MEETING BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD BOARD HEARING ROOM 2020 L STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1996 8:35 A.M. Nadine J. Park Shorthand Reporter PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii MEMBERS PRESENT John D. Dunlap, III, Chairman Joseph C. Calhoun Lynne T. Edgerton M. Patricia Hilligoss Jack C. Parnell Barbara Riordan Ron Roberts James W. Silva Doug Vagim Staff: Michael Kenny, Executive Officer Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mike Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Kathleen Walsh, General Counsel Jim Schoning, Ombudsman Bob Cross, Chief, Mobile Source Operations Division Steve Albu, Chief, Engineering Studies Branch, MSD Catherine Lentz, Staff, Technology Advancement Section, MSD Jason Wong, Staff, Alternate Fuels Section, MD Tom Jennings, Staff Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs Terry McGuire, Chief, Technical Support Division Rich Bradley,Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, TSD Don McNerny, Chief, Modeling & Meteorology Branch, TSD Debbie Popejoy, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Section, TSD John DaMassa, Mgr., Control Strategy Modeling Section, TSD Cynthia Garcia, Staff, TSD Dennis King, Staff, TSD Judy Tracy, Staff Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs Leslie Krinsk, Staff Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs Bill Loscutoff, Chief, Monitoring & Laboratory Division Michael Poore, Chief Chemist, MLD George Lew, Chief, Engineering & Laboratory Branch, MLD Michael Spears, Mgr., Evaluation Section, MLD Terry Houston, Ph.D., Staff, MLD Bob Jenne, Staff Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii MEMBERS PRESENT, continued. . . Peter Venturini, Chief, Stationary Source Division Don Ames, Assistant Chief, SSD Genevieve Shiroma, Chief, Air Quality Measures Branch, SSD Janette Brooks, Mgr., Implementation Section, SSD Julie Billington, Staff, Technical Evaluation Section, SSD Patricia Hutchens, Clerk of the Board Wendy Grandchamp, Secretary Bill Valdez, Administrative Services --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv I N D E X PAGE Proceedings 1 Call to Order 1 Pledge of Allegiance Led by Supervisor Riordan 1 Roll Call 1, 2 Opening Remarks by Chairman Dunlap 2 AGENDA ITEMS: 96-9-1 Public Meeting to Consider Status of Implementation of Low-Emission Vehicle Program Introductory Remarks by Chairman Dunlap 2 Staff Presentation: Mike Kenny Executive Officer 3 Jason Wong Staff 5 MSD Questions/Comments 19 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Steven Douglas AAMA 37 Questions/Comments 41 Bruce Bertelsen MECA 41 Questions/Comments 44 Janet Hathaway NRDC 45 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 v INDEX, continued. . . PAGE AGENDA ITEMS: 96-9-1 Questions/Comments 47 Written Comments Entered into Record by Mr. Albu 54 Presentation of Governor's Letter and Board Resolution 96-59 to Honor Dr. Eugene Boston upon his retirement from the Board 57 Statement by Chairman Dunlap 62 Statement by Dr. Boston 63 96-9-2 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to Area Designations for the State Ambient Air Quality Standards Introductory Remarks by Chairman Dunlap 68 Staff Presentation: Mike Kenny Executive Officer 68 Cynthia Garcia Staff Technical Support Division 70 Entry of Written Comments into Record by Ms. Popejoy 79 Questions/Comments 82 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Lakhmir Grewal Assistant APCO Calaveras County APCD 84 Questions/Comments 86 Jim Schoning Ombudsman 92 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 vi INDEX, continued. . . PAGE AGENDA ITEMS: 96-9-2 Questions/Comments 93 Record Officially Closed by Chairman Dunlap 94 Motion by Silva to Adopt Resolution 96-55 94 Board Action 95 96-9-3 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to Assessment of Impacts of Transported Pollutants on Ozone Concentrations in California Introductory Remarks by Chairman Dunlap 95 Staff Presentation: Mike Kenny Executive Officer 95 Dennis King Staff Technical Support Division 96 Questions/Comments 114 Jim Schoning Ombudsman 118 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Eldon Heaston Mojave Desert AQMD 120 Questions/Comments 121 Gene Kulesza Riverside Cement Company 122 Questions/Comments 125 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 vii INDEX, continued. . . PAGE AGENDA ITEMS: 96-9-3 Written Comments Entered into Record by Mr. DaMassa 126 Questions/Comments 127 Record Officially Closed by Chairman Dunlap 128 Ex Parte Communications Disclosure 128 Motion by Riordan to Adopt Resolution 96-56 129 Board Action 129, 130 96-9-4 Adoption of Amendments to Test Method Sections of California Regulations for Reducing VOC Emissions from Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, and Aerosol Coating Products Introductory Remarks by Chairman Dunlap 130 Staff Presentation: Mike Kenny Executive Officer 131 Dr. Terry Houston MLD 133 Robert Jenne Staff Counsel 143 Dr. Terry Houston MLD 144 Jim Schoning Ombudsman 144 Questions/Comments 146 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 viii INDEX, continued. . . PAGE AGENDA ITEMS: 96-9-4 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Laurie Nelson CSMA 149 Robin Gentz Clorox 151 Michele Stephens The Dial Corporation 152 Record Officially Closed by Chairman Dunlap to Await Notice of 15-day comment period 154 Motion by Parnell to Adopt Resolution 96-57 155 Board Action 155 96-9-5 Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Amendments to California Regulations for Reducing Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products and Aerosol Coating Products Introductory Remarks by Chairman Dunlap 156 Staff Presentation: Mike Kenny Executive Officer 158 Julie Billington SSD 160 Luncheon Recess 171 Afternoon Session 172 Jim Schoning Ombudsman 172 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ix INDEX, continued. . . PAGE AGENDA ITEMS: 96-9-5 Entry of Written Comments into Record by Ms. Shiroma 174 Questions/Comments 177 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Laurie Nelson CSMA 185 Chip Brewer SC Johnson Wax 187 Stephen Risotto Halogenated Solvents Industry Assn. 189 Bob Graham Sherwin-Williams Diversified Brands 190 Dennis Stein 3M 191 Questions/Comments 192 Motion by Roberts to Adopt Resolution 96-58, as amended 197 Record Officially Closed by Chairman Dunlap, awaiting notice of 15-day comment period 197 Board Action 199 Adjournment 199 Certificate of Reporter 200 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 --o0o-- 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: This, the November meeting of 4 the California Air Resources Board will now come to order. 5 Would the audience please rise as Supervisor 6 Riordan leads us in the Pledge of Allegiance? 