BOARD MEETING STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD JOE SERNA, JR. BUILDING CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CENTRAL VALLEY AUDITORIUM, SECOND FLOOR 1001 I STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2002 9:11 A.M. PETER PETTY ELECTRONIC SHORTHAND REPORTER JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NUMBER 10063 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 A P P E A R A N C E S BOARD MEMBERS Alan G. Lloyd, Ph.D., Chair Joseph C. Calhoun, PE Dorene D'Adamo Professor C. Hugh Friedman Matthew R. McKinnon Barbara Riordan Barbara Patrick, Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier, Supervisor STAFF Michael Kenny, Executive Officer Tom Cackette, Deputy Executive Officer Mike Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer Kathleen Tschogl, Ombudsman Robert Jenne, Sr., Staff Counsel, Legal Affairs Office Aron Livingston, Staff Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs Stacy Dorais, Clerk Steve Albu, Chief, Engineering Studies Branch Richard D. Bode, Chief, Health and Exposure Assessment Branch Jeff Cook, Branch Chief, Air Quality Management Branch, Monitoring and Laboratory Division Richard Corey, Chief, Research and Economic Studies Branch PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 STAFF (continued) Bart Croes, P.E., Chief, Research Division Bob Cross, Chief, Mobile Source Control Division Bob Effa, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division Bob Fletcher, Chief, Planning and Technical Support Division Jack Kitowski, Chief, On-Road Control Regulation Section Cynthia Marvin, Chief, Air Quality and Transportation Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division Eileen McCauley Dr. Nehzat Motallebi, Research Division Dr. Linda C. Murchison, Assistant Chief, Planning and Technical Support Division Marci Nystrom, Staff Air Pollution Specialist, Planning and Technical Support Division Chuck Shulock, Vehicle Program Specialist, Executive Office Gayle Sweigert, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Section, Planning and Technical Support Division Peter Venturini Barbara Weller, Ph.D., Manager, Population Studies Section PUBLIC Paula Forbis, Director, Toxic-Free Neighborhoods Campaign Environmental Health Coalition Professor Andrew Frank, University of California, Davis Arely Moreno, resident of Barrio Logan Ray Oliva, El Dorado Garden Valley Kurt Rasmussen, Yah-Whooo Technologies PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 INDEX Page Pledge of Allegiance and Roll Call 1 02-7-1 Public Meeting to Consider a Health Update 7 Michael Kenny, Executive Officer 8 Barbara Weller, Ph.D., Manager Population Studies Section 8 02-7-2 Public Meeting to Update the Board on an ARB Air Monitoring Study in San Diego (Barrio Logan) 16 Michael Kenny, Executive Officer 17 Dr. Linda C. Murchison, Assistant Chief Planning and Technical Support Division 18 Paula Forbis, Director, Toxic-Free Neighborhoods Campaign, Environmental Health Coalition 36 Arely Moreno, Barrio Logan resident 39 02-7-3 Public Meeting to Update the Board on Assembly Bill 1493 47 Michael Kenny, Executive Officer 49 Dr. Nehzat Motallebi, Research Division 50 Chuck Shulock, Vehicle Program Specialist Executive Office 59 02-7-4 Public Meeting to Update the Board on the 2002 Smog Season 103 Michael Kenny, Executive Officer 104 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 INDEX Page Open Comment Period 117 Ray Oliva, El Dorado Garden Valley 118 Adjournment to Closed Session 123 Reassembly 123 Adjournment 124 Certificate of Reporter 125 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Good morning. The 3 September 26th meeting of the Air Resources Board will now 4 come to order. 5 Ms. D'Adamo, would you please lead us in the 6 pledge of allegiance. 7 (Thereupon, the pledge was recited.) 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Will the clerk of the Board 9 please call the roll. 10 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Dr. Burke? 11 Mr. Calhoun? 12 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Here. 13 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Ms. D'Adamo? 14 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here. 15 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Supervisor DeSaulnier? 16 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Here. 17 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Professor Friedman? 18 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Here. 19 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Dr. Friedman? 20 Mr. McKinnon? 21 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Here. 22 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Supervisor Patrick? 23 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Here. 24 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Mrs. Riordan? 25 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Supervisor Roberts? 2 Chairman Lloyd? 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Here. Thank you. 4 Before we start the official program, I'd like to 5 start off with an announcement of two people who are 6 retiring, which is good news and bad news, from my 7 perspective, but they're two wonderful people who I hope are 8 also linked in a way. 9 The first is Mark Edwards, who is retiring from 10 the library, and also Dr. Holmes as well. So I'd like to 11 say a few words on both of those. Mark Edwards has been 12 around at the ARB for 23 years of exemplary service. He's 13 been the ARB and Cal EPA chief librarian, led the effort to 14 successfully merge, organize, and expand the various 15 collections and create the public library, which I would 16 encourage the Board to see it on the second floor. 17 The ARB library alone consists of 10,000 books and 18 reports, over 200 periodicals, journals, and 120,000 19 microfiches covering all aspects of air pollution. Clearly, 20 in the limited time I've been here, and I know for the 21 people who have been here for all those years, Mark has been 22 a true pleasure to work with. He has always made the extra 23 effort to provide users' needs such as the web access to the 24 library's catalog, literature research, and tracking down 25 how to find items. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 It's my understanding also he worked very closely 2 with Dr. Holmes, when Dr. Holmes had a medical problem, 3 returning from Mexico to actually go ahead of the doctors 4 and discover what was the problem. Mark is a Lieutenant 5 Colonel in the United States Air Force Reserve and has spent 6 39 years of distinguished military service, including active 7 service in Desert Storm. 8 I could say, Mark, that you may be getting ready 9 for another call, but I will resist that. 10 (Laughter.) 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mark is retiring at the end of 12 this year, but next Friday is his last day in the office, 13 and we'll celebrate his retirement from ARB and the Air 14 Force Reserve, his birthday, and the Oktoberfest all at 15 once. 16 (Laughter.) 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The Board wishes that Mark may 18 have a long and healthy retirement so he may enjoy spending 19 his future time and leisure with his wife, Ermgard; his 20 family, his grandchildren, and his hobby of traveling the 21 world. 22 Mark, would you kindly stand up so we can 23 recognize you. 24 (Applause.) 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think at a time when people, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 and I've been there with academic institutions, sometimes 2 feel that maybe the days for the need of a librarian or 3 library are gone. I think Mark provides testament that 4 there is nothing like having that knowledge and that 5 individual service there to help us all through that. I 6 think we have a board resolution which I'll ask the Board 7 members to sign as the day goes on, but thank you so much, 8 Mark, and we'll really miss you. 9 Next I would like to announce that on Monday we 10 have a retirement luncheon for Dr. Holmes. And again, 11 another wonderful servant to the Air Resources Board. I 12 remember we had a dinner when John transitioned from the 13 head of the Research Division to be my science advisor, and 14 we had a wonderful evening. 15 Just to recollect for the Board, those of you who 16 don't know but I'm sure there are very few who don't in this 17 case, and, as you know, you can see Dr. Holmes back there, 18 Dr. Holmes attended the University of California, Los 19 Angeles, receiving a Bachelor of Science degree cum laude in 20 chemistry in 1957 and a Doctorate in chemistry in 1961. 21 Since 1969, Dr. Holmes has been associated with the Air 22 Resources Board, initially as a staff scientist carrying out 23 a wide variety of air pollution research studies based in El 24 Monte. 25 He then came up to Sacramento and became chief of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 the Air Board's Research Division, where he oversaw the 2 Board's extramural research program, sponsored the work on 3 air pollution research and its effects on control. 4 In 1983, he established a statewide research 5 program designed to assess the cause and effects of acid 6 deposition in California. And Dr. Holmes has built up the 7 Research Division to where it is today, formulating it, 8 designing it, attracting the people so it became the 9 foremost air pollution research group of its kind and agency 10 in the world. And I say that was a tremendous testament to 11 John. 12 He also, of course, is one of the few people who 13 can claim these days did science work with Professor 14 Hagenschmidt, the first chair of the Air Resources Board, 15 and I know he's got many interesting stories to tell about 16 Professor Hagenschmidt. 17 In 1999 Dr. Holmes was appointed science advisor 18 to the chair's office of Science and Technology and Advanced 19 Technology at the Air Resources Board, and then he has been 20 helping me craft some of the policies, spearheaded some of 21 our work when I came on board in a global climate change, 22 head of the Pavley bill. And, as in many of these areas, 23 John's foresight in looking at some of the key scientific 24 issues facing us today was greatly appreciated and will be 25 sorely missed. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 Serving with John on the Research Screening 2 Committee, I became to value very much his expertise, and 3 also his ability to separate out the thirst and the desire 4 to get technical information, and to separate that from 5 policy. And that is something I am continually reminded of, 6 that we have to get the best science and then let the policy 7 and the interpretations go from there. But without that 8 sound scientific base, then we cannot provide the best 9 policy directions. 10 So John, I could go on for many hours, literally, 11 with your contributions, both personally and also to the 12 Board and to the community at large and the air pollution 13 community. Again, it's a real pleasure to be able to honor 14 you today and mention your retirement on Monday, on the 15 luncheon. And hopefully you will still work with us as you 16 can see fit. You will certainly be missed, but your 17 presence will ever be with us. Thank you. 18 (Applause.) 19 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Could I just, with your 20 permission, Mr. Chairman? 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Please, and any board members, 22 please do. 23 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: You've been the science 24 advisor to the chair, but also to the whole board. And I'm 25 sad to see somebody about my age thinking of retiring so PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 early, but I hope you'll still be available, as Chairman 2 Lloyd said to us, John. 3 I think of you as a living treasure. You know, 4 that's an Oriental concept that's I think a beautiful 5 concept. And the only thing I'm sorry is that you didn't 6 figure out how to make a battery that was perpetual, but 7 maybe that will come along. In any event, God speed and 8 best wishes, certainly. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Do any of my 10 colleagues want to say a word? 11 Thank you. 12 We'll be going to the first agenda item. I would 13 like to remind anyone in the audience who wishes to testify 14 on today's agenda items to please sign up with the clerk of 15 the Board. Also, if you have a written statement, if you 16 could provide 30 copies to the clerk. 17 The first item on the agenda is 02-7-1, Public 18 Meeting to Consider a Health Update. This is an update on 19 current research findings from the Children's Health Study 20 in this particular case. The Children's Health Study has 21 contributed considerably to our understanding of the health 22 impacts of air pollution on children. Today we will hear 23 information on important new findings in this study, and I'd 24 like to turn it over, at this point, to Mr. Kenny to 25 introduce the items and begin the staff presentation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Thank you, Dr. Lloyd, 2 and members of the Board. 3 The Children's Health Study was initiated in 1991 4 to determine whether children's long-term exposure to air 5 pollution in the Southern California community during their 6 growing years leads to effects on lung growth and breathing 7 problems. Nearly 5,500 schoolchildren from 12 southern 8 California communities have participated. 9 This study has shown the significant results of 10 the effects of air pollution on children's health. And 11 today Barbara Weller will briefly present the new findings 12 from the study that confirm the potential health impacts 13 from exposure to air pollution at levels seen in Southern 14 California. 15 Barbara? 16 POPULATION STUDIES SECTION MANAGER WELLER: Thank 17 you, Mr. Kenny. 18 The Children's Health Study, principally funded by 19 the California Air Resources Board and performed by the 20 University of Southern California has been studying the 21 effects of children's chronic air pollution exposures in 12 22 Southern California communities, with different levels and 23 patterns of air pollution since 1991. 24 Results published in 2001 show that children in 25 the communities with the highest levels of air pollution, as PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 compared to those in the communities with the lowest levels, 2 had lower rates of lung function growth. This observation 3 was found especially in children exposed to the highest 4 levels of PM, oxides of nitrogen, and atmospheric acidity. 5 Ozone did not appear to impact lung function grades. 6 The study investigators have published an analysis 7 in July of 2002 on a second cohort of children, which 8 replicates the results found in the first study. The recent 9 data are from 1,700 fourth-graders enrolled in 1996. The 10 Children's Health Study measured the children's lung 11 function annually, monitored the community's air pollution 12 for four years, and analyzed the relationships between their 13 lung function growth and levels of six pollutants. 14 This analysis found that higher exposures to acid 15 vapor, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, PM 2.5 and elemental carbon 16 in PM 2.5 significantly decreased measures of lung growth 17 and functioning. Confirmation of slower growth in a second 18 group significantly strengthens the evidence supporting the 19 adverse lung growth effects of higher pollution exposures, 20 and shows that these adverse effects are still occurring at 21 more recent lower pollution levels. 22 In contrast to the previous study, children in 23 this analysis with higher ozone exposures had reduced growth 24 of peak flow rates. The slower lung growth associated with 25 higher exposures to elemental carbon may indicate a specific PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 respiratory effect of diesel exhaust. Diesel engines are a 2 major source of elemental carbon in very small particles in 3 southern California. Slower lung growth over a period of 4 several years, now confirmed in two different groups of 5 children, is the strongest evidence of a chronic effect of 6 air pollution on children's respiratory health. 7 Lung function reaches a maximum in young adults. 8 Children whose lungs have grown more slowly may have lower 9 maximum lung function, a question of intense interest to 10 respiratory researchers. Adults with lower maximum function 11 may be more susceptible to respiratory diseases and chronic 12 problems as they age. 13 While ARB's involvement with the health assessment 14 of the Children's Health Study ends in 2003, we will 15 continue to support the monitoring network. The 16 investigators, through a $20-million grant by NIH, will be 17 following the children into young adulthood to obtain 18 valuable data on maximal lung function. This investigation 19 is in progress and promises to provide critical insights 20 into air pollutants impacting the respiratory health of our 21 children. 22 Thank you, and I would be glad to answer any 23 questions. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 25 Questions from the Board? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I have a question, 2 Mr. Chairman. 3 I just need to understand the difference of the 4 two populations. The first population I sort of remember 5 the area, and are these children in the same areas? Because 6 the map sort of shows what I recollect as being the original 7 areas; for instance, at least in the southern California 8 basin. I'm not sure about the others. 9 Are they in the same areas? 10 POPULATION STUDIES SECTION MANAGER WELLER: Right. 11 They're in basically the same 12 communities. 12 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Okay, but just -- 13 POPULATION STUDIES SECTION MANAGER WELLER: I'm 14 sorry? 15 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Well, I'm going to wait for 16 him to talk to you, and then -- 17 POPULATION STUDIES SECTION MANAGER WELLER: Oh, 18 did you want the differences in the results between the two 19 cohorts or you just wanted the locations? 20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: The locations. I was 21 interested in the locations, but you're saying the locations 22 are the same. 23 POPULATION STUDIES SECTION MANAGER WELLER: The 24 same 12 communities, yes. 25 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Okay. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 POPULATION STUDIES SECTION MANAGER WELLER: In 2 some cases there have been a slight shift in some of the 3 locations, but it's fairly minimal. They tried to match 4 them. 5 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Right, because it does look 6 like it's a pretty good match to the originals. 7 POPULATION STUDIES SECTION MANAGER WELLER: Yes. 8 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: When you look at the impact of 10 now the four pollutants here, can you differentiate the 11 impact of -- can you identify each of those or is it the 12 mixture? 13 POPULATION STUDIES SECTION MANAGER WELLER: Right. 14 It's always very difficult to separate out individual 15 pollution impacts. One of the things that they seem to find 16 with the second cohort is that the nitrogen dioxide and the 17 ozone seem to be contributing independently, but the 18 elemental carbon is part of the 2.5, so that one can't 19 really be very easily separated out. And the others are 20 more linked. 21 But the ozone and the NO2 seem to be a more 22 independent association. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 24 I guess we don't have anyone signed up, so since 25 this is not a regulatory item it is not necessary to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 officially close the record and we will move on to the next 2 item. 3 Thank you very much. 4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, just before 5 you move on, I might say that I think the good news 6 certainly is -- I mean, there is a lot of bad news in this, 7 but the good news is that the NIH grant is going to be in 8 place. And I think that's a very significant opportunity to 9 look at the long-term effect which I think is very 10 significant for us to understand even more about the effects 11 of these things. 12 So I'm excited about that. Thank you. 13 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I have a question, 14 Mr. Chairman. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes. 16 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Is the ARB's support of 17 health assessment that ended in 2000, is that because of the 18 funding situation that the State has encountered, or what 19 particular reason is that? 20 HEALTH EXPOSURE AND ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 21 Well, basically, that was the end of our agreement with USC. 22 As far as funding the health portion of the Children's 23 Health Study, but as Barbara just mentioned too, we have 24 agreed with USC to support the monitoring network, which is 25 a pretty substantial monitoring network. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 Now, towards the end of the Children's Health 2 Study, USC actually had several hypotheses it still wanted 3 to look at. So they actually went out on their own with the 4 National Institute of Health and obtained a very sizeable 5 grant, actually, almost $19-20 million for about at least 6 another five years. So at that point we really don't need 7 to fund their health part of it. Their money is going to 8 support that, their health analyses, but the monitoring 9 network we will continue to support. 10 And actually we'll be still an integral player in 11 the Children's Health Study since we will provide all of the 12 air pollution exposure data. 13 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I assume we will be 14 following the work that CHS is doing? 15 HEALTH EXPOSURE AND ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 16 Yes, we will. We will still be part of that team, and they 17 have quarterly meetings, and I'm assuming they'll probably 18 keep those up. And once a year they have meetings with 19 their external advisory committee and we participate in 20 those as well. 21 And, as Barbara mentioned, one of the big things 22 is finding out what happens to these kids when they go into 23 early adulthood. You know, I think we've shown you before 24 the graphs of the lower decreased lung function. Do they 25 continue on that lower decreased lung function or do they PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 somehow bounce up, and if they stay lower, what does that 2 mean for the future? Are they going to be basically somehow 3 at a lower capacity when they hit late adulthood, when 4 they're hitting their retirement years? 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The other aspect of that, I 6 guess, is that, as we've seen over the years, the decrease 7 in exposure to an extent because of, obviously, the control 8 efforts, I guess if we didn't see that then we would be 9 wasting our time on controls. 10 So I guess there is some good news in this my 11 understanding is, but obviously we've got a long way to go. 12 We still have major problems there. But we're not wasting 13 our time in trying to reduce emissions here. 14 HEALTH EXPOSURE AND ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 15 I think you can take kind of good news and bad news. I 16 guess the bad news is you're still seeing health effects, 17 but one of the major criticisms before was that, with the 18 results of the study is, hey, we've decreased emissions in 19 air pollution so much that there are really no effects going 20 on any more, that they're really not relevant. 21 And the real impact of this is, you know, we have 22 done a good job, but it's not enough. And we still need to 23 do more. It validates a lot of those previous study 24 results, too. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes, good. Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 We'll leave some time when we change over to staff 2 on it. Thank you very much. 3 The next item on the agenda today is 02-7-2, 4 Barrio Logan, a Case Study of a Neighborhood Assessment. 5 This item is a case study of a special hexavalent chromium 6 study conducted in San Diego. During the June board meeting 7 we heard a few of the details regarding the progress on this 8 project, and this presentation will give us a complete 9 picture of this community-based monitoring project. 10 And I think it's a real success. When I remember 11 my first weeks of coming on board and seeing Paula Forbis 12 down in San Diego and asking for some help of ARB, and I 13 can't speak highly enough for the way that the staff has 14 responded to this project, which now represents a strong 15 partnership established between the community members and 16 several state and county agencies. 17 I would especially like to thank Board Member Ron 18 Roberts, who is not sure but I'm sure will hear this, and to 19 San Diego County Supervisor Greg Cox, for their leadership 20 on this project. And I can say firsthand that when Ron 21 realized there was a real problem, he really stepped 22 strongly behind this program, interfaced, and was really 23 deeply concerned about the public health of citizens. 24 I think the fact that this study was successful is 25 due to this partnership and the hard work of all of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 people involved and the commitment of Mr. Kenny and his 2 staff to bring this to a closure. 3 So, with that, I'd like to turn it over to 4 Mr. Kenny to begin staff presentation. 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Thank you, Dr. Lloyd, 6 and members of the Board. 7 Our neighborhood assessment program is designed to 8 develop guidelines for evaluating strategies for reducing 9 air pollution impacts at the neighborhood scale. As part of 10 this program, we conducted air monitoring in the Barrio 11 Logan area of San Diego. This monitoring found unexpectedly 12 high levels of hexavalent chromium in the vicinity of two 13 chrome platers. 14 Because of the health concerns regarding 15 hexavalent chromium, the ARB quickly mobilized a 16 multidivisional effort to determine the cause of these high 17 hexavalent chromium levels. The ARB staff worked with the 18 community members of Barrio Logan, the Environmental Health 19 Coalition, the San Diego Air Quality Management District, 20 and local county and city officials to try and resolve the 21 issue. 22 The case study that you're going to hear is an 23 excellent example of how state and local agencies can and 24 did work together to deal with local air quality issues. 25 And, with that, I'd like to turn it over to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 Dr. Murchison. 2 PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT DIVISION ASSISTANT 3 CHIEF MURCHISON: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. 4 Good morning, Chairman Lloyd and members of the 5 Board. I'm here this morning to tell you about the 6 hexavalent chromium study conducted in Barrio Logan, a 7 community in San Diego. You have heard updates regarding 8 this study before. Today I'm going to share with you the 9 final results. 10 First, I would like to take a few minutes to show 11 you a short news item from KGTV Channel 10 in San Diego 12 which was shown on March 7th. This news item was in 13 response to the public release of the first couple of weeks 14 of results from our hexavalent chromium monitoring study. 15 It provides a good overview of the chrome plating issue we 16 were investigating and captures the concern of the community 17 and of county officials. It also shows the inside of a 18 plating facility that was to become the focus of our 19 investigation during this study. 20 (Thereupon a video was played.) 21 PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT DIVISION ASSISTANT 22 CHIEF MURCHISON: Now let me take you back in time and talk 23 about what led up to this news conference, and what has 24 happened subsequently. 25 Barrio Logan is a small community located in San PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 Diego bordered on the west by the Coronado Bridge, on the 2 east by Highway 15, and on the south by the shipyard. It is 3 a community zoned for mixed land use with small neighborhood 4 businesses such as chrome platers and auto body shops 5 interspersed among the homes. And it is in close proximity 6 to the ship repair facilities and the naval shipyards. 7 This photo shows the two monitoring sites 8 discussed in this presentation, Logan Memorial Academy, the 9 site of the initial 17-month study, which is located in 10 Logan Heights, north of Interstate 5; and Newton Avenue, the 11 site of the chrome study, just to the south of Interstate 5. 12 In 1999, representatives of the Environmental 13 Health Coalition requested that the Air Resources Board 14 conduct air monitoring at Logan Memorial Academy. This 15 study was to become part of our neighborhood assessment 16 program and is an example of the Board's commitment to 17 environmental justice principles. The monitoring and 18 laboratory divisions set up an air monitoring station at 19 Logan Memorial Academy and measured the pollutants in the 20 air for 17 months. 21 The results of this study indicated that the air 22 quality of the school was very similar to other urbanized 23 areas of San Diego. The community also asks that we monitor 24 at other locations within Barrio Logan, particularly on 25 Newton Avenue in the vicinity of two chrome platers. The PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 residents were concerned that the facilities may be emitting 2 hexavalent chromium, a highly toxic pollutant. So we agreed 3 to conduct a special hexavalent chromium study at this 4 location. 5 The hexavalent chromium study was conducted in 6 December of 2001. It was initially to be a two-week study. 7 Six sites were selected in and around Newton Avenue near the 8 two chrome platers with many monitors in the yards of nearby 9 residents. The cooperation of the community and businesses 10 was essential to setting up the monitors. 11 This map shows the original monitoring 12 configuration for the study. You will note the location of 13 the two platers: Master Plating on the left, and Carlson 14 and Beauloye on the right. The stars indicate the location 15 of the air monitors. 16 One of the monitoring sites you will hear me speak 17 frequently about is 2121 Newton Avenue, the address of a 18 home located between Master Plating and Carlson and 19 Beauloye. Other sites are located along the street in an 20 alley behind the house and at the McCardle Apartments. 21 From the street you can see the close proximity of 22 the house at 2121 Newton and the locations of the chrome 23 platers. As you can see, Master Plating is located just to 24 the right of the house, and the white building on the left 25 is part of Carlson and Beauloye. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 At one point during the study we had three 2 monitors in the front yard of this house to measure 3 hexavalent chromium during different time periods, as well 4 as other metals. This is one of the homes across the street 5 where we also monitored. 6 And this picture is of a monitor in the alley 7 which was located on the fence just behind the person in the 8 center of the picture. This is the back side of the house 9 at 2121 Newton and is between Master Plating in the 10 foreground and Carlson and Beauloye. 11 In January 2002 we received the results from the 12 first two weeks of monitoring in December and found 13 unexpectedly high levels of hex chrome at a number of the 14 monitoring sites. The highest concentrations at each site, 15 as shown in the highlighted column, range between one and 22 16 nanograms per meter cubed, with an average of 0.98 17 nanograms. The Statewide average is about 0.2 nanograms. 18 If the average levels seen in these two weeks in 19 December were to continue for a lifetime, we would estimate 20 an increased risk of 147 chances of cancer in a million from 21 the chrome alone. To put this in perspective, we compared 22 the past ten years of hexavalent chromium data from our 23 routine statewide monitoring network and found only one 24 value in 1995 that equaled the 22 nanograms seen in Barrio 25 Logan. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 And, in fact, the top six highest values that we 2 saw during the two weeks at Barrio Logan equaled or exceeded 3 the top six values seen in the Statewide network over the 4 past ten years. As I mentioned before, the Statewide 5 average of hexavalent chromium today is about 0.2 nanograms, 6 which is right at the laboratory's analytical detection 7 limit. 8 Upon receipt of the December monitoring results, 9 we, along with the San Diego Air Pollution Control District, 10 immediately notified the community and public officials. We 11 also began planning our next monitoring phase. We conducted 12 surprise inspections at the facilities and conducted a 13 survey of other possible sources of hexavalent chromium in 14 the immediate vicinity. We were not able to identify 15 anything other than the two platers as the likely sources of 16 the chrome. 17 A working group was formed by county supervisor 18 Greg Cox to provide information back to the community and 19 other interested parties. This working group consisted of 20 representatives of the community, of community 21 organizations, of federal and local elected officials, the 22 San Diego Air Pollution Control District, ARB, and several 23 other local and state agencies. The group met every two to 24 three weeks. 25 Although the chrome platers were the most likely PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 source of the hexavalent chromium levels, we felt it was 2 necessary to gather more data to verify the sources and to 3 determine if the levels of hex chrome were continuing. The 4 monitoring resumed on February 5th, using the same six sites 5 as the December study, and continued through May 2002. In 6 addition, we monitored inside both facilities and conducted 7 emission testing. San Diego Air District staff also 8 collected daily business activity data so we would know when 9 plating was occurring. 10 Before looking at the data, let's take a moment to 11 look at the two chrome platers and their characteristics. 12 These two platers are different in what they produce and are 13 subject to different controls based on their potential for 14 emissions. 15 Carlson and Beauloye specializes in hard chrome 16 plating. Hard chrome refers to the application of a 17 relatively thick layer of chrome to industrial parts and 18 equipment for corrosion and wear resistance. Hard chrome 19 platers are required to have emission control equipment. 20 The plating tank room, shown on the left here, is under 21 negative pressure, and the air is vented through a series of 22 filters and out the stack. During the study we conducted 23 several source tests to measure hex chrome exiting the stack 24 into the community, as shown in the upper right of this 25 picture. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 Master Plating is a decorative chrome plating 2 shop. These types of shops specialize in applying a 3 relatively thin layer of chrome to smaller parts for 4 decorative purposes. Because decorative platers are 5 generally smaller and have lower production, these 6 facilities are not required to be vented through filters and 7 stacks, but may instead use a chemical fume suppressant to 8 control emissions. 9 In this slide you can see the chrome tank in the 10 upper right. Any hex chrome escaping from the tank 11 accumulates in the room and exits the building through an 12 exhaust fan and other openings such as doors. Since there 13 is no stack to source test, we placed a monitor at the 14 exhaust fan to measure the emissions exiting the building. 15 You can see that monitor to the left of the fan. 16 This table presents the first two weeks of the 17 February data. Overall, the February data indicated lower 18 levels than December, and most of the six sites did not have 19 many significant values; however, the measurements at 2121 20 Newton, shown here in the first column, were still of 21 concern, keeping in mind that values above 0.2 nanograms are 22 of concern. 23 The second column shows the results of the 24 monitoring inside Master Plating at the exhaust fan as air 25 exited into the community. Here we found levels between six PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 and 521 nanograms. During the first two weeks of data, we 2 began to see a pattern emerging that seemed to show that 3 when high chromium levels were measured exiting Master 4 Plating, there were also high outdoor levels at the house 5 next door. The best example of this is seen in the last 6 four rows of numbers in the first two columns. 7 We also measured hex chrome levels inside the tank 8 room at Carlson and Beauloye, as shown in column three, and 9 found modest indoor levels relative to Master Plating. The 10 air in the tank room is vented through filters and the 11 stack. On the same days that these measurements were taken, 12 source tests were conducted to measure chrome as it exited 13 the stack, and emissions of hexavalent chrome were not 14 detectable by the test equipment. 15 Now let me take you back to a picture of Master 16 Plating. As you can see, the monitor in the yard of 2121 17 Newton is not far from the door and the exhaust fan. With 18 the February data corroborating our December data, we were 19 starting to understand the relationship between Master 20 Plating and the outdoor levels at this site. 21 This graph shows the same two weeks of data that I 22 just showed you. The red line represents amp hour readings, 23 which is a measure of how much plating is occurring. The 24 pink shows the indoor concentrations of air inside Master 25 Plating at the exhaust fan. And you can see that when PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 platings occurred, we found elevated indoor concentrations. 2 The green represents the concentrations at 2121 3 Newton. Note that in many cases the green is also elevated 4 when the plating is occurring and there are high indoor 5 readings. Note in particular the relationship of the lines 6 on the right-hand side of this graph. 7 The last line on this graph is the blue one along 8 the bottom. This represents levels at one of the houses 9 across the street. You will notice that the measurements 10 are relatively low, and we do not see much of a relationship 11 with the other lines. We were to learn in this study that 12 the impacts of a facility were often very localized. 13 A factor which became particularly relevant in 14 understanding when high measurements occurred was wind 15 direction. This graph shows seven weeks of data, but only 16 on west wind days. You will remember that Master Plating is 17 just to the west; that is, upwind of 2121 Newton. And we 18 speculated that the relationship between the chromium levels 19 exiting Master Plating and the outdoor levels next door 20 would be even stronger on west wind days. 21 On the graph the pink line represents the indoor 22 measurements at the exhaust fan of Master Plating, and the 23 green represents the outdoor measurements next door. As we 24 speculated, the relationship was even stronger when the wind 25 was blowing from the west. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 To be sure we were not overlooking the possibility 2 that Carlson and Beauloye could be the source of the high 3 outdoor readings, we also compared the activity at this 4 facility to the outdoor levels. This graph shows the 5 plating activity at Carlson and Beauloye with the outdoor 6 measurements at 2121. The data shows that there is no 7 relationship between the two. 8 As the February data became available, San Diego 9 County began to investigate and found hazardous waste 10 violations at Master Plating. The county sought and 11 obtained a temporary restraining order against Master 12 Plating based on the waste violations and the ambient levels 13 of hex chrome. The court issued a temporary restraining 14 order on March 23rd, ordering Master Plating to stop its 15 chrome plating but allowed the facility to stay open and 16 conduct other business. 17 The court also ordered that monitoring continue to 18 confirm whether the plating activity had been the source of 19 the outdoor measurements. The city of San Diego also began 20 investigating alternatives for the possible relocation of 21 Master Plating. 22 Once Master Plating ceased plating activities, 23 there was a dramatic difference in hexavalent chromium 24 concentrations indoors and outdoors. But there were a 25 couple of occasions when we found extremely high indoor PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 levels and correspondingly high outdoor levels. On one day 2 we measured 2,300 nanograms inside Master Plating with a 3 corresponding outdoor level of 16 nanograms during a 12-hour 4 period. Twenty-one nanograms were measured over the 24-hour 5 period. The 21 nearly equaled the 22 nanograms seen in 6 December. The highest indoor levels previously seen before 7 plating activities were shut down have been around 800 8 nanograms compared to the now 2,300 nanograms. 9 Further investigation found that on days when 10 there were high indoor readings, the owner was doing 11 construction inside as well as housekeeping activities. 12 Samples of dust were collected from inside Master Plating 13 and analyzed and found to have high levels of hexavalent 14 chromium in it. 15 The hex chrome-laden dust, when disturbed by 16 activities such as cleaning and construction, exited the 17 building and impacted the monitor next door. We realized 18 that in addition to plating activities, hexavalent chromium 19 emissions were coming from the fugitive dust emitting from 20 this facility. 21 On May 24th of this year the court issued a 22 preliminary injunction to shut the facility down. The owner 23 has now agreed to permanently shut down effective 24 October 15th, and is in negotiations with the county and 25 city regarding the toxic cleanup cost. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 Based on the findings from this study, we had a 2 high degree of confidence that the hexavalent chromium 3 levels were associated with Master Plating and that the 4 impacts were often very localized. We also found that 5 chrome plating was not the only source of the hex chrome 6 emissions and that fugitive dust emitting from the facility 7 contributed to the highest outdoor measurements. 8 This study has also shown us that regional or 9 neighborhood monitors, such as the one at Logan Memorial, 10 are not designed to pick up these localized hot spots. In 11 this study we used a combination of near-source monitoring, 12 emission testing, and some dispersion modeling to determine 13 what was happening. As we develop better tools such as 14 near-source modeling for neighborhood studies, we hope to 15 find ways to be more effective with fewer resources. 16 Also, we found there is a need to evaluate our 17 statewide air toxic control measure for chrome platers, in 18 light of some of the findings, to determine whether it 19 should be strengthened. 20 There are a number of significant outcomes from 21 this study. First, we developed a strong community 22 partnership which became one of the keys to the success of 23 this project. The community played a critical role in 24 bringing this issue to our attention and in participating in 25 the study. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 Second, this study helps to validate our technical 2 tools such as near-source monitoring and modeling. As these 3 tools are refined, we hope to be able to transfer this 4 knowledge to other agencies such as air districts for other 5 neighborhood level studies. Also, this study has given us 6 valuable information that can be used in the evaluation of 7 our statewide air toxic control measure. 8 If changes are deemed necessary and made to the 9 measure, it would affect chrome platers throughout 10 California and, consequently, many communities would 11 benefit. Finally, and most importantly, as a result of this 12 study there has been a positive change for the community, 13 resulting in cleaner and safer air for its residents. 14 In conclusion, I'd like to mention that this 15 intensive and successful study was a multidivisional and 16 multi-agency effort. A group of ARB staff, from monitoring 17 inventory, modeling community health, and the control 18 programs, teamed together to tackle the difficult task of 19 collecting and interpreting data and providing critical 20 information to the local agencies in the community. We also 21 greatly appreciate the support of the Air District staff, 22 who are our partners in this study. 23 I would like to particularly thank the residents 24 of Barrio Logan and the Environmental Health Coalition who 25 worked so closely with us during this effort. It would not PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 have been as successful without them. 2 Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any 3 questions you might have. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, an 5 excellent presentation. 6 Questions or comments from the staff or from the 7 Board? 8 Yes, this is a resident of San Diego. 9 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I'd just like to add 10 a benediction as a resident of San Diego. I, too, remember 11 when the Chairman and I were going through the confirmation 12 process for our appointments, and we were quizzed pretty 13 severely about environmental justice, which was a relatively 14 new term to me, to be very honest, by the Legislative -- the 15 Rules Committee, in particular. And I recall that very 16 quickly after I joined this board we had the request from 17 Ms. Forbis and the Environmental Health Coalition down there 18 to, that something was going on there in Barrio Logan and 19 there was a concern. 20 And I think it's unfortunate that this little news 21 snippet from our local station, as good as the coverage was 22 in terms of what had happened and so forth, that it didn't 23 instruct the audience as to what I think is the real lesson 24 from this experience, and that is that given our structure, 25 which is tiered, and the State and this board has a certain PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 jurisdiction and role, particularly in testing and that sort 2 of thing, and then the local air district, such as the 3 county district here, has the front-line responsibility for 4 the stationary source, pollution controls, and, of course, 5 the watchdogs in the private sector, the not-for-profit 6 groups that are very concerned about our environment. 7 They point the way, and hopefully we do respond. 8 And this was a classic, to me almost a paradigm of how the 9 State can perform its role as we did in providing a 10 scientific basis through the studies and the testing, in 11 cooperation with the local district and with the oversight, 12 if you will, or the cooperation of the community, 13 particularly the environmental community who started it all, 14 in response to community concerns. 15 And then we have the courts playing their role, of 16 course, and the city in terms of now talking about zoning 17 and doing the things that, you know, in retrospect should 18 have been done a long time ago. And so we do have a very 19 complicated governmental structure, but it works and it's a 20 good example of it, and I think it's a great object lesson 21 for kids and for adults, for all of us. And I feel real 22 good about it. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you, Professor Friedman. 24 I think, to reiterate a couple of points I think 25 that Dr. Murchison made, I think is very important. There PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 is no substitute for monitoring, no substitute for going out 2 there and detecting what people are breathing. I think the 3 other part of that is too that we need to listen to 4 legitimate complaints that come in because people are there 5 24 hours a day. They understand those issues. Not to say 6 that we get, obviously, a lot of spurious ones, but I think 7 that's important. 8 The other part I think is that we have to be very 9 cautious when there is limited monitoring in some of these 10 areas, neighborhoods, and then it's dismissed, there is no 11 problem. Clearly, if we had given up at part of this time 12 and we had just declared, if you like, declared victory 13 without understanding the issues, without detecting, this 14 would not have been a success story. 15 So I think there are many aspects of that, and I 16 think as we look at various parts of the State I think it's 17 important for us to be able to work with the local districts 18 to, at least in some cases, design effective monitoring 19 programs. But I think if we go in and monitoring programs 20 are run for a period of weeks or even a limited period of 21 months and then to say that there are no problems when, as 22 we know from our toxics tour, there are many areas that are 23 impacted there, we need to do a better job. 24 It's unfortunate that we don't have the resources 25 we would like, which would take us a lot, so we have to use PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 those very carefully in conjunction with the local 2 districts. But again, I think that together with you, 3 Professor Friedman, this I think is a wonderful example of 4 what can be done. 5 With that, I'd like to call up the first two 6 witnesses here, Arely Moreno and Paula Forbis. 7 MS. FORBIS: If I could go first, that would be 8 great. My name is Paula Forbis. I'm the director of the 9 Toxic-Free Neighborhoods Campaign for Environmental Health 10 Coalition. 11 And with me today is Arely Moreno. She is a 12 resident of Newton Avenue in Barrio Logan, and she is going 13 to be introducing a shorter version of a video that she did 14 talking to residents about their reaction to Master Plating. 15 Our thought was that if we couldn't bring your word to the 16 residents, we would bring the residents to you in the way 17 that we could. So she will be introducing that. 18 The reason why I've come up to address you today 19 is to let you know that this victory for the community has 20 not happened in a vacuum. It's really had a ripple effect 21 and led to success in many other areas. 22 First and foremost, the county is going to be 23 proceeding not only in seeing this settlement through and 24 seeing this site -- the facility closes down, but also in 25 looking at the cleanup of that site. We're committing, EHC, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 the County and the State are not going to leave this as a 2 brown field for the community, and we're going to be working 3 together I think to make sure that that happens. 4 Next, the City of San Diego is going to be voting 5 hopefully in November on an emergency ordinance which will 6 prevent any new chrome plating shops from locating in the 7 Barrio Logan community, and that will protect the residents 8 in the interim period while longer-term zoning and community 9 plan changes are made. 10 The City has finally, after more than 12 years of 11 effort on the part of Environmental Health Coalition and 12 local residents, the City is finally saying, okay, it's time 13 to revise the 1978 community plan and change the zoning in 14 this area. And that's a huge victory that has come as a 15 result of the many hours and dollars of investment that 16 you've put into this community and we're very appreciative 17 for that. 18 We're also here looking forward to working with 19 your staff. I'm revisiting the chrome plating ATCM. 20 Certainly, as you've acknowledged, you can't go putting 21 monitors around every plating shop in Barrio Logan and 22 certainly not in the State. There are many other facilities 23 that are just as bad as Master Plating in these areas, and 24 so we really need to look at the data that has been 25 developed as a result of your work and act on it, and act on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 it in a precautionary way by taking measures to tighten the 2 restrictions on those facilities across the State. 3 And then finally, we're also very encouraged by 4 the work of the EJ stakeholders group, headed up by 5 Mr. McKinnon, and the prospects for the land use guidance 6 and perhaps a cumulative assessment in looking at ways that 7 we can incorporate environmental justice in to permitting. 8 Because certainly, we can't deal with this on an industry- 9 by-industry basis, even if we -- once we get to the plating 10 shops, there are certainly all kinds of other facilities, in 11 Barrio Logan in particular but in communities around the 12 State that are causing problems to local residents. 13 And finally, I just want to say, reiterate again, 14 thank you on behalf of Environmental Health Coalition and 15 the residents that we serve. We've been very pleased to 16 have worked with your staff over time and have really 17 appreciated all of the efforts. 18 And I have somewhat of an odd request. I'd really 19 like, if the staff that has worked on this and the Barrio 20 Logan toxic issues in general could stand for you and be 21 recognized, I'd really like that. Mike Kenny and Lynn Terry 22 and Linda and Peter and Jeff and their staff have all worked 23 very hard on this and I think they deserve your recognition 24 and appreciation. 25 If they could stand -- there is a whole -- okay, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 thank you. 2 (Applause.) 3 MS. FORBIS: Thank you very much, and, with that, 4 I would like to introduce Arely Moreno. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you, Paula. 6 MS. MORENO: Good morning. My name is Arely 7 Moreno. I am 11 years old, and I am a young activist. I 8 make documents for EHC and for the community of Barrio 9 Logan. 10 I made the film to ask people on what they thought 11 or felt about Master Plating closing. The residents of 12 Barrio Logan worked hard to get Master Plating to leave. 13 Throughout the years they have done protests, marched, and 14 meetings, and now they have -- now it's a success. They got 15 Master Plating to leave. 16 Thank you for your time and hard work for the 17 residents of the community. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 19 MS. FORBIS: I'd just also like to add that we've 20 also been very encouraged by the work of the county of San 21 Diego, and certainly they cannot go unrecognized, and they 22 acted very swiftly and decisively when this data came back 23 to take aggressive action and work to solve this problem. 24 And Dick Smith is here today, and we're just 25 really appreciative of their efforts, the leadership of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 Supervisors Cox and Roberts on this issue as well. 2 (Thereupopn a video was played.) 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed. 4 PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT DIVISION ASSISTANT 5 CHIEF MURCHISON: Very good. 6 (Applause.) 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon? 8 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: A couple of comments. I 9 spent a good part of the 80s involved in workers' struggles 10 in Barrio Logan. And it was really, really good to be in 11 the community a few times on this project, and to see the 12 efforts of the community to deal with the problem. 13 I think that -- I'm sort of swelling with pride, 14 because the Environmental Health Coalition for many years in 15 San Diego has worked with the labor community and with 16 others to do really, really good work. And our staff was 17 just outstanding in this effort, just outstanding, spending 18 lots of time briefing all the parties involved about what 19 was happening and why. And that stuff matters, it matters a 20 lot when you're going through something like this. 21 A couple of other observations. Not only did we 22 find out that maybe our regulations around the decorative 23 chrome plating need some work, we also found out that it 24 looks like our regulations around the hard chrome plating do 25 work. And I think that's important to say. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 Certainly, as we do environmental justice work, 2 one of the important things is if we figure out clean ways 3 to do work and people can be employed doing that work, it's 4 important to regulate in that direction. 5 The other area that is probably not so appropriate 6 in this forum, but I intend to look into in the coming year 7 is that the standards for the workers' health and safety are 8 inadequate. And those standards need serious review. 9 The only other kind of loose end that I saw out of 10 this and it's a very minor one, and that is that there is a 11 technology called plasma flame spray that the next time we 12 get an opportunity to look at it carefully, we probably 13 should, maybe even before we do the chrome plating 14 regulation. We should probably figure out how it works and 15 how we need to regulate it. It's essentially somewhere 16 between welding and chrome plating. And it's an important 17 process and it's one that probably saves other air quality 18 effects if you use it, but we need to figure out how it 19 should be regulated. 20 But all in all, I think, you know, the interests 21 of the health of the community was served. I think we found 22 that there is a better way that works, when you look at 23 Carlson and Beauloye. And I think everybody involved has a 24 lot to be proud of in terms of what they built. 25 And I hate to keep going on, but the other, I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 guess the other thing about all this is that it also proves 2 that it is important for government to bring science to the 3 equation, because I remember when this was first talked 4 about there was suspicion that this was the shipyard, that 5 health effects or some of the suspicion was that the 6 shipyard was causing problems. And I don't know that the 7 shipyard has been ruled out in all cases and all 8 circumstances, but what happened was science was used to 9 narrow down and get to at least the greatest problem for the 10 community. 11 Thanks. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, 13 Mr. McKinnon. 14 Any other comments, questions from the Board? 15 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Yes, one more question I 16 guess I'd like to ask the whole staff -- 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes, Mr. Calhoun. 18 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: -- is Master Plating still 19 operating? 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: No. Carlson and 21 Beauloye is. Master Plating has been shut down. Carlson 22 and Beauloye is operating. 23 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: And they have to deal with 24 the local districts in order to get permits to operate; do 25 they not? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Well, Master Plating is 2 going to be shut down permanently. They are not going to 3 reopen in that area. 4 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Okay. Thank you. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Any other 6 comments, Mr. Kenny, from staff? 7 With that, since it is not a regulatory item, 8 there is no need to officially close the record, but with 9 that, I think again, endorse my colleague's thanks for an 10 outstanding effort to staff on the presentation, and also 11 for coming up to make a presentation on the video. Please 12 convey our thanks to all of your colleagues back there. 13 Thank you very much indeed. 14 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: And I think we can 15 give an A on that project. Was that a school project? 16 Maybe an A+, huh? 17 (Laughter.) 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The next item on the agenda is 19 02-7-3, Update on the Implementation of AB 1493. This 20 groundbreaking legislation, carried by Assemblywoman Fran 21 Pavley, and signed by Governor Davis on July 22nd directs 22 the Air Resources Board to adopt regulations to control 23 emissions of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles. 24 As we all know, this bill brought forth strong 25 opinions on all sides. Some saw an historic move to combat PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 global warming, while others argued that the bill 2 represented an assault on personal mobility and many other 3 accusations. 4 Now that the bill has become law, it is my hope 5 that we can lower the temperature and move forward in a 6 constructive fashion. Our job now is to take the general 7 framework set forth in the bill and fill in the blanks with 8 a thoughtful, reasonable program that takes advantage of 9 available technology and preserves the vehicle choices that 10 we now enjoy. Comments have been made that this bill is 11 very vague and that has been identified as a problem. I see 12 that as an opportunity actually to work together to fulfill 13 the previous comments I made. 14 In crafting the solution, we will make it a 15 priority to work with all interested parties. To those of 16 you in the Department in support of the bill we are thankful 17 indeed for your efforts, and eager to hear your views as our 18 implementation proceeds. And to the automakers who so 19 strongly oppose the regulation, we are likewise eager to 20 work with you to ensure the regulations that we adopt take 21 full advantage of your knowledge and expertise. 22 When Governor Davis signed the bill, he personally 23 directed me to work with automakers and I will continue to 24 do so throughout this process. During my tenure on this 25 board, one of my primary interests and the interests of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 Board and administration has been on children's health. 2 Seldom does a program provide such an opportunity to affect 3 not only children's health, but their ongoing well-being and 4 quality of life, and not just for our children but for all 5 future generations. 6 In conclusion, I am reminded of a quotation from 7 Theodore Roosevelt, who said, "Far and away, the best prize 8 that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth 9 doing." Fulfilling the obligation that this bill placed 10 upon the Air Resources Board will be hard work, and it 11 really is an obligation and a serious obligation 12 opportunity. This will be hard work for the staff and the 13 stakeholders on all sides who care so deeply about these 14 issues, and not least for those of us on the Board itself. 15 But again, it is definitely worth doing, and it is 16 wonderful to have the opportunity to address these issues, 17 and hopefully, in conjunction with all the stakeholders. 18 With that, I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Kenny 19 to begin the presentation of this item to the Board. 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Thank you, Dr. Lloyd, 21 and members of the Board. 