 8 achieve that, depending on the source of those 9 emissions -- and those sources vary. And that's what 10 we're doing. 11 I wanted to put it in my perspective 12 because I understand your concern, and I share it. 13 But I think that we're going to have to have another 14 conversation. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I'd also like to comment, I 16 think, just following up on that. Again, I echo your 17 concern exactly, and I understand where you're coming 18 from. 19 We also, of course, have many letters 20 here from residents, surrounding some of your 21 constituents, some of the people you represent, 22 which, again, pleading with us to "Go ahead. Set 23 these standards" because they are concerned with 24 public health. 25 So I think they cannot all be 112 1 represented here today. So I think we have an 2 obligation to weigh that. But as you know and I 3 think you know that this board stands committed to 4 work with the agricultural community. We're 5 reenergizing the Air Quality Advisory group. 6 And I hope that jointly we can address 7 all these issues because I realize -- again, you 8 mentioned the issue with Title V and the issues -- 9 it's a tough time. So we have to be able to address 10 the air quality side to represent all the citizens, 11 which we committed to in our environmental justice 12 policies. 13 But we also have to do it in 14 conjunction with you. And so we both have a very 15 tough task. And, again, I say I appreciate your 16 comments, and I appreciate that, under D'Adamo, we're 17 going to -- chairmanship there -- Mr. Kenny and 18 myself -- we're going to work with you very closely. 19 And that's going to be a long, tough process. But we 20 jointly want to work, clearly, with you on that. 21 MS. CORY: Thank you, Chairman, committee. 22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 23 With that, we'll take a half-hour 24 break till 25 after. Well, why don't we make it 25 12:30? 113 1 (The lunch recess was taken at 2 11:55 A.M.) 3 4 5 6 7 AFTERNOON SESSION 8 (12:35 P.M.) 9 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I'd like to reconvene the 11 board meeting and start with Joe Suchecki from EMA. 12 MR. SUCHECKI: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members 13 of the committee. Good afternoon. I am Joe 14 Suchecki. 15 And I'm here to represent the Engine 16 Manufacturers Association. And, as you know, EMA 17 represents the leading manufacturers of 18 internal-combustion engines used in a variety of 19 on-road and off-road and stationary sources. 20 I'm here this afternoon to do three 21 things: Essentially support ARB staff in their 22 decision to hold off on the 24-hour 2.5 -- PM2.5 23 standard; explain why EMA members are concerned about 24 ambient air quality standards; and ask that you give 25 scientists and researchers a few more months to sort 114 1 out the recent developments on the PM health issues. 2 First, EMA strongly supports the staff 3 recommendation to postpone the board's consideration 4 of the PM2.5 24-hour standard. As was discussed this 5 morning, the software error by Johns Hopkins team was 6 a real shock to the PM research community since 7 NMMAPS was one of the most critically reviewed 8 studies to date. 9 And the error not only affected the 10 study results, by decreasing overall effects by about 11 40 percent, but it really indicated that there was a 12 generic problem in the short-term studies that affect 13 additional work, and some of that was used by OEHHA 14 regarding the proposed 24-hour standard. 15 ARB staff evaluated the impact of the 16 new information, listened to concerns and comments 17 from EMA and others, and correctly made the decision 18 to reevaluate the proposed standards after the PM 19 scientists complete their review. 20 It was good for us to see that ARB can 21 evaluate, incorporate changing information so 22 quickly. And we appreciate the efforts of the staff 23 on that issue. 24 Second, really, since becoming 25 involved on this issue, we often get the question of 115 1 why we care. After all, it is only an ambient air 2 quality standard with no direct regulatory impact on 3 our members. But we care because it is an important 4 scientific and policy issue affecting people's health 5 and ARB's future regulatory agenda. 6 If you conclude that exposure to more 7 than 25 micrograms per cubic meter of particulate 8 matter on one day is bad for people's health, there 9 eventually are going to be regulations of specific 10 sources that will be driven by, justified by this 11 standard. 12 So we share with you the concern that 13 the California standard needs to be based on good 14 scientific evidence, needs to protect public health, 15 reflect the best available information, and be 16 consistent with other standards that you develop as 17 well as with the federal standards. 18 We do need to work together to reduce 19 PM emissions. But our concern is that we make sure 20 that we really know what the target is. That is 21 important to everyone for health reasons, for 22 economic reasons, and to serve as a proper basis for 23 future regulatory development. 24 As an example, it does not appear to 25 make sense to establish a PM10 and a PM2.5 standard 116 1 since PM2.5 is a complete subset of PM10. To do so 2 creates a consistency issue between the two standards 3 and is contrary to current EPA actions and a federal 4 court decision. 5 If the annual PM10 standard is 20 6 micrograms and data for California show that PM2.5 7 can be as much as 50 percent of PM10, ARB is, in 8 fact, establishing a real PM2.5 standard of 10 9 micrograms instead of the officially proposed 12. 10 The consequences of these ambient air 11 quality decisions will eventually trickle down to the 12 regulated community; and more importantly, they will 13 have a great impact on California's business climate 14 and economy. 15 Finally, again, as we discussed this 16 morning, there have been many developments on the PM 17 front; and there is some real uncertainty about the 18 scientific information. 19 Right now, researchers such as 20 Dr. Samet and Burnett are working to revise study 21 results, investigate what impact the identified error 22 might have on published PM literature, and determine 23 if there are other bugs that are out there. 24 EPA is holding off on finalizing their 25 criteria document and staff paper until they can 117 1 understand what the results mean. And, in fact, with 2 regard to the CASAC meeting, that will be held in 3 July. 4 You know, nothing will be decided 5 there in that EPA has really pulled off -- pulled off 6 the agenda the Chapter 8 on epidemiology and the 7 Chapter 9 on the -- kind of the integrated synthesis 8 and conclusions to not even be considered there. But 9 what they will discuss is the implications of some of 10 the recent findings. 11 I think it's important to note that 12 some of these new results may actually strengthen or 13 they may actually weaken the case for PM. But 14 certainly the key issue, I think, that needs to be 15 considered is that the numbers are going to change. 16 Now, we all recognize that new 17 information is always forthcoming. And EMA is not 18 asking to delay the standards until all the research 19 on PM health effects is complete 'cause that may 20 never happen. 21 But we would like you to consider 22 giving the scientific community a little more time to 23 sort out these recent developments and let ARB staff, 24 with appropriate needed peer review that has not been 25 completed, take a close look at these developments. 118 1 And if there is any need for change to 2 the current proposals, we suggest taking 60 to 90 3 days to let the dust settle and scientists come to 4 some consensus on the issues before considering 5 adopting the proposed standards. This will also give 6 a chance to staff to enhance public understanding of 7 what these standards really mean. 8 I'd be happy to address any questions 9 that you may have. And thank you for the opportunity 10 to present our views. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 12 What confidence do you have that, in 13 60 to 90 days, we'll know much more than we do today 14 and that the dust will have settled so to -- as you 15 indicate? 16 MR. SUCHECKI: Well, I think, within that time 17 period, the information that we have and some of our 18 members have who have talked to some of the 19 researchers -- and we've talked to HEI. Some of them 20 have talked to Dr. Burnett and Dr. Samet. 21 And they feel that, in that time 22 period, that they're going to have a very good handle 23 on what this all means in terms of the PM research. 24 And also by that time, those researchers and others 25 will have gone to EPA and to CASAC. 119 1 EPA would have had time to look at a 2 lot of the results and come up with some conclusions, 3 as well, at this July meeting and have some open 4 discussions with their leading experts in the field 5 there. So within 60 to 90 days, I think we'll have a 6 pretty good idea of exactly what these new 7 developments mean. 8 And I think it would give people a lot 9 more confidence in what the standards need to be set 10 at. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Does staff share that same 12 confidence? 13 MR. CROES: No. We -- no. I think that the 14 statement that refers to the short-term studies -- 15 there's actually no efforts on the long-term studies 16 'cause there's no need for it. 17 You know we've checked with the 18 original authors. We've checked with the president 19 of HEI. We've checked with US EPA. We reviewed the 20 papers ourselves. There's just no implication on the 21 long-term studies. So there will be no new 22 information on those studies over the next few 23 months. 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: So on the standard that we're 25 considering today, there'll be no new information 120 1 to -- 2 MR. CROES: No. 3 MR. SUCHECKI: Well, this is, you know, again, 4 just information that we've heard. But we understand 5 that one of the papers that Dr. Burnett is working on 6 and has submitted is on the long-term studies -- the 7 PM standards. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Dr. Ostro? 9 DR. OSTRO: Yeah. In my discussions with 10 Dr. Burnett on this -- first of all, let me again 11 assure that the '93 and '95 studies, as well as the 12 Krewski reanalysis, do not have any implications 13 regarding this particular software issue. So those 14 studies remain untouched. 15 As part of a sensitivity analysis in 16 the ACS -- in the American Cancer Society cohort, 17 there was an attempt to -- this is -- I recall, at a 18 secondary or tertiary level of sensitivity analysis, 19 there was an attempt to determine what the effects 20 were of spatial grouping of the cities. That is, 21 could the results, the association be explained away 22 just by geographic differences? 23 So in that attempt to address that 24 issue, Dr. Burnett used four different approaches to 25 address that issue with the conclusion that this 121 1 spatial -- what's called "spatial autocorrelation" 2 did not have any effect on the results. 3 He has told me subsequently he is 4 attempting to use this type of software that we've 5 been talking about, this -- from S-Plus, the 6 smoothing techniques, to address the issue of spatial 7 autocorrelation in a subsequent paper. 8 So I think it would be incorrect to 9 say that there is no new work. I mean people are 10 always going to be doing new work in the areas. But 11 he has already told me that, when you look at the 16 12 years of follow-up, there is no spatial 13 autocorrelation problem to even worry about in the 14 first place. 15 So the development of additional 16 software to address this issue will not have any 17 effects on the general results as we've reported them 18 today. But there might be ongoing work. But it 19 doesn't have seem to have any kind of effect. 20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Professor Friedman? 21 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Again, first of all, a 22 question for you, sir. Do you feel that you haven't 23 been given ample opportunity -- and the group you 24 represent -- to voice your concerns and make your 25 position known through the process? 122 1 MR. SUCHECKI: I think we have -- we have been 2 participating in the process since the document was 3 published last year. And for our part, in terms of 4 the development, up until a couple weeks ago, we have 5 certainly had enough opportunity and have 6 participated. So that's not the issue. 7 I think what we -- what we would like 8 to see -- and I think the point, which was brought up 9 a little bit earlier, is that the whole issue of 10 whether these affect the long-term studies and 11 whether there's additional information that others 12 are looking at and that EPA might be looking at, with 13 regard to the long-term studies, you know -- we 14 understand that that was a staff decision. 15 And we feel that would be appropriate 16 to put before the AQAC and get some outside peer 17 review would be appropriate. 18 And I think you know, from our 19 standpoint, you know, I'm not sure that the public 20 out here in California really understands what these 21 standards are. 22 And I think it would just be useful to 23 have a little more outreach to the general public and 24 to make sure that they know what these standards are 25 and what they're doing and what the positive effects 123 1 are on people's health and how they were developed 2 and what that means for the state. 3 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: And then I have a 4 question for the staff. Again, the argument's made 5 that we ought to have standards that are in line in 6 with the federal, and there's even reference to a 7 case decision that adopting a PM10 standard in 8 conjunction with a PM2.5 standard is unlawful. 9 I assume that had to do with the 10 federal standards, the EPA? 11 MR. KENNY: Yeah. We would disagree with 12 that. Basically what was happening there was the 13 federal EPA did adopt standards, and essentially they 14 were challenged in federal court. 15 And the court did rule against EPA on 16 them, in part. And then EPA is now coming back with 17 modified standards. That does not apply to us. 18 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Okay. And we -- is it -- 19 am I correct that we have not, for some time, 20 historically been aligned with the federal? 21 MR. KENNY: That is correct. And, in fact, I 22 think, you know, one other way of asking the question 23 would be "Why haven't the federal US EPA aligned with 24 us?" 25 And in particular, if you look at the 124 1 ozone standard, the answer to that question would be 2 that, after 15 years, they actually did. They 3 started out with a standard, 1-hour standard, which 4 was .12 parts per million. And then, essentially, as 5 they did their reviews in the late 90's, they did 6 come much closer to the California standard of .09 7 parts per million by adopting an 8-hour standard of 8 .08 parts per million. 9 So the history there really does show 10 that California has kind of led the way and has led 11 the way accurately. And then the federal government 12 has moved in our direction. 13 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Even with the existing 14 and proposed annual average PM standards, it appears 15 that we have been more stringent than the EPA on the 16 PM10. 17 MR. KENNY: That is -- actually for a number 18 of years, there's been a fairly substantial question 19 about the federal PM10 standard primarily because of 20 the fact that they have a standard for 24 hours of 21 150 micrograms per cubic meter, and the California 22 standard for quite a number of years has been 50 23 micrograms per cubic meter. 24 And I think most people look at that 25 150-microgram standard and, you know, with a kind of 125 1 a wry smile on their face because they do recognize 2 that it's probably not very health protective at all. 3 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Okay. Thank you. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 5 MR. McKINNON: Following up the questions from 6 Professor Friedman, what are we doing to encourage 7 the feds to follow us to our standards? Are we 8 attending the meetings and arguing for them? And do 9 we have plans to? "Is there a meeting coming up?" 10 was part of that question. Yeah. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think staff has been 12 attending CASAC meetings. I know Dr. Prasad has. I 13 know other people were represented. I don't know to 14 what extent they're feeding into the process, maybe 15 formally or informally. But maybe Dr. Ostro can say 16 that. 17 DR. OSTRO: We've certainly commented on their 18 last sets of proposals. The next meeting is going to 19 be in July where their Clean Air Science Advisory 20 Committee will be reviewing their criteria document. 21 This is their third go-around on their criteria 22 document. 23 They'll also be taking testimony on -- 24 from the Health Effects Institute regarding their 25 progress on some of the reanalysis. Subject to 126 1 budget constraints and travel restrictions, we do try 2 to attend as many of those meetings as we can. And 3 some of us will be attending the meetings in July. 4 There's also a meeting, I think, 5 planned for the fall, where they'll come out with 6 their staff paper and a potential proposal of a range 7 of standards at that time. 8 MR. McKINNON: Just for clarification -- and 9 what they're looking at right now is an annual 10 standard? 11 DR. OSTRO: They're looking at both annual and 12 24-hour standards for both PM2.5 and for coarse 13 particles. 14 MR. McKINNON: How -- their proposal that 15 they're on their third round -- how close is it to 16 ours? 17 DR. OSTRO: Well, we haven't seen their new 18 proposal yet. Their proposal from '97 was 19 articulated this morning where their PM2.5 standard 20 was 15. But they proposed a range in their staff 21 paper of 12 to 20 -- in that. But we have no idea 22 how it's going to pan out this time. 23 From what I'm hearing from EPA staff, 24 I think they recognize that the 150 24-hour standard 25 is not very protected -- protective and that the 65 127 1 24-hour standard for PM2.5 is not very protective. 2 So, if we had a bet, we'd probably bet 3 on those things falling. But we don't know how much 4 they'll fall. 5 MR. McKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I have a general 6 question. And that is, if the feds come reasonably 7 close to us in their process, do we have a way of 8 harmonizing between the two? 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I presume that staff at any 10 time can come back to us, based on the EPA process, 11 and make some recommendations. And I think, as we 12 heard earlier -- though, again from personal 13 experience here -- is that, if we wait for the 14 federal government to act, we may be waiting a long 15 time. 16 MR. McKINNON: Yeah. All clear -- 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: But I think if we come 18 back -- if they come back at any time, I think we 19 will know about it because staff will be interacting, 20 participating in the CASAC process. 21 MR. KENNY: I think one of the things you will 22 see us do -- and we did hold back on the 24-hour 23 PM2.5 standard today for the simple reason that we 24 did think the reanalyses were important to have 25 conducted. 128 1 And what will happen there is that our 2 plan is to come back to you with kind of a proposal 3 on the PM2.5 24-hour standard, probably within the 4 next year hopefully or at the year mark, somewhere 5 right around there. 6 We will have essentially the benefit 7 of whatever work is done at the US EPA level. And we 8 can incorporate that in with regard to that standard. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: So then let me extrapolate it 10 one step further. During the time period, if we pass 11 the standards today, staff will be looking at 12 potential control measures. But would it be likely 13 that you would come back to the board here without 14 having the benefit of what EPA is doing before any 15 control measures are brought to the board? 16 MR. KENNY: Oh, I think the staff is already 17 looking at control measures because of the diesel 18 particulate-reduction strategy which was adopted by 19 the board. And so what we're trying to do there is 20 figure out how we can achieve particulate reductions 21 from diesel engines. 22 So that process is already underway. 23 In terms of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard, I think what 24 we have to have is kind of the additional information 25 as a result of the problems that have occurred with 129 1 the statistical studies to make sure that, in fact, 2 we can propose to use something that we, as 3 agencies -- OEHHA and ARB -- feel comfortable with. 4 And, at least right now, we don't. I 5 mean we have kind a question out there that we think 6 needs to be resolved so that we can come forward to 7 you with something that is supportable. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Professor Friedman. 9 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Well, in that connection, 10 do I understand that it is the staff's intention to 11 ask the Air Quality Advisory Committee to check with 12 them on what they think the implications of the 13 short-term analyses flaws are on the long-term 14 standards that are being -- I mean to confirm -- I 15 mean I know you've done that anecdotally or at least 16 you talked with a few people. 17 But I think it would be a good thing 18 to make sure. And if for any reason down the line, 19 any future well-based, soundly based scientific 20 studies or reports or analyses or, if for some 21 reason, your own -- our own peer-review group 22 suggests that there are any flaws in the way these 23 standards have been developed -- I'm talking about 24 the annual standards -- 25 MR. KENNY: Understood. 