7 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Would you join me with a 8 pledge to our flag? 9 (Thereupon, all present recited the 10 Pledge of Allegiance.) 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Will the Board Clerk 12 please call the roll. 13 MS. HUTCHENS: Calhoun? 14 MR. CALHOUN: Here. 15 MS. HUTCHENS: Edgerton? 16 MS. EDGERTON: Here. 17 MS. HUTCHENS: Hilligoss? 18 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Here. 19 MS. HUTCHENS: Parnell? 20 MR. PARNELL: Here. 21 MS. HUTCHENS: Riordan? 22 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Here. 23 MS. HUTCHENS: Roberts? 24 Silva? 25 SUPERVISOR SILVA: Here. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 MS. HUTCHENS: Vagim? 2 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Here. 3 MS. HUTCHENS: Chairman Dunlap. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Here. Thank you. 5 I would like to remind those in the audience who 6 would like to present testimony to the Board on any of 7 today's agenda items to please sign up with the Board Clerk. 8 If you have a written statement, please give 20 copies to 9 her. 10 The first item on the agenda is 96-9-1, a public 11 meeting to consider the status of implementation of the 12 low-emission vehicle program. 13 This item is a technology and implementation 14 review of the low-emission vehicle effort. The LEV program 15 is significant, since it is a primary element of 16 California's long-term plan for reducing air pollution from 17 light- and medium-duty vehicles. 18 As you may know, the Board approved the 19 low-emission vehicle and clean fuels regulation in September 20 of 1990, over six years ago. At that time, the Board 21 recognized the significant challenge that the new long-term 22 requirements would pose to the automobile industry. 23 Accordingly, the Board committed to reviewing the 24 progress and implementing these regulations every two years. 25 In September of last year, staff presented amendments PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 relative to the adoption of reactivity adjustment factors 2 and modifications to the medium-duty vehicle requirements. 3 Today, we will hear a report regarding the technological 4 progress and commercial readiness of the low-emission 5 vehicle program. 6 The last progress report was presented to the 7 Board in May of 1994, and the Board concluded that the 8 technology was developing on track. 9 In addition, we will hear an update on recent 10 progress of vehicle manufacturers in introducing advanced 11 zero-emission vehicles for public evaluation. This update 12 will address developments subsequent to the memoranda of 13 agreement with the seven automakers and the ARB that were 14 signed earlier this year to ensure that progress on ZEV 15 technology development continues. 16 The purpose of today's meeting is to reconsider 17 the regulations adopted by the Board in 1990 -- excuse me -- 18 "not" to reconsider, but to evaluate the progress that has 19 been since that last update in May of '94. 20 At this point, I'd like to ask Mr. Kenny to 21 introduce the item and begin the staff's presentation. 22 Mike? 23 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of 24 the Board. Good morning. 25 Before we begin the staff presentation, I'd like PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 to briefly discuss the driving force for our being here 2 today, and that's improving the California air quality. 3 Principally, our effort is to attain the State and 4 Federal ambient air quality standards. The 1990 amendments 5 to the Clean Air Act required California to develop a 6 comprehensive plan to bring poor air quality areas into 7 compliance with Federal air quality standards within a 8 specified time, depending on the severity of the problem. 9 This plan is called the State Implementation Plan, 10 and California is now the only State to have its 11 comprehensive plan for ozone approved by the United States 12 EPA. 13 Since mobile sources account for more than 60 14 percent of ozone precursor emissions in the State, reducing 15 emissions from these sources is essential to meeting State 16 and Federal ambient air quality standards. A vital element 17 of California's plan to reduce mobile source emissions and 18 achieve its air quality goals is the low-emission vehicle 19 program. 20 I believe it's fair to say that the program has 21 set the pace for the development of new technologies to 22 achieve very low and even zero emissions from motor 23 vehicles. Furthermore, the technologies developed to meet 24 the goals of this program will benefit not only California 25 but ultimately other areas of the country, and even the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 world, in achieving good air quality. 2 Having said that, I think we should also recognize 3 that the vehicle manufacturers and their suppliers have done 4 an outstanding job over the years in responding to new 5 emissions regulations. The technologies they have developed 6 have not only led to dramatically lower vehicle emissions, 7 but also to improved vehicle performance, drivability, and 8 fuel economy. 9 However, even with these impressive advances, 10 further improvements are still needed if California is to 11 meet its long-term air quality goals. Atmospheric models 12 show that for California to meet ambient air quality 13 standards, and thus provide its citizens with healthful air, 14 emissions from mobile sources must be reduced dramatically 15 to as low a level as the best technology allows. 16 The low-emission vehicle program is one of 17 California's key strategies for achieving that goal. Today, 18 staff will present their latest assessment of the 19 availability and cost of technology needed to meet the 20 requirements for low-emission vehicles. 21 With that, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, I'd 22 like to introduce the staff that will give you a detailed 23 presentation, and that's Mr. Jason Wong. 24 Mr. Wong? 25 MR. WONG: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 Good morning, Chairman Dunlap and members of the 2 Board. Today, I am going to present the third biennial 3 technology review of the California low-emission vehicle 4 program. 5 To begin this morning, I will first present the 6 conventional low-emission vehicle update. Later, I will 7 provide an update of zero-emission vehicle, or ZEV, 8 development. 9 The conventional vehicle portion of today's 10 presentation is divided into four segments. First, I will 11 provide some background on the low-emission vehicle program, 12 followed by a review of the program's key features; then, I 13 will provide an update on the progress of technology; and, 14 finally, will cover our most recent cost estimates -- recent 15 estimates of the cost of compliance for conventional low- 16 emission vehicles. 