22 We as staff recognize the priority that the Board 23 has placed on this particular project. In the nine weeks 24 since the Governor signed the bill, we have assembled a 25 staff team, put together a work plan, met with our sister PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 state agencies and other stakeholders, and actually have 2 already begun to work on the early implementation tasks. 3 We are here today to give you some background on 4 why global warming is important for California and a preview 5 of what you can expect as our work goes forward. The staff 6 presentation is divided into two parts. First, Dr. Nehzat 7 Motallebi will go through some facts and figures on 8 greenhouse gases and global warming from the California 9 perspective. Then Chuck Shulock, who has coordinated the 10 staff implementation efforts, will give you an overview of 11 the approach, the schedule, and the work plan that 12 ultimately will result in our bringing to you a staff 13 proposal. 14 With that, I'd like to start with Dr. Motallebi. 15 Doctor? 16 DR. MOTALLEBI: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. Good 17 morning, Dr. Lloyd, and members of the Board. 18 The purpose of this presentation is to provide a 19 scientific context for Mr. Shulock's presentation on the 20 staff's plan for Assembly Bill 1493, the Greenhouse Gas bill 21 signed by Governor Davis on July 22nd. In this 22 presentation, I will discuss the greenhouse effect and 23 present an overview of the evidence for global warming. 24 In recent years the United Nations brought 25 together a number of the world's leading scientists to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 address the issue of climate change. This panel of 2 scientists is called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 3 Change or IPCC for short. The IPCC's reports present the 4 latest scientific evidence on global warming and paint a 5 compelling argument supporting the climate change effect. 6 I also will cover some of the possible impacts of 7 climate change on California. Next, I will explain how 8 human activities contribute to the greenhouse effect. And 9 lastly, I will summarize the key facts that support the need 10 for AB 1493. 11 The concept of Earth's atmosphere acting as a 12 greenhouse to warm our planet was first proposed in the 19th 13 century. However, it wasn't until the 20th century that the 14 greenhouse effect attracted wide attention. Just as the 15 glass in a greenhouse lets the heat from sunlight in and 16 reduces the heat escaping, so too greenhouse gases and some 17 particulate in the atmosphere allow the Earth's atmosphere 18 to warm. 19 This slide shows how the percentage of greenhouse 20 gases, like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in 21 our atmosphere keep the Earth's average temperature at a 22 hospitable 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Without the greenhouse 23 effect, the average temperature would be about five degrees 24 Fahrenheit. The naturally occurring greenhouse effect makes 25 the Earth a more pleasant environment for us and life in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 general. 2 Anthropogenic activities had a relatively small 3 effect on atmosphere until the industrial revolution. Since 4 the industrial revolution, human activities have 5 dramatically changed the composition of the atmosphere. 6 Combustion of fossil fuels produces large amounts of carbon 7 dioxide as well as other pollutants. Many of these 8 pollutants absorb infrared energy that would otherwise be 9 reflected from the Earth, thereby heating the surrounding 10 air. 11 This slide shows the concentration of carbon 12 dioxide in the atmosphere has risen about 25 percent since 13 pre-industrial time, and is continuing to increase by 14 approximately one-half percent per year. Human activities 15 have also increased atmospheric concentration of other 16 greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide. Over 17 the past hundred years, methane concentrations have doubled 18 while nitrous oxide levels have risen about 15 percent. 19 Analysis of ice records indicate that current 20 atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are the highest of the 21 past 160 years and show a close correlation between the 22 concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the 23 global temperature. As you can see in this figure, the 24 immediate past shows a dramatic increase in CO2 25 concentration in the atmosphere and a corresponding increase PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 in temperature. 2 While the evidence for global warming is 3 overwhelming, it is impossible to predict exactly how it 4 will affect California's ecosystem and economy; however, 5 there are many areas of concern. 6 As the average temperature of the Earth increases 7 due to increased concentration of greenhouse gases, 8 meteorology will probably be affected. This would almost 9 certainly affect precipitation patterns in California. 10 Melting of polar ice has already led to a rise in sea level. 11 These basic physical changes would impact California's 12 public health, economy and ecology. 13 Projected climate changes may impact California's 14 public health through changes in air quality, the number of 15 weather-related deaths, and a possible increase in 16 infectious diseases. Agriculture is especially vulnerable 17 to regional climate changes, such as altered temperature and 18 rainfall patterns and new pest problems that could result 19 from climate changes. Increased temperature can contribute 20 to ground level ozone, which is damaging to many plants. 21 Climate change would also affect forest ecosystems 22 in ways that increase fire hazard, and that makes forests 23 more susceptible to pests and diseases. The increasing 24 population in California's coastal areas means that climate 25 change impact, such as sea level rise and increased storm PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 surges, would impact a large number of people. 2 One area of considerable concern is the effect of 3 global climate change on California's water supply. In 4 California, each winter at the high elevation of Sierra 5 Nevada snow accumulates in a deep pack, preserving much of 6 California's water supply in cold storage. However, if 7 winter temperatures are warm, more of the precipitation 8 falls as rain instead of snow. A heavier rainfall in winter 9 will result in higher flood risk. 10 Spring warming causes snow melt runoff, mostly 11 during April to July. Less spring runoff will reduce the 12 amount of water available for hydroelectric power production 13 and agricultural irrigation. Throughout the 20th century, 14 annual April through July spring runoff in the Sierra Nevada 15 has been decreasing. This decreased runoff was especially 16 evident after mid-century where the water runoff has 17 declined by about ten percent. 18 Another predicted outcome of global warming is a 19 rise in sea level. This has already been observed in 20 California as illustrated on this slide, using San Francisco 21 as an example. California has already seen a seven-inch 22 rise in 150 years, and the present delta system may not be 23 viable with an eight- to 12-inch sea level rise. Sea level 24 rise and storm surges could lead to flooding of low-lying 25 property, loss of coastal wetlands, erosion of cliffs and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 beaches, salt-water contamination of drinking water, and 2 impact on roads and bridges. 3 Changes in weather patterns can also influence the 4 frequency of meteorology conditions conducive to the 5 development of high pollutant concentration. Extreme 6 weather conditions are expected to increase over the coming 7 years. An overall warming trend has been recorded since the 8 late 19th century, with the most rapid warming occurring 9 over the past two decades. The ten warmest years of the 10 last century all occurred within the last 15 years. 11 There is also a direct relationship between 12 ambient temperature and the secondary production of ozone. 13 High temperature, strong sunlight, and a stable air mass 14 create the ideal condition for ozone formation. Higher 15 temperatures cause an increase in emissions. More fuel 16 evaporates. Engines work harder. And the demand for power 17 plants increases. 18 Air pollution is also made worse by increases in 19 natural hydrocarbon emissions during hot weather. As the 20 temperature rises and air quality diminishes, heat-related 21 health problems also increase. 22 Unfortunately, human activities can intensify the 23 greenhouse effect because many human activities produce 24 greenhouse gases. For example, when we burn fossil fuels 25 such as oil, coal, and natural gas for energy to power our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 cars, homes and factories, it produces carbon dioxide. 2 While carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas emitted in the 3 largest quantity, other greenhouse gases such as methane, 4 nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons also contribute to the 5 problem. 6 Gases vary greatly in their global warming 7 potential. So in order to accurately assess their impact in 8 relation to one another, CO2 is used as a common 9 denominator, and the values of other gases are expressed in 10 CO2 equivalents. In California, CO2 accounts for 11 approximately 84 percent of all greenhouse gases. Using 12 this concept of the CO2 equivalency, methane makes up 13 approximately eight percent of the total, and nitrous oxide 14 and hydrofluorocarbons contribute an additional six and 12 15 percent, respectively. 16 The principal sources of the CO2 in atmosphere are 17 fossil fuel combustion and the burning of forests and 18 plants. Agriculture is the major source of both methane and 19 nitrous oxide, with additional methane coming primarily from 20 landfill. Cars also emit methane and nitrous oxide. 21 Synthetic gases such as hydrofluorocarbons have 22 low atmospheric concentration but absorb infrared radiation 23 strongly and are much more effective as greenhouse gases 24 than carbon dioxide. On a molecule-for-molecule basis, they 25 can be a thousand times more efficient in absorbing infrared PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 energy. Therefore, any significant increase in HFCs emitted 2 into the air would contribute to global warming. 3 Up to this point I have talked about the effect 4 that gases in the atmosphere have on the global climate. 5 However, particulate or aerosols can also have an effect on 6 earth's energy balance. In contrast to greenhouse gases 7 which have a warming effect, aerosols can influence both 8 sides of the energy balance. Particulate sulfates, 9 organics, and nitrates are estimated to exert a global 10 average cooling effect; however, black carbon from 11 combustion sources can absorb solar radiation, thereby 12 warming the atmosphere. 13 If the black carbon is mixed with the other 14 aerosol material, which is what most atmospheric 15 measurements show, then its radiating warming effect is 16 considerably enhanced over that of the black carbon existing 17 as separate particles. 18 Different economies in the world produce extremely 19 different amounts of greenhouse gases. As you may know, the 20 United States has the highest emissions of carbon dioxide 21 equivalent of any nation in the world. In this graph which 22 displays tons of CO2 on a per-person basis, relative to 23 gross national product, the United States is in the upper- 24 right corner. California's emissions are somewhat lower 25 than the national average, due to use of the less-polluting PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 energy sources such as natural gas to run our power plants. 2 We also have a favorable climate that decreases 3 the heating demand and there are fewer high-energy 4 industries in California than in the other states. However, 5 California's emissions are still higher than most of the 6 European countries. 7 In California, more than half of the fossil fuel 8 combustion of carbon dioxide are related in some way to 9 transportation. Fossil fuel combustion accounts for 98 10 percent of the CO2 emissions with a two-percent contribution 11 from several other industrial processes that produce CO2 as 12 a by-product. 13 As indicated in California's Energy Commission's 14 2001 report on global climate change, to lessen the State's 15 contribution to global climate change, California will need 16 to develop an integrated strategy that will reduce traffic 17 congestion, criteria air pollutants, and emission of the 18 greenhouse gases produced by all sources. 19 In summary, both global and regional climate 20 changes are occurring in response to human activities. The 21 possibility of significant climate change resulting from 22 human activity is the most challenging and complex 23 environmental issue facing the world today. Projected 24 climate change will impact California's air, public health, 25 and environment by influencing the production of smog, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 distribution of pollutants, and amount of pollution that 2 remains in the air. 3 There are compelling reasons why action should be 4 taken now. First, many greenhouse gases have a lifetime of 5 decades or even centuries in the atmosphere, so the problem 6 cannot be eliminated quickly by simply stopping emissions. 7 Second, the warming of the ocean expected from a 8 given level of greenhouse gases occurs over many decades. 9 So what we experience today does not accurately represent 10 the full effect of the current level of greenhouse gases. 11 As Governor Davis said, global warming is no 12 longer a theory. It is an urgent reality. Assembly Bill 13 1493 is an exciting step towards minimizing the impact of 14 light-duty vehicles on global warming. It will put 15 California at the forefront of US effort and will join us 16 with worldwide efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. 17 This concludes my presentation, and we would be 18 happy to answer any questions. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 20 Mr. Kenny, are you going to take questions now on 21 this part or wait until the total presentation? 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I thought what we would 23 do is let Mr. Shulock proceed and then take questions at the 24 end. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 Thank you, Dr. Motallebi. 2 DR. MOTALLEBI: Thank you. 3 VEHICLE PROGRAM SPECIALIST SHULOCK: Good morning, 4 Mr. Chairman, members. 5 This portion of the staff presentation is intended 6 to give you an understanding of how we are organizing our 7 work, and what you can expect to see over the next two years 8 as implementation proceeds. 9 I will start by restating for you the requirements 10 of the bill, then the main part of my presentation will 11 outline our proposed staff implementation activities. That 12 section will begin with some comments about our overall 13 approach and an overview of the process that we have 14 defined. I then will highlight some major milestones, and 15 give you a brief description of the specific tasks that we 16 will undertake. 17 The presentation will conclude with references to 18 the listserv we've established to allow for efficient 19 communication with interested parties, and some related 20 Internet links. 21 AB 1493 requires the Air Resources Board to adopt, 22 by January 1, 2005, regulations that achieve the maximum 23 feasible and cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gas 24 emissions from motor vehicles. Within ten days of adopting 25 the regulations, the Board must transmit the regulations to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the 2 Legislature for review. 3 Also by January 1st, 2005, the Board must report 4 to the Legislature and the Governor on the content of the 5 regulations and the actions taken by the Board to fulfill 6 various requirements imposed by the bill. 7 The regulations may not take effect prior to 8 January 1, 2006. During that intervening period, the 9 Legislature must hold at least one public hearing to review 10 the regulations. If the Legislature determines that the 11 regulations should be modified, it may adopt legislation to 12 modify the regulations. 13 Finally, the regulation may only apply to vehicles 14 manufactured in the 2009 or later model years. 15 The bill provides specific guidance that will 16 govern many aspects of our work. For example, in developing 17 the regulations, the Board must consider their technological 18 feasibility and consider the impact the regulations may have 19 on the economy of the State, including a number of factors 20 such as the creation or elimination of jobs and businesses 21 within California. 22 The Board must also provide flexibility as to 23 alternative methods of compliance with our regulations, as 24 long as these alternative methods achieve equivalent 25 emission reductions. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 The Board must conduct public workshops with at 2 least three workshops in communities with significant 3 exposure to air contaminants, including communities with 4 minority or low-income populations. 5 Finally, the Board must grant credit to auto 6 makers for changes that they make prior to the effective 7 date of the regulation. 8 The bill also specifies some things that the Board 9 cannot do. The regulations cannot require the imposition of 10 additional fees or taxes on any motor vehicle, fuel, or 11 vehicle miles traveled, a ban on the sale of any vehicle 12 category, specifically including sport utility vehicles and 13 light-duty trucks. The regulations cannot require a 14 reduction in vehicle weight or a limitation on or reduction 15 of the speed limit or vehicle miles traveled. 16 So is there nothing that we can do? Are all 17 possible approaches ruled out here? Not at all. As this 18 chart illustrates, there are a number of technologies 19 already in use today that can provide noticeable reductions 20 in greenhouse gas emissions. Such off-the-shelf options 21 include, for example, variable valve timing or five-speed 22 automatic transmissions. Other technologies, while not yet 23 in production, are clearly on the verge of commercial 24 availability. 25 The point here is not to go through this list in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 detail, but rather to emphasize that there is a wide range 2 of promising technologies for us to evaluate. 3 The next section of the presentation will focus on 4 how we plan to conduct our evaluation. I'll describe the 5 overall approach, give an overview of the process we will 6 follow, and then discuss some major milestones and the 7 specific tasks that we have identified. 8 Perhaps the most important point to emphasize is 9 that we're not breaking new ground here. This board has a 10 long history of establishing technology-forcing yet feasible 11 requirements, and we will build upon that experience in this 12 case. Thus, we will be following our standard regulatory 13 model, the main feature of which is a sound, solid technical 14 foundation. One way in which we ensure that the technical 15 underpinnings are solid is by engaging in an open public 16 process, with many opportunities for public review and 17 comment. That will clearly be the case here. 18 As you might expect, this project has been 19 assigned a high priority within the staff. We have an 20 experienced technical team in place, and work is underway in 21 a variety of areas. We have been directed to provide 22 regular briefings for senior management regarding the 23 progress of the work and issues to be addressed. It is also 24 worthy of note that there is a high degree of enthusiasm 25 among the staff on this project. It has been easy to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 assemble a top-flight team. 2 Finally, as work proceeds, we will be sure to 3 partner with other agencies that share common objectives 4 such as the California Energy Commission, the California 5 Climate Change Registry, and others as appropriate. I'll 6 note we've already had one very productive meeting with the 7 Climate Change Registry and the Energy Commission. 8 This slide presents the big picture overview of 9 our work. The work will be broken into three phases. For 10 roughly the first year we will conduct our technical 11 assessment. During this phase we will pursue a number of 12 separate tasks. The output of all of this work will be an 13 assessment of the technologies that are available, the best 14 tools to assess the environmental and economic impacts of 15 those technologies, possible approaches to alternative 16 compliance, and similar findings. During this phase we will 17 hold a number of task-specific workshops. 18 This portion of the work will conclude with a 19 comprehensive workshop presenting our findings, followed by 20 an update to the Board in November 2003. We will not, 21 however, be presenting proposed recommendations during this 22 first phase. 