130 1 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: -- I would ask that you 2 come back to us. 3 MR. KENNY: I think that's a fair request. 4 And we can do that. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon? 6 MR. McKINNON: Yeah. I have one more question 7 of the engine manufacturers. It's very clear to me 8 that, if the federal standard is lower, you're going 9 to encourage us to go to the federal standard. 10 If we have a different standard, does 11 the engine manufacturers ever push on the feds to 12 come closer to ours? Do you recall that ever 13 happening? 14 MR. SUCHECKI: I think -- I think we have 15 worked together frankly -- excuse me? 16 "DR. CHARLES"--: It's not possible for you to 17 do it the other way. You can't have one that's 18 higher. That's a -- that's not -- 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Could you identify yourself, 20 please. It's unusual for a member of the audience to 21 answer a question. 22 "DR. CHARLES"--: I'm sorry. "Dr. Charles" -- 23 MR. McKINNON: I may have said it backwards. 24 MR. SUCHECKI: Well, I think that, you know, 25 we have in the past worked with ARB on issues of 131 1 harmonization between EPA and ARB rules in the 2 mobile-source sector. And I think frankly, you know, 3 in of some of those cases, ARB was out ahead of EPA. 4 And we've now harmonized closer, I think, towards 5 your initial proposal. So we have done some of that. 6 And the, you know, the issue for us is 7 just making sure is that we have the right level on 8 this standard and, you know, that's -- we're not 9 arguing that there doesn't need to be a standard. We 10 just want to make sure that it's appropriate and that 11 the best scientists agree on where it should be, if 12 it's based on the same information. 13 MR. McKINNON: My apologize for -- I apologize 14 for asking that question exactly backwards. And he 15 caught it, and he's right. So I should have said, 16 "lower," instead of "higher." 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any other questions from the 18 board? 19 MR. SUCHECKI: Thank you. 20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Stephanie 21 Williams, Jeb Stuart, Lisa Ohlund. 22 MS. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon. My name is 23 Stephanie Williams. I'm vice president of the 24 California Trucking Association. I'd like to make 25 two comments before I start my presentation. 132 1 Number 1: There was a time when 2 California -- the engine manufacturers, the trucking 3 industry -- went to EPA to fight for more stringent 4 standards. And that was the 2007 engine standards 5 and fuel standards. 6 So, yes, there has been history of 7 that. And that is probably the best thing that's 8 happened for California's trucking industry because 9 it aligns the standards. As you look at PM 10 standards, you're looking at planes, trains, ships, 11 and trucks. And as you notice, only the trucks are 12 here because they're the only ones you touch. 13 Everybody else is exempt. And most of the trucks are 14 exempt. 15 And with NAFTA opening the borders 16 July 1 -- NAFTA can only be held -- the Mexican 17 trucks can only be held to the federal standards. So 18 there's nothing you can do about San Diego or South 19 Coast. And those trucks coming in, starting July 1, 20 into our ports hauling our freight -- there's nothing 21 you can do. 22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: But today we're talking about 23 air quality standards. 24 MS. WILLIAMS: Air quality standards, based on 25 consistency with the federal government. And that is 133 1 very, very important. And NAFTA is playing -- going 2 to play a big role in these standards because you set 3 standards wherever you want. But you can't achieve 4 'em. You can't achieve 'em. 5 And there's another thing I'd like to 6 point out. There's another thing I'd like to point 7 out. The ATA suit -- that was EPA against American 8 Trucking Association -- they won because the 2.5 9 standard and the PM10 standard were determined 10 duplicative, meaning the PM10 standard includes 11 PM2.5, and that's double-counting. 12 It was ruled arbitrary, capricious, 13 and unlawful -- all three words. So this standard 14 that you set for PM10 would also be the same. You 15 have to set a PM2.5 -- above PM2.5 to 10 for the 16 coarse part of it, and the PM2.5 to measure the fine 17 part of it. You can't double-regulate PM2.5. And 18 that's what the case said. 19 So this is an unlawful standard. And 20 it will be looked at just as it was in the federal 21 government. It will be shot down because you can't 22 double-count PM2.5. It's the way it is. 23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think Mr. Kenny addressed 24 that issue earlier. 25 MS. WILLIAMS: We disagree. And it's my turn 134 1 to do my comments. 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: That's fine. That's fine. 3 MS. WILLIAMS: And we disagree. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: That's fine. 5 MS. WILLIAMS: And there's a whole bunch of 6 things we disagree on. And I'm glad I get my turn. 7 We are -- we have a problem. The 8 California trucking industry is in financial danger. 9 And these standards are a reflection of the Air 10 Resources Board's attitude towards national 11 standards. You do not regulate the entire trucking 12 industry. You regulate 12 percent of the Class A 13 trucks. And that is my membership. 14 And we are getting eaten alive by 15 multinational carriers who are poaching outside of 16 our borders and now outside of Mexico coming in and 17 taking our freight. So you are increasing pollution 18 by setting standards that are not parallel to the 19 federal government. 20 Let me give you an example. If you 21 set a standard that says, "The rates are going to 22 be -- California feels this amount -- so your rates 23 are going to be higher," that means we turn our 24 trucks over. There's only so much money. 25 So when you take away 10 percent of 135 1 our gross revenue, because we pay more for fuel, but 2 you allow people to come into the state and they 3 contract with the Air Resources Board for paper 4 'cause they're the lowest bid, we can't turn our 5 trucks over as fast because we don't have the revenue 6 to buy new trucks. 7 So you may get 7 percent emission 8 reductions from your fuel standard but you missed out 9 on 90 percent reduction on particulate emissions by 10 new standards. So you're missing the boat by not 11 having consistent federal standards when you're 12 looking at federal sources. 13 We have found that your proposed 14 amendments for particulate matter reflect an attitude 15 about national policies. You just don't like 16 national policies. You prefer to mandate different 17 fuels for California; have different standards, 18 knowing that the authority to control the majority of 19 trucks is outside your agency's control. 20 The attitude hurts California's 21 trucking industry and the public at large. It's a 22 large problem that the trucking industry is going to 23 have to resolve. And we're going to have to go to 24 the legislature and ask for hearings so we can stay 25 in business because we're pretending like we have 136 1 these great standards. 2 Don't forget. We've never met the 3 federal standards in California. So when we say, 4 "We're going to go out and have cleaner standards 5 than federal EPA," they're laughing at us. 6 "Why don't you just meet the federal 7 standards?" they're saying. 8 We've never met the federal standards. 9 How are we going to meet a cleaner California-only 10 standard? It's not fair to California businesses. 11 And it's an image. It's not a scientific issue. 12 You say there's politics on the 13 science side. There's politics on the science side 14 where they're setting the standards. 15 Could there possibly be politics in 16 California? Maybe they want to be first? Maybe they 17 want to be the cleanest? Maybe you look at "USA 18 Today"; and you could see "California just set the 19 world's most stringent air quality standards"? 20 There could have been a paragraph 21 underneath that said, "that totally screwed over 22 California's trucking industry." 23 And now these guys are probably going 24 to go out of business because we're going to let 25 Mexican trucks in and federal trucks in although, on 137 1 the books, we have the cleanest air quality standards 2 in the nation. 3 What do we get for it? It's unfair. 4 In addition, CARB is conducting a parallel and 5 duplicative process to federal EPA and considers it 6 scientifically acceptable to take somebody else's 7 study -- CASAC is full of the scientists that 8 actually did the studies. 9 Harvard's there. They've got the -- 10 all the studies that were done that are being 11 analyzed -- here all the people who did those studies 12 sit on CASAC. It's an appointment, a presidential 13 appointment where they look at everything that's 14 going on. 15 And they go slow because it's a lot of 16 information and a lot of big scientists. We don't 17 even participate. We're not even a part of it. Is 18 HEI here today to tell us that there's problems with 19 the data? They sent out letters to other people 20 saying, "There's problems." 21 Are they here? Is there a single 22 scientist that did a study here to talk about their 23 own study? No. We're outside the process. We are 24 our own country here in California. We're being 25 ignored. We are the people that are outside the 138 1 process. 2 We're going to ask you to do something 3 different today. And I'm hoping that this board will 4 do what Joe Calhoun asked earlier -- reject something 5 for once and not for a long period of time. For 60 6 days, reject adopting these standards. Send your 7 staff and this guy that runs the air quality science 8 forum to CASAC and plead our case. 9 If these are the right standards and 10 you come forward with all this information -- look at 11 the work that went into this. Look at ARB's 12 presentation. There's a lot of scientific work that 13 went into it which has -- it's not even being taken 14 to CASAC. It's not considered. 15 We don't even have a chance or a 16 process for a national standard. We gave up on a 17 national standard by rushing out ahead of the feds. 18 If we go through the federal process together -- the 19 trucking industry, the agriculture industry, the 20 environmental community here -- and we take this 21 fight to CASAC, we have a chance at a national 22 standard that is more stringent than the standard 23 they could be proposing. 24 If what they're saying is right and 25 the politics are where they are, what that means is 139 1 we could influence that. We could go to that body, 2 and we could get them to push forward with a more 3 stringent standard which will impact California, in 4 the long run, for ships, for trains, for 5 international carriers -- a level playing field. 6 And we're just -- we're going to be 7 first. And it's in the paper is where we're the 8 strongest and the greatest. And then we go on our 9 merry way having the worst air quality in the nation 10 because we can't control those sources. 11 The only way that you're going to meet 12 the air-quality standards, the federal standards, is 13 to try this different approach. And we'll commit -- 14 the California Trucking Association -- to go into 15 CASAC, to pushing for the best scientific standards 16 based on the data available. 17 Don't forget. Everybody study that 18 you've looked at, they've looked at. And their 19 numbers are different. There's a reason their 20 numbers are different. And there's a reason the 21 authors of those studies are with federal EPA. They 22 are the authors of the studies. 23 Now, maybe our scientific people have 24 found things that they didn't see. They won't know 25 that unless we go there and advocate. Imagine 140 1 yourselves as CASAC and all of us -- California, all 2 of us -- coming up, saying these things to them. 3 Then we have a chance for a level playing field. 4 Until we have do that, you adopt today 5 an illegal standard. The EPA has decided that they 6 have to change the standard because it's 7 double-counting. It's pretty clear. You can't count 8 PM2.5 twice. And PM10 to PM-zero includes PM2.5. 9 It's very clear. It's arbitrary, 10 capricious, and unlawful. EPA's changing the 11 standard. Why would we go ahead with a standard that 12 we know is unlawful? We know it's unlawful. 13 So I would ask you today -- and this 14 takes a lot of guts. It puts California first. It's 15 not saying "We're going to have -- we're going to 16 have a less stringent standard." 17 It's saying, "We're going to give 18 California's trucking industry a chance at survival. 19 We're going to go to CASAC. We're going to fight for 20 what we think is right. We have all this science 21 data to do that. And then, if we lose, then we'll 22 come back and possibly set more stringent standards." 23 But you're preempting us from the 24 process by deciding today and giving up. You're 25 preempting the trucking industry from having a level 141 1 playing field, from keeping our shipping contracts, 2 from having the same pollution rules as the trucks 3 that come into our state and the trucks that come in 4 from international by giving up and deciding to go 5 stringent today instead of fighting EPA and then 6 going, at the end of the process -- three months -- 7 going in and saying, "Here's what we came up with. 8 Report back to the board on what federal EPA's doing. 9 Here's what we need." 10 We should be working together as a 11 state, not the Air Resources Board against 12 California's trucking industry. Thank you very much. 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 14 Any questions? 15 MR. McKINNON: Mr. Chairman. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. Mr. McKinnon. 17 MR. McKINNON: Stephanie, I've watched the 18 Province of British Columbia in Canada eliminate all 19 its forestry rules and dump lumber in California to 20 the point that their mill's going out of business 21 between exchange rates and other things. 22 And at the same time as that's 23 happening, there are a few in this state that want to 24 make it more expensive for people to harvest wood in 25 this state. It's counterproductive. 142 1 I have some sympathy. I have some -- 2 I'm hearing what you're getting at. But I also want 3 to make something clear. 4 And that is that competition in 5 trucking between a worker that makes 35, 40 dollars a 6 week and a worker that makes a thousand dollars a 7 week -- at some point, we can't fall into the logic 8 that we push back to the point that we're willing to 9 accept workers that drive trucks for 35, 40 dollars 10 a week because we're very clear that workers that 11 make that amount of money here can't live; right? 12 That doesn't work -- 13 MS. WILLIAMS: We agree. And we're working 14 with the Teamsters on that -- those issues in the 15 legislature today. 16 MR. McKINNON: I understand. Yes. But there 17 are all sorts of consequences of NAFTA that are wage 18 related and environmental related. And yet, at some 19 point, we have to draw a line and not go backwards -- 20 not give up our wages, not give up the air we 21 breathe, not give up the water. 22 To the extent that we try to harmonize 23 federally together, that's a good thing. But that 24 harmonizing federally -- if what it does -- and I 25 think of it in terms of worker rights in NAFTA -- if 143 1 the pressure is to bring wages down or overtime pay 2 down or things like that, when what it really costs 3 to live is at the rates that people are being paid 4 now or more, if the pressure is to go downwards, I -- 5 There were strikes -- there was a 6 strike in Spain today. There was one in France two 7 days ago about this process in the EU. So if what 8 we're going to play is a downward spiral game, then 9 we have to say, "No." 10 If what we're going to do is we're 11 going to say, "We need to make improvements, and we 12 need to bring the rest of the country along," then I 13 think the argument has some validity. And in the 14 case of NAFTA -- and we need to be bringing along our 15 continent. 16 MS. WILLIAMS: Uh-huh. 17 MR. McKINNON: And there's growing evidence 18 that that's not even remotely happening. In fact, 19 competition from Vietnam and China is bringing down 20 conditions in Mexico now because there's threats to 21 move the jobs away from Mexico because they're too 22 high paying and they have too many environmental 23 restrictions, which may blow people away. But the 24 whole racket is a downward spiral. 25 So I'm still thinking about what 144 1 you're proposing. But it seems to me that it has to 2 be an honest effort to try to bring us together in a 3 better place; bring us together, particularly 4 nationally in trucking with fuels and engines -- to 5 bring us better nationally so it works. 6 If the feds want to go backwards or 7 they don't want to progress, then, the State of 8 California, not out of vanity, the State of 9 California and New York and some other states push 10 forward because they don't -- the feds are not being 11 responsive. 12 So I think that was kind of a long way 13 around the whole kind of connection but -- 14 MS. WILLIAMS: But if we don't try -- if we 15 don't try, we lose. 16 MR. McKINNON: That's right. That's right. 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Did you have a question? 18 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Yes. 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. 20 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: I think this is a very 21 important issue she's raised. And I'd like to hear 22 more discussion from -- the thinking of the staff on 23 this. When would these standards, if and when 24 they're adopted, become effective? 25 MR. KENNY: The standards, if adopted by the 145 1 board, would be effective once they've gone through 2 the kind of the administrative law process, after 3 going through OAL and being filed with the Secretary 4 of State's office. And so probably within six to 5 nine months -- 6 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Six to nine months -- 7 MR. KENNY: -- from -- 8 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: -- from today? 9 MR. KENNY: Yes. From today. 10 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: And then there'd still 11 have to be implementation of control measures, both 12 by local districts once they become effective and by 13 us for the -- for mobile sources. 14 MR. KENNY: Yes. Again, the standard's 15 basically to simply establish what we believe to 16 be -- 17 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Correct. 18 MR. KENNY: -- the state's clean air -- 19 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: -- healthful -- yeah. 20 Right. Is there any -- how are we hurt or helped in 21 thi kind of an effort, with whatever -- realistically 22 whatever chance of success it might have, 23 strategically by waiting, by doing nothing as opposed 24 to -- or deferring as opposed to going forward but 25 with that kind of a time line? 146 1 I have great sympathy. I am very 2 concerned about our trucking industry. And I'm 3 concerned by the fact that there's no level playing 4 field. 5 And obviously that's because of two 6 things -- the federal rules and ours, and we don't 7 have any control over interstate activities. And 8 that includes airlines, and it includes ships. It 9 includes all kinds of things, as well as NAFTA trucks 10 coming here so -- 11 MR. KENNY: Well, we are working on the ships 12 and the planes and things like that and locomotives 13 also. But in terms of the timing -- you know, the 14 CASAC meeting next month is not going to resolve 15 anything at the federal level. You know that is just 16 simply one step in a fairly long process. 17 In talking with US EPA, they were 18 looking at hopefully getting their standards out 19 sometime in 2003. They are concerned, however, in 20 talking with them, that they don't think -- they may 21 not make it now until 2004. 22 And so essentially waiting 60 days, 23 waiting 90 days is not going to change the dynamic at 24 all. Where we are today is that, with regard to the 25 annual averages, we do believe that the information 147 1 that we've presented to you today is sufficient and 2 compelling to essentially establish the PM2.5 annual 3 average requirement -- or annual average standard -- 4 excuse me. 5 With regard to the PM2.5 24-hour 6 standard, the proposal there is to wait for the very 7 simple reason that the information that is 8 outstanding does have some questions associated with 9 it and we do need the additional time to essentially 10 resolve those issues. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I also think it's very 12 important, because we've got off on a track here of 13 what I consider emission standards -- we are setting 14 air quality standards. 15 MR. KENNY: Right. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: And Stephanie's right in 17 terms of it impacting the truckers. But we've heard 18 from other stakeholders -- it will impact everyone. 19 And I think that also -- I think 20 there's a, as staff mentioned earlier, the track 21 record of ARB, working in conjunction with OEHHA and 22 the University of California scientists, is actually 23 much better than EPA in setting air quality standards 24 based on public health. 25 So the point is we feel that there's 148 1 enough evidence out there to support getting 2 information out to the public on the impact of 3 particulates on public health. And I think that we 4 shouldn't confuse the two. 5 Clearly we're going to work very 6 closely with the trucking industry, as we have, 7 setting the tailpipe standards for heavy-duty 8 vehicles. And that way, we are harmonizing with EPA. 9 So let's not confuse between the two here, something 10 which is health based. And then we look at that. 11 And so I think -- 12 MS. WILLIAMS: But how can -- if it's health 13 based, how can we be at 20 when they're at 50? How 14 can we be at 12 when they're at 15? 