17 I will now briefly discuss the background of the 18 low-emission vehicle program. When the low-emission vehicle 19 regulations were adopted in 1990, the Board directed staff 20 to conduct biennial reviews of progress being made in 21 implementing the regulations. 22 Since 1990, the staff has presented three 23 implementation updates of the program. It should be noted 24 that the low-emission vehicle program is an integral element 25 of the State Implementation Plan, or SIP, which is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 California's overall strategy for achieving national air 2 quality standards. 3 Although the low-emission vehicle program will 4 provide large reductions of reactive organic gases and 5 oxides of nitrogen emissions, even more emission reductions 6 will be needed from mobile sources to achieve ambient air 7 quality standards in the required time frames. 8 As a result, the mobile source strategy of the SIP 9 builds on the low-emission vehicle program by eventually 10 requiring even more reductions from light- and medium-duty 11 vehicles through expanded use of low-emission technology. 12 The first regulatory action relating to these 13 further reductions in the mobile source element of the SIP 14 was the adoption of Measure M3 in September, 1995. Measure 15 M3 will achieve significant emission reductions from 16 medium-duty vehicles through the introduction of ULEVs 17 earlier than previously required. 18 Measure M2, which has not yet been adopted, 19 requires further emission reductions from mobile sources 20 beyond 2003, the current end point of the adopted low- 21 emission vehicle program. 22 Now, I would like to briefly describe some of the 23 key features of the low-emission vehicle program. The 24 cornerstone of the low-emission vehicle program is the 25 creation of four new categories of vehicle emission PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 standards. 2 In increasing stringency, they are: transitional 3 low-emission vehicles, or TLEVs, followed by low-emission 4 vehicles, or LEVs; ultra-low emission vehicles, or ULEVs; 5 and, finally, zero-emission vehicles, or ZEVs. 6 Tier I standards are the existing Federal 7 standards and are shown here for comparison (indicating 8 chart on slide). 9 In order to provide manufacturers with the 10 flexibility in complying with emission standards, the low- 11 emission vehicle program incorporates a market-based 12 approach to implementation through the use of fleet average 13 emission requirements. 14 Manufacturers must meet a declining fleet average 15 emission requirement each year based on nonmethane organic 16 gas, or NMOG emissions. Manufacturers are allowed to mix 17 vehicle types from the various emission categories to 18 produce compliance on a sales weighted basis. 19 One possible complying mix of low-emission 20 vehicles is shown here. 21 Additional flexibility is provided through the 22 establishment of a marketable credit system. Manufacturers 23 that produce more low-emission vehicles than needed to meet 24 the fleet average requirements will earn credits. These 25 credits may be banked internally for future use, traded, or PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 sold to other manufacturers. 2 Manufacturers that fail to meet the fleet average 3 requirements can use their existing credits from previous 4 years or they can purchase credits from other manufacturers 5 to make up the deficit. 6 Manufacturers are allowed one year to make up any 7 deficits that may occur. This table shows how the low- 8 emission vehicle program has affected the mix of new 9 vehicles in California. As expected, the projected number 10 of low-emission vehicles available increased from 1996 to 11 1997, while the projected number of less-controlled Tier I 12 vehicles has declined. 13 Manufacturers are already producing many low- 14 emission vehicles. In the 1997 model year, nine gasoline 15 engine families available in 12 different vehicle models 16 have been certified to LEV emission category standards. 17 Many of these vehicle models are high-volume 18 models. As a result, over 180,000 LEVs will be available 19 for sale in California for the 1997 model year. In 20 addition, one natural gas engine family has certified to 21 ULEV standards for 1997. 22 Now, I would like to present staff's assessment of 23 the technologies that are projected to be used on low- 24 emission vehicles. 25 There are various ways to reduce emission levels PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 of current vehicles; however, vehicle manufacturers have 2 focused on improving four basic aspects of current emission 3 control systems to lower emission levels. These are: more 4 precise fuel control, better fuel atomization and delivery, 5 improved catalytic converter performance, and reduced base 6 engine-out emission levels. 7 As presented earlier, 35 percent of California's 8 1997 model year vehicle fleet will be TLEVs. ARB currently 9 projects that TLEVs will use essentially the same 10 technologies as forecasted in staff's 1994 analysis and 11 fewer technologies than was estimated in 1990. 12 This chart contrasts the staff's previous 13 technology projections for LEV category vehicles with our 14 current assessment. Similar to the TLEVs, many LEVs will 15 not require some of the technology that we had earlier 16 estimated; however, there are also instances in which 17 technology not anticipated in previous estimates will be 18 used. This is because of significant improvements to the 19 performance of three-way catalysts and reductions in 20 engine-out emissions. 21 Only two percent of LEVs are now projected to 22 utilize electrically heated catalysts. This is a 23 substantial change from our 1990 estimates, which projected 24 that all LEVs would need electrically heated catalysts. 25 Many manufacturers are accelerating catalyst PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 warmup by significantly retarding emission timing in 2 combination with a higher idle speed for a short period 3 during cold starting. This technique provides much of the 4 rapid catalyst heating that can also be achieved by 5 electrically heated catalysts but at little, if any, added 6 cost. 7 Staff expects ULEVs to use the same technologies 8 as LEVs, but with increased usage of advanced catalysts and 9 improved fuel control. Usage of electrically heated 10 catalysts, however, is expected to be significantly lower 11 than our original estimate. 12 Currently, there are no gasoline engines certified 13 to ULEV standards; however, Honda has produced a prototype 14 ULEV vehicle that has been shown to perform below ULEV 15 emission standards in tests completed at the ARB test 16 facility. 17 Honda intends to market this vehicle as a ULEV in 18 1998. Honda has achieved this low-emission level by 19 incorporating an innovative fuel control strategy and 20 advanced catalyst technology. Honda is striving to 21 introduce this vehicle at no additional cost to the consumer 22 by 1998. 