23 The next phase will involve the development of our 24 staff proposal. This will require integration of our staff 25 findings into a staff report with a recommended approach and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 draft regulatory language. The purpose of this phase is to 2 determine, given the available technologies and their costs, 3 and given our analysis of the economic and environmental 4 impacts of possible strategies, what makes sense from a 5 policy standpoint? Here we will propose draft regulations 6 and hold a workshop to obtain public comment on that draft. 7 The final phase is board adoption. Here we will 8 modify our draft staff proposal as appropriate, given the 9 public comments, and prepare our final proposal for 10 consideration by the Board. 11 This provides a closer look at some of the major 12 milestones along the way. Our first workshop is tentatively 13 targeted for December of this year, focusing on our 14 understanding of the inventory of sources of greenhouse 15 gases. Roughly in March of 2003, we plan to host an 16 international symposium on vehicle technology, which will 17 assemble panels of experts to describe for us their 18 understanding of the available technologies. 19 Throughout the first half of 2003, we will hold 20 other workshops on specific topics. In October of 2003, we 21 will hold the summary workshop, bringing together all of the 22 staff findings to that point. Then, as already mentioned, 23 we will provide the Board with an update in November of 24 2003. 25 Our target for release of the draft staff proposal PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 is May of 2004. Following a workshop in June and 2 modifications as appropriate, we will release the final 3 staff proposal in July 2004. The Board meeting to adopt 4 regulations will be held in September of 2004, almost 5 exactly two years from today. 6 The required report to the Legislature and the 7 Governor will be released in January of 2005. 8 Next I would like to run briefly through the 9 organization of our staff work. We have broken out the 10 effort into a number of tasks listed here. I will discuss 11 each in turn. 12 Public input is critical and is key to our 13 success. Throughout this process we will be actively 14 engaged in seeking input from interested parties. We will 15 hold a number of workshops and will also be open to informal 16 communication on a regular basis. We are developing a 17 number of tools to help ensure effective communication. We 18 will have an active speaker's bureau and will take full 19 advantage of the Internet and electronic communication. 20 The first substantive task is the development of a 21 baseline inventory. This is important, because it sets the 22 standard against which manufacturers will be measured to 23 determine if they should be awarded credit for early 24 compliance. The inventory will include a broad range of 25 greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 oxides, and hydrofluorocarbons. We also intend to 2 investigate the greenhouse gas contribution of black carbon 3 and tropospheric ozone precursors. 4 Our work to date indicates that for some of these 5 compounds there is ample information available, but for 6 others the existing information is sparse and will need to 7 be supplemented. 8 In many ways, the heart of this effort is the 9 assessment of available technologies. As I mentioned 10 before, we plan to begin with an international technology 11 symposium. We will also be undertaking an in-depth staff 12 review, focusing on the range of possible technical 13 approaches. Special attention will be devoted to the 14 integration of these technologies in real-world vehicles. 15 In many instances, the individual results are not additive; 16 rather, we will need to consider interactive effects. 17 A key feature of our technology review will be a 18 parallel assessment by outside experts, which will provide 19 an independent benchmark against which to calibrate our 20 internal staff results. 21 At the same time we will be reviewing the effects 22 of our regulation in a variety of areas. We will consider 23 the environmental and social impacts of the regulations and 24 their effect on the California economy. Another major work 25 effort will be devoted to defining the methodology for the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 calculation of early reduction credits. Manufacturers will 2 be given credit for steps that they take in advance of the 3 2009 effective date of the regulation. But, as you might 4 imagine, there are a number of subtleties involved in 5 figuring out how best to measure this and accomplish this 6 objective. 7 Finally, we will be working to develop criteria 8 for the consideration of alternative compliance measures. 9 Under the bill, we are directed to provide flexibility in 10 the means by which a person, subject to the regulations, may 11 comply. This may seem simple in the abstract, but it raises 12 many complex questions. So we envision a fair amount of 13 staff work devoted to scoping out the possibilities and 14 determining how best to proceed. 15 At the conclusion of the above tasks, we will have 16 a comprehensive assessment of the various issues that must 17 be considered. The next step will be to integrate those 18 individual pieces into a set of findings and recommendations 19 that take into account the interaction of the various 20 program elements. For example, the stringency of the final 21 regulatory requirement must consider the technical 22 feasibility of the various technologies, their expected 23 benefits and costs, the amount of early introduction credits 24 that manufacturers will be earning, and the scope of 25 possible alternative compliance measures. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 Keeping all of the above in mind, we will develop 2 a staff report with recommendations and proposed regulatory 3 language. 4 That concludes my discussion of the substantive 5 issues to be addressed. In closing, I would like to touch 6 on some of the electronic communication tools that we will 7 employ. 8 First of all, we have established a list serve for 9 the AB 1493 implementation effort. Subscribers to this list 10 serve are provided with automatic e-mail notification of 11 noteworthy events, such as notice of workshops and meetings 12 or the posting of documents on our climate change web site. 13 To subscribe to this list serve, interested parties should 14 simply go to the ARB climate change web site -- the address 15 is given on this slide -- and follow prompts that they will 16 find there. 17 This next slide lists a number of web sites that 18 cover global climate change issues, including one 19 established by the Air Resources Board. These web sites 20 will provide an effective way to track our work on the 21 various issues, as well as the work of other relevant 22 organizations. 23 As you can see, this is a complex effort but we 24 are confident that we will be able to meet the challenge 25 that is set before us. We look forward to keeping you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 informed and we would be pleased to respond to any questions 2 or comments you may have at this time. 3 Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, staff, an 5 excellent presentation. 6 Before we open up the Board questions, I'd just 7 like to comment and thank Secretary Winston Hickox for his 8 tremendous efforts during the passage of this bill, getting 9 it passed, and also for his continued commitment and 10 interest in this project as we move ahead. 11 Also, I'd like to acknowledge Cynthia Praul in the 12 audience there from the Energy Commission. I think the 13 Energy Commission, again, with the Registry is going to be a 14 key partner for us and we're working very closely. So thank 15 you, Cynthia, and please convey our thanks to you and the 16 staff and the Commissioners. 17 With that, I'd like to throw it open to the Board 18 members here, if there are any questions, comments, et 19 cetera. 20 Mr. McKinnon. 21 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yes. On slide 13 you 22 referred to the percentage of greenhouse gases per person in 23 different places in the world, California, and the US, and 24 the US was a very high number. Is California in the US 25 average or is the US average without California included? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: The US average 2 includes California. 3 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: So the US, outside of 4 California, would be significantly higher; is that -- if you 5 did -- if you separated the US, you have a number here for 6 California. It's somewhere what, 12 or 13, and the US is 7 about 21. So if we looked at the US independent of 8 California, it seems that it would go a great deal higher; 9 is that correct? 10 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: It would go 11 higher, not necessarily a great deal. We certainly have, 12 you know, a significant fraction of the population and the 13 gross national product. 14 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Right. 15 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: But we're 16 certainly well below the average for the US. 17 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yes. 18 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Okay. 19 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: The other question I had 20 was on slide five. And I'm looking at thousands of years 21 ago there was sort of a peak, and I remember hearing an 22 argument from Time and Time Again about volcanic activity 23 and the effects it had. Is that peak, does that correspond 24 with a time when there was that kind of activity? 25 DR. MOTALLEBI: Yes, it does. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: So we're approaching 2 double that period of time in terms of global warming gases. 3 DR. MOTALLEBI: Correct. 4 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Wow, thanks. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Following up, since you've got 6 that slide there, what would be the target for stabilization 7 of CO2 in the atmosphere? I've heard numbers of 450, 550. 8 What are we really talking about there? 9 DR. MOTALLEBI: I think that's about the number 10 that I would recall too, yes, about 450. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. 12 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Actually, what do 13 you mean by stabilization? 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, basically, if you turned 15 off the sources there, where we'd would like it to rise to 16 where, can we -- obviously, we're getting to an acceptable 17 period. But you're going to have to look at maybe 18 stabilization, and if you let it go up to 450 that is one 19 scenario which has a certain amount of controls, or you 20 could let it go up to 550 with consequences but also 21 implications for controls as well. 22 And it may be impossible, given economic growth 23 and what-not, to bring it down to 350. That was my comment 24 there. 25 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Yeah, because CO2 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 has such a long lifetime, over several hundreds of years, 2 any stabilization would mean elimination of anthropogenic 3 emissions. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes, exactly. And even if you 5 go to using all the fuels you need, you're going to have to 6 look at some sort of sequestration of the carbon in order to 7 get where we need to go. 8 Do you have a -- yes, Ms. D'Adamo. 9 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: The issue of the lifetime 10 of greenhouse gas emissions, I understand that if we look at 11 today's picture that doesn't really tell us the effects of 12 human activity on global climate change. We're going to 13 have to look at later years. If we just look at today's 14 activity and project it out into the future, how far out 15 into the future, and, likewise, if we're looking at today's 16 climate change, those impacts are felt from how far back? 17 DR. MOTALLEBI: We see some kind of the impact 18 that it's really hard to address it, you know, very 19 accurately. But if I recall it correctly, when a statement 20 from Professor Seinfeld of Caltech would say that even if we 21 controlled the whole world, greenhouse gases completely, 22 stopped all the emissions as of today, the impact that 23 already is created will still continue in the future for the 24 warming impact. So that's how drastic it is. 25 But exactly, you know, it's really hard to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 quantify that, you know, what would be the time. 2 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Do you have information on 3 what the range might be, though, years, decades? 4 DR. MOTALLEBI: It's based on the theory and the 5 general circulation model, and it's really changed from like 6 0.5 to 0.6 Fahrenheit, you know, to even 2 Fahrenheit. So 7 the range is really broad. But as it gets higher, the 8 impact is more drastic. 9 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Normally the 10 projections go out to the end of the century, so in the next 11 hundred years. And what they call business as usual, where 12 we keep, you know, growing emissions as the population 13 grows, they're projecting on the order of five to ten 14 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. 15 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Early in your presentation, 16 Doctor, you indicated that, I think it was without manmade 17 activity, industrial activity that there is still a 18 greenhouse effect and that we would be at roughly 60 degrees 19 on average. What is the source of that? 20 DR. MOTALLEBI: The major source of natural, 21 obviously, is the water vapor. That's really is the most 22 important, you know, natural greenhouse gases, and after 23 that it would be soot. These two are the most important 24 natural greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And is that information PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 accepted within the scientific community? 2 DR. MOTALLEBI: For the natural, I believe so, 3 yes. 4 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. And speaking of 5 sources, I think that -- well, this is just a fascinating 6 subject and I'm pretty excited about it as well, but I do 7 think that it's important for us to rely on science, not 8 just within Cal EPA but other agencies and research 9 institutes. And so as we go through, I think it will be 10 helpful, as you did today, to cite where the information is 11 obtained from; in particular, if it's from agencies outside 12 the State of California, recognized institutes, that sort of 13 thing. 14 And along those lines, when we do receive these 15 board updates, I don't know if time would allow for it, but 16 I think that it would be helpful to receive a presentation 17 from the Energy Commission, the Registry, or perhaps, you 18 know, I don't know what organizations are out there that are 19 recognized as mainstream scientific organizations. I think 20 it would be helpful to receive a presentation from one of 21 them as well. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think that's a good point. 23 And I had discussed this with Mr. Kenny. I think that was 24 in the plans to, as he said, keep the Board fully informed 25 on this. And I think we also recognized in this area there PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 is lots of probably the majority of the expertise is 2 actually in the rest of the world on climate change issues 3 and not here. And so while we're coming up to speed very 4 quickly, we certainly want to take advantage of that. 5 And, most certainly, we are not already, people 6 are inundating us with offers for help. And so I think 7 we'll avail ourselves of that. The matter is trying to 8 differentiate those of real help. And I think, together 9 with some of the expert panel, the people who are willing to 10 help out, meeting with other organizations, I think this 11 will provide a vast -- but your comment is a very good one, 12 and I know we'll do that. 13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And I had a couple of other 14 questions on the technological assessment, slide number 29, 15 under aerodynamics. I realize that the legislation 16 prohibits us from regulating automakers as to vehicle 17 weight, but would aerodynamics include that sort of 18 technology assessment, in the event that an individual 19 automaker would choose to, through the flexibility provided 20 in the legislation, decrease automobile weight? 21 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I think the 22 way the legislation is, we could not require a reduction in 23 weight. Should they choose to reduce weight, that would be 24 fine. What we have to do is come up with a set of plausible 25 technological innovations that could be used on cars that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 could meet any greenhouse gas reduction standard or target. 2 And on that list would not be weight reduction. 3 But aerodynamics is separate from that. That's 4 basically how slippery the car is, and a car at equal weight 5 could have different aerodynamic drag. And one that has 6 less aerodynamic drag would have lower greenhouse gas 7 emissions. 8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Would there be any value in 9 that assessment in including reduction in weight, even 10 though we wouldn't be authorized to mandate it, just in 11 terms of getting the information out to the automakers, or 12 do they already have -- 13 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I think that 14 information is out there already, and there have been a 15 number of studies by the National Academy of Science and 16 other people have looked at weight. And I'm sure it will 17 come up in the process of evaluating this, but we just won't 18 be including it in our menu of possible controls and the 19 costs of those. 20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: All right. Okay, and then 21 on slide 30, the effect on the California economy. Will we 22 also be looking at what the effect would be if we do not 23 act, in terms of the effects, say, to the agricultural 24 community and others that would be -- local governments, 25 State of California, as a result of increased flooding and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 the public health sector, et cetera? 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I think what we'll be 3 doing is probably doing more of a qualitative assessment 4 there, because it's very hard to quantify some of those 5 benefits. But we'll be trying to at least provide some 6 level of assessment. I'm just not sure at this particular 7 point in time how we're going to do that. 8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay, and then getting back 9 to Mr. McKinnon's question on I think slide 13, comparing 10 California to the United States, where would we compare -- 11 how would California compare to other states that benefit 12 from similar climates? Southwest or Florida, et cetera? 13 And if you don't have that information, maybe you can just 14 give me an -- 15 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, I would 16 just take a shot at it in that for similar climates, you 17 know, California and the Energy Commission has had a 18 several-decade effort at reducing the energy use in 19 California, which relates to greenhouse gases. And so we 20 tend to have more efficient new homes, we tend to have more 21 efficient new appliances. 22 In addition, depending on where those states are, 23 many of them, like you've mentioned Florida, might depend on 24 coal for electric production, which has a much higher 25 greenhouse gas emissions than the natural gas that we use PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 and some of the renewables that we use, like hydro here. So 2 my guess is that we're probably in the better end of the 3 range of even areas with similar climates because of all of 4 the actions that have been taken in the past. 5 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Professor Friedman? 7 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I'm still a little 8 bit confused on the response to both Mr. McKinnon and 9 DeeDee. Do I understand on slide 13 that this is the 10 aggregate CO2 emissions, intensities by comparative country, 11 comparing the countries? It's the aggregate? 12 DR. MOTALLEBI: Yes. 13 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: So the United States 14 would -- and if I understood, you said that does include 15 California? 16 DR. MOTALLEBI: Yes. 17 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: If you take 18 California out of that, explain to me why the United States 19 would, aggregate intensities would increase. 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I think the answer there 21 is that it would increase. I think the question is 22 essentially how much it would increase. And I think part of 23 what the staff was trying to answer is that if you look at 24 the California number and you look at essentially the tons 25 of CO2 per person, and then you essentially take into PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 account the fact that the California population is roughly 2 one-tenth out of the United States, that although we are 3 roughly, you know, half of the US average because of the 4 fact that we're only one-tenth of the population, the 5 increase for the United States would be small, as opposed 6 to, for example, maybe doubling. 