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Stephanie -- 16 MS. WILLIAMS: There's a reason. 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: -- just listen, please. 18 Please. Listen. If you listened to staff earlier, 19 the track record has been that the EPA has come down 20 based on data. We have scientists here looking at 21 that. They are plugged into the CASAC process. 22 MS. WILLIAMS: They are not here -- 23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: We ask -- 24 MS. WILLIAMS: -- because they don't care what 25 California does. 149 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Wrong. HEI offered to 2 come -- 3 MS. WILLIAMS: Is not here. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: -- offered to come here. Dan 5 Greenbaum offered to come if we needed them to come 6 out here. 7 MS. WILLIAMS: He's not on your side. He's 8 going to be with EPA and CASAC. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: You're making an assumption. 10 MS. WILLIAMS: No, I'm not. I went to the 11 diesel TAC hearing where you said that diesel was 12 going to be a carcinogen, federally. And guess what? 13 It wasn't. And guess what? 300-in-a-million deaths 14 are zero in the other 49 states. I'm sorry. But 15 we've been through this. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Let's take this one issue. I 17 talked to president of HEI -- Dan Greenbaum. He 18 offered to come out here. 19 And understand. I said, "As long as 20 our staffs have been talking, we don't need you." 21 So to make the observation that, 22 because he's not, they don't care -- that is wrong. 23 MS. WILLIAMS: We have been denied due 24 process. We are being left out of the CASAC-federal 25 rule-making because of this here today. You are 150 1 moving ahead with not one single federal person here, 2 not one single scientist. 3 And we don't even get to look at the 4 stuff that you figured out two weeks ago. There is 5 no due process here. Our industry is hurting. We've 6 had more financial bankruptcies this year than ever 7 before. Why can't you wait 60 days? 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: We're talking about 9 health-based air quality standards -- 10 MS. WILLIAMS: Exactly. And so is federal 11 EPA. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: -- health-based. 13 MS. WILLIAMS: Federal EPA is too. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: We are moving ahead with our 15 process. 16 MS. WILLIAMS: You're moving ahead. Exactly. 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: If you've got some other 18 comments to make, please make them. 19 MS. WILLIAMS: My last comment: We are being 20 ignored. The California trucking industry is not 21 being represented before this board at all. You 22 don't listen to us. You don't care what we have to 23 say. And those are the end of my comments. 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: We're missing the rational 25 arguments. Thank you. Next, we -- 151 1 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Well, I just want to 2 comment. I care about what the trucking industry has 3 to say, and I'm sure that the rest of you do. 4 They apparently -- if they're not 5 unique, they're in a distinctive and a very bad 6 position because their competitors are not subject to 7 the same regulations. There's a disproportionate 8 impact in that sense. It's not our fault except to 9 the extent that we abandon the field entirely. 10 On the other hand, it seems to me that 11 it's one thing to adopt standards. And it's another 12 thing, in our control measures -- and maybe 13 assisting -- if we need legislation, if that's what's 14 needed -- to take that into account. 15 Now, obviously, if -- we need to work 16 for a higher federal standard -- I mean a more 17 stringent federal standard in this area. 18 And you say that we're working on it. 19 And I think we should accept the invitation of the 20 trucking industry, which was repeated here and I'm 21 sure has been long-standing, to join forces with them 22 and others to see if we can accomplish that. 23 But I'm not convinced that deferring 24 adopting a standard which is aspirational, which 25 won't become even effective for nine months or 152 1 more -- and in the meantime we closely not only 2 monitor what's going on scientifically but we 3 continue to do what we can with the federal -- on the 4 federal side. 5 And then we begin to develop 6 implementation and control measures. And I think 7 there we need to -- we certainly have to figure out a 8 way where we aren't unduly impacting the trucking 9 industry in California. I hope that makes sense and 10 that's achievable. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think you've captured it 12 exactly, Professor Friedman. I think -- again, I'm 13 trying to separate the health-based air quality 14 standards as against the emission standards which we 15 have to implement. 16 I think clearly that's a case where we 17 are sympathetic with the trucking industry. We 18 understand that. And we, in fact, have gone on 19 record working with them to look at emissions 20 standards federally. 21 Last month, we heard comments there 22 from Stephanie on the warranty issue. We also 23 directed staff to look very carefully at this issue 24 when we come to the controls. So we are very 25 sympathetic to all stakeholders in California. So 153 1 when these issues come back to the board, clearly 2 we're going to want to work very closely with the 3 industry. 4 Supervisor DeSaulnier. 5 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: I can't help -- this 6 has been a great conversation. I appreciate 7 Stephanie's comments. And she probably doesn't 8 believe this, but I think we all have sympathy and 9 concern about the trucking industry. 10 Many years ago, I was a warehouseman. 11 I still have my Teamsters withdrawal card. I worked 12 for companies -- they were larger companies than your 13 members. Granted. 14 But I'm in the retail business. I've 15 been in the restaurant business most of my adult 16 life. When something happens to your members, it 17 comes on to me as a point-of-sale person. 18 Now, having said that, where I see our 19 differences is I don't think we should sacrifice 20 public health standards in the world's fifth largest 21 economy and bring them down to, towards third world 22 economy public health standards. 23 I think we should go -- be going 24 collectively to the US EPA and say, "We want you to 25 come up to our standards." Thank you. 154 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. Dr. Burke. 2 DR. BURKE: Can I ask staff: Do we have any 3 idea, after July 1, what percentage of the trucking 4 in Southern California will be that of a foreign 5 country? 6 MR. KENNY: I don't -- 7 MS. WILLIAMS: 25,000 trucks can come in. 8 DR. BURKE: Last time I checked, you weren't 9 on staff. 10 MR. KENNY: I don't think we have any answer. 11 We can try to get the answer for you, Dr. Burke. 12 DR. BURKE: I'm sorry? 13 MR. KENNY: I was saying I don't think we have 14 the answer at our hands, but we can try to get the 15 answer for you. 16 DR. BURKE: I understand our issue, and I am 17 supportive. But it's just like Mr. McKinnon -- 18 Professor Friedman says. This is a real human 19 problem in here too. And if it's not a level playing 20 field, even though we are talking -- and it is 21 probably, from the trucking side, affecting South 22 Coast and San Diego -- the AQMD more than any other 23 AQMD's in the state. 24 I'd really like to have that 25 information 'cause this industry is being really put 155 1 on a slanted playing field. 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Dr. Ostro. 3 DR. OSTRO: Yeah. I just wanted to restrict 4 my comments to some of the science questions and, I 5 think, some of the potential misstatements. 6 Regarding CASAC, the sitting 7 epidemiologist on the committee is Carl Schei, who 8 has consistently argued for tighter standards at the 9 federal level. Dr. Samet and Dr. Speizer either 10 serve as members or as consultants, typically, in the 11 past. And I know Dr. Speizer has also consistently 12 argued for tighter standards than what has been 13 proposed. 14 Regarding the issue of the "that 15 there's no scientists here who did the studies" -- 16 should be aware that Dr. Lipsett and I have published 17 over 70 studies relating air pollution to health 18 effects. I think that does qualify us as scientists, 19 and we are here. 20 Finally, the statement that "authors 21 of the studies all support EPA" -- I can assure you 22 that many of the authors of many of these studies 23 have testified several times in front of CASAC about 24 their studies and asked for tighter standards. 25 And I can tell you privately they've 156 1 come up very strongly in support of California 2 standards. They think we're doing the right thing 3 here. But, you know, scientists often don't like to 4 get involved in the policy process and don't usually 5 like to testify in public. But many of them are very 6 happy and supportive of what we are proposing here 7 today. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 9 Mr. Stuart? 10 MR. STUART: Good afternoon, Chairman Lloyd 11 and ARB members. I am Jeb Stuart, representing the 12 Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition. We 13 have, within our organization, probably 80 percent of 14 all the contractors, builders, quarry people in 15 Southern California. 16 Many of them stand to be severely 17 endangered at some point, depending on control 18 measures, if you adopt this standard. I had 19 originally planned just to withdraw my card when you 20 said, "Don't talk unless you have something other 21 than the short-term standard." 22 But after listening to Cynthia Cory 23 and Stephanie Williams, I feel I owe it to my people 24 to second what they said because there's a tremendous 25 number of similarities between construction, farming, 157 1 and trucking. Having been a district person for a 2 number of years, I'm aware that, the lower the 3 standards, the more pressure to attain it quickly. 4 And the standard where you're setting it -- I think 5 it's going to make an entirely big difference to our 6 districts in this state. 7 For example, one of the things that 8 may come out of it is a requirement that all 9 contractors replace their older engines with ARB-EPA 10 certified engines. I'm talking about heavy-duty 11 diesel engines. Typical cost -- 120,000 to 150,000 12 per engine. 13 I would guess that about two thirds of 14 our members couldn't do it by a date certain that you 15 may come up with, like, 2006 or 2008. And I know 16 those dates are circulating around your staff now. 17 This is going to be a real incentive 18 for your staff, I believe, to target a date which is 19 going to force a lot of our members out of business 20 or bring -- or worse yet, bring in international and 21 national contractors that have the wherewithal to 22 upgrade or to repower or buy new machines and bring 23 'em into this area. 24 One other observation that is, I 25 think, discouraging: Over the past 30 years, the PM 158 1 standard -- PM concentrations, at least in the South 2 Coast and many other areas of the state, have 3 steadily gone down. And yet one of your members 4 commented that, anecdotally, he's heard that the 5 incidence of lung problems is going up. 6 And I wonder why we don't see any 7 improvement in that area, at least a leveling of it, 8 if we have made the efforts we have to reduce 9 particulate emission and particularly small, fine 10 particulate emissions and as well as larger ones 11 through our dust program. 12 It's just concern that, through the 13 years, we make improvements. And yet we hear the 14 same health problems, but they get greater as we go 15 along. I thank you. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Lisa Ohlund, Todd 17 Campbell, and Vandana Bali. 18 MS. OHLUND: Good afternoon. My name is Lisa 19 Ohlund. And I'm here this afternoon representing 20 SCAP. "SCAP" is an acronym for the 21 Southern California Association of Publicly Owned 22 Treatment Works. We have 55 public agency members 23 who treat the sewage from a population of 16 million 24 in seven Southern California counties. 25 We have been carefully following the 159 1 review of the existing ambient standards and the 2 development of the proposed standards. And we 3 appreciate the air quality improvements that have 4 been made through adoption, historically, of these 5 standards. 6 However, I am here to speak in 7 opposition to the board's adoption of the entire 8 standards today. We were recently advised of some 9 concerns by Dr. Robert F. Phalen, Director of the Air 10 Pollution Health Effects Laboratory in the College of 11 Medicine at the University of California at Irvine. 12 Dr. Phalen advised us that, among his 13 concerns -- and he has written to you detailing 14 those -- was that the air metric for health effects 15 is unknown. It is scientifically improbable that 16 particulate mass per se in any size range is the 17 proper measure of toxicity of air pollution. 18 Air chemistry is sufficiently complex 19 that control of one property -- say, PM2.5 -- will 20 produce increases in other potentially toxic 21 properties such as particulate counts and gaseous 22 concentrations. 23 He also mentioned that there is a 24 massive worldwide research effort underway that is 25 designed to understand the potential health effects 160 1 of the current levels of urban air pollution and that 2 that effort is producing both revelations and new 3 puzzles on a daily basis -- primarily what has been 4 mentioned before that strong evidence that asthma 5 rates are increasing as urban particulate air 6 pollution is decreasing. 7 We're concerned that more harm than 8 good could come from your adoption of the regulations 9 today. We understand that you have been leaders in 10 air pollution control. We don't understand what harm 11 a delay of, say, 60 days could do during the review 12 of the 2.5 standards. 13 I haven't heard anything today from 14 staff that says conclusively that something couldn't 15 come up during that scientific review that could 16 affect the long-term standards. 17 Should you adopt the long-term 18 standards today and something does come up, you would 19 be probably amending those in 60 days anyway. We ask 20 you to consider these comments. And I thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 22 Questions from the board? 23 Todd Campbell, Vandana Bali, and Renee 24 Sharp. 25 MR. CAMPBELL: Chairman Lloyd, members of the 161 1 board, this is going to be short 'cause I didn't 2 expect to actually speak on this issue; but I -- 3 after hearing the testimony, I wanted to. I just 4 want to say to the board that probably the most 5 important decision that you can make in terms of 6 protecting public health and improving air quality is 7 today and is before you. 8 I truly believe and -- PM actually has 9 a personal level for me because, at Yale University, 10 when I was actually studying environmental studies, I 11 did my master's thesis on PM, and I especially did 12 it on the effects of fine particulate matter on 13 Southern California children. 14 And I never saw or observed or studied 15 any studies that denied a direction correlation 16 between fine particulate matter -- PM10 and PM2.5 -- 17 and effects, human health effects, with children in 18 Southern California. 19 And, furthermore, there are subsequent 20 studies that the Air Resources Board has funded that 21 show actually real impacts on children, as well as 22 adults, within Southern California as well. I also 23 want to say that, when I was studying -- this was in 24 1997; it's 5 years later -- in 1997, the industry 25 also mentioned concern and wanted delay. 162 1 The Health Effects Institute looked at 2 the Harvard Six study that was being questioned and 3 then reconfirmed that that analysis was sound. So 4 nothing is going to change in 30, 60, or 90 days. 5 And I just want to say that, again, 6 hundreds of studies have demonstrated, not just kind 7 of, you know, alleged but truly demonstrated a direct 8 correlation between PM and morbidity and mortality. 9 I truly believe there is a real cost 10 in delay. And as the staff itself has proposed, 11 6,500 deaths annually are directly caused by 12 fine-particulate pollution in this state. And those 13 deaths don't just occur, like, at the end of the 14 year. They occur throughout the entire year. So 15 when we delay 30, 60, 90 days, we're delaying real 16 impacts to real people. 17 I finally just want to say that 18 California must move forward and not fall back, as I 19 believe US EPA has fallen back under the Bush 20 administration. We need real standards on the books 21 that protect people. And this is a standard that 22 will do that. 23 So with that, I'm going to leave the 24 rest to Vandana Bali. 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Thank you. 163 1 Vandana Bali, Renee Sharp and Bonnie 2 Holmes-Gen. 3 MS. BALI: Good afternoon, Chairman Lloyd and 4 members of the board. My name is Vandana Bali. And 5 I'm speaking on behalf of the Coalition For Clean Air 6 and the NRDC. 7 The Coalition strongly supports the 8 proposed changes to the California ambient air 9 quality standards for particulate matter and 10 sulfates. We cannot afford to delay the adoption of 11 these standards. 12 However, the annual average PM2.5 13 proposal does not go far enough. It i's crucial that 14 the board commit ARB staff to consider adopting a new 15 24-hour PM standard later this year. AQAC 16 unanimously supported creating a 24-hour PM2.5 17 standard. 18 The recent software problem that 19 affected the results of this study has caused the 20 board to defer consideration of the 24-hour PM2.5 21 standard at today's meeting. It is estimated that PM 22 causes or contributes to nearly 9,300 deaths per year 23 in California. That's more the total number of 24 annual deaths caused by car accidents and murder, 25 amongst other things. 164 1 The Children's Environmental Health 2 Protection Act mandates that the ARB, in conjunction 3 with OEHHA, protect public health, including those in 4 at-risk communities. More stringent PM standards are 5 critical to protecting communities that suffer from 6 environmental injustices. 7 Minority and Latino populations are 28 8 and 36 percent more impacted from PM exposure than 9 Anglo communities, respectively. And populations at 10 or below the federal poverty line are 17 percent more 11 at risk from exposure to PM. 12 PM particles pose significant negative 13 health risks for infants, children, the elderly, 14 minorities, and those with preexisting 15 cardiopulmonary disease. As you know, these 16 particles get lodged deep inside the lungs and 17 contribute to increased death rates and premature 18 mortality. 19 A Southern California study by the USC 20 School of Medicine that we referred to earlier today 21 demonstrated a permanent lung-function loss occurs in 22 children and it largely remains even if they move out 23 of the area. 24 And as we've already noted -- and I'll 25 briefly remark upon -- lowering PM standards could 165 1 prevent 32,000 cases of bronchitis and 34,000 asthma 2 attacks, among a host of other respiratory ailments. 3 So bottom line, we need to move forward with a 4 24-hour PM2.5 standard. 5 We recommend that, within the next 30 6 days, the board contact authors of the studies in 7 question and have them reanalyze their test results; 8 have them supply the board with their reanalysis; and 9 if reanalysis has not been done to date, the board 10 should strongly encourage the authors to reanalyze 11 their data and provide the board with clarification 12 for any remaining doubts in order to move forward. 13 Based on the findings, the board must 14 not delay further action and must work to bring a 15 proposed 24-hour PM2.5 standard back in front of ARB 16 for reevaluation by December, 2002. Thank you. 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. Thank 18 you. 19 Renee Sharp, Bonnie Holmes-Gen, John 20 Billheimer, and Ellen Garvey. 21 MS. SHARP: I'm Renee Sharp. I'm an analyst 22 with the Environmental Working Group, which is an 23 environmental research and advocacy organization 24 which is based in D.C. and has offices in Oakland. 25 EWG thanks the Air Resources Board for 166 1 the opportunity to speak. And we would like to 2 express our strong support of the proposed annual 3 PM10 and PM2.5 standards. California has long been a 4 leader in developing health-based air quality 5 standards. 6 And these proposed standards would, 7 again, put California out in front, which is what 8 Californians want. They want to walk outside and see 9 the mountains. They want their kids to go play 10 soccer and not have an asthma attack. And they want 11 clean air. 12 EWG also urges ARB to set a time frame 13 for the consideration of a 24-hour PM2.5 standard 14 which will allow the statistical issues to be 15 clarified, which also recognizes that particulate air 16 pollution is a serious public health issue in 17 California and that short-term PM2.5 standards are 18 urgently needed. 19 Although there still remains and will 20 likely always remain some debate over the exact 21 numbers, there is no debate that the number of 22 illnesses and deaths in California every year 23 resulting from PM exposure is too high. The proposed 24 PM standards, if they are met, will be a significant 25 step in the right direction and a huge boon to public 167 1 health. 2 And there is voluminous research, 3 unaffected by the recently discovered software 4 glitch, which forms the basis of the proposed 5 standards and underscores the urgencies for them. 6 EWG would also like to point out that, 7 although the proposed PM standards would greatly 8 benefit all Californians, poor and non-Anglo 9 residents have most at stake in terms of public 10 health. 