23 In addition to its gasoline powered ULEV, Honda 24 plans to introduce a natural gas powered Civic in the 1998 25 model year. This vehicle has been shown to have emissions PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 less than one-tenth of the ULEV standards. This would make 2 the Honda natural gas Civic the cleanest vehicle ever made 3 with an internal combustion engine. The Honda is targeted 4 for fleet customers and will be priced about $4500 more than 5 a comparable gasoline vehicle -- comparable gasoline Civic. 6 With larger sales volumes, the incremental cost would be 7 lower. 8 Next, I would like to present staff's analysis of 9 the cost of compliance of conventional low-emission 10 vehicles. 11 ARB staff has updated the comprehensive cost 12 analysis of conventional low-emission vehicles that was 13 presented in the 1994 biennial update. At the 1994 hearing, 14 low-emission vehicles were found to be cost-effective. The 15 current cost estimates are still reasonable and are similar 16 to those from 1994. 17 It should be noted that the Arb cost estimates 18 apply to the most efficient, low-cost manufacturers. Cost 19 to less efficient manufacturers will be higher. 20 Our analysis shows that compared to Tier I 21 vehicles, TLEVs will cost an additional $72 to the consumer; 22 LEVs, an additional $120; and ULEVs, an additional $144. 23 For the purpose of calculating the cost- 24 effectiveness of the low-emission vehicle program, staff 25 used ARB's EMFAC 7F emission model to estimate emission PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 benefits. 2 The cost-effectiveness of the various low-emission 3 category vehicles relative to Tier I vehicles is less than 4 $1.00 per pound. 5 As you can see, low-emission vehicles are 6 cost-effective when compared to typical emission control 7 measures. 8 In summary, the ARB staff has found that the 9 technologies needed to comply with the low-emission vehicle 10 program are available and being used on many current 11 vehicles. Vehicle manufacturers have successfully 12 introduced numerous TLEVs in the past several years and are 13 currently introducing LEVs. 14 Overall, the staff believes the program is 15 progressing well and cost-effectively. Therefore, the ARB 16 recommends that no changes be made to the low-emission 17 vehicle program's conventional vehicle implementation 18 schedule at this time. 19 I would now like to address the progress of zero- 20 emission vehicle development. As you may recall, at the 21 March, 1996 Board hearing, it was decided to eliminate the 22 ZEV requirements from 1998 through 2002, while retaining 23 the 10 percent requirement for 2003 and beyond. 24 The Board also directed staff to enter into 25 memoranda of agreement, or MOAs, with the seven largest PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 automakers to ensure that progress on ZEV technology 2 continued and that air quality in California will not be 3 adversely affected. 4 The MOAs formalized automakers' commitment to 5 accelerate the commercialization of advanced batteries in 6 vehicles in 1998, 1998, and 2000, and to continue funding 7 the ZEV-related technology research and development. All 8 of the MOAs are now signed and are legally binding 9 contracts. 10 Automakers have responded well to the additional 11 flexibility offered by the modified ZEV program. Three 12 major automakers have indicated plans to introduce electric 13 vehicles prior to 1998. Also, it is apparent that 14 automakers will offer battery/vehicle combinations distinct 15 from each other, each with its own selling points. 16 Next, I will provide more detail on activities to 17 date of each automakers efforts in meeting its MOA 18 obligations. 19 General Motors announced its introduction of EV1, 20 an efficient two-seat electric sports car at Saturn 21 dealerships in Los Angeles, San Diego, and parts of Arizona. 22 The EV1 is available now, and customers will soon be taking 23 delivery of this car beginning in December. 24 The EV1 will be leased to customers and uses 25 lead-acid batteries capable of achieving a range of up to 90 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 miles. In addition, it will be able to accelerate from zero 2 to 60 miles per hour in less than nine seconds, which makes 3 it competitive with many gasoline sports cars. 4 Honda has announced plans to market a product 5 model EV that uses advanced nickel-metal hydride batteries. 6 The Honda EV has been designed from the ground up to be an 7 electric vehicle. The EV is projected to have a range of up 8 to 125 miles per charge and a governed top speed of 80 miles 9 per hour. About 300 Honda EVs will be leased in the next 10 few years beginning in the spring of 1997. 11 Toyota's plans include an electric version of the 12 RAV4 sport utility vehicle, which will be offered to fleet 13 users in the fall of 1997. This front-wheel drive vehicle 14 will use advanced nickel-metal hydride batteries that will 15 allow a range of 120 miles per charge and a top speed of 79 16 miles per hour. 17 Shown here is the Nissan Prairie Joy electric 18 vehicle which will be offered for sale in Japan in 1997. 19 Beginning in 1998, Nissan will offer a new electric vehicle 20 to California fleet users. This vehicle will have a similar 21 powertrain to the Japan-only Prairie Joy. And like the 22 Prairie Joy, it will advanced lithium-ion batteries 23 developed in conjunction with Sony Corporation. 24 This vehicle will have a range exceeding 120 miles 25 per charge and a governed top speed of 75 miles per hour. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 Chrysler has announced plans to commercially 2 introduce an electric version of the Dodge Caravan in time 3 to meet its 1998 MOA obligations. The EPIC is a 4 five-passenger vehicle that will use advanced sealed lead- 5 acid Horizon batteries. These batteries currently provide a 6 vehicle range of up to 60 miles per charge and a top speed 7 of 80 miles per hour. 8 Ford is currently offering an electric-powered 9 Ranger pickup truck with a projected range of 50 miles and a 10 top speed of 75 miles per hour using lead-acid batteries. 11 In addition to the EV1, General Motors has 12 announced plans to introduce an electric version of their 13 S-10 pickup truck in 1997. The S-10 will use lead-acid 14 batteries which will allow it to have a range of 40 miles. 15 When the zero-emission vehicle regulations were 16 first adopted in 1990, typical electric vehicles were 17 powered by conventional lead-acid batteries which provided a 18 driving range of approximately 40 miles. Since 1990, there 19 has been substantial progress in developing better 20 performing batteries. 