7 And so you might see, for example, maybe a ten 8 percent increase in the US number as a result of kind of the 9 per-person CO2 contribution in California. 10 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I see, okay. Thank 11 you. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And that's -- okay. Where 13 would you put India and China on here? 14 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: India and China, I 15 believe the numbers are definitely below the US, I think 16 even below us. But they're increasing as those countries 17 become more industrialized, though I guess China is 18 supposedly signing on to the Kyoto Protocol and they're 19 taking a number of steps to make their powerplants more 20 efficient. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think it's worth also 22 pointing out to Dr. Friedrich that California and Germany 23 are about the same here. 24 Mr. Calhoun. 25 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Yes. Mr. Cackette, in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 response to Board Member D'Adamo's question regarding 2 technology assessment, you mentioned something about studies 3 done by the National Academy of Science. Those were done 4 primarily for -- focusing primarily on fuel economy; were 5 they not? 6 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yes, those 7 studies were looking at what could be done to increase fuel 8 economy improvements, so that was what their purpose was. 9 They were used in the debate that just occurred this year, 10 about whether the federal government would move to increase 11 fuel economy standards. But in doing that, they explored 12 various technologies that would increase efficiency, and 13 efficiency has to do with fuel use, and fuel use has to do 14 with greenhouse gas emissions. 15 So they provided some usefulness in assessing what 16 could be done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There are 17 other things that can be done outside of carbon dioxide; for 18 example, the other pollutants that you saw on the chart that 19 can be reduced as well; for example, changing air 20 conditioners to a different propellant that doesn't have 21 such a high global warming impact. There are N2O emissions 22 which come out the tailpipe, and those can be controlled 23 catalytically, so there may be opportunities to reduce those 24 as well as methane emissions. 25 So that's why we're looking at the whole menu of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 greenhouse gas emissions here, and, you know, we've just 2 looked at these other studies to try to gain a glimpse of 3 insight as to what some of the technologies are. 4 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: In reading some of the 5 responses, I can't recall which particular manufacturer 6 said it, maybe it was the association, that commented on 7 this particular bill. This ought to be viewed as another 8 way of influencing fuel economy standards, I think. It's 9 just something that I read in the paper, as opposed to any 10 verbal comments I heard. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Supervisor Patrick? 12 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Thank you. I really enjoyed 13 this report, I thought it was excellent. I'm going to ask, 14 and it may be a politically incorrect question, and that is 15 why is there so much controversy about whether global 16 warming exists and the greenhouse gas effect even exists? 17 If indeed all of this is true, and I believe that it is, why 18 do we have so many nay-sayers about this particular issue? 19 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Supervisor, there 20 really isn't a debate on whether there is a greenhouse 21 effect. There is, you know, clearly a lot of evidence that 22 the world is warming. There is a debate on how much of that 23 is influenced by natural causes versus industrial and other 24 activities. 25 Now, Dr. Motallebi pointed out in her presentation PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 there was a huge international assessment of this issue by 2 the International Panel for Climate Change. And the 3 conclusion of that group, which represented a lot of 4 countries including the US, was that the warming that we've 5 seen in the last 50 years has been caused by industrial 6 activities, and it's not just a natural phenomenon. 7 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: So there are no people 8 that -- 9 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: There are people, 10 of course, there are a number of people that disagree with 11 that conclusion. 12 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Because I've read a lot of 13 things that stated there is not even such a thing as 14 greenhouse gases and global warming and all that. And I 15 don't think -- 16 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: I'm not aware of 17 any group that is saying that there is not the greenhouse 18 effect and not warming. 19 MS. McCAULEY: I have read that it is only in the 20 US that there appears to be serious political credence given 21 to the idea that the greenhouse effect is still suspect, 22 that in other countries, particularly in Europe, you don't 23 get this political discussion. 24 So perhaps that's a reflection of our political 25 process. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 (Laughter.) 2 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I think the 3 large debate in the scientific community is what is the 4 magnitude of the effect going to be, not that the emissions 5 of these gases and particulates does not have any effect, 6 how large is it going to be. And then there is great 7 uncertainty over whatever the effect is, what the impact 8 will be on society, health, and the economic activities that 9 we have. 10 But not that the earth isn't going to a place 11 where we're going to see warmer climate because of the 12 greenhouse effect. 13 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Okay, thanks. I've had three 14 fascinating answers. 15 (Laughter.) 16 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Mr. Chairman. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Supervisor DeSaulnier. 18 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Thanks. Since we have 19 Matt's favorite chart up here, 13, I assume that there are 20 some projections or trend lines if we were to look at this 21 chart, and particularly as we compare other industrialized 22 economies. And I assume that if we looked at these, the 23 trend lines would be that the western European countries 24 would be stabilizing or coming down. 25 VEHICLE PROGRAM SPECIALIST SHULOCK: I'll defer to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 the Research staff on that one, trends on other economies? 2 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: The trend in the 3 US is about a one-percent increase per year. The trend in 4 California is a lot less than that, less than half a percent 5 per year, probably more on the order of, like, a third or a 6 quarter of a percent. We saw some data last week, some of 7 the European countries like Germany are actually reducing 8 their greenhouse gas emissions and there are trends in China 9 downward as well. 10 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: So what I'm interested in 11 over time, establishing those kinds of trends, particularly 12 in our competing economic countries, and since we're 13 wondering what -- in that kind of vein, why countries are 14 omitted? Japan isn't on here and I'm wondering where they 15 would be, as the world's second-largest economy. 16 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: The European 17 Union, Russia, Japan and China have all either agreed to or 18 are proposing to agree to stabilize their greenhouse gas 19 emissions or reduce them. 20 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: So generally, the trend 21 lines for those other economies that we compete against are 22 going down as opposed to where we're going? 23 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Right. 24 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Although California is 25 better? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 VEHICLE PROGRAM SPECIALIST SHULOCK: Yes. 2 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: And, Chuck, if we go to 3 slide number 21, in terms of what's left, only because it's 4 impossible for my eyesight to read this unless it's up, this 5 is a sample, this is to give us an idea of things that are 6 currently available as viable technologies that we are 7 looking at and will pursue, correct? 8 VEHICLE PROGRAM SPECIALIST SHULOCK: Yes. 9 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: And many of these I assume 10 are in place in those countries we were just talking about 11 where the trend line is going down. 12 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: They're in place 13 in some vehicles in all economies. They vary in how widely 14 they penetrate, and there is probably greater penetration in 15 Europe than in this country. 16 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Okay. Well, I'm 17 interested as we go through this, Mr. Chairman, there was a 18 lot of discussion and debate on this bill besides derogatory 19 comments about us personally and in general. I never 20 realized -- well, I've been called lots of bad things, but 21 bureaucrat is a new one, with no offense to any bureaucrats 22 in the audience. 23 (Laughter.) 24 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Is that these are the 25 things it seems like that came up during the debate, these PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 are already in effect, they're in those countries that we're 2 competing with and against economically, their trend lines 3 are going down. I assume when we do the cost benefit in 4 terms of the economy for California we are going to see some 5 real opportunities here, as opposed to disincentives, which 6 was a lot of what came from the opponents. 7 But in addition, knowing the political and the 8 legal ramifications, we are still going to pursue looking at 9 viable emerging technologies and you have hybrids in here. 10 VEHICLE PROGRAM SPECIALIST SHULOCK: Yes. 11 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Okay, thanks. 12 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. I also think it's 14 important to recognize the voluntary agreement in Europe, 15 which is obviously also stimulating some of these 16 technologies and specifically in that case for CO2. And I 17 think you can see if you look at this some of the European 18 manufacturers, how they are addressing some of those. And 19 we're going to get the benefit I think of some of those 20 technologies, and obviously hopefully stimulate others 21 ourselves. 22 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Can I just finish, in 23 terms of Supervisor Patrick's comments, having been in 24 Europe for the World Fuel Cell Conference just a few months 25 ago, and when Chuck and I were in Japan a few years ago, the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 level of resentment, some of it directed personally, and we 2 had to defend ourselves in both instances, towards the 3 United States politically from those people in terms of why 4 aren't you doing these things, and we read about that. But 5 it was sort of -- I was taken aback. 6 There is nothing like a personal conversation with 7 someone who is angry with you personally because of the 8 perception that we're not doing anything. So it's really -- 9 I'm really proud of California and this board in a number of 10 ways and I'm really anxious for the opportunity to go 11 through this in a thoughtful way that you have laid out here 12 today. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I also think, and I see 14 Mr. McKinnon and Ms. D'Adamo, I also think it's interesting 15 that similar to you, Mr. McKinnon, that some of the offshore 16 manufacturers are encouraging us to be -- why aren't we more 17 aggressive on climate change issues. Now that we are, 18 they're not quite sure whether it was a good thing or not. 19 (Laughter.) 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So I think we have an 21 opportunity, again, to work together and to demonstrate, as 22 you say, we are responsible and that we can work together. 23 Ms. D'Adamo and Mr. McKinnon. 24 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Getting back to the issue 25 of the reduction in Europe, we only have a small piece of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 the pie here, and that is certain mobile sources that they 2 have the full array that they can look at. What is the 3 reduction? Could anyone venture to guess what the reduction 4 is attributed to, in mobile sources versus stationary, in 5 Europe? 6 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: I think they're 7 being very aggressive on both motor vehicle as well as 8 stationary source controls. So I think it's actually split 9 pretty equally between the two. 10 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay, and getting back to 11 our favorite slide, 13, why is Canada so high? When you 12 look at the other industrialized nations they're pretty much 13 clumped together, and then there is Canada and the United 14 States standing out. Are there similarities, certain 15 similarities between the United States and Canada? 16 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Yeah, I think we 17 drive the same type of cars, and then they have high heating 18 requirements during the winter. 19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: So they get a lot of their 20 cars from the United States? It's pretty much the same 21 market? Okay. 22 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Maybe we can just blame it 23 on French-Canadians. 24 (Laughter.) 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah, a year or so ago we 2 had some Swedish mechanics visit, and they expressed the 3 Europeans' wonder at why we hadn't dealt with this issue. 4 They also expressed compliments to us with dealing with 5 toxics. So where they are ahead in one respect, we're way 6 ahead in another. 7 So I have a question and an observation. And it 8 has to do with lightweight materials, and it seems to me 9 that some of the technology assessment should include that 10 subject, but given that we continue to be barred from 11 getting into fuel economy and getting into the weight of the 12 vehicle and that kind of thing, it's a damned shame is what 13 it is, because I think there is probably something there. 14 Is that something we could include in the 15 technology assessment, or is it sort of wasteful to do that, 16 given that we couldn't give credits for that? 17 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, I think 18 we definitely will look at it, and, as I indicated before, 19 there is quite a bit of information already on that. In 20 fact, you often see some of these other technologies 21 presented as this will be as good as taking X hundred pounds 22 out of a car so that people are thinking in that way. 23 So we'll definitely keep it in mind. I think we 24 want to do that in part because it may be that we'll find 25 that that's less cost-effective or more cost-effective PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 options, and in assessing costs at least we'll know that if 2 they go down the non-weight reduction path, it costs 3 something; if they use weight reduction, it might either 4 cost more or less. 5 But I think many of the technologies on the lists 6 of the chart we've looked at a number of times are probably 7 easier to implement, have lower costs and have bigger 8 reductions of greenhouse gases than weight reduction will. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Professor Friedman. 10 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Again, keying off of 11 Mr. McKinnon, I think we, for sure I'd like to see, even as 12 an alternative, voluntary or consensual approach, as we're 13 working and identifying ways of reducing the emissions, we 14 ought to not feel barred from suggesting it or pointing the 15 way, even though we can't include it in the control measure. 16 Because that way, it would be a much more 17 comprehensive and useful report, and it could just be that 18 the legislative will would change, and -- 19 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, one 20 comment Mr. McKinnon made is that we couldn't give them 21 credit for it. At least at this stage our vision is some 22 type of emission standard of greenhouse gases. So 23 ultimately how the manufacturers get there is up to them, 24 and if weight reduction is in the menu, they will certainly 25 get credit for it, because it will have an effect on lower PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 greenhouse gas emissions. 2 And we'll definitely do the information. I 3 appreciate your interest in it. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Also, if my memory serves me 5 correctly, did one of the ex-board members write their book 6 on sea level rise and coastal erosion in California? So it 7 would be interesting to maybe have Lynn back as a technical 8 expert in some of these areas. 9 With that, and seeing there are no more questions, 10 we have one person signed up, Professor Andrew Frank. 11 Professor Frank, if you would like to come up and 12 add testimony, I will resist the comment to say about 13 university professors plugging their own research -- 14 (Laughter.) 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: -- but we really appreciate 16 your continuing work, by the way, Professor Frank, in this 17 area. It's really meant a lot to us on this regulation. 18 And clearly, what you're going to say now I think is going 19 to be very important, because you are able to demonstrate 20 what you preach, and that is very important to us. 21 So thank you for coming. 22 MR. FRANK: Thank you, Alan. 23 Yes. Well, I'd like to thank, though a little 24 different than many of my colleagues. I not only profess 25 but I show. Anyway, one of the things I wanted to point out PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 to the Board and to the audience, that one of the good ways 2 of reducing CO2 emissions is the issue of hybridization, 3 making a vehicle a hybrid. 4 However, you've heard the public and a lot of talk 5 about the so-called mile hybrid and the strong hybrid, and 6 what I'm really talking about is a much stronger strong 7 hybrid than the strong hybrids that the car companies are 8 talking about. I'm talking about hybrids that are basically 9 electric cars, and that have enough batteries to go 20 to 60 10 miles. So these are compared to the car companies' hybrids, 11 very, very strong hybrids. 12 So that's my name, but I also want to know that -- 13 I want to point out that I'm not operating in a vacuum 14 either. I've been working with EPRI, Electric Power 15 Research Institute, and National Labs, General Motors, Ford 16 car companies, of course, South Coast, CARB, etc. And we've 17 recently completed a couple of very, very significant 18 reports titled Comparing the Benefits and Impacts of Hybrid 19 Electric Vehicle Options. There is a volume 1 and a volume 20 1.5. I urge you all to get a copy of that. That's for 21 free, of course. 22 The vehicles that we studied for not only 23 greenhouse gas reductions but essentially for energy 24 consumption, the vehicles we studied were compact cars, mid- 25 sized cars, small SUVs and full-size SUVs. And, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 incidentally, I've actually constructed these vehicles, so I 2 have samples of them in my lab. So nobody can say it can't 3 be done. 4 The hybrids that we're looking at are zero range 5 hybrids, which go from mild to strong in the vernacular of 6 the car companies, 20-mile-range hybrids, and 60-mile-range 7 hybrids. And we compared these vehicles to the conventional 8 vehicles. We've kept the performance in all of our 9 comparisons the same, and the weight is within ten percent 10 of the comparable vehicle. 11 One of the myths that I'd like to dispel is that 12 you go to a hybrid vehicle and you give it an electric 13 vehicle range of 60 miles and it's going to weigh more. 14 That's not true at all. Calculations of well to wheels -- 15 And that's, by the way, without changing materials. If we 16 change materials, these are additive. 