11 As my colleague for the Coalition for 12 Clean Air just mentioned, some of EWG's recent 13 research -- we found that annual average particulate 14 levels in neighborhoods of mostly non-Anglo residents 15 are 28 percent higher than in areas with mostly Anglo 16 residents. And this disparity is even more severe in 17 neighborhoods with predominantly Latino residents, 18 where PM levels are 36 per higher. 19 And when you look at poor residents, 20 we find that, in neighborhoods with a 21 greater-than-average share of residents living in 22 poverty -- PM levels are 17 percent higher in these 23 neighborhoods. 24 And we're not just talking about a few 25 people a year coughing a bit more because of PM 168 1 exposure. We're talking about thousands of people 2 getting seriously ill and dying every year because of 3 exposure to particulate matter at current ambient 4 levels. 5 Adopting the proposed annual PM 6 standard is a critical first step in improving the 7 health of all Californians. And EWG urges the ARB to 8 adopt these standards. 9 EWG would also like to remind the 10 board that the next steps -- adopting a 11 health-protective 24-hour PM2.5 standard, making real 12 strides towards achieving environment justice, and 13 developing control plans to achieve these proposed 14 health-based standards -- are just as important. 15 Thank you. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 17 Questions? Dr. Burke. 18 DR. BURKE: To the lady who testified -- since 19 you are a researcher, this is a research question 20 that has intrigued me over the last few years. 21 When they give a number of or 22 percentage of whatever carcinogen is found in the 23 Latino community -- Latino community, in fact, 24 displaces in Southern California what used to be the 25 black community. 169 1 So there's got to be some kind of 2 crossline because all the black people who used to 3 live there that no longer live there got the 4 pollution prior to the Latinos. 5 So they not only get the pollution 6 they get today, which is the number you give today 7 for black people, but they also get a number which 8 was probably much more intense, earlier and longer, 9 because they lived in an area which is much higher in 10 its toxic levels of carcinogens, which come from 11 whatever sources. 12 So I would really like to see a study 13 someday of what the cumulative effect on the black 14 people has been over the last 30 -- well, I know for 15 a fact I lived in an area which is now a hundred 16 percent Latino. So I'm 63. I lived there for, say, 17 35, 40 -- 30 years ago. 18 I lived there 30 years ago. So for, 19 say, 10 years, I got the superdose. And now I'm 20 getting a different kind of dose. So you know -- 21 MS. SHARP: Well, let me address a couple 22 things. One is I actually didn't have figures for 23 the black community. And the reason why that is, is 24 that -- 25 DR. BURKE: We don't count. 170 1 MS. SHARP: Well, no. There's a reason. When 2 I looked at the distribution of monitors in 3 neighborhoods in California that had the demographic 4 available, which is 112, I found that 80 percent of 5 them were in areas with a greater-than-average 6 percentage of non-Anglos. 7 So the average percentage of 8 non-Anglos in California is, like, 53 percent. 80 9 percent of the monitors are in areas that the 10 percentage of non-Anglos is above that. 11 And when I looked at the neighborhoods 12 where there were monitors -- where monitors exist, 13 rather -- the Latino areas actually have a good 14 number of monitors. But when you look at areas with 15 higher percentages of blacks or other ethnicity 16 groups, there are very, very few monitors in those 17 areas. 18 So the reason why I don't have any 19 figures for that is 'cause there really isn't enough 20 data as I can see it, to look at it -- 21 DR. BURKE: Probably because of the poor 22 leadership of the former chairman of the South Coast 23 Air Quality Management District. But I would 24 encourage you to -- I would like for you to contact 25 us at the district. And I'd like to talk about that 171 1 because I didn't know that. And I think that's 2 important, and I think that's something we should 3 work on. 4 I'm sorry. Take your time, Mr. 5 Chairman. 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: No. Good question. 7 Thank you very much. 8 And we have Bonnie Holmes-Gen, John 9 Billheimer, and Ellen Garvey. No, John. Wait. 10 Bonnie Holmes-Gen. 11 MR. BILLHEIMER: I'm sorry. 12 MS. HOLMES-GEN: I've waited all this time. I 13 can wait a few more minutes. If my voice sounds a 14 little weak, I didn't manage to get lunch during the 15 half-an-hour break. So I'll try to get through. 16 I did pass out my testimony. And I 17 want to boil it down to just a few points. Again, my 18 name is Bonnie Holmes-Gen. And I'm with the American 19 Lung Association of California. 20 Number 1, there is a growing 21 realization in California that we have a public 22 health emergency from air pollution in this state. 23 This realization is even more at the forefront in 24 areas like the Central Valley, which is experiencing 25 some of the highest asthma rates in the entire state. 172 1 What are the signs of this public 2 health emergency? It's the skyrocketing asthma 3 rates, the increasing numbers of childhood death from 4 asthma, the thousands of people who are dying 5 prematurely each year from pollution exposures, the 6 high numbers of lost school days and lost workdays 7 from air pollution exposures, lung development being 8 drastically changed from air pollution exposures, and 9 many more signs. 10 I think you've encapsulated it in one 11 of your slides -- and this has been mentioned -- that 12 you can attribute specific numbers of lives saved to 13 the air quality standards that you are considering 14 today. You have the ability to prevent 6,500 15 premature death; to prevent hundreds of thousands of 16 asthma attacks, millions of lost workdays, and other 17 impacts. 18 We believe that it is incumbent upon 19 you today to move forward and to adopt the proposed 20 ambient air quality standards -- the new annual 21 standard for fine particles PM2.5, the more stringent 22 annual standard for PM10 -- to retain the existing 23 PM10 24-hour standard. 24 And equally as vital, we think it's 25 extremely important for you to move forward as 173 1 quickly as possible to adopt a new 24-hour PM2.5 2 standard. 3 And a second major point that I wanted 4 to make -- and this has been made by your chair and 5 others -- is that this is a public health decision 6 that is before you today. And I know that you 7 understand that. By statute, you are directed, in 8 considering air quality standards, to look only at 9 the health-based evidence for the standards. 10 And you have an excellent team, by the 11 way, of experts on air pollution and health effects. 12 You have an excellent Air Quality Advisory Committee. 13 I sat through the two-and-a-half days of meetings by 14 the Air Quality Advisory Committee. And it was an 15 incredibly high-caliber discussion of experts on 16 these issues. 17 And it was -- I was very impressed, as 18 a representative of the lung association and a 19 citizen of this state, that we have such high-caliber 20 experts working on this issue who are concerned about 21 children, infants, and all of the public who are 22 breathing air pollution in this state. 23 This is a public health decision. You 24 are not here today to weigh potential job losses or 25 gains from the adoption of these new standards or to 174 1 assume -- or to discuss -- well, not to "discuss" -- 2 or to weigh any assumed economic consequences. That 3 is not your job today. Your job is to consider the 4 extensive health-based evidence for the adoption of 5 the revised particulate matter standards. 6 And as you know, it's been 20 years 7 since these standards have been reviewed. That is a 8 very long time. 20 years. And over that course of 9 time, our science has advanced tremendously. The 10 number of studies, the research that's been done on 11 particulate matter has advanced tremendously. 12 And that is why there is such an 13 incredible body of scientific studies before you 14 today and that you have probably more evidence in 15 favor of the standards that are before you today than 16 you had on other air quality standards that you've 17 considered. 18 On the 24-hour PM2.5 standard, again, 19 we feel it's critically important that our state have 20 a short-term 24-hour 2.5 standard. The hundreds of 21 time-series studies demonstrate serious respiratory 22 impacts, declines in lung function, increased rates 23 of emergency room visits. 24 I mean you've heard all these things. 25 But they're all true and very real to the people who 175 1 are experiencing these problems. 2 We understand there's a need for some 3 time to do some reanalysis of the 24-hour -- some of 4 the studies that the 24-hour standard was based on. 5 However, we urge you to move forward as quickly as 6 possible, once that reanalysis is complete, to 7 consider and adopt a 24-hour standard. 8 And we would urge you to include in 9 your motion today that the staff should come back as 10 quickly as possible to the board for consideration of 11 the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. 12 And we would encourage you to have at 13 least a report back on this by the end of this year, 14 because this is the year -- December, 2002, is the 15 date certain in the Children's Environmental Health 16 Protection Act when the state air board is supposed 17 to act on all the particulate matter standards, on 18 all the changes that are needed in the particulate 19 matter standards. 20 So we would like to see at least a 21 report back by the end of this year. 22 I think that I'll, you know, I'll cut 23 some of my testimony down. I know you've heard a lot 24 today. But I want to just conclude by saying there's 25 been extensive public participation, an incredibly 176 1 thorough process. 2 You've heard your own scientific 3 experts say that the software glitches that are going 4 to be reanalyzed and pertaining to the 24-hour 5 standard are not glitches that impact the studies 6 that were put forward as the basis of the long-term 7 annual PM2.5 and PM10 standards. There is no need 8 for reanalysis of those studies in order to make a 9 decision on the PM annual standards. 10 You can make that decision today. And 11 we urge you to do that. 12 Our message to you today is to please 13 put the breathers of California first, especially 14 infants and children. Please put the public that is 15 affected by the asthma epidemic first. Please put 16 the individuals who will have their lives shortened 17 by pollution-induced lung cancer and heart attacks 18 first. Please adopt the standards before you today. 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 20 Questions? Ms. D'Adamo. 21 MS. D'ADAMO: There's been a lot of talk about 22 the increased health effects, and at the same time -- 23 several witnesses have said, at the same time that 24 we've had improved air quality there does seem to be 25 a disconnect if, in fact, that is the case. Could 177 1 staff respond? 2 DR. LIPSETT: I think that the anecdotal 3 evidence that was one cited by Dr. Friedman and the 4 other increases were referring principally to asthma, 5 increases in asthma that have occurred worldwide 6 actually, not just the United States, but throughout 7 the entire developed world, beginning in really 8 around the mid to late 1970's. 9 And if you look only sort of at the 10 gross level of what's happened with air pollution in 11 the United States, generally since then it has 12 declined. But the assumption underlying these sorts 13 of observations is that air pollution is the primary 14 cause of asthma. It's not the primary cause. And I 15 don't think that anybody would argue that it is. 16 Then you wouldn't necessarily expect to see that kind 17 of a relationship of decreased air pollution and 18 therefore decreased cases of asthma. Okay. 19 You have, from the children's health 20 studies, a very recent health publication indicating 21 that, for heavily exercising children, that ozone can 22 dramatically increase the risk of developing asthma, 23 at least, in children in Southern California. This 24 is one of the only studies that I'm aware that's 25 actually even tried to look carefully at this 178 1 relationship. 2 If you only look at a gross population 3 level, only look at the gross trends, you're not 4 really accounting for individual-level factors that 5 might be related to this. And the children's health 6 study is one of the few that have done this. 7 In that children's health study paper, 8 by the way, although the focus that you have on this 9 has been on ozone, they did also find relationship 10 with particles as well -- with particles increasing 11 the risk of developing asthma for those children. 12 It's a much lower level of effect than what you see 13 with ozone, but it's definitely there in the paper. 14 So I think, in general, I don't know 15 if that's a kind of a sufficient explanation of this. 16 But, in general, I think the people have not really 17 looked carefully at this in detail -- individual- 18 level factors and exposures. 19 But when this has been done, as in the 20 children's health study, you actually do see a 21 relationship between asthma and air pollution. 22 MS. D'ADAMO: Is it possible also that the 23 rates are going up because of greater public 24 awareness, similar to, say, breast cancer rates going 25 up after there is greater public awareness and women 179 1 go and get mammograms? 2 DR. LIPSETT: Yeah. And that certainly -- I 3 don't want to go off on a long digression on this, 4 but I think that's a good observation. 5 And I think that physicians, 6 especially pediatricians, like when I was a kid, 7 would be very reluctant to give a diagnosis of asthma 8 to a child except in really what we considered to be 9 severe cases because there was nothing that could be 10 done about it at that point really in terms of trying 11 to let kids with asthma have a normal life. 12 That kind of diagnosis was very 13 stigmatizing for the kids. They could end up having 14 a number of restrictions placed on their activities 15 with that diagnosis. 16 Since the 1980's, however, in 17 particular, we have very effective treatments for 18 asthma so that most asthmatics, given adequate 19 medical treatment, will lead normal lives. And I 20 think that there's been an increasing willingness of 21 physicians to make that diagnosis. 22 But nonetheless there have been 23 studies, not air pollution studies, but studies 24 looking at asthma trends that say that, despite these 25 sorts of things, despite changes in diagnosis or 180 1 diagnostic tendencies, there has still been a 2 worldwide increase in asthma within the developed 3 world. 4 There is something about life in 5 developed countries or industrialized types of 6 societies that has predisposed towards an increase in 7 the development of this kind of disease. 8 And just one last thing: Just -- 9 we're looking -- you're looking at the incidence of 10 asthma, for example, or new cases of asthma in 11 relationship to air pollution, which is what the 12 children's health study had examined. I think that 13 that issue has not been very adequately studied. 14 Okay. 15 But with respect to exacerbation of 16 asthma of people who already have it -- I think that, 17 in the time series that have been done, there are 18 dozens of studies throughout the world that show that 19 air pollution does play a role in exacerbating 20 existing cases. 21 I think that evidence is very, very 22 compelling. And when we come to you with the 23 24-hour-standards recommendations, those studies are 24 going to play a key part. 25 DR. FRIEDMAN: Beyond asthma, there are 181 1 additional confounding factors. For example, you're 2 dealing with an aging population and the 3 cardiovascular effects and the cancer incidence, 4 which is going to increase as a function of an aging 5 population, which indeed can also be impacted by 6 pollution effects, contributes the same disconnect, 7 if you will, between some of the data points. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 9 John Billheimer and Ellen Garvey. 10 (Off-the-record discussion while the 11 reporter changes paper.) 12 MR. BILLHEIMER: A standard is what it says. 13 30, 60, or 90 days to adopt does not instantly save 14 lives. So the rush -- if there is problems in 15 adopting this, that is -- the 30, 60, 90 is not the 16 issue. It is not the standard. It is the 17 implementation. We'll only save lives when this 18 standard turns or becomes practical rules and 19 compliance procedures. 20 The manual for this hearing is very 21 true to exactly what it is advertised. It is the 22 subject of adopting the standard. So in a way, I'm 23 out of order if I take that a step further and 24 address the question of what happens after the 25 standard is adopted. 182 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. That is not germane to 2 today's discussion. 3 MR. BILLHEIMER: I believe it is germane, if I 4 may very briefly, if I can -- 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think the chair has a 6 different opinion. 7 MR. BILLHEIMER: The chair is there because 8 opinion is something he's experienced at. So if I 9 can only say that, when air pollution was -- first 10 came into this area, it was ashes and smoke from 11 incinerators. Then it became coarse particulate, 12 which was collected by sieve size -- measured by 13 sieve size. 14 Then, PM10 was discovered. Then PM2.5 15 was discovered. And now you are even considering 16 mentioning standards that might even go finer than 17 that for what you are really interested in, in health 18 effects. 19 So my only message is, as part of the 20 standards, I believe you should examine the past 21 standards and the rules that are presently still on 22 the books. You still have thousands of permits 23 outstanding on coarse-sieve-size-type operations. 24 You have 2.5. It was mentioned -- the conflict 25 between PM10 including 2.5. Have to bifur -- I'm 183 1 suggesting that you bifurcate the standards. 2 If you're adopting tighter standards, 3 that may be appropriate. That's not mine to discuss. 4 But in that case, you should look at the standards 5 that you have passed over and see if you can simplify 6 the rules to focus on the new -- the pre-2.5 and so 7 forth and find out -- make a decision whether you 8 still need to regulate for more than nuisance value 9 the early standards, the thousands of "bag houses" 10 and "cyclones." They are not. 11 And so I close with saying, I believe 12 your manual says that only 5 percent of the PM that 13 you are now looking at in these standards comes from 14 industry. That should be more clearly set out in 15 your regulatory approach. Thank you. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 17 Ellen Garvey and Gretchen Hardison. I 18 guess we're going to have to close the public 19 testimony sign-up period here. Just increasing 20 numbers so -- 21 Hi, Ellen. 22 MS. GARVEY: Good afternoon, Chairman Lloyd 23 and members of the California Air Resources Board. I 24 am here today on behalf of the Bay Area Air Quality 25 Management District to urge this board to adopt the 184 1 new standards far particulate matter. 2 I also would like to echo the remarks 3 made by my colleague from the American Lung 4 Association and urge this board to consider and adopt 5 a 24-hour standard for particulate matter as soon as 6 possible. 7 When we step back and we look, we see 8 very clearly that there's a substantial as well as a 9 growing body of evidence that fine particulate matter 10 poses a very serious health threat to those of us who 11 live and work in California. 12 Whether you look at the costs 13 associated with the health care or you look at the 14 decrease in lung function, the increase in the number 15 of emergency visits that I know are occurring in the 16 Bay Area and in other areas throughout California, 17 and when you look at the decrease in the lung 18 function -- all of that combined make it clear that 19 the standards we currently have -- whether the 20 federal standards or state standards -- are simply 21 not adequate to protect public health. 22 And I urge you to move quickly today 23 to adopt the annual standard and to move quickly also 24 to consider and adopt a 24-hour particulate matter 25 standard. 185 1 I very firmly believe that the current 2 standards that are in place are simply not adequate 3 to protect public health. It's very important to me 4 today that you consider and adopt particulate matter 5 standards and to do so as quickly as possible. Thank 6 you. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Thank you. 8 And Gretchen Hardison. 9 MS. HARDISON: Thank you. I'm Gretchen 10 Hardison with the City of Los Angeles Environmental 11 Affairs Department. Today I'm representing 12 Councilman Nate Holden of the 10th council district. 13 I'd just like to read a couple of 14 excerpts from Councilman Holden's letter to the 15 board. 16 "Dear Dr. Lloyd: The Children's 17 Environmental Health Protection Act requires the Air 18 Resources Board and the Office of Environmental 19 Health Hazard Assessment to review existing 20 California ambient air quality standards to determine 21 whether they protect children with an adequate margin 22 of safety. 23 "As Chair of the Los Angeles City 24 Council's Environmental Quality and Waste Management 25 Committee, the protection of public health and 186 1 improvement of the quality of life for all residents 2 and businesses in Los Angeles are a chief concern. 