21 As the previous slides have shown, current 22 batteries allow electric vehicles to achieve up to 125 miles 23 per charge. Further research by battery developers will 24 improve battery performance even more. 25 Some of today's leading electric vehicle battery PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 technologies include nickel-metal hydride, lithium-ion, and 2 lithium-polymer. 3 Currently, battery-powered vehicles are the most 4 likely technology that is sufficiently advanced to meet the 5 ZEV requirement in the near term. In the longer term, fuel 6 cell powered vehicles may provide a complementary 7 alternative to battery-powered electric vehicles. 8 Since fuel cells can provide long range and zero 9 emissions, the ARB is expanding its efforts to encourage 10 fuel cell development and demonstrations. Several 11 manufacturers are actively pursuing the development of fuel 12 cell vehicles. 13 In addition, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, or JPL, is 14 developing a direct methanol fuel cell that does not require 15 heavy on-board hydrogen storage systems or reformers. 16 Daimler-Benz has already tested a fuel cell 17 vehicle on the road called the New Electric Car II, or NECAR 18 II. Daimler-Benz' fuel vehicle is a collaborative effort 19 with Ballard Power Systems. 20 A six-passenger vehicle, the NECAR II has a 21 maximum range of 155 miles with its on-board compressed 22 hydrogen storage system and a top speed of 68 miles per 23 hour. 24 Daimler-Benz is seeking to further improve fuel 25 cell system so that it would be compact enough to fit into a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 much smaller vehicle. 2 Toyota has also developed a fuel cell vehicle. It 3 is based on Toyota's RAV4 sport utility platform and 4 includes a compact fuel cell system. Toyota's fuel cell 5 vehicle also includes an innovative hydrogen storage system 6 that has significantly increased fuel storage capacity. 7 Although Toyota's efforts are very promising, they 8 are still in the experimental stage. This vehicle recently 9 participated in the 13th International Electric Vehicle 10 Symposium in Osaka, Japan, where it was a popular 11 attraction. 12 In contrast to the Daimler-Benz and Toyota fuel 13 cell vehicles, JPL is developing a fuel cell shown there 14 that generates electricity directly from methanol without 15 going through any intermediate steps. This technology 16 offers some advantages in terms of complexity and cost. For 17 example, neither expensive, heavy on-board hydrogen storage 18 systems nor an on-board reformer would be needed. 19 Although this fuel cell technology is still in the 20 early development stage, the initial results are 21 encouraging. 22 I'd like to conclude by briefly summarizing 23 staff's findings and conclusions. Overall, the staff found 24 that technology development needed to meet the low-emission 25 vehicle requirements is occurring on schedule. TLEVs and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 LEVs are being sold in California and ULEV technology is 2 progressing well. 3 In addition, the low-emission vehicle program 4 remains cost-effective. ZEVs are also available now as 5 vehicle manufacturers seem well on their way to introducing 6 ZEVs in complying with their MOA obligations. 7 Furthermore, advanced batteries and fuel cell 8 development are also progressing well. 9 That concludes staff's presentation. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Kenny, do you have anything 11 to add? 12 MR. KENNY: No, I don't. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. With that, we 14 have two witnesses that have signed up to provide testimony. 15 But before we do that, I'd like to ask the Board if they 16 have any questions of staff? 17 Lynne, do you have anything? 18 MS. EDGERTON: Yeah. I wanted to ask -- 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: While Lynne's finding the spot 20 on the presentation she wants to ask a question, if I may 21 ask staff a question on fuel cell development -- to you, 22 Tom. 23 Have you seen since last year -- or excuse me, 24 earlier this year, late last year, when we had the battery 25 panel review and had a chance to review that and distill it, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 and also I know your team's been hard at work at learning 2 more about fuel cell development. Are you optimistic that 3 fuel cell development is progressing more rapidly than you'd 4 anticipated, the technical experts on the staff, say from a 5 year ago? 6 MR. CACKETTE: I might say, though, if you look at 7 three years ago, for example, to now, that the progress in 8 fuel cell development has been phenomenal. I mean the size 9 of fuel cells have dropped by an order of magnitude, and the 10 power density -- the amount of power per kilogram, or square 11 foot, or whatever you want to -- cubic foot of fuel cell -- 12 has also gone up by that kind of number. 13 And so, what was two or three years ago, took a 14 third of the back of a bus to make a bus run, you now see 15 fuel cells in those pictures that fit under the hood of the 16 car. And that kind of development progress is, I think, 17 very impressive. 18 Also, the other thing that everybody looks at and 19 what we've, of course, focused the most on on batteries is 20 cost. And while cost is still somewhat preliminary in the 21 fuel cell area, you've started seeing in the last year 22 people putting out cost targets, much like the Advanced 23 Battery Consortium did for batteries. And those cost 24 targets, you know, can envision a fuel cell that's, you 25 know, in the few thousand dollar -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. 2 MR. CACKETTE: -- range for under the hood, which 3 is not -- which is comparable to the price of the drive 4 train of an internal combustion engine. Whether those are 5 ultimately achieved or not still is to be determined, but 6 there's obviously a lot of advantages on fuel cells -- the 7 operating cost should be lower, because their efficiency is 8 so much higher -- 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. 10 MR. CACKETTE: -- than internal combustion 11 engines. And I think they complement -- many of the other 12 developments for an electric-powered vehicle are being made 13 by industry now driven by the battery electric vehicle 14 efforts. And so, improvements in efficiency of the drive 15 train components downstream of the engine are occurring and 16 will nicely complement, I think, the ability of fuel cells 17 to enter the marketplace. 18 And we're starting to see demonstrations. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. 20 MR. CACKETTE: There's buses going around with 21 fuel cells, and so forth, and so on. 22 So, with a somewhat long answer, the answer is 23 clearly yes. 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. 25 Ms. Edgerton, then Supervisor Silva. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 MS. EDGERTON: I have a couple. 2 Following up on the fuel cell discussion, I think 3 it's helpful to clarify often that, typically, a fuel cell 4 vehicle is an electric vehicle. And so often, we refer to 5 fuel cell, electric vehicles, or advanced battery electric 6 vehicles. And that is a useful point to emphasize. 7 I was interested in knowing whether any or which 8 of the 19 auto companies are developing, to your knowledge, 9 their own fuel cell stack system? 10 The reason why I'm interested in that is because I 11 understand that in business there is an issue of making your 12 own -- the supplier issue -- making your own parts, and 13 being able to make a profit on that versus having to buy the 14 technology from another entity. 15 And I understand from conversations that I've had 16 with various automotive representatives that that is an 17 issue with respect to the ease of commercial acceptance of 18 fuel cell technology. 19 Do you know -- is it public -- whether any of 20 these companies are working on their own fuel cell 21 technology for light-duty vehicles? 22 MR. CACKETTE: Well, I think it's of public 23 knowledge that, as we indicated here, that the Mercedes 24 vehicle uses a Ballard fuel cell. But that is the fuel cell 25 itself. I believe Mercedes is heavily invested in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 integrating that into the overall the powertrain and control 2 system for the vehicle. So, it's more of a partnership, 3 with each doing part of the work. 4 On the other extreme, the Toyota appears to be -- 5 from what we've read -- a Toyota-developed fuel cell, not 6 one that they're purchasing from a secondary -- I shouldn't 7 say secondary, but from another manufacturer. So, you've 8 got kind of the gamut there. 9 There's a lot of integration issues with fuel 10 cells; so, I would not ever expect that you would see a car 11 company pick up what is essentially a fuel cell drive line 12 and plop it into a car. That ultimately requires 13 considerable development by a vehicle manufacturer to make 14 that happen in an optimized way. 15 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. I might add that it's 16 my understanding that Daimler-Benz is also working on their 17 own fuel cell stack system as well as integrating the 18 Ballard one. I don't know if that's correct, but -- 19 MR. CACKETTE: I don't know. 20 MS. EDGERTON: -- that's something that I have 21 heard. 22 My next question is with respect to the -- maybe 23 Mr. Wong -- with respect to the presentations of the 24 electric vehicles which you expect to be on the market 25 between -- or to be available between 1997 and 2000, you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 didn't mention numbers particularly, except for in 2 connection with the Honda EV, where you said there'd be 300. 3 Do you have estimates of how many GM EV1s and the 4 rest of the Toyota cars and so forth are going to be 5 available yet? And secondly, are all of these vehicles 6 being counted in the advanced battery technology work -- I 7 mean budget of 3,750? 8 MR. CACKETTE: Let me try to answer that. First 9 of all, on the GM vehicle, they are offering that publicly 10 in lease form to anybody that anybody wants to buy it in 11 these four urban areas. With lead-acid batteries in it, 12 that vehicle is not -- would not qualify as part of the MOA. 13 So, it's separate. 14 We do have estimates provided as part of the MOA 15 negotiations of what they think they might produce, what 16 their capability to produce is, if you remember that term of 17 art we had. But those were -- are held in confidence. And 18 so, I can't say what they are right now. 19 All I can hear is that there's been a tremendous 20 amount of interest in the car. So, one might speculate that 21 they're not going to be sitting on the showroom floors very 22 long. 23 The other -- I don't have the exact numbers under 24 the MOA. The 300 number I believe is the number under the 25 MOA of Honda's share. And the other manufacturers' shares PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 ran up to, I think, maybe like 800 or so vehicles. But 2 again, it depends on what battery they have in it. 3 If you'll recall, there were multiple credits 4 given, depending on how efficient the battery is. And so, 5 that 3700 number is -- if everybody used a nickel-metal- 6 hydride-like battery, it would really be 1875 vehicles. And 7 if everybody could use even a more advanced vehicle, it 8 would be somewhat lower than that, because there'd be 9 multiple credits available. 10 So, it depends on the product that they offer. If 11 the manufacturers offer, oh, let's say nickel-metal hydride 12 or batteries of similar efficiency, then most of the 13 manufacturers have got, I think, obligations that are in the 14 mid-hundreds or small hundreds of numbers under the MOA, 15 which would add up to about nearly 2,000 vehicles overall. 16 MS. EDGERTON: I guess I hadn't -- it would be 17 helpful later to get a sense of -- I haven't seen that 18 transferred into what the companies are actually making. 19 For example, is the lithium-ion -- how many vehicles would 20 that reduce it versus nickel-metal hydride. But I can do 21 that. 22 MR. CACKETTE: We can do that. 23 MS. EDGERTON: Later. 24 MR. CACKETTE: And on some of them, like 25 lithium-ion, which is a hair of a step behind the nickel- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 metal hydride, it may depend on the ultimate battery they 2 use. They're all trying to get a -- higher energy 3 efficiencies out of them. 4 But on nickel-metal hydride, we would know what 5 that is. 6 MS. EDGERTON: And I know my colleagues are 7 waiting to ask a couple questions. I want to ask one more 8 on -- for right now -- on the EV1. I've tried to follow 9 Supervisor Vagim's excellent example of being a consumer and 10 driving with the reformulated fuel. I thought that was 11 really a wonderful thing for a Board member to do. 12 And when I have talked to the Saturn folks I've 13 called -- and they don't, of course, recognize that I'm on 14 the Board. It's just a person calling in. But one of the 15 things that I was told was that the car's being leased; 16 however, it might be that -- they're expecting that in three 17 years, I could turn the car back in, possibly, and get the 18 newer version or, alternatively, get a different battery. 19 And they tried to be very -- in defense of whoever 20 checks on this, they were very conservative about what I 21 should expect from the car and so forth. 22 But would that kind of thing qualify if you -- for 23 credit under the advanced vehicle program if you took a 24 leased vehicle that had a lead-acid battery in it and 25 switched it to nickel-metal hydride? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 You'd have to look at it, I guess. 