17 Now, here is the greenhouse gas emissions -- oh, 18 it doesn't show up too well, but I've given I think the 19 Board a hard copy, and off on the left-hand side is the dots 20 for conventional vehicles from the -- I've got to take my 21 glasses off too -- from the compact sedan, which is a lower 22 diamond, to the mid-sized sedan, next one up, the mid-sized 23 SUV, and the upper bar is the full-sized SUV. 24 Just to give you an idea, the full-sized SUV would 25 be equivalent to a Chevrolet Suburban; mid-sized would be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 something like a Ford Explorer; the conventional car would 2 be like a Chevy Lumina, Ford Taurus, and a conventional 3 small car would be the small car in the line, the Hondas and 4 the Toyotas, the Toyota Corollas and so on. 5 We compared then what would happen, greenhouse- 6 gas-wise in this particular chart if you want what the car 7 companies' vernacular is, is a strong hybrid, that would be 8 an HEV 0, and you see a significant reduction in greenhouse 9 gases all across the Board for each of the vehicles. 10 If you increase the battery size to 20 miles, it 11 drops it further. If you increase the battery size to 60 12 miles, then you're talking about a significant reduction 13 from almost a factor of three in greenhouse gas emissions. 14 That's pretty dramatic. There is hardly any other 15 technology that I know of, at this moment, that will do 16 that. 17 I know that fuel economy is not to be discussed 18 with greenhouse gases; however, fuel consumption is 19 different than fuel economy, and this next slide shows the 20 fuel consumption, a dramatic reduction in fuel consumption 21 as you go up in battery size. 22 Now, fuel consumption is reduced by a factor of, 23 to 20 percent of the conventional cars if you go to a 60- 24 mile range. The reason for that is these plug-in hybrids, 25 the last two columns, the 20-mile and 60-mile range, take PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 electricity from the wall, so we're using electricity. 2 And, by the way, I heard discussion about mainland 3 China and the reduction in greenhouse gases. We can argue 4 about the environmental benefits of doing so, but China is 5 building perhaps the world's largest electric dams, and they 6 will have excess electricity for maybe 50 to 100 years into 7 the future. This kind of technology which uses electricity 8 to provide transportation power is perfect for a country 9 like that and may be adopted there, who knows, may be 10 adopted there even before we get to it. 11 Just to give you an idea, people say, well, look, 12 these CO2 emissions, you're using electricity, you're going 13 to be using, generating CO2 in the electric power plant. 14 This particular bar is for a mid-sized SUV, and it shows 15 you, the white part is the tailpipe CO2 emissions and the 16 black part is the fuel cycle. So you see, when you go to, 17 at least for the State of California, when you go to the 20- 18 mile and 60-mile range vehicles, you use more electricity 19 and, therefore, the black bar gets a little bit larger, and 20 the white bar gets considerably smaller; however, you notice 21 that the total greenhouse emissions is reduced by more than 22 a factor of two when you get out to a 60-mile range. 23 Additional benefits for plug-in hybrids, besides 24 CO2 and reduction by a factor of two or so is the vehicle 25 gasoline reduction. We are also charged, the California PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 Energy Commission and CARB has also been charged with 2 reducing petroleum dependency, and the State of California 3 plug-in hybrids is one of the things that could be used very 4 significantly to reduce that. 5 Zero emission capability in the City, all of our 6 plug-in hybrids have zero emission capability. A 50-percent 7 lower than SULEV emissions is also possible, because you're 8 using so much electricity versus gasoline. Small 9 incremental costs above the conventional vehicles, these 10 batteries do cost something more. I have a cost estimate, 11 if anybody is interested. We have a number of slides on 12 that and we can talk about that. 13 The market potential could be 40 to 50 percent of 14 the new car market share, if we keep the costs within 20-30 15 percent range. No need for infrastructure changes. That's 16 the most important thing. Here we have an alternative in 17 which we already have infrastructure. We have plugs that 18 you can plug in. At least in the State of California 19 everybody has a plug in his garage, no matter how old the 20 garage is. And that's the only infrastructure we need. 21 Contrary to electric cars, this kind of technology 22 does not require high power electricity, so any standard 23 plug will do. For the smaller cars, a 120-volt plug is 24 adequate. 25 Most important, here we could do something, this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 is my estimate, less than five years to full production, 2 adaptable to new fuels and technologies, when the 3 infrastructure evolves, and there is a lot of discussion 4 about CNG, hydrogen, et cetera, et cetera. These 5 technologies are completely adaptable. 6 So my five minutes is almost up, so let's 7 conclude. The most important thing I think CARB should do 8 is consider the plug-in hybrid as a major technology for CO2 9 reduction, analyze the interconnection between 1493 and a 10 ZEV mandate. I think there is an opportunity to combine a 11 little bit and maybe we would only have to worry about a 12 single lawsuit than two. 13 Analyze the interaction and additional benefits of 14 plug-in hybrids on both California and the continental US; 15 it would affect the rest of the country a little bit 16 differently because of the powerplant mix and so on. 17 Consider cost and profits, both to the manufacturers and 18 costs to the public and consumers. Personally, I think the 19 manufacturers would have a terrific opportunity for making 20 more money with these things because this is new technology. 21 And I'm offering UC Davis, our so-called plug-in 22 hybrid electric vehicle center, and our partners, EPRI and 23 Southern California Edison, as resources to help you guys 24 come up with some answers. 25 Questions? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. Let me 2 ask you a question. Well, on your third slide I guess, what 3 you're saying there is that if you go to the AGB 60, you're 4 actually, can actually meet the CO2 target for Europe with 5 an SUV within five years. 6 MR. FRANK: Well, that's right, within five years, 7 because -- well, I mean, there are no car companies making 8 these cars today, and yes, sure, in five years, a new car 9 fleet could do that. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yeah, and what you saying 11 here, with the mid-sized SUV, and you clearly way exceed 12 that when you talk -- I think their target is, what, 224 13 grams per mile -- 14 MR. FRANK: That's right. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: -- and so you're showing with 16 those all three vehicles are substantial -- well, one is 17 just under it with the SUV. The other two vehicles are 18 right there. 19 MR. FRANK: Yeah. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So again, that's an approach 21 that -- again, I'd like you to maybe work with staff to 22 explore this. 23 Two questions there in terms of obviously costs, 24 which I'm sure you can address. 25 MR. FRANK: Right. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And the other issue has come 2 up, what about the towing capacity with these? What do you 3 compromise with these vehicles, and particularly the SUVs 4 I'm talking about? 5 MR. FRANK: That's a very good question, and we 6 have addressed those issues. First, the cost issue, we have 7 a rather elaborate study in the EPRI program on addressing 8 the costs. 9 Also, on the issue of towing, we've just finished 10 constructing a -- well, just -- in order to get even more 11 power than the existing Ford Explorer, for example, we 12 converted the Ford Explorer from 250-horsepower Ford 13 Explorer to a 350-horsepower Ford Explorer. We can out-tow 14 anything -- 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: For how long? 16 MR. FRANK: Well, that's the key. Remember that 17 we have a speed limit in this country, and so we designed 18 our cars to be able to go 80 miles per hour and tow a 19 trailer at that speed, number one. And number two, we 20 designed all of our cars so that we can -- all the vehicles 21 can sustain the worst grade in this country, and that's from 22 Denver up to Vail, at freeway speeds, at the speed limit. 23 And just to demonstrate that, we just recently 24 drove our Chevrolet Suburban from here down to El Monte to 25 test at your facilities and back, and maintained 70 miles PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 per hour plus all the way. 2 So the 325-horsepower Ford Explorer, by the way, 3 just a real quick statement on cost, our estimate on cost, 4 based on $300 a kilowatt hour for batteries, is an 5 incremental cost of $8,000 out of $32,000, so that's -- and 6 that brings the cost of that Ford Explorer with 325- 7 horsepower up to $40,000, and the performance is better than 8 the BMW X5, which sells for $58,000. So I talked to my 9 friends at Ford, and they said, well, the difference is that 10 badge. 11 Anyway, so it can be done. That's what we're 12 demonstrating. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Does this Explorer have 14 special tires? 15 MR. FRANK: No, this Explorer uses the 16 conventional tires and the fuel economy we measured at CARB 17 is 30 miles per gallon, just about double. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That's pretty good. 19 Questions? 20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Just a comment, Professor 21 Frank. I am very encouraged by your work and I continue to 22 hope that you succeed, because I think there is a number of 23 people -- I just believe that there would be enough of a 24 market for people who might spend a little bit more -- who 25 want that SUV, who want to have the attributes of an SUV, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 but also are concerned about the environment. 2 And I just encourage you -- maybe you can design a 3 new shield that will look as good as the BMW -- 4 MR. FRANK: The BMW shield? 5 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yeah. 6 (Laughter.) 7 MR. FRANK: Right. That's all we need is -- One- 8 quarter of a BMW shield would do it. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think Mrs. Riordan would 10 also be willing to test drive this, and she knows, she has a 11 desire here. 12 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yeah. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Again, I would, as I 14 indicated, hope that you would work closely with staff, 15 because we clearly need your help, not only on this but also 16 with, as we addressed, the ZEV issue again coming back to 17 the Board as a result of a legal challenge. I think that 18 we'd really -- I am encouraged by what I hear. 19 And, as I said before, the thing that 20 differentiates you from a lot of other people here is that 21 you don't only talk, you actually go out and prove it. We 22 can go out and test the vehicles, we can see that, and 23 that's a tremendous help to us. So I hope that we can -- 24 And I also hope that maybe as a board, we might be able to 25 come out and visit you at some appropriate time in the next PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 couple of months to see what you're doing as we look at the 2 whole ZEV issue again. 3 MR. FRANK: Okay. You're all welcome to come out 4 to my lab. It's just here at UC Davis, about 15 miles from 5 here, and look me up. I have my phone number on the -- so 6 please give me a call, and I'd be happy to kick some tires 7 with you, maybe take you for a ride. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Maybe staff could organize 9 that sort of time. When interested board members are up 10 here, we could try to do that. 11 Again, thank you very much indeed. 12 MR. FRANK: Thanks. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I guess, with that, we don't 14 have anybody signed up -- Mr. Kenny, do you have any further 15 comments? 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Nothing further. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Again, since this is not a 18 regulatory item, it is not necessary to officially close the 19 record. 20 I'd like to thank staff very much for a very 21 enlightening presentation, and whetting our appetite for 22 things to come. And again, I appreciate the interest and 23 enthusiasm of the Board and my colleagues here as we advance 24 in this program. 25 With that, we'll move ahead, give a minute here PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 and we'll move ahead. While staff is changing, I'll just 2 introduce the final item on our agenda today is 02-7-4, an 3 Update on the 2002 Ozone Season. Earlier today we heard new 4 evidence about the linkage between ozone and children's 5 adverse health effects. This item is an opportunity to look 6 at how we're doing in the real world controlling ozone by 7 examining the actual ozone measurements at monitors 8 throughout the State. 9 With that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Kenny to start 10 the staff presentation, introduce the item and staff 11 presentation. 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Thank you, Dr. Lloyd, 13 and members of the Board. 14 Today staff will update the Board on the 2002 15 ozone season. We will also discuss the role that 16 meteorology played in this year's ozone air quality sense. 17 As you know, meteorology can vary significantly from year to 18 year. 19 I'm pleased to say that we have some success 20 stories to share with you. Several areas now qualify for 21 attainment of the federal one-hour ozone standard. Other 22 areas have demonstrated considerable progress in the face of 23 dramatic growth and population in vehicle miles traveled. 24 However, we are still not there and we still have quite far 25 to go. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 Most of the State still exceeds the more stringent 2 California ozone standard. And, as you heard from the 3 Research Division earlier this year, even that standard may 4 not be protective enough. In addition, ozone levels are not 5 improving as quickly as we had expected or hoped throughout 6 the greater Central Valley. There are still far too many 7 hours of exposure to unhealthful ozone levels there. 8 We are hoping to learn more about the valley's 9 atmosphere through the Central California Ozone Study that 10 has been underway for a few years now, and in the next year 11 we will have the first usable results from that study in the 12 form of a brand-new modeling exercise and attainment 13 demonstration. However, until then, the monitoring data and 14 the existing emission control programs will continue to 15 guide our efforts. 16 And, with that, I'd like to now turn the 17 presentation over to Ms. Marci Nystrom. 18 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NYSTROM: Thank you, Mr. 19 Kenny, and good morning, Chairman Lloyd and members of the 20 Board. 21 During the next few minutes I'll be telling you 22 about the 2002 ozone season and how it compares with 23 previous years. In doing so, I'll cover how weather 24 contributes to California's ozone problems. I will also 25 highlight the progress we've made over the last 20 years, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 and, as Mr. Kenny mentioned, I have several success stories 2 to share with you. 3 I'll concentrate on the national one-hour ozone 4 standard. This has been the primary focus of our planning 5 efforts for a number of years now. However, it's important 6 to remember that as areas succeed in achieving the national 7 standards, the focus shifts to California's more health- 8 protective state standards. 9 I'd like to begin by emphasizing that the progress 10 we've made over the years reflects the success of our 11 emission control programs. We've achieved this progress 12 while our population and economy have continued to grow. 13 This slide shows percentage changes for three variables from 14 1982 through 2001. The maximum one-hour ozone 15 concentration, which reflects the South Coast air basin, has 16 decreased more than 50 percent. 17 Although not shown here, we've also seen a 18 reduction in the number of exceedance days. During the same 19 time period, California's population increased 40 percent, 20 and the number of vehicle miles traveled increased nearly 90 21 percent. 22 While the majority of Californians live in federal 23 ozone non-attainment areas, there are several success 24 stories to report. Three areas have recently attained the 25 national one-hour ozone ambient air quality standard. They PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 are the Monterey, Santa Barbara, and San Diego districts. 2 Monterey was redesignated as attainment in 1997, Santa 3 Barbara and San Diego qualified for attainment this year, 4 and we're working with them on the redesignation process. 5 All of these areas are located in coastal regions. 6 Compared with inland regions, the coastal areas have a more 7 temperate climate with cooler temperatures and a pattern of 8 onshore air flow. Both of these factors favor better ozone 9 air quality. The SIP control strategy in this areas has 10 been fully implemented. Control measures and their 11 maintenance plans will ensure continued progress. The 12 Ventura district has also made considerable progress and is 13 close to attaining the one-hour standard. 14 In the rest of the presentation I'll be showing 15 you ozone trends from 1982 through 2002. I will focus on 16 the South Coast area, the San Joaquin Valley, the San 17 Francisco Bay Area, and the Sacramento region. 18 As you know, ozone is a regional pollutant and 19 often impacts a widespread area. We generally see the 20 highest ozone on hot days with little wind and poor mixing. 21 Because weather changes from one year to the next, it can be 22 a significant factor in the year-to-year variation in ozone. 23 2002 provides a good example of the different effects of 24 weather in various areas. 25 I'd like to start with the South Coast air basin. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 Although this area still has a substantial air quality 2 problem, it can also be hailed as a success story in terms 3 of progress. This graph shows the decline in the maximum 4 one-hour ozone concentration since 1982. The values show an 5 overall drop close to 60 percent. The steady long-term 6 decline can be attributed to emission reductions. In 7 contrast, the year-to-year variability is caused in part by 8 changes in weather. 9 On this next slide we've added a line showing the 10 three-year mean of the maximum values. The three-year mean 11 tends to smooth out some of the year-to-year variations 12 caused by weather, and gives us a better sense of the 13 overall trend. 14 Finally, we add bars representing the number of 15 days with ozone concentrations above the level of the one- 16 hour national standard. Similar to the maximum values, the 17 bars show a substantial decline, with some year-to-year 18 variation; however, you'll notice that there is an increase 19 in exceedance days for 2002. 20 As you saw in the graph, 2002 had more one-hour 21 exceedance days than 2001. However, the actual level of the 22 ozone concentrations were about the same. Weather seems to 23 have had a similar impact on exceedances at the national 24 eight-hour standard. During 2001, there were 92 eight-hour 25 exceedance days, compared with 97 days through mid-September PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 of this year. As with the one-hour values, the level of the 2 maximum eight-hour concentrations was similar during both 3 years. 4 The season over which we see eight-hour 5 exceedances is longer than for one-hour exceedances; 6 therefore, it's likely we'll see more eight-hour exceedances 7 in the next several months. An analysis by the district 8 shows that weather conditions during 2002 were more 9 conducive to ozone formation. Compared with previous years, 10 the area had stronger and more persistent inversions, which 11 offers the potential for more exceedances. 12 The long tradition of emission control programs in 13 the South Coast has had a continuing impact on their ozone 14 air quality. This is supported by the long-term trends 15 which show fewer exceedance days and a reduction in the 16 maximum concentrations. Without this history of continued 17 reductions and emissions, the 2002 ozone season would likely 18 have been worse. 19 The next area I'd like to talk about is the San 20 Joaquin Valley. Unlike many other areas of the State, ozone 21 in the San Joaquin Valley is not dominated by emissions from 22 one large urban area; instead, it comprises a number of 23 moderately sized areas located along the main north-south 24 axis of the valley. 25 This graph shows the same three variables we saw PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 in the last South Coast graph, but for the San Joaquin 2 Valley. One important difference to note is that the scales 3 on this and the following graphs are different than the ones 4 you saw for the South Coast. These graphs are scaled so 5 that you can more easily see the variations in the trends 6 for each area. 7 In the San Joaquin Valley we see a fair amount of 8 variability in the number of exceedance days. Part of this 9 variability is caused by weather. It's easy to pick out 10 which years were bad in terms of weather and which years 11 were good. 1988 shows the highest number of exceedance 12 days, and some of you may remember that 1988 was a very hot 13 year and the weather was very conducive to ozone formation. 14 Contrast this with 1997, which was an El Ni¤o year, with 15 very favorable weather conditions. 16 While there is a lot of variability, the number of 17 exceedance days does show an overall downward trend since 18 the highs of the late 1980s. On average, the drop in 19 exceedance days since the early 1990s is close to 40 20 percent. In contrast, the trend in the one-hour maximum 21 concentrations is relatively flat. There has been little 22 change in these maximum values over these last four years. 23 The 2002 ozone season in the San Joaquin Valley 24 was similar to previous years. During the last four years 25 in particular, we've seen little change in either the number PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 of exceedance days or the maximum one-hour concentrations. 2 We're continuing to work towards understanding why this area 3 has made less progress than other areas, despite emission 4 control efforts. 5 Analyses show that the San Joaquin Valley 6 continues to experience multi-day episodes with elevated 7 ozone. These episodes sometimes last five or six days. 8 Finally, in terms of weather, 2002 was not dramatically 9 different from last year. 10 Although the San Joaquin Valley has not shown as 11 much progress as other areas of the State, we have been 12 successful in reducing population exposure to ozone over the 13 last two decades. By reducing population exposure, we mean 14 that we've reduced both the level and the number of hours of 15 concentrations above the standard. However, reducing the 16 actual peaks still presents a substantial challenge. 17 I'd like to move on now to the San Francisco Bay 18 Area, which gives us a good example of the impact of weather 19 when an area is close to the standard. The Bay Area 20 encompasses both coastal and inland areas, but it's these 21 inland areas that show the highest ozone and the most 22 variation. The Bay Area still experiences a few maximum 23 one-hour concentrations that are well above the level of the 24 national standard. However, the number of exceedance days 25 is low, and, in fact, during the 1997 El Ni¤o year, there PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 were no exceedances. 2 During the early 1990s, the Bay Area had several 3 years of favorable weather, and ozone data showed attainment 4 of the national one-hour standard. In the mid-1990s, 5 however, when more typical weather patterns returned, enough 6 exceedances occurred to return the area to non-attainment. 7 During 2002, neither the number of exceedance days nor the 8 maximum concentration differed substantially from the 9 previous year. 10 The Bay Area continues to experience occasional 11 exceedances of the national standard. Generally, these 12 exceedances occur in the Livermore area. When an area gets 13 close to the standard, weather becomes a more important 14 factor. Even a subtle change in weather can cause an 15 upswing in ozone; therefore, continued emission reductions 16 are important to ensure attainment under all conditions. 17 The San Francisco Bay Area has been bouncing in 18 and out of attainment for more than a decade now. As of 19 today, it qualifies for attainment as long as there are no 20 more national one-hour exceedances at Livermore this year. 21 In terms of the national eight-hour ozone standard the Bay 22 Area is very close. Its status will depend on which three- 23 year period the US EPA uses to designate new eight-hour non- 24 attainment areas. However, the area does continue to exceed 25 the more health-protective state ozone standard. This will PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 likely become the next focus for the Bay Area's air quality 2 planning efforts. 3 And finally, we come to our last area, the 4 Sacramento region. The entire Sacramento Valley encompasses 5 a fairly large area, but for this presentation I'll focus on 6 the federal ozone non-attainment area which is highlighted 7 here. The non-attainment area includes all of Yolo and 8 Sacramento counties and parts of Solano, Sutter, Placer, and 9 El Dorado counties. 10 Because of its inland location, the Sacramento 11 region can experience some fairly extreme weather 12 conditions. Similar to the San Joaquin Valley, these 13 extremes are seen in the bars for 1988 and 1997. Looking at 14 the number of exceedance days, which is the bars, 1988 15 represents a really bad weather year and 1997 a really good 16 weather year. You can also see that 2002 was a bad weather 17 year in the Sacramento region. 18 So far in 2002, we've seen higher one-hour maximum 19 concentrations and more than three times as many exceedance 20 days than we saw during 2001. Our analyses show that 21 temperature is a critical factor in ozone formation in this 22 area. It turns out that 2002 ranks among the five hottest 23 years in Sacramento's history. This is based on the average 24 of the daily minimum and maximum temperatures. In addition, 25 2002 has had twice as many hot days with calm conditions, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 when compared to the average for the previous six years. 2 These hot calm days are more conducive to ozone formation. 3 We had a good example of weather's impact on ozone 4 during an episode during August of this year. The episode 5 lasted six days and all but the last day had maximum 6 temperatures of at least 100 degrees. This slide shows a 7 progression of the one-hour ozone concentrations over a 8 multi-hour period on August 14th, 2002. This was during the 9 episode that I just mentioned. In the Sacramento region, 10 this day had the highest ozone we've seen since 1999. 11 As you watch the animation, you'll notice that it 12 will repeat the sequence of hours. As shown in the legend, 13 the colors go from green for good air quality to purple for 14 very healthy air quality. As time progresses, you can see 15 how the ozone builds up over the region. On this day, which 16 happens to be the fourth day of the episode, the buildup 17 started in the Grass Valley-Auburn area and then moved out 18 over the foothills. 19 The maximums occurred during the late afternoon 20 hours, and by then the entire region was impacted, 21 illustrating the widespread nature of ozone. In the 22 Sacramento region, the highest concentrations generally 23 occur downwind of the metropolitan area after emissions from 24 the metropolitan area have had time to react and produce 25 ozone. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 In conclusion, I'd like to reiterate that weather 2 does have an impact on ozone. Generally, year-to-year 3 changes in weather cause year-to-year variations in the 4 ozone statistics. We see these variations in both the one- 5 hour values and the eight-hour values. 6 During 2002, the impact of weather was most 7 apparent in the Sacramento and South Coast areas. While the 8 impacts of weather were not as pronounced in other areas 9 this year, they may be in future years. Because ozone 10 formation is temperature-sensitive, a continuous trend of 11 hotter weather is a concern and is one reason why efforts to 12 reduce global warming are important. 13 Finally, although weather can cause substantial 14 year-to-year variations, the long-term trends do show 15 substantial progress in improving ozone air quality, and 16 these improvements can be attributed to the emission 17 reductions we've achieved in California. 18 This concludes my part of the presentation, and 19 now I'll turn it back over to Mr. Kenny. 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I have nothing more to 21 add. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So in this area, it looks as 23 though Auburn is subject to some of the highest ozone 24 concentrations. 25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NYSTROM: That was true PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 for this day, yes. Actually, the highest value I think was 2 in Cool. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Oh, Cool. 4 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NYSTROM: Which is a 5 little bit further east. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: All right, thank you. Maybe 7 we should send a copy of that down to Mr. Dunlap, just to 8 let him know that he's picked a good spot. 9 (Laughter.) 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo. 11 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: On that chart that shows 12 the Sacramento region, do you have similar information South 13 Valley, San Joaquin Valley and down to the south? What are 14 the trouble spots going from -- is it similar from the 15 center part of the Valley -- 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NYSTROM: Are you talking 17 east? 18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: -- for the animation 19 itself? 20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NYSTROM: The animation 21 was taken from the STI's web site and they do the Spare the 22 Air days for the Sacramento region. I don't know if San 23 Joaquin has a similar type web site or not. 24 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: But in the 25 Valley, areas like Clovis or Parlier that are downwind from PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 Fresno or anything that's downwind from Bakersfield tend to 2 be the high sites. It's the same phenomenon as in 3 Sacramento where being 15, 20, 30 miles downwind of the 4 urban area is the worst place to be for ozone. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Maybe one of the areas where 6 we can help out, Supervisor Patrick and you there, 7 Ms. D'Adamo, one of the messages here, if you have increased 8 the coastline and ventilation is doing better, so maybe sea 9 rise and what-not would not be a bad thing. Exactly, may 10 not be a bad thing. 11 Supervisor DeSaulnier. 12 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Actually, in the spirit of 13 partnership, perhaps Livermore can get lower to sea level 14 and you can have Livermore. 15 (Laughter.) 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Seeing no further comments 17 from the Board, we don't need to officially close the record 18 on this. I thank staff on that. Again, which reminds us, I 19 guess, we've got to be continually vigilant, weather does 20 play a big role in this. 21 We do have an item here. The next item on the 22 agenda is the open comment period. During this period, 23 although no formal board action may be taken, we will 24 provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly 25 address the Board on items of interest that do not appear on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 today's agenda. 2 We are asking that each witness limit his or her 3 testimony to topics that are within the subject matter 4 jurisdiction of the Board. And again, to ensure that 5 everybody has a chance to speak, we are asking that each 6 witness limit his or her testimony to no more than five 7 minutes. 8 So we have Ray Oliva from El Dorado Garden Valley 9 and we have Kurt Rasmussen of Yah-Whooo Technologies. So we 10 have Mr. Ray Oliva. 11 MR. OLIVA: I only have a couple of things to say. 12 I'm taking out some papers just so that I -- at my age, I 13 don't want to lose track of anything. It's too easy to lose 14 it. 15 First of all, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, 16 and fellow board members. My name is Ray Oliva and I have 17 given the clerk a letter from Jenny Bard, along with 18 supporting research documentation. She was unable to attend 19 this meeting, and so I drove up from the coast to be here 20 today to deliver her letter and to amplify on a couple of 21 comments that she has made in this letter. 22 From El Dorado County, which we have worked very 23 hard on over a number of years, I first wanted to recognize 24 Mr. Kenny, whom we have in the county a great deal of 25 respect and admiration for. He's been through a lot with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 us, and it's been a very difficult process. 2 I would like to point out two things in the 3 documentation that was provided to you that still continues 4 to plague us. One is Prop 65 notices and air quality in El 5 Dorado County. We still are exposed to roads where recent 6 tests have been done where the exposures from the asbestos 7 from these roads is way above standard, way above it. 8 CARB's own testing results out of Golden Sierra 9 High School, as an example, demonstrated that there was 10 tremolite asbestos there, and the children walk by this site 11 every day, this path. They could just reach out and grab it 12 and take it off. 13 As a matter of fact there was a very large where 14 we had federal EPA, DTSC, OHEA, CARB, and some other health 15 organizations that took a tour of El Dorado County with 16 particular emphasis on the mine sites and also out at Woody 17 Drive where they found construction going on where there was 18 tremolite. And also, at parts of Sierra High School where 19 they found that there was tremolite. 20 The problem that we have is twofold: Nobody is 21 advertising anything about those areas to the public. The 22 school system itself has not done anything to cover this 23 site and, as we all know, El Dorado County is rather 24 reluctant when it comes to issues dealing with major health 25 issues. I say that reluctantly, but the facts speak for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 themselves, and I'm sure that this board and CARB has had 2 experience in that effort. 3 We're looking for some notifications there. As 4 another example, if I go in to buy a manufactured home, in 5 the body of the manufactured home right there in the kitchen 6 there is a large notice posted, which is a Prop 65 notice, 7 which states that benzene may be present so you have to be 8 careful. It warns the public. 9 There is not one new construction site that I go 10 to where the houses are sitting on top of this material that 11 has that notice, and when you ask the realtors, which we 12 have done -- anonymously, because when they hear certain 13 names they tighten up very quickly -- they downplay that. 14 They hand it to the buyer and say, oh, don't worry about 15 this, there was just some crazy lady out in Garden Valley 16 Aggregates who started this whole thing and there is nothing 17 to worry about, when the facts speak otherwise. 18 We have also found out from the studies in Libby 19 that what has happened is that when you build a home, when 20 you put just little old top soil where you've done a 21 construction site where there were asbestos-bearing 22 materials under it and you put personal monitors on the 23 people and they go out and do their gardening -- mow the 24 lawns, dig up, plant flowers, et cetera -- their readings 25 start to increase dramatically. And it poses a real threat. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 And the people are not being informed properly, 2 and it's concerning all of us, particularly for me now 3 because my daughter is pregnant, and we can't even sell the 4 house. 5 We sometimes just don't know what to do. We're 6 not attorneys, we're not in the legal system or in the 7 political system, we're just citizens who have tried to stay 8 within the environment, asking for help. And that's one of 9 the things that we're asking you for. 10 The last thing that I'm hoping that will occur is 11 that up on the web site, CARB states that it's 70 years, 12 you'd have to breathe it 70 years, 24 hours a day for it to 13 have any effects. The exact quote I can give to you. The 14 problem with that statement is the other agencies use that 15 and we have been confronted with making presentations to 16 other agencies, and they have said why worry about it, it 17 takes 70 years before the asbestos starts to show its 18 effect. 19 We all know that's not true. But yet, that's 20 what's being stated. And we're asking for a clarification 21 of that so the people realize that asbestos diseases can 22 occur very rapidly. As an example, we had two Cal OSHA 23 workers out there in Garden Valley who were working on the 24 Superfund site created by one of the mine sites out there, 25 and they were trying to cover the road. And they ended up PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 with so much asbestos in their system that they were pulled 2 off of the job, sent to medical treatment, and are being 3 medically monitored today. 4 And that was after one or two days of inhaling the 5 incredible amount of fibers that were coming off of this 6 Johntown Creek Road. And then the feds came out with their 7 hazmat suits and covered it all, 6.5 miles of it. 8 We have areas where the material is just bare, and 9 agencies know about this but nobody is helping us to cover 10 it, to warn the people. There's no signs anywhere, there's 11 nothing. And so that's what we're asking for. I think I -- 12 I don't want to sound redundant, I think I've pretty much 13 covered everything. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 15 MR. OLIVA: If anybody has any questions, I'd be 16 more than happy to answer them. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, I appreciate you taking 18 the time. What I'd like to suggest is that maybe you work 19 with staff to look into the issues here, the issues that 20 you've raised and Ms. Bard has raised in her letter. Maybe 21 if staff could work with you there to look at that part of 22 it and maybe report back to us. 23 MR. OLIVA: I really enjoy working with some of 24 the staff. They are really -- They try and they're 25 hardworking, so we truly appreciate that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, thank you. 2 MR. OLIVA: Thank you very much, Dr. Lloyd. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed. 4 Thank you. 5 We did have another witness signed up. I don't 6 see Mr. Rasmussen here, so with that I guess we will 7 conclude the open period session, and we will now go into 8 closed session. We will adjourn for closed session and 9 reconvene in a closed session of the Board as indicated in 10 the public notice for today's meeting. 11 The purpose of this closed session is to confer 12 with or receive advice from legal counsel regarding two 13 pending lawsuits which General Motors and Daimler Chrysler 14 are primary plaintiffs, one Central Valley Chrysler Plymouth 15 et al. vs. Michael Kenny, US District Court for the Eastern 16 District of California, Fresno Case No. CIV-F-02-05017 Rec. 17 SMS, 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals No. 02-16395, and 18 Liberty Motors et al. vs. California Air Resources Board and 19 Michael Kenny, Fresno County Superior Court No. 02-CG-00039. 20 After the conclusion of the closed session we will 21 reconvene in open session. Again, thank you for your 22 patience, and I guess I can only direct that to Sandy since 23 you're the only member of the public here. 24 (Laughter.) 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So we'll go into closed PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 session. 2 (Thereupon, the Board adjourned into closed 3 session.) 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We will now reassemble, just 5 to report that we had the discussion as discussed before in 6 private session. We covered the issues with respect to the 7 lawsuit. The Board unanimously agreed that Mr. Kenny should 8 be the representative. 9 Having discussed the lawsuit, no action was taken 10 and we will officially bring the meeting to a close since 11 there is no other business this month, and the meeting will 12 now adjourn. 13 Thank you. 14 (Thereupon, the meeting adjourned at 1:24 p.m.) 15 --oOo-- 16 *********************** 17 *********************** 18 *********************** 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER I, JAMES F. PETERS, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of California, and Registered Professional Reporter, do hereby certify: That I am a disinterested person herein; that the foregoing California Air Resources Board meeting was recorded under my supervision, transcribed into typewriting, and thereafter personally proofread by me, James F. Peters, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of California. I further certify that I am not of counsel or attorney for any of the parties to said meeting nor in any way interested in the outcome of said meeting. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 11th day of October, 2002. JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR, Certified Shorthand Reporter License No. 10063 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345