3 "Air pollution is a particular 4 concern, as Los Angeles is located in the largest 5 nonattainment area for ozone in the nation and air 6 pollution disproportionately affects sensitive 7 populations such as children, seniors, and people 8 with preexisting health conditions. 9 "I support strengthening the 10 California ambient air quality standards as required 11 to protect public health. The City recognizes that 12 the implementation process for complying with new air 13 quality standards will be long and is somewhat 14 undefined. 15 "As new standards are adopted, the 16 City would like to work with you, as a stakeholder, 17 in the development of implementation strategies to 18 assure that they are cost effective, protective of 19 public health, and continue to move the State toward 20 meeting the new standards. 21 "Thank you for your consideration and 22 support." 23 Thank you. 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 25 DR. BURKE: Mr. Chairman. 187 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Dr. Burke. Yeah. 2 DR. BURKE: Would you tell the Councilman, who 3 I've known for 30 years, I appreciate his letter. 4 But I'd like to know why there are no monitoring 5 stations in his district. 6 MS. HARDISON: I will pass that along. Thank 7 you. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: You might ask the vice chair 9 and chair of the South Coast AQMD. 10 DR. BURKE: Ask the next guy. Pass the buck. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: So I guess, since Mr. Kenny 12 doesn't have any more comments, unless Mr. 13 Scheible -- 14 MR. SCHEIBLE: He surely doesn't have any more 15 comments right now. And neither do I. So that 16 concludes the staff's comments. 17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Are we sure he's all 18 right? 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I'd like to now close the 20 record on this agenda item. However, the record will 21 be reopened when the 15-day notice of public 22 availability is issued. Written or oral comments 23 received after this hearing date but before the 24 15-day notice is issued will not be accepted as part 25 of the official record on this agenda item. 188 1 When the record is reopened for the 2 15-day comment period, the public may submit written 3 comments on the proposed changes, which will be 4 considered and responded to in the final statement of 5 reasons for regulation. 6 Again, ex parte statement here -- if 7 anybody has ex parte -- 8 MS. D'ADAMO: Yes, I have -- I have several. 9 On the 6th of June, I participated in a telephone- 10 conference call with George "Sorees" of "Kahn, 11 Sorees, and Conway"; Roger Isom with the California 12 Cotton Ginners Association; and with Manuel "Cuna," 13 "Benefice" Farmers League. 14 On the 12th of June, I had three 15 separate telephone calls with George "Sorees," Roger 16 Isom, and with Cynthia Cory of the California Farm 17 Bureau. The content of those discussions virtually 18 mirrored what Ms. Cory's testimony was this morning. 19 Additionally, on the 14th of June, I 20 had a telephone call -- received a telephone from 21 Kevin Hamilton, Director of the Asthma Center at 22 Community Medical Center in Fresno. And his comments 23 to me were similar to the testimony presented by 24 Bonnie Holmes-Gen. 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 189 1 Mr. McKinnon. 2 MR. McKINNON: Today, at our lunch break, I 3 had a conversation with Stephanie Williams about 4 federal- and trade-related impacts of the issue 5 mirrored by her testimony today and the questions and 6 discussion. 7 Following our conversation, I called 8 Barry Broad, who is the head of the Teamsters State 9 Council in California, and asked him what the 10 Teamsters' position was. 11 And the Teamsters do not have a 12 position on the health-related rule. But as we do 13 control measures, he believes that they will have a 14 position. That's all I have. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Anybody else? 16 MRS. RIORDAN: No. 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I'd like to just kick off the 18 discussion on this item. Sorry. I'd like to kick 19 off the discussion on this item by again thanking 20 staff and all the witnesses for the input here on a 21 very difficult issue. 22 I think that we addressed, earlier, 23 the need for the deadline, which was SB 25. And I 24 think we heard the fact that we need to have maybe 25 some delay as we move ahead. But on the other hand, 190 1 I heard significant uncertainty if we wait for either 2 resolution of the 24-hour standard but also feeling 3 that the EPA-CASAC process would move ahead -- we 4 didn't feel that could be accomplished by the end of 5 the year. 6 So I think that was an important part 7 of it. I think we heard also some discussion here -- 8 and I think I was trying separate the issue on the 9 air quality standards as against the emissions 10 standards. And I think that was an important part I 11 was trying to bring out on there because I think they 12 are -- while they are related, they're definitely 13 separable. 14 And today we're based on health based. 15 And I have to emphasize the "health based." We had 16 to go on the recommendations of our fine group of 17 staff, OEHHA, and the UC advisory committee. And I 18 think that's very important, based on the health data 19 we see there. 20 And we also have to protect -- our job 21 is to protect the public health of Californians in 22 this process. And in the control measures we're 23 talking about, we have to look at, take into account 24 the economy as well. 25 On the other hand, I think we also 191 1 heard some compelling statements from two of the 2 major stakeholders in the economy of California -- 3 from the agricultural community and from the trucking 4 industry -- that we should make greater efforts to 5 coordinate with EPA on the air quality standards, 6 given the fact that we should have a common set of 7 health-based studies. 8 And, again, reflecting on that part of 9 it, I think that I'm convinced that we have not been 10 sufficiently aggressive in trying to work with 11 CASAC -- influencing CASAC. I guess we've been 12 following CASAC. And I know I've heard members of my 13 staff -- Dr. Prasad -- following their process. 14 So the kick off -- I would like to ask 15 staff if we can aggressively participate in that 16 process by asking EPA to consider our standards in 17 writing. 18 I would like to say that, if we could 19 work with the stakeholders we've heard today -- and 20 particularly the construction industry is another one 21 in addition to the trucking industry -- and the 22 agricultural community and any other stakeholders 23 which we feel could be significantly impacted as well 24 as obviously the health community and the 25 environmental community. 192 1 So, in fact, we'll try to put some 2 pressure on EPA to harmonize the air quality 3 standards. 4 I would also like to ask, as that 5 process moves ahead and staff becomes aware of that 6 issue, to actively report back to the board in a 7 public hearing so that we have the benefit of all the 8 discussion in those arena and, also as part of that, 9 to report back to us on the 24-hour average standard 10 in terms of what that means and how that moves ahead. 11 Again, I heard some comments today 12 that we should try to complete that by the end of the 13 year. I think what I'd like to ask staff to do is 14 try to complete that as soon as possible because we 15 don't know the deadline. And that's not up to us. 16 It's up to the people to analyze that. 17 So with those sort of recommendations 18 and suggestions to staff, I turn towards my 19 colleagues as well. Dr. Friedman -- Professor 20 Friedman. 21 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Yeah. I think you ought 22 to just call me "Hugh" or "Professor" or "Mister" 23 because this is the real Dr. Friedman right over 24 here. I'm only a doctor in Europe. But I think you 25 made the points that I wanted to make. 193 1 And I would suggest that, as we evolve 2 the resolution that we'll be voting on, I would hope 3 that you would put in the "be it further resolved's" 4 as direction to staff -- 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. Yes. 6 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: -- the things that you 7 just requested that they do and that be part of the 8 formal action so that we can -- and also that, if and 9 when EPA does take any action or any action is 10 proposed by them, that the staff would report back to 11 us and that we could have, if it's appropriate, we 12 could have a further public hearing because I do, as 13 you -- as the chair recognized and as I said earlier, 14 I do think that we have a serious special problem 15 here, particularly for the trucking industry but also 16 others are impacted when we regulate for the health 17 and safety of our residents but when, at the same 18 time, that disadvantages economically and 19 competitively a very responsible, major, legitimate 20 business segment in our community, in our state. 21 So we need to do something better 22 there. 23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Oh, sorry. 24 MR. KENNY: One quick, quick response on that. 25 I think our intent would be to essentially actually 194 1 hold the public hearing at any such time as EPA does 2 adopt their PM proposals. And then we could report 3 back to you what their standards are and at least 4 provide the opportunity for a comparison and a 5 discussion as to why there is or is not any 6 differences between the standards. 7 And there was a significant amount of 8 debate about the potential differences between 9 standards. And so there is an opportunity therefore 10 to have that discussion. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Miss D'Adamo. 12 MS. D'ADAMO: I'd like to see included, in 13 that report, information about the current standard 14 that we have now before we act today and where that 15 fits in, in the scheme of things, as well as the -- I 16 guess, Mr. Scheible, what you termed it, as 17 background. If we could receive some information 18 about the various area districts -- 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: D.D., people can't hear you 20 down this end. 21 MS. D'ADAMO: I'm sorry. 22 MRS. RIORDAN: I don't think the microphone is 23 functioning for some reason down here. I'm having a 24 hard time hearing you. 25 MS. D'ADAMO: Okay. What I was asking for -- 195 1 Is that better? 2 MRS. RIORDAN: Yes. Much. 3 MS. D'ADAMO: -- was, when we receive the 4 report back from the staff, if it could include a 5 comparison of the standards that we have today -- 6 assuming that we change the standard -- I think that 7 we should also have a comparison of the previous 8 standards -- that standard which is now in effect. 9 I realize that it is not our role 10 today to consider economic impact. However, I think 11 that what's underlying a great deal of the testimony 12 and the concern by the witnesses and the individual 13 board members and the questions that have been posed, 14 has to do with the very concern of "How are we going 15 to meet this standard?" 16 And I think it is because we are, in 17 fact, concerned about the economic impact, 18 particularly in situations where the standard just 19 may not be achievable. I don't know if we're ever 20 going to know that answer. But what would help, in 21 my evaluation anyway, would be to have additional 22 information on what staff has termed as background. 23 And I would just like to also indicate 24 that Cynthia Cory and a number of individuals 25 representing the agricultural community did get ahold 196 1 of me, as I indicated in my ex parte communications. 2 And it really was quite helpful. 3 And I think that, as we go through 4 this process, it's important that obviously we want 5 to use the best science available. That's real 6 difficult for a layperson, such as myself, to figure 7 out what, in fact, is that best science. 8 But if you keep us on our toes and 9 constantly ask us the tough questions, then I think 10 that that not only makes our decisions more sound and 11 more credible but I think that that gives us -- it 12 bolsters us as we move forward and make decisions 13 about what we do about that information. 14 So I just would like to extend to 15 Cynthia; the groups that you represent; and, of 16 course, Stephanie -- I think that this is crucial. 17 You do raise a lot of crucial points. And we do need 18 to be held to the challenge that you raise. And that 19 is what happens after you set the standard and what 20 other impacts will that have that we're not 21 necessarily charged with in our decision-making 22 today. 23 But obviously it's something that 24 we're all concerned about as we move forward. So 25 thank you. 197 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: And, Stephanie, you were 2 heard. 3 Supervise DeSaulnier. 4 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Thank you, Mr. 5 Chairman. I was afraid that, because of my schedule, 6 I wouldn't be able to come to beautiful Southern 7 California and be on the record voting for this. So 8 I'm really anxious to go ahead and vote in favor of 9 the recommendations, including the things that the 10 chairman has put in as direction. 11 In terms of Stephanie's issues, I 12 think it's a good idea that we work, perhaps with 13 sister agencies and also our legislative delegation, 14 both in the House of Representatives and our two U.S. 15 Senators to make them aware of the commercial impacts 16 of what we're doing and see if -- although all 17 politics, I know -- but we don't want to be 18 political -- heaven forbid -- here in this 19 environment but wherever we can -- I'm concerned 20 about, not just on this issue but, for instance, on 21 New Source Review that just came this past week -- 22 that, while we've always been a leader -- CARB -- in 23 terms of its view to US EPA, regardless of what the 24 administrations were in both the state level and the 25 federal level, I'm concerned that perhaps the gap is 198 1 widening. 2 So I think we really have to be on the 3 same page, that we don't want to see that happen, not 4 just for environmental concerns, but for the concerns 5 that were issued today in terms of a strong economy. 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: And I think, unfortunately, 7 on NSR, the gap is widening in the wrong direction. 8 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Yes. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Okay. Mr. McKinnon. 10 MR. McKINNON: On the basis that this is a 11 standard directly related to health -- it's not about 12 the economy; it's not about other things -- I'm going 13 to vote for the standard only on that basis. 14 I think that certainly everyone in the 15 room that's done science and published it, on this 16 subject, was for this standard. And as I gather, the 17 vast majority of those that have done science and 18 published it, outside of the room, certainly are not 19 opposed to this. 20 Or we would've had people here telling 21 us that they were opposed to it and we would have had 22 letters and studies brought to us. 23 So it's about -- it's about a health 24 standard. It's about a correlation between particle 25 matter and whether it makes people sick. 199 1 Now, when we get into implementation 2 discussions and how we're going to do with it, 3 economics does matter. There was a comment 4 earlier -- "We're not here to decide about jobs" or 5 something like that. 6 Frankly, when we get into 7 implementation, there better be a discussion about 8 jobs 'cause one of the things that is very, very 9 clear to me is that, as we are under pressure from 10 international trade agreements, what is happening is 11 that there are places in this world and in this 12 continent that are either not enforcing their laws or 13 eliminating their laws for the purposes of 14 competition. 15 And to the extent we hide our heads in 16 the sand about that happening, what will happen is 17 the good jobs, where we are trying to do things 18 environmentally more friendly, will go away to the 19 places where they're not. And that's happening. 20 It's happening in a number of industries. 21 I'm not saying that we backtrack. I'm 22 not saying that we have -- the comparison of wages to 23 where we're not going to go to 40-buck-an-"hour" 24 jobs. We're not going to go to bad air. But we'd 25 better fight for national standards and international 200 1 standards. We can't hold back from that. 2 And to the extent we don't 3 participate, that's almost as difficult for me to 4 understand. And I understand that this federal 5 meeting -- I understand that they're appointments -- 6 the people who go are federally appointed. 7 I understand that we don't have 8 anybody federally appointed at this time. That may 9 be something that we need our two U.S. senators to 10 press on and some of the industry folks to press on. 11 We need to have a solid discussion 12 about harmonizing, or we're going to get hurt. And 13 so anybody that comes back when we talk about 14 implementation and says, "It ain't about jobs," jobs 15 is going to be part of the discussion. Thanks. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 17 Mr. Calhoun, Dr. Burke, and 18 Mrs. Riordan. 19 MR. CALHOUN: Mr. Chairman, other members of 20 the board, I guess I didn't understand -- 21 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: A little louder, please, 22 Joe. 23 MR. CALHOUN: I didn't understand the 24 statement made by Mike earlier. And I guess my 25 question to you is: Would you repeat that? But also 201 1 what form will be taken to implement the concerns 2 expressed by all the different board members here -- 3 MR. KENNY: Well, my thought was essentially 4 we would -- 5 MR. CALHOUN: -- or what vehicle? 6 MR. KENNY: The vehicle would be a board 7 hearing. And what we would do is we'd actually, at 8 such time as US EPA does adopt the standards, we 9 would then come back to the board, report to the 10 board on what the US EPA standards are, and do a 11 comparison and contrast with California standards so, 12 in fact, the board has the issue in front of it at 13 that point in time as to how the standards either are 14 the same or different. 15 In the interim, before such a thing 16 would happen, we would try to participate to the 17 greatest extent possible in influencing the federal 18 standards more in the direction of where we think the 19 public health dictates that they should be. 20 MR. CALHOUN: Would this be incorporated in 21 the resolution that you have? Or how do you plan to 22 do that? 23 MR. KENNY: The plan -- yes. We would put 24 that in the resolution. 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. 202 1 MR. CALHOUN: Go ahead. I'm sorry. 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: No. I was just saying, 3 "Yes." Sorry. 4 Dr. Burke. Yeah. 5 DR. BURKE: Oh, I thought you were saying, 6 "Yes," to what I was thinking. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: That's too dangerous. 8 MRS. RIORDAN: That could be dangerous. 9 DR. BURKE: It's always dangerous. 10 Stephanie made a point which was not 11 lost on any of us, I don't think. But on July 1, I 12 think we encounter a problem which is going to be 13 bigger than South Coast, and it's going to be bigger 14 than the San Diego Air Quality District. And it's 15 going to need the intervention of the California Air 16 Resources Board. 17 And I know that this is not the issue 18 to deal with that on. But I want to be on the record 19 saying that I know it is a problem. And I am already 20 getting so many complaints from Riverside and San 21 Bernardino about that Alameda corridor stuff that it 22 is incredible. And I know that, when the trucking 23 traffic changes on July 4, it's going to just be 24 horrific. 25 So it's -- you know, we might not 203 1 agree with her today on this one, but she's right. 2 She's absolutely right on long term, here. 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mrs. Riordan. 4 MRS. RIORDAN: Yes. Mr. Chairman, my support 5 for the staff recommendation is based on the science 6 that I think is clearly before us. And I think it's 7 most important what we do in the interim as we move 8 to convince the federal government to join us in this 9 effort. We have, I think, the basis upon which to 10 make a very compelling argument. And we should do 11 so. 12 Just anecdotally, though, having had a 13 pretty major fire in my area just this week, it is 14 interesting for me to watch those who work outside -- 15 and I've had an opportunity to do that -- and the 16 effect on their health from that fire, which clearly 17 is a particulate type of a problem for people who 18 work outside, who do hard labor outside. 19 And I can tell you will anecdotally it 20 has a substantial effect on the people that I know 21 who were working outside. 22 And so that tells me, beyond what is 23 in the science reports -- it is clear to just a good 24 observer that there is a tremendous impact from 25 particulates upon our health. And I think that's why 204 1 we definitely need to move forward and be very 2 supportive of that report that's in front of us and 3 the staff recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. We have a 5 resolution together with all the amendments that I 6 think the staff has -- the board has directed staff. 7 So do I have a motion on that? 8 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: So moved. 9 DR. FRIEDMAN: Second. 10 MRS. RIORDAN: Second. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: All in favor, say, "Aye." 12 BOARD MEMBERS' VOICES: Aye. 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any negative? 14 (No audible response.) 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 16 And thank you, staff. Thank you to 17 the witnesses. Thank you, board. 18 We will now take a 10-minute break 19 until 25 of 3:00. 20 (Break: 2:26 - 2:40 P.M.) 21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: The next item on the agenda 22 today is 02-dash-5-dash-2, Status Report on the 23 Implementation of ARB's Environmental Justice 24 Policies and Actions. 25 In the December board meeting, we 205 1 asked staff to return in midyear to report on the 2 actions that had been taken to meet commitments to 3 our environmental justice program. In that regard, I 4 am pleased to acknowledge Board Member Matt McKinnon, 5 who has taken on the role as chairman of our 6 environmental justice stakeholders group. 7 This group plays an important role by 8 serving as a sounding board for ideas about how to 9 address environmental justice in our programs. 10 Thank you, Matt, for your efforts. 11 DR. FRIEDMAN: You're welcome. If they can 12 call you "Doctor," they can call me "Matt." 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Well, I thought I knew Matt 14 McKinnon. And you're no Matt McKinnon. 15 With the adoption of our environmental 16 justice policies, we set out some ambitious goals. I 17 know staff throughout the board has been involved in 18 expanded outreach, focussed enforcement, community 19 assessments, and evaluation of environmental justice 20 implications of our activities. 21 I wholeheartedly support these efforts 22 and look forward to hearing about the progress made 23 so far this year. But as we are constantly reminded, 24 this is the start of a long path. There's much to 25 do. But I'm pleased, at least, to see we have some 206 1 progress and look forward to staff presentation on 2 this item. Mr. Kenny. 3 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 4 members of the board. The policies and associated 5 action items approved last December provide the 6 framework for incorporating environmental justice 7 into our programs. The fair treatment of all 8 individuals is the core concept in environmental 9 justice as defined in state law. 10 These policies apply to all 11 communities in California but recognize that extra 12 efforts may be justified in some communities that may 13 suffer from the cumulative effects of multiple 14 pollutants. Some of those pollutants include toxic 15 air contaminants and may -- some of those pollutants 16 include air contaminants. 17 Over the last six months, ARB staff 18 has been working with local air districts, community 19 groups, business organizations, and other 20 stakeholders to successfully implement the 21 environmental justice policies and actions. 22 We've also had a very active six 23 months completing our assessment in the Barrio Logan 24 community in San Diego. A lot has happened. So 25 we're including a short summary of the results. 207 1 And with that introduction, I'd like 2 to ask Mr. Dale Shimp to make the presentation. 3 And, Dale. 4 MR. SHIMP: Okay. I'm just waiting here for a 5 second. They're having a little technical 6 difficulty. This was working perfect at lunch. Now. 7 Yeah. Okay. 8 Thank you, Mr. Kenny. Good afternoon, 9 Mr. Chairman and members of the board. 10 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Could you put the mike 11 real close to you? 12 MR. SHIMP: Okay. We're here today to give 13 you a status report on the implementation of the Air 14 Resources Board's environmental justice policies and 15 actions. We have dedicated significant resources 16 toward this effort and moving ahead in a broad range 17 of program areas. There we go. 18 First, I will describe our efforts to 19 incorporate the board's environmental justice 20 policies into ARB programs. Following that, I will 21 give you a brief update on the Barrio Logan 22 chrome-plating-monitoring study. This is a 23 real-world example where we put our environmental 24 justice policies into practice. 25 At the December, 2001, board meeting, 208 1 the board approved seven environmental justice 2 policies. These policies were developed over a 3 2-year period with extensive public participation. 4 For each policy, we listed specific actions needed to 5 implement the policy. 6 Within the seven policies, there are 7 four elements that commit the Air Resources Board to 8 take specific actions. These elements cover the need 9 to incorporate environmental justice into ARB 10 activities and programs; adopt measures to reduce 11 public health risk; improve access to air pollution 12 information; and assist local agencies with methods 13 to assess cumulative emissions, exposures, and risk 14 at the local level. 15 We also refer to this as "Cumulative 16 Risks from Air Pollution." 17 Now we are going to describe the 18 specific actions we've taken to implement the 19 policies. The first of these was the development of 20 an environmental justice work plan. The work plan 21 outlines a specific action needed to implement each 22 policy through the end of 2003. Some of the elements 23 of the work plan are ongoing activities while others 24 have specific completion dates. The work plan has 25 been completed and is available to the public. 209 1 While many of the items in the work 2 plan are already underway, the two primary 3 environmental justice projects scheduled for 4 completion this year are the public-participation 5 manual and the complaint-resolution protocol. 6 Mr. Kenny has taken a number of 7 administrative and organizational actions to 8 incorporate environmental justice into ARB programs. 9 For instance, beginning this year, we began including 10 environmental justice evaluations in ARB staff 11 reports. 12 The ARB also established a new 13 environmental justice section. The main function of 14 the new section is working with other ARB divisions 15 to implement the environmental justice policies. 16 A staff person in the Chairman's 17 office has been selected to serve as the ARB's 18 initial point of contact for environmental justice 19 issues. The ARB is also coordinating its 20 environmental justice activities with other state 21 agencies by participating in environmental justice 22 working groups and committees established by Cal EPA 23 and the Office of Planning and Research. 24 One of the commitments in the 25 environmental justice work plan is to provide ARB 210 1 staff with training on environmental justice. In 2 January, the environmental justice section conducted 3 environmental justice seminars for ARB staff in El 4 Monte and Sacramento. 5 Over 100 ARB staff attended these two 6 seminars. ARB and Cal EPA have conducted five 7 environmental justice training classes for ARB staff. 8 To date, over 200 ARB staff have successfully 9 completed this training class. Our goal is to have 10 all ARB staff receive training on environmental 11 justice. 12 One of our most important objectives 13 is moving ahead with a variety of risk-reduction 14 measures that will improve air quality at the 15 community level. Our highest priority is diesel 16 particulate control measures because diesel 17 particulate contributes the majority of the risk from 18 toxic air pollutants. Reducing diesel emissions is 19 also a top air quality priority for most communities. 20 Diesel particulate emission control 21 measures will be proposed for adoption during 2003 22 for refuse-hauling trucks, gasoline tanker trucks, 23 truck refrigeration units, school bus idling, and 24 portable diesel engines. 25 The current emission control measures 211 1 for chrome-plating and dry cleaning will also be 2 under review to determine whether there are 3 additional opportunities to reduce emissions from 4 these sources. 5 We have made access to air pollution 6 information a priority. Our two high-priority 7 environmental justice work products scheduled for 8 completion in 2002 are developed to provide 9 educational information to the public regarding air 10 pollution issues. 11 The public-participation manual is 12 being developed to help the public get more involved 13 in improving air quality in their community. It will 14 provide users with practical help in finding air 15 pollution information, contacting government 16 agencies, filing complaints, and participating in 17 public meetings and hearings. 18 It'll also contain information on the 19 regulatory process, air pollution control agencies, 20 and information on contacting these agencies. 21 The complaint-resolution protocol will 22 describe the roles and responsibilities of local air 23 districts and the ARB in resolving complaints about 24 local sources of air pollution. It will describe 25 where to call, the follow-up a person should 212 1 reasonably expect on a complaint, and the potential 2 range of outcomes that may arise out of a complaint. 3 Some topics that have already been 4 identified include the availability of multilingual 5 staff to receive complaints, the outreach necessary 6 to educate the public about whom to contact for 7 complaints, and the accessibility of enforcement data 8 for local facilities. 9 We're also developing fact sheets, 10 status reports, and translations of documents for 11 communities on environmental justice-related issues. 12 As a first step in making our publications more 13 available for the general public, we have discussed 14 having our environmental justice publications and 15 other materials made available through the state 16 library system. 17 We are also striving to keep community 18 groups informed of our activities through community 19 meetings. We're also encouraging public 20 participation through the environmental justice 21 stakeholders group. 22 For more detailed information, we're 23 working to make more information available through 24 our community health internet websites. A redesigned 25 community health website went on-line this month. By 213 1 the end of year, we're planning to have a system 2 on-line that will allow users to call up maps of 3 their community and find information on the location 4 and emissions for major air pollution sources in that 5 area. 6 Staff has been working with the 7 environmental justice stakeholders group on the 8 implementation of the ARB's environmental justice 9 policies. Since the beginning of the year, the 10 stakeholders group has been chaired by Board Member 11 Matt McKinnon. 12 So far this year, we've had three 13 meetings at different communities around the state. 14 The major topics of discussion have been the 15 environmental justice work plan and the complaint- 16 resolution protocol. 17 We are now reserving a portion of the 18 environmental justice stakeholders group meetings for 19 an open public forum. The forum provides the public 20 an opportunity to discuss local air quality and 21 environmental justice issues with ARB staff and the 22 stakeholders. 23 From our discussions at the 24 environmental justice stakeholders meetings and in 25 meetings of community groups, it is clear that past 214 1 permitting and land-use decisions are at the center 2 of most of today's environmental justice issues. 3 These permitting and land-use 4 decisions are made at the local level. We see our 5 role as providing local agency and community members 6 with the technical tools that will enable local 7 agencies to assess the cumulative air pollution 8 impacts of permitting or land-use decisions. 9 Over the next year, we will be 10 developing general air pollution information that 11 will be useful to land-use planners for assessing the 12 cumulative impacts of permitting and land-use 13 decisions. We will also be developing more detailed 14 modelling and risk-assessment methods for assessing 15 cumulative impacts of air pollution at the local 16 level. 17 Now I'd like to give you a brief 18 update on the Barrio Logan chrome-plating study. 19 This study evolved into a multidivisional effort 20 involving five ARB divisions and offices and required 21 the commitment of significant resources, especially 22 from our monitoring and laboratory division. 23 Our initial involvement in Barrio 24 Logan grew out of committee concerns about exposure 25 to high levels of air pollution because of the close 215 1 proximity of homes to industrial facilities and 2 freeways. 3 After conducting 17 months of 4 community-scale air monitoring in Barrio Logan, we 5 felt it was necessary to conduct some near-source 6 monitoring in the community to determine if there 7 were any potential near-source impacts. 8 We selected Barrio Logan for air 9 monitoring for hexavalent chromium because of 10 community concerns about chrome platers and our 11 interest in assessing the effectiveness of the 12 existing chrome-plating emission-control measures. 13 Hexavalent chromium monitoring was 14 conducted during two weeks of December of 2001 in the 15 vicinity of a decorative chrome-plater and a hard 16 chrome plater. The two chrome-platers are located 17 approximately a hundred feet apart. 18 Results of the monitoring showed 19 unexpectedly high concentrations of hexavalent 20 chromium in the air. Upon receiving these results, 21 we immediately alerted City and County government 22 agencies, Barrio Logan community groups, and the two 23 chrome-platers. 24 We worked with San Diego County 25 government agencies to investigate potential 216 1 violations on the part of the two chrome-platers and 2 on coordinating the distribution of information to 3 the community. 4 Within several days of notifying the 5 County, the ARB staff resumed monitoring at the same 6 locations used in December. In addition, monitoring 7 was also done inside of both chrome-platers. 8 Overall the outdoor monitoring results 9 from February-March showed lower hexavalent chromium 10 concentrations than those measured in December. But 11 the concentrations were still high on some days. 12 Emissions testing of the hard chrome-plating facility 13 found no detectible hexavalent chromium emissions 14 coming out of the stack at that facility. 15 However, the emission testing inside 16 the decorative chrome-plater showed hexavalent 17 chromium concentrations of hundreds of nanograms per 18 cubic meter being released from the building on 19 certain days. 20 The high indoor levels at the 21 decorative chrome-plater strongly correlated with 22 high outdoor levels of hexavalent chromium at a house 23 next door when the wind was blowing in that 24 direction. Based on this and other evidence, we 25 concluded that the decorative plater was the most 217 1 likely source of the hexavalent chromium emissions 2 that were causing the high monitored levels in Barrio 3 Logan. 4 Because of environmental concerns 5 about the decorative chrome-plater, the San Diego 6 County Counsel obtained a temporary restraining order 7 to halt chrome-plating activities at the decorative 8 chrome-plater. The decorative plater was allowed to 9 continue all non-chrome-plating activities. 10 Ambient hexavalent chromium 11 concentrations in the neighborhood were lower once 12 the decorative chrome-plater had ceased 13 chrome-plating operations. However, elevated 14 hexavalent chromium emissions were still occasionally 15 measured inside the decorative chrome-plater and in 16 the outside air. 17 Because tests of dust samples 18 collected inside the decorative plater showed high 19 concentrations of hexavalent chromium, we concluded 20 that these emissions were caused by fugitive dust 21 from housekeeping and maintenance activities taking 22 place inside the facility. 23 A San Diego County Superior Court 24 judge has now granted an injunction against 25 chrome-plating at the decorative plater which 218 1 extended the ban on chrome-plating. The City is also 2 now investigating alternatives for relocating the 3 decorative plater. 4 And there are also a number of other 5 potential legal actions under consideration by the 6 San Diego County counsel and the district attorney. 7 Based on lessons learned in Barrio 8 Logan, the ARB is now working with the California Air 9 Pollution Control Association to revisit -- 10 California Air Pollution Control Officers 11 Association, that is -- to revisit the control 12 measures for chrome-plating operations. 13 Review of the emissions-control 14 equipment for the hundreds of chrome -- hundreds of 15 decorative chrome-plate, chrome-platers in California 16 is a priority. 17 In closing, over the last six months, 18 we have made significant progress towards integrating 19 environmental justice considerations into ARB 20 programs. Including environmental justice analyses 21 in ARB reports, environmental justice training for 22 ARB staff, and community outreach are key actions we 23 have taken. 24 In May, we completed our Barrio Logan 25 study. This community-level experience demonstrated 219 1 our commitment to environmental justice and community 2 health concerns. We will apply and share what we 3 learned in Barrio Logan to help understand and 4 address community air quality issues statewide. 5 Finally, we recognize a critical need 6 to develop new partnerships to address environmental 7 justice and community health. From local air 8 districts and land-use agencies to community and 9 health organizations and the business community, we 10 need to work together to achieve clean air for all 11 Californians. 12 I hope this gives you a little bit of 13 a flavor of the type of activity that's been taking 14 place for the last six months to help implement our 15 environmental justice policies in California. And at 16 this time, we'd be happy to answer any questions. 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 18 Colleagues have any questions at this time? 19 MRS. RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman? 20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mrs. Riordan. 21 MRS. RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, just one quick 22 question. All right. We've done Barrio Logan and 23 that issue. But what is perhaps our next issue that 24 we might address in a cooperative way with an area? 25 Is there one that stands out in California -- 220 1 MR. KENNY: I think one of the difficulties 2 we're going to have is that we really don't have a 3 particular area that we're going to focus on in the 4 same way we did with Barrio Logan. 5 And one of our difficulties is that, 6 although there are many areas in the state that do 7 have problems, the cost associated with the Barrio 8 Logan effort was very high. 9 We learned an immense amount out of 10 it, and so it was extremely valuable to us from an 11 agency standpoint. And it was also extremely 12 valuable for the community because of what its 13 results were. 14 But I do think we're going to be 15 probably a little bit more cautious as we move 16 forward into the future because, just with the budget 17 cuts, we're not going to be able to put the kind of 18 resources into Barrio Logan -- into some other 19 community that we put into Barrio Logan. 20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. With that, we'll 21 call up the first of our two witnesses -- Joe Lyou, 22 California League of Conservation Voters Education 23 Fund and Todd Campbell, Coalition for Clean Air. 24 MR. LYOU: Chairman Lloyd, members of the ARB 25 board, and others in the audience, thank you for the 221 1 opportunity to speak to you today about the 2 environmental justice policies and action items and 3 the status six months after their adoption in this 4 room in December of last year. 5 I'm just putting this up for your 6 information. I'm not actually going to go through 7 all of our priorities. But these are the priorities 8 that we've helped develop through collaboration with 9 our colleagues in environmental justice and 10 environmental organizations who have been 11 participating in the stakeholders group process. 12 It was a request of Dr. Barry 13 Wallerstein, of the South Coast AQMD, that we 14 identify our top five priorities. The best we could 15 do was come up with six. I would like to say -- it's 16 tough. 17 I'd like to say that, first of all, my 18 name is Joe Lyou. I'm Interim Executive Director of 19 the California League of Conservation Voters 20 Education Fund. 21 I am a member of the California 22 Environmental Protection Agency's Advisory Committee 23 on Environmental Justice. I've also been 24 participating in the environmental justice 25 stakeholder group meetings that ARB has been holding. 222 1 The one thing I would like to get out 2 in terms of a warning that is of concern to me, and 3 that is the priorities that have been identified for 4 2003 -- the cumulative emissions exposure and impacts 5 measurement and reduction plans and the efforts to 6 improve local land-use decisions through Air 7 Resources Board participation -- are priorities that 8 are going to take a lot of work. 9 And the problem that we have now is 10 that we're not seeing how we're going to get there by 11 2003. We have been focussed on what is achievable 12 and for good reason because those were the small 13 hurdles we thought we could get over. 14 And I just want to warn -- throw out a 15 general warning not to sacrifice the important for 16 the achievable, the achievable being the public- 17 participation handbook and the complaint-resolution 18 protocols, which have a certain degree of importance. 19 But I think the real importance and 20 the reason I have the priorities up there is that we 21 really want to make sure that the most meaningful 22 thing that can come out of this process in a 2-year 23 period is an ability to measure and to reduce 24 cumulative emissions exposures and health risk. 25 Also, equally as important, is the 223 1 ability to work more productively with local land-use 2 planning agencies. 3 That being said, I'd like to say that 4 the progress, while it has been slow, it has not been 5 from a lack of effort and commitment on the part of 6 those who have been participating in the stakeholder 7 process. It's been a very impressive process in the 8 policy-formation stage and also in the policy- 9 implementation stage. 10 We do need to consider how to make the 11 process more efficient. And we have to balance 12 transparency issues and openness issues with the need 13 to move it along quickly. And I'm thinking that 14 there are perhaps some less important issues that we 15 can delegate to resolving via e-mail, given travel 16 and budget restrictions. 17 And we can also make a concerted 18 effort of being more inclusive on the e-mail so that 19 those community groups who we are meeting and 20 engaging with throughout this process have a role and 21 an opportunity to comment on even those less 22 important items that we could deal with. 23 The budget and travel restrictions 24 that have been discussed, for this process, threaten 25 to undermine our progress in transparency. At the 224 1 last meeting, there was discussion about how the 2 budget restrictions in this year may prevent the 3 stakeholders group from meeting outside of 4 Sacramento. 5 Not only does that put an incredible 6 burden on the nonprofit environment organizations 7 such as ours but it makes it virtually impossible for 8 the community-based groups to participate in the 9 environmental justice stakeholders group process in 10 any productive fashion. 11 I think there has been to be a 12 consideration of perhaps subsidizing the travel of 13 these community groups. And I wouldn't discourage 14 you from subsidizing some of the travel of some of 15 the environmental organizations, too, who would work 16 cooperatively to use whatever funds were available to 17 share the burden of having to travel to Sacramento to 18 meet. 19 We should also consider developing our 20 technological capabilities with regard to video 21 conferencing. 22 I know that there are environmental 23 organizations, such as NRDC and Environmental 24 Defense, both in Sacramento and Los Angeles, who have 25 video-conferencing capabilities that may be able to 225 1 be linked into whatever you have in Sacramento in an 2 effective manner and, if not alleviate, at least 3 mitigate somewhat the inability of people to travel 4 to Sacramento for meetings. 5 I'd like to read you a quote from a 6 Dean Koontz book that says, "Love, charity, faith, 7 wisdom. Those virtues and others are hard won with 8 commitment and patience. And we acquire them one 9 spoonful at a time." 10 I'd like to say that environmental 11 justice is a similar virtue. It's one that is hard 12 won with commitment and patience. And we do acquire 13 it one spoonful at a time, which is the process we're 14 engaging in here. 15 The one last quote I'd like to share 16 with you was, after our last stakeholders group 17 meeting just a few weeks ago in Richmond, I went out 18 and got some Chinese food at about -- what was it? -- 19 8:30, 9:00 o'clock at night, 9:30, when we finally 20 got done with that. 21 And my fortune cookie was very 22 interesting. It told me -- and I think I would 23 generalize this to the whole process, not just to 24 me -- "You should be able to undertake and achieve 25 anything." 226 1 And it made me very hopeful, after our 2 meeting in Richmond, that that's exactly what we 3 would do. Thank you. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, Joe. A 5 pleasure to work with you on this issue. 6 Todd Campbell. 7 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Mr. Chairman. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Oh, sorry. 9 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: I just would like to 10 point out that's the kind of optimism and can-do 11 spirit you can expect in Contra Costa County. 12 They're in all our fortune cookies. 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: D.D.'s listening. 14 MR. CAMPBELL: I like those kinds of fortunes. 15 So -- Todd Campbell, Policy Director for the 16 Coalition for Clean Air. Thank you and good 17 afternoon. 18 On behalf of the Coalition For Clean 19 Air, I also want to second what Joe has had to say. 20 I certainly want to second his remarks in terms of 21 the staff. I think they've done a tremendous job in 22 trying to outreach or perform outreach with key 23 stakeholders throughout the state. 24 And we, too, are very concerned that 25 we may not be able to continue that same level of 227 1 excellence with a very constrained budget. 2 And we encourage the Air Resources 3 Board to be very resourceful in trying to figure out 4 ways that we can outreach to key stakeholders 5 because, if we can't have individuals that are 6 impacted by environmental justice actively 7 participating in the dialog, we ourselves will be 8 inhibited in the ability to address these very 9 important issues. 10 And I certainly would second the -- 11 his suggestion about video conferencing. I think 12 that's an excellent idea. And possibly the Air 13 Resources Board in El Monte could establish video 14 conferencing with Sacramento, and that may alleviate 15 some of the burdens for individuals who don't have 16 the luxury of being able to fly up to Sacramento and 17 participate. 18 And, furthermore, it's actually the 19 environmentally right thing to do because you're 20 reducing emissions from having to travel up to 21 Sacramento or vice versa. 22 The other point or question that we 23 particularly had was some concern over not having a 24 sense of the progress staff has made relative to 25 other commitments adopted in December. And those 228 1 are -- we've heard a little bit about the land-use 2 guidance and what staff intends to do with that 3 commitment. 4 But it's not as clear as to where we 5 are in terms of internal resources being dedicated to 6 the development of cumulative impacts guidance by 7 2003 or December, 2003, or forming a working group to 8 focus on how ARB could do more to incorporate 9 pollution prevention. And I was hoping the staff 10 could address that. Thank you. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 12 Maybe staff could comment also -- 13 maybe comment on whether it would be viable to invite 14 some of the groups to El Monte and be video 15 conferenced into Sacramento. 16 MR. KENNY: I think we can do that. And, in 17 fact, what's happening is we are right now investing 18 in some upgrades to our video-conferencing equipment. 19 And that'll be essentially installed both in 20 Sacramento and El Monte so that it'll work far more 21 effectively. 22 And we should have that in place, 23 probably in the next month. 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Great. 25 MR. KENNY: So we can really take advantage of 229 1 it. 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Great. 3 DR. MURCHISON: Am I turned on here? Yeah. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Dr. Murchison. 5 DR. MURCHISON: Okay. Let me just comment 6 real briefly on the cumulative impacts. It's correct 7 in saying that we haven't had a lot of discussions on 8 that. 9 However, the development of the tools 10 necessary to do cumulative impacts has actually been 11 underway for quite a while. And, in fact, when we 12 first got involved in Barrio Logan in 1999, the 13 purpose of going there, as part of our neighborhood 14 assessment program, was to do just that. 15 Tool development takes time. It's 16 taken more time than we anticipated, perhaps. But we 17 probably do need to be in those discussions about the 18 use of those tools and what to do in terms of when we 19 have conclusions from those tools. 20 We do have a modelling working group 21 that has been working with us all along on the tools 22 that we're developing out of the Barrio Logan effort. 23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: So you liken this to the duck 24 as really calm on the surface, but underneath you've 25 got the staff pedalling away. 230 1 DR. MURCHISON: The staff underneath is really 2 scrambling. But we recognize it is a very important 3 issue, and we're trying to work on it as quickly as 4 we can. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon, as chair, I 6 hear you're doing a great job. Would you like to 7 comment on that? 8 MR. McKINNON: Well, I don't -- chairing is 9 just chairing. I mean the real deal is that staff 10 has moved for a number of years getting us here. And 11 folks like Joe Lyou come and make sure that things 12 move and that there's good content to the discussion 13 to make sure that we move with things. 14 I also wanted to comment that 15 CAPCOA -- during the complaint-resolution process, 16 CAPCOA came through with everything we asked in terms 17 of their, you know, what their priorities are and 18 what their processes are. 19 And I feel like it's a pretty good 20 process in terms of people being collaborative. It 21 is slow. There's no -- but there is -- there is a 22 lot of benefit in being collaborative and getting -- 23 getting things moved where most people are in 24 agreement when we move. 25 I think that Joe raised some real, 231 1 real important points with respect to where we 2 proceed in land use and permitting. And just to kind 3 of fully disclose to the board one of the -- one of 4 the tugs is to have the board almost end up in a 5 position where the board is sort of an appellate body 6 to permitting throughout the State. And that's a 7 tug. 8 It's not a -- it's nothing formal. 9 But one of the things that has concerned me is many 10 of the permitting issues -- and many are actually 11 very close to land-use decisions and typically are 12 very locally based in how those decisions are made. 13 And oftentimes the agencies that make 14 those decisions are faced with economic development 15 and traffic and all sorts of other issues. And it 16 may be that, in many cases, air is sort of not 17 thought through at the same level. 18 So one of the things that I think's 19 going to come out of this minimally that's really 20 important is our ability to advise folks that are 21 doing land-use planning and that are doing permitting 22 and that kind of thing. 23 One of the things that I real, real 24 strongly feel about all of that is that, when we do 25 workshops for local elected officials, we should do 232 1 some sort of real hard-core reach to local elected 2 officials to talk to them about air and environmental 3 justice so that, when they are making land-use 4 decisions or permitting -- yeah -- their land-use 5 decisions that later become permitting decisions -- 6 that they're doing it with a little more information. 7 And maybe -- maybe we can help them 8 change some priorities a little bit. But, all in 9 all, I'm very happy. I'm pleased to be doing it. 10 I feel like everybody involved in it 11 has stepped to the plate. There are people that have 12 fundamental disagreements that sit down and hash 13 things out. And I'm really proud of the work 14 everybody's doing on it. Thanks. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I really appreciate your 16 commitment, Matt, to the effort and the time you put 17 in. 18 Professor Friedman. 19 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: I had to miss a little 20 bit of the earlier report; so maybe this was covered. 21 But, Matt, did you include in your working groups, 22 your workshops, representatives from other 23 potentially polluting or emitting land-use owners and 24 holders and occupiers? 25 MR. McKINNON: Yeah. We have -- 233 1 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: I'm thinking of, like, in 2 Barrio Logan, there's National Steel. There's 3 shipbuilding. There's a Navy repair facility. There 4 are all kinds of things, private and government. 5 And when you get to this cumulative- 6 effect issue, I was struck by a hypothetical that was 7 thrown at me when I was down there at one point. 8 They said, "You know, suppose -- we 9 only have one gas station in this whole area. 10 Suppose there was a proposal by somebody who wanted 11 to put in another gas station. It would be a great 12 convenience to the workers, all the people who drive 13 in and out of here." 14 But on a cumulative-effect basis, it's 15 just possible that that would exacerbate the 16 situation. I don't think there'd be any hexavalent 17 chromium, but there would be other cumulative-effect 18 issues. And that is land use, ultimately, and 19 whether they be permitted and so on. 20 But if that is an additional hoop -- 21 and I think we think it is an important one -- how do 22 we work that into the equation in terms of the 23 process that people go through before they can make 24 that investment or whether they can? What do we do? 25 And I can't decide that here and now. 234 1 But I'm just wondering: Do you have 2 representatives -- for example, the employers that 3 are already contributing to the emissions are 4 probably the ones that most would like to see the 5 convenience to their employees of a gas station but, 6 you know, so maybe offsetting -- and who would do 7 that? I guess that's local -- clearly stationary. 8 But and I just wondered if, early on, 9 you've got people representing that point of view in 10 the mix. 11 MR. McKINNON: Hugh, I'll take the Barrio 12 Logan example. There's a woman that represents the 13 Industrial Environmental Association -- which is 14 "Nasco," "Solar," "OGD," all of the major industrial 15 employers -- who always attends the meeting. 16 In fact, she even comes when we 17 meet -- when we met in Richmond, she was there. So 18 "Nasco" sent their -- National Steel and Shipbuilding 19 sent their environmental health, I think, fairly line 20 employee. I mean, given how she was dressed, I think 21 she works out in the yard, making sure things happen. 22 so a fairly -- so there's that tendency. 23 The second party -- there is -- so 24 there are people involved. And I'm sure I've left 25 some out. The oil industry is always represented. 235 1 WSPA is there. I think CCEEB is there. Did I leave 2 any other major out? I think that's most of the 3 business-side stakeholders that are there. 4 On the gas station example, I think, 5 in that -- I think that's the question I was kind of 6 posing is that, when you make land-use decisions, 7 it's not just the local air district, 'cause of the 8 stationary source, it's also the local land-use 9 planning agency, whatever it is. 10 And there's some type of an 11 interaction between "Does the community need this? 12 Does, you know -- is it there land for it? Is it 13 going to cause us traffic problems? Does it fit the 14 aesthetic plan for the" -- you know, there's a whole 15 bunch of factors. 16 And I think it's fair to say, in some 17 communities, air is a factor that is way down in the 18 bottom and is not considered. And we have to think 19 about ways to bring that consideration to a higher 20 level. 21 And so I -- so there is somebody 22 deciding that. But I don't think that's us. It's 23 really a question of us being able to give the 24 information, when needed, to those decision-makers 25 about it. 236 1 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: And we want them to 2 consider the cumulative effects -- 3 MR. McKINNON: Yes. 4 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: -- on the environment, on 5 the air. 6 MR. McKINNON: Yes. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Supervisor DeSaulnier? 8 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Mr. Chairman, I -- 9 first off, I want to apologize to Matt. When they 10 had the meeting in Richmond, I had a previously 11 scheduled very important basketball game to watch so 12 I didn't go over there. It wasn't you, Matt. No. 13 It wasn't a basketball game. It was something 14 important. 15 Just a thought, listening to this, and 16 particularly in Contra Costa County, where we have 17 the highest concentration per capita and geographic 18 mass of hazardous-material sites, at some point the 19 idea of bringing local land-use, city council 20 members, boards of supervisors, planning 21 commissioners into this -- it would nice to 22 develop -- I hate this word -- a template because a 23 lot of these communities are disaffected communities. 24 They have multiple government 25 agencies. Now, doing good things in terms of 237 1 reachout -- the air district -- in this example, Bay 2 Area Air District -- we're doing outreach there. 3 CARB is doing outreach. MTC's now doing outreach. 4 Our public health department's doing outreach. 5 And you get the sense sometimes that 6 you get environmental groups split on all of those 7 issues come to the meetings. And at some point, I 8 hope that we can develop -- and this, being a state 9 agency, I think, would be the reasonable place to 10 develop it -- where all those come together in some 11 kind of townhall. And you get all the resources of 12 local, regional, and state government there. 13 And I think that would probably 14 obviously bring a critical mass to the meetings that 15 might bring all those people so hard to get out to 16 these meetings. 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Sounds like a good idea. 18 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Occasionally, once 19 every election cycle, I come up with a good idea. 20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Are you volunteering? 21 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: No. No. Matt's doing 22 it. At a hundred dollars per diem, I can't do it. 23 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Sounds like a job for Cal 24 EPA -- hazardous waste, water, air. 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yeah. So any other comments 238 1 from the board? Since this is not a regulatory item, 2 it's not necessary to officially close the record. 3 But I'd like to thank staff -- I'd like to thank all 4 the staff here for the great job you're doing on 5 that program. Shankar on my staff there. All doing 6 a great job. So thank you. 7 But as Joe reminds us and Todd, it's 8 the start of a long way to go. And it's difficult. 9 But, again, I'm encouraged by Joe and Todd and others 10 who will be watching us. So we cannot afford to 11 relax even in tough fiscal times. 12 So we had some good suggestions how we 13 might act to get around that and work through it. So 14 thank you. With that, we'll take a -- just a moment 15 while we change staff to go on to the next item on 16 the San Francisco Bay Area attainment plan. And I 17 know Mark came down especially for this so we can -- 18 (Brief off-the-record discussion.) 19 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Things are going so 20 well, staff felt like it was safe to have it in 21 Southern California. It's not that we were hiding; 22 right, Mr. Kenny? 23 MR. KENNY: We never hide. 24 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Yeah. Right. Well, 25 maybe sometimes we should. 239 1 MR. KENNY: No. I was going to say that, but 2 I decided to hold back. 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: The next item on the agenda 4 is 02-dash-5-dash-3, Status Report on the 5 Implementation of San Francisco Bay Area's 2001 Ozone 6 Attainment Plan. Today staff is providing a status 7 report to the board on the progress and implementing 8 the 2001 San Francisco Bay Area Federal One-Hour 9 Ozone Attainment Plan. 10 This board adopted the plan last 11 November. At that meeting we had a number of 12 concerns from the public about the process used to 13 develop a plan as well as the plan's contents. As a 14 result, the board directed staff to assist the Bay 15 Area District and the Metropolitan Transportation 16 Commission in addressing these issues. 17 We also asked the staff to report back 18 in mid-2002 on the status of these efforts. We look 19 forward to hearing some of the specific steps being 20 taken in the Bay Area as part of our collective 21 efforts to obtain clean air for all our citizens. 22 And, again, with that, before turning 23 it over to Mr. Kenny, I'd also like to welcome Ellen 24 Garvey from the Bay Area APC. And I guess I just 25 realized that Ellen has actually been a speaker. 240 1 So, Mr. Kenny, all yours. 2 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 3 members of the board. As you noted, at the November 4 1, 2001, board meeting, the board directed staff to 5 assist the Bay Area district and the Metropolitan 6 Transportation Commission. 7 There were three specific issues that 8 the board asked staff to address: First, the further 9 study of refinery measures proposed by the district; 10 second, long-range transportation-control strategies; 11 and, third, an enhanced smog check program in the Bay 12 Area. 13 At the board's direction, we 14 established three stakeholder groups to address the 15 three issues. Presentation today will summarize the 16 efforts to date of each of these groups. We've 17 coordinated with the Bay Area district and the 18 Metropolitan Transportation Commission in setting up 19 these groups and the subsequent meetings. 20 We're encouraged by the support and 21 the continued push of the Bay Area district and 22 industry to define new control measures and to look 23 at other types of stationary control measures, the 24 district's deliberations on possibly implementing 25 smog check, and the comprehensive discussions on new 241 1 transportation strategies. 2 Furthermore, the district's efforts to 3 expand its outreach program to keep the community 4 informed is also highly appreciated. These are all 5 positive steps in a more collaborative process that 6 will result in cleaner air in the region. 7 And, with that, I'd like to ask 8 Mr. Bruce Tuter to make the staff presentation. 9 Bruce. 10 MR. TUTER: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. Good 11 afternoon, Chairman Lloyd and members of the board. 12 My presentation is a response to the board's request 13 for a progress report on implementation of the 2001 14 San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the 15 Federal One-Hour Ozone Standard. 16 I'll briefly summarize the board's 17 direction to staff and the steps we have taken to 18 carry out that direction. After a hearing on the 19 plan, the public and the board raised issues 20 concerning the public process that occurred as part 21 of the plan's development as well as a number of 22 content issues. 23 These issues included smog check for 24 the Bay Area, long-range transportation strategies, 25 and evaluation of new refinery and other measures to 242 1 achieve further emissions reductions. The board 2 directed staff to take follow-up action on these 3 issues. 4 Our response was to monitor 5 implementation by the district and the Metropolitan 6 Transportation Commission, or MTC, and to form three 7 roundtable discussion groups. 8 The goal of these three roundtables 9 was, one, evaluate and develop new stationary source 10 measures including further study of refinery measures 11 that may be needed to meet the 26-ton-per-day 12 emission-reduction commitment; two, explore 13 long-range transportation strategies to help reduce 14 the growth in vehicle miles traveled; and, three, 15 discuss options for implementing enhanced smog check 16 in the Bay Area. 17 The board's direction was to 18 facilitate discussion and evaluation of the local 19 issues. We have been working closely with the local 20 agencies, who have the lead -- the district, for 21 stationary source measures and for smog check; and 22 MTC, on transportation strategies. 23 The roundtables include participants 24 from community groups, industry, and government 25 agencies primarily from the Bay Area. Of course, the 243 1 enhanced smog check group is broader to include air 2 districts and communities interests in the downwind 3 regions as well. District board chairs from the Bay 4 Area, Sacramento, and Yolo-Solano districts 5 represented elected officials on this roundtable. 6 Supervisor DeSaulnier is active on all 7 three roundtables, providing a consistent link to 8 this board, the district, and MTC. Chairman Lloyd, 9 Supervisor Patrick, and Board Member D'Adamo were key 10 participants in the smog check roundtable held in 11 January. 12 To date, we have held one stationary 13 source roundtable, and we are working on scheduling a 14 second. Refineries have been the initial focus for 15 stationary sources. But at future meetings, we will 16 expand the discussion to include other industrial, 17 commercial, and residential sources where further 18 reductions may be feasible. 19 In addition, there's a focussed 20 refinery stakeholders group that meets more 21 frequently. This group and its subgroups are working 22 to develop the four refinery measures -- measure 23 commitments in the SIP and to evaluate the four 24 further study measures. 25 As a result of district and ARB 244 1 personnel working on measure development, the first 2 refinery measure from the commitments in the plan is 3 scheduled to go to workshop next Thursday -- June 27. 4 Some further study measures show promise and may go 5 into measurement development. 6 ARB staff expect that the evaluation 7 of the wastewater ponds further study measure should 8 be fully completed by the end of this year while the 9 analysis of feasibility for the remaining measures 10 should be completed in that same time frame. 11 In response to concerns about the 12 local public process, the district has developed a 13 community outreach plan that they characterize as 14 designed to overcome the information and credibility 15 challenges they face by providing the district with a 16 framework for enhancing communication and involvement 17 between the district and the various communities they 18 serve. 19 This commitment to greater community 20 outreach has had some tangible results. On May 15, 21 the district held an evening meeting in Martinez to 22 update the community on the status of the measures. 23 About 20 to 30 members of the public and industry 24 attended and commented positively on the district's 25 efforts. 245 1 Since the greatest benefits of 2 transportation strategies are generally seen in 3 long-term projects, this group was initially 4 conceived as a forum to discuss long-range strategies 5 to reduce the rate of growth in transportation 6 demand. However, participants in this group have 7 requested that all strategies be considered, both 8 short and long term. 9 While some familiar strategies have 10 been brought up -- such as scrappage -- other ideas 11 have also been suggested, such as market-based 12 pricing and land-use strategies. The challenge 13 before the group is to define politically viable 14 mechanisms to further develop these approaches. 15 The roundtable will be seeking 16 opportunities for participants to collaborate in this 17 effort. Further, at the request of the group, ARB 18 and MTC have brought in an outside facilitator. 19 The smog check roundtable held in 20 January initiated further discussion by many of the 21 interested parties -- including Sacramento, San 22 Joaquin Valley, and Bay Area districts and their 23 political leaders -- plus community and industrial 24 representatives. 25 ARB has provided information to the 246 1 various parties, including our estimates of the 2 potential reductions in emissions in the Bay Area of 3 toxic pollutants as well as ozone-particulate-forming 4 compounds. We conclude that the program could 5 benefit both Bay Area residents and downwind 6 communities. 7 As a result, Bay Area district board 8 members have initiated local discussions on the 9 merits of the district opting into the treadmill 10 testing program. ARB also continues to track 11 Assembly Bill 2637, introduced by Assembly member 12 Cardoza, that would require the full enhanced smog 13 check in the Bay Area, including the test-only 14 segment of the program. 15 The 2001 plan set in motion a 16 continuing process to update the science, adopt new 17 controls, explore further measures to cut emissions 18 and health risks, and expand public outreach on clean 19 air strategies for the Bay Area. 20 The modelling effort from the Central 21 California ozone study is fully underway with a draft 22 modelling analysis for the Bay Area expected in 23 spring of 2003. The results of this modelling 24 analysis and updated air quality monitoring will 25 provide the basis for the more rigorous assessment of 247 1 what is needed to reach attainment in the Bay Area 2 with a revised set. 3 With an intense effort at the ARB and 4 the district, this work is on track. 5 The control measures defined in the 6 2001 plan are under development, including progress 7 on several further study measures. Additional new 8 strategies to reduce both stationary and mobile 9 source emissions aid attainment of not only the 10 federal one-hour standard but also the more 11 health-protective ozone and particulate standards 12 down the road. 13 These approaches will also cut 14 community exposure to air pollution, including 15 toxics. 16 One of the most positive developments 17 in this consideration of the ozone plan last year is 18 the district's response to public and board concern 19 on process. The district has made a genuine effort 20 to provide meaningful and more accessible 21 opportunities for public input. And they have acted 22 on this input. 23 We recognize and encourage continued 24 expansion of the district's public outreach. These 25 activities are vital to community support and 248 1 participation in clean air programs. That concludes 2 my presentation. Thank you. 3 MR. KENNY: One point of clarification: The 4 slide shows the revised plan by April 15, 2003. It 5 should be April 15, 2004. 6 MR. TUTER: Thank you. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Oh, why the delay? Why the 8 delay? 9 MR. KENNY: Actually, that was the original 10 date the board directed us to come back by. We just 11 basically were just trying to, you know, just rush 12 things ahead. 13 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Without good science. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any -- no more comments? 15 Any questions from the board, comments 16 from the board? 17 Supervisor DeSaulnier. 18 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Just a comment. I 19 know Ellen wants to say something. And I know all of 20 you have late reservations because you thought we 21 were going to go longer. So I'll fill the time 22 between now and your 9:00 o'clock flight. 23 Ah, come on, Doc -- Professor 24 Friedman. Don't you want to hear me speak? 25 I just want to thank Bruce. Sometimes 249 1 I'm sitting here thinking, "I wonder what staff, when 2 they decided to assign him -- what you did wrong to 3 get assigned to this. 'Put him with DeSaulnier. 4 We'll teach him.'" 5 But he's done a great job. And our 6 staff has too. I think we have made progress. The 7 district has gone out; and we learned, from the 8 community outreach, that we needed more than public 9 information officers doing outreach. 10 So we hired a person specifically do 11 community outreach, and we're working on that. The 12 stationary-source side -- I generally feel like CB 13 and others feel pretty good about what we've been 14 doing in terms of actually identifying tons from the 15 refinery further measures and hopefully for the study 16 on wastewater. 17 But the general feedback we've gotten 18 from CB has been very positive. I will say that 19 there is a historic level of distrust that we all, 20 you all experienced during that. And at the last 21 meeting in Martinez -- and Bruce was there -- maybe 22 it's 'cause I'm a politician, but I didn't see it as 23 being quite as warm and fuzzy. 24 Relatively, we made a lot of progress, 25 but there was still some criticism. And I think 250 1 there's an expectation that this board and our staff 2 be the honest arbiter of making sure that everything 3 we told the district and MTC to do -- that actually 4 is fulfilled and done in an honest and 5 straightforward way with a lot of public outreach. 6 So there's still some pressure on us, 7 I think, to make sure that we maintain that. 8 On the transportation side, it's more 9 problematic for a variety of the reasons, not least 10 of which is it's hard to identify the, as we all 11 know, the real tons. But we are making progress. 12 And I think MTC is coming along, although it's 13 dragging -- being beaten and dragged along. But we 14 are making progress. 15 And I think those the most important 16 things. But I really do appreciate Bruce's work and 17 the commitment from my colleagues and from Mike and 18 all the rest of that staff that we're going to do 19 something really positive. 20 And ultimately the Bay Area will be, 21 again, the largest metropolitan area that is in 22 attainment of all of its requirements because it 23 really should be. 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, 25 Supervisor. 251 1 Then we have the first witness and 2 only witness signed up -- Ellen Garvey from the Bay 3 Area AQMD. 4 MS. GARVEY: Chairman Lloyd and members of the 5 board, good afternoon. I will be brief. I know you 6 have a flight to catch. 7 But I would -- I did want to commit to 8 you this afternoon, publicly and on the record, that 9 we take the direction set by this board on the 10 November adoption hearing very seriously to 11 accelerate the evaluation of all levels of further 12 study measurements and to do it quickly by the end of 13 this calendar year. 14 There are four stationary source 15 measures, as Bruce and Supervisor DeSaulnier pointed 16 out. And there are seven transportation control 17 measures. And I'm here to tell you today that we are 18 on track to commit that -- to commit to you today 19 that we will complete that evaluation by the end of 20 2002. 21 And I'd like to also take a moment and 22 thank the ARB, who is taking the lead in one of the 23 four refinery further study measures. So special 24 thanks to Mike Kenny and his staff for helping us 25 with the resources we needed to accelerate the review 252 1 and for taking the lead in the wastewater study. 2 I'd also like to thank EPA, who I know 3 is not here today, but who has given us resources in 4 helping us to take the necessary samples and to run 5 the necessary analyses on some of these refinery 6 further study measures. 7 These refinery further study measure 8 evaluations were resolved in technical assessment 9 documents that will be available at the end of the 10 year. And these documents will talk about the 11 efficacy and the technological feasibility of moving 12 forward with making these further study measures 13 real, live control measures. 14 And if they merit that, they will 15 represent the most forward thinking and the most 16 far-reaching controls on refineries anywhere not only 17 in the state of California but anywhere in the 18 country. 19 I do want to echo Bruce's remarks on 20 community outreach. We also took your recommendation 21 very seriously that we improve and enhance our 22 community outreach program. And I believe that we 23 have done that. 24 We have a community outreach plan that 25 has been adopted by our board of directors. And 253 1 staff has been out in the communities with more 2 workshops, with more public meetings, with more 3 opportunities for neighborhood groups as well as 4 environmental groups to participate in the evaluation 5 of these further study measures. 6 We're working, certainly, with the 7 refineries on testing, on analyzing; but we're also 8 making sure that the community and the neighborhood 9 groups and the environmental groups are kept 10 informed. 11 And Bruce was talking about the May 15 12 meeting that occurred in Martinez a couple of weeks 13 ago. We got very good response there, and we are 14 were able to broadcast that on local television for 15 those that weren't able to come. And you have a 16 commitment from me here today that we will continue 17 with this enhanced community outreach program. 18 In conclusion, on behalf of MTC and 19 ABAG as well as the air district -- the three co-lead 20 agencies on the plan -- we have a commitment that we 21 will evaluate the further study measures when we told 22 you we would -- at the end of 2002 as well as a 23 commitment to with a strong community outreach 24 program. 25 And I'd be happy to answer any 254 1 questions that you have. 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thanks very much for taking 3 time to come down today, Ellen. And please also pass 4 on to your staff and Chairman Attaway and, of course, 5 our colleague here -- again, our thanks for all the 6 cooperative efforts. And it sounds as though it's a 7 really positive story. Thank you. 8 MS. D'ADAMO: I have a question. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any questions -- yes. Now, 10 Miss D'Adamo. 11 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Things were going so 12 well. 13 MS. D'ADAMO: Well -- 14 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Just over that ridge, 15 there's a problem. 16 MS. D'ADAMO: Don't go -- don't try and go to 17 the door just yet. 18 Of course, what continues to concern 19 me is the issue of transported pollution. And 20 although I felt that things got off to a good start 21 at our meeting -- I guess it was in January; here we 22 are in June -- and I think we've got a little bit of 23 a breather because there seems to be renewed 24 legislative interest in the issue of Smog 2. 25 However, I think it's important for 255 1 this board and for the Bay Area district to keep this 2 issue on your screen and on our screen in the 3 event -- I've been optimistic about this issue many, 4 many times before and have been disappointed many, 5 many times before. 6 Hopefully, that won't be the case at 7 the conclusion of this legislative session. But in 8 the event that things don't work out, what is our 9 plan? What are we going to do at the staff level to 10 keep this issue in play, not just in terms of the 11 Smog 2 but the transported air pollution issue? And 12 what is the Bay Area district planning on, on both 13 issues as well? 14 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: I think we're going to 15 let Mr. Kenny decide, if that fails. 16 MR. KENNY: Actually, I'm very hopeful on 17 legislation. I think it's actually moving fairly 18 positively forward. And I think it's probably 19 reasonable to assume that, in fact, we may actually 20 get lucky there. 21 But I will go to the contrary side 22 which is that, in the event that we don't get there, 23 we are committed to essentially looking at transport 24 mitigation measures. And we will, at some point, 25 bring those back to the board. 256 1 MS. GARVEY: And if I may, I'd like to echo 2 Mike Kenny's remarks. I'm also very hopeful about 3 the legislation. 4 But I recognize that, if it, for 5 whatever reason, does not move forward, that we as an 6 upwind transport district to the San Joaquin Valley 7 and several other air districts recognize that we 8 have a fiduciary responsibility to help you with your 9 ozone problem because we do contribute to it. 10 And I recognize that. And I look 11 forward to working with you in whatever fashion it is 12 to meet that need. 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Professor Friedman. 14 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: I'm encouraged to hear 15 your remarks. And I'm very encouraged. And I'm 16 wondering has the district staff and board -- is it 17 strongly supporting this legislation effort? 18 MS. GARVEY: Right now, the district board is 19 waiting to see some amendments to the legislation, 20 which we understand are coming out soon. We haven't 21 seen them yet. And they may take a position on that 22 legislation once those amendments are forthcoming. 23 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Anyway, I'm glad to hear 24 what you had to say. You sounded -- 25 MS. GARVEY: They have not opposed -- 257 1 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: You sounded very firm and 2 very determined, and I hope it all happens. 3 MS. GARVEY: Thank you. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Supervisor DeSaulnier. 5 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: In regards to smog 6 check, there has -- not having been part of the 7 previous discussion -- thank the Lord -- but how much 8 has changed. For instance, the bill did get out of 9 the assembly with overwhelming support. It got out 10 of Assembly Transportation, which is chaired by 11 Assemblymember Dutra. Though he didn't vote for it, 12 he was not a roadblock to getting it out. 13 So I think there's lots of potential. 14 And the fact of the matter is, as D.D. and I have 15 talked about, as the Bay Area grows more and more 16 into -- particularly San Joaquin and Stanislaus 17 County -- we're intertwined on more levels than the 18 air. And we've got to work these things out. 19 So I think, on that level, it's good. 20 I also just want to let my colleagues know -- we also 21 started another committee, which I started because of 22 this and became chair of, called the "Regional 23 Agencies Coordinating Committee," to deal with ABAG, 24 MTC, and air district issues in a better way. And 25 the acronym, of course, is RACC. So people get a 258 1 kick out of going to RACC. 2 And one really exciting part, I think, 3 besides these other things, is we have a further 4 study measure that also goes along with the "station 5 car" initiative and the interagency agreement we have 6 with Caltrans and the energy commission that I've 7 been working on with the transportation schools of 8 the U.C. system. 9 We think there are a lot of things in 10 there for further study that will become a control 11 measure that will be quite unlike anything else in 12 the country in terms of advanced technologies, access 13 to transit. We're talking to BART. We're talking to 14 Caltrans and VTA about doing more station cars. 15 And because of Director Morales at 16 Caltrans and these discussions -- he's put a request 17 in the "I tip" to the California Transportation 18 Commission for $12 million for planning for these 19 things and for intelligent transportation systems. 20 And that goes in front of the CTC next 21 month. So I didn't want to bring this up if 22 Dr. Burke was here because he would immediately try 23 to get that money. But we're going to use that money 24 in the Bay Area to do these kind of things. 25 PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: You're on -- 259 1 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Well, let me say that 2 in another way. Truly none of this, I don't think, 3 would have happened without the support and the 4 persistence of both our staff and you folks in 5 getting the three agencies to move forward in this 6 way. And I think we've done a good job. But we 7 couldn't have done it without you. So I'm very 8 appreciative. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Well, that sounds like an 10 exciting development that you're describing there, 11 Mark. So if you have no further comments, I guess 12 it's not officially -- don't have to bring this to a 13 close -- officially bring it to a close, I guess. 14 So thank you, Ellen. 15 And we have no one signed up for the 16 open comment period. So with that, I'll officially 17 bring the June 20, 2002, Air Resources Board meeting 18 to a close. Thank you all. 19 (Proceedings concluded at 3:45 P.M.) -- 0o0 -- 20 21 22 23 24 25 260 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. 2 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) 3 4 I, NEALY KENDRICK, CSR No. 11265, do hereby 5 certify: 6 That the foregoing transcript of proceedings 7 was taken before me at the time and place therein set 8 forth and thereafter transcribed by computer under my 9 direction and supervision, and I hereby certify the 10 foregoing transcript of proceedings is a full, true, 11 and correct transcript of the proceedings. 12 I further certify that I am neither counsel 13 for nor related to any party to said action nor in 14 anywise interested in the outcome thereof. 15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed 16 my name this 26th day of June, 2002. 17 18 _______________________________ NEALY KENDRICK, CSR NO. 11265 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 261