2 MR. CACKETTE: Yeah. I think it may, but I'm -- 3 I'm not -- I haven't -- 4 MS. EDGERTON: Well, it was interesting. 5 MR. CACKETTE: Yeah I mean I should have thought 6 of that when we heard of the lease and re-lease concept. 7 It's clear on the EV1 and the S10, the GM S10, that those 8 have been designed to be upfittable (sic) to the GM 9 nickel-metal hydride battery. And, in fact, there will be a 10 program in the Los Angeles area to do that fairly early on 11 for a number of vehicles -- not a large number, but sort of 12 a trial program -- possibly as early as sometime in '97. 13 MS. EDGERTON: That could be very exciting. I 14 think that's smart. Just makes sense. 15 Thank you. 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Supervisor Silva, then 17 Supervisor Roberts. 18 SUPERVISOR SILVA: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 19 Real quick. Mr. Wong, I think the report was very good. 20 But I do have a couple of questions, Mr. Kenny, if I may. 21 MR. KENNY: Yes. 22 SUPERVISOR SILVA: We talk about, for example, the 23 mile range of 60 miles at the speed of -- or up to 80 miles 24 per hour. Is this 80 miles an hour for 60 miles or is it an 25 and/or situation? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 MR. CACKETTE: Most of the mileage quotes are on a 2 standardized test cycle, which is an urban and highway 3 combined driving cycle. And so, it's not at 80 miles an 4 hour. 5 You can turn those numbers higher if you want to 6 go 40 miles an hour. If you wanted to go 80 miles an hour 7 constant, it would probably be lower. That's why they 8 govern them at the high speed. It's not just because the 9 vehicle can't go, but the power and energy required goes up 10 nonlinearly with speed. 11 SUPERVISOR SILVA: Okay. The only way that this 12 will work is if it's market-driven. People in the, you 13 know, real world have to be able to buy these. 14 And I think that there should be some way to state 15 it if we're talking about city driving versus highway miles 16 on it. I think it would be a little easier to follow. If 17 you're going to be driving just city, city driving, then I 18 think that you'd be looking at numbers that would be more 19 relative to your use rather than perhaps our test-type -- 20 MR. CACKETTE: There will be standardized labeling 21 on these vehicles that -- much like there is on the -- for 22 fuel economy numbers for gasoline-powered vehicles today. 23 So, it will all be on the same basis, and they will 24 represent typical driving, not some extreme and not likely 25 to be used by the average customer driving. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 SUPERVISOR SILVA: Okay. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Jim, if I might jump in here on 3 this point. Supervisor Riordan and I had a chance to meet 4 with some of the Saturn marketing/experts that are going to 5 deal with the consumer about the capabilities of the car. 6 And they're specially trained people. I think there's some 7 14 of them or so that are going to cover those Saturn 8 dealers. 9 And they talked about -- very clearly to us about 10 being sure they told the consumer of the limitations in 11 performance, and that they're not just going to say this car 12 will do everything that an internal combustion engine 13 vehicle will do in comparison today, but there are some 14 things it cannot do. 15 So, I feel good at least about the initial contact 16 we've had with Saturn and GM reps about how they're going to 17 market this vehicle. So, I think it would be a false 18 assumption to think that they're not going to disclose some 19 things that won't compare quite as favorably initially with 20 the internal combustion engine. So, I have some comfort in 21 that, Jim. 22 SUPERVISOR SILVA: Okay. Well, I appreciate that. 23 I know that there's a future in the electric car. But I 24 think that there's a difference between 60 miles at five 25 miles an hour or 80 miles per hour for five miles. So, I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 think that -- 2 MR. CACKETTE: Well, I think when you see numbers, 3 particularly from some emerging vehicles, maybe not the big 4 manufacturers' vehicles coming out, what you need to watch 5 for is you'll sometimes see a range at 35 or 40 miles an 6 hour. Well, 35 miles at a constant -- miles per hour at a 7 constant speed is about the maximum efficiency of a vehicle. 8 And so, you get the maximum range. When you see those 9 numbers, you need to be skeptical. 10 And we're seeing fewer and fewer of those now as 11 more people use the standardized test procedure. But what 12 the customer will see on the window will be the standardized 13 procedure. 14 MR. CROSS: And I might add just very quickly that 15 the numbers that you saw on the board were typically ones 16 that represent real types of customer driving as Tom was 17 saying. In other words, the standardized procedure gives 18 you numbers that we think are reasonable. 19 In other words, they include things like accessory 20 loading, for example, and a good range of driving. So, 21 these are not the inflated numbers that we saw from some of 22 the claims of a few years ago. These are -- they're in the 23 ball park of what real people will experience. 24 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: If I could add on to that, in 25 our conversations, it's just very similar as to how we drive PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 our cars today that are gasoline cars. Some of us can get 2 better mileage if we do certain things that allow for, I 3 think, a steadiness of the exercise of the pedal power, as 4 it were. 5 And the same is true with the electric vehicle. 6 If driven properly and with some understanding of how that 7 machine works, if it were a machine -- yeah, the electric 8 charge -- you can get better mileage. And they will tell 9 you that. And so, a person can make that decision when they 10 drive. 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Anything else, Jim? 12 SUPERVISOR SILVA: That's it. Thank you. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Supervisor Roberts. 14 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 15 Let me first say, based on my own experience when 16 I had one of these cars, I don't believe those numbers even 17 a little bit. That's why I was reluctant to mandate cars in 18 the numbers we were talking about. 19 If anybody can get 90 miles out of that EV1, I'd 20 like to see how they do it, because I tried in every way, 21 shape, or form; kept at a steady speed, freeway only 22 driving. There was no way in San Diego, which I understand 23 has a couple little hills here and there, but it couldn't 24 come close to 90 miles. And I keep seeing that as a number. 25 And I don't -- I honestly don't think it's possible. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 So, I don't know what machine they put it on or 2 how they test it, but I have my doubts. 3 Having said that, Supervisor Silva, and Vagim, and 4 I -- as you know, Mr. Chairman, we recently paid a visit to 5 the Big Three in Detroit. We met with representatives of 6 Chrysler, General Motors, and Ford, and also had a chance to 7 see our own experimental car at Troy Design Company Center. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. 9 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: And, as I remember, that was 10 using a Zebra battery, which we didn't get into today, which 11 is another type of battery. And it was very interesting to 12 see how that's coming along. 13 The things that we found out -- I think the things 14 that impressed me -- first of all, the technologies for 15 TLEV, ULEV, and LEV are very impressive in terms of what 16 they're doing and where they're going. And I do feel 17 confident that they're going to be able to meet all of the 18 standards that we've discussed. 19 With respect to the zero-emission vehicles -- and 20 General Motors clearly is way out in front -- the thing that 21 was encouraging, as we talked to them, is that they have 22 some targets in mind, and I think they have maybe shared 23 those with us. They were reluctant to say too much in terms 24 of numbers, but I think we, from our prior discussions, have 25 a pretty idea of what they're thinking, at least at a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 minimum. 2 But it was also clear that they're very capable of 3 stepping up that output to a significantly higher number if 4 the market is there. In that respect, they are -- what they 5 are doing, first of all, this will kick off on December 5th, 6 I believe it is, in San Diego and Los Angeles with a $5 7 million advertising campaign. 8 And they previewed their first commercial, which 9 is a Stephen Spielberg special. And it's terrific. It's 10 going to get -- you know, it's going to be the kind of thing 11 that gets people talking about this. 12 People who have never heard of an electric car I 13 suspect are going to, at some point, see this -- this 14 commercial and be aware that there is something new that's 15 going on in the automotive industry. And I think they 16 should be complimented for their efforts on those lines. 17 But I'm even more impressed. I met with the 18 Saturn owners in San Diego County. There are four Saturn 19 dealerships that are going to be handling these cars. And 20 not only did I meet with the owners, but met with the backup 21 team, and went over how they're going -- they're going 22 through a pretty rigorous presale. 23 They won't let you just come in and buy one of 24 these cars like you can other cars. You're going to be 25 fully aware of what -- how the car performs, what its PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 limitations are. And then and only then -- I mean there's a 2 pretty rigorous procedure that they're going to take people 3 through. 4 And they've made it clear that you just can't go 5 into the showroom and say, "I want one," and drive out. 6 That isn't going to happen. Each dealership will have three 7 cars, one that will be sort of on display, not for driving; 8 two that'll be there for driving. And then they'll be 9 delivering those, what they hope to be -- hope to keep up 10 with the demand. 11 Right now, in San Diego, there seems to be a real 12 strong interest. And I know they're actually developing a 13 little bit of a waiting list. So, that's a good -- it's a 14 good sign. 15 But I'm encouraged. They're going at this in a 16 very positive way. And I think having the possibility of 17 upgrading to a newer battery, as those become effective and 18 efficient, is really part of the key to this, so that you're 19 buying a car that -- that clearly there's new technologies 20 coming, but they also thought ahead that you'll be able to 21 drop, in the General Motors' case, this -- basically a pan 22 that contains all the batteries right out of the car and put 23 in the new types of batteries. 24 And they've considered that and how it would work. 25 And they'll be compatible with the -- with the electronic PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 systems that are in there. 2 So, I found -- our trip was very stimulating. The 3 work that we've done in getting ready in San Diego since 4 then has also given me a lot of confidence, not only with 5 respect to ZEV, but with respect to all of the other 6 standards that we are setting; that cars are going to be a 7 lot cleaner in the very near future. And I think that's a 8 real positive. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: That's great. Thank you, Ron. 10 I appreciate that. 11 Why don't -- 12 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: And the price of gas has 13 gone, too, John. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: That's right. And which we're 15 most pleased about. 16 Ms. Edgerton, and then, if it's okay, we'll get 17 into the witnesses. We have three witnesses. So, as a 18 matter of fact, Lynne, while you're going to ask your 19 question or make your comment, let me ask them to come 20 forward. 21 Mr. Douglas from AAMA, Mr. Bertelsen from MECA, 22 and Janet Hathaway, NRDC, if I could get you to come 23 forward. 24 Ms. Edgerton. 25 MS. EDGERTON: Supervisor Roberts, I want to thank PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 you for that update on your trip. I was very interested to 2 hear about it, and that was a very -- I appreciate very much 3 your taking the time to share it with us. 4 I wanted also to be sure and thank your -- GM for 5 helping me raise my son. He takes me much more seriously 6 now, because he saw the ad on electric vehicles and came 7 racing downstairs and said, "Mom, there's a thing on the 8 television about electric vehicles. You would be 9 interested." 10 And so, I raced up. Of course, he was supposed to 11 be doing his homework. But I made no comment about that, 12 because I was so excited about this. 13 And so, then, all of a sudden, he looked at me 14 with just sort of a change in his expression. He says, "You 15 mean all this you've been working on and talking to me about 16 is real?" 17 (Laughter.) 18 MS. EDGERTON: So, thank you very much. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: That's great. Thank you. All 20 right. 21 Mr. Douglas, can I get you to come forward? 22 MR. DOUGLAS: Thank you, Chairman Dunlap. 23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Good morning. We have the 24 letter, the communication, before us that we got this 25 morning. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 MR. DOUGLAS: Right. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 3 MR. DOUGLAS: I am Steven Douglas with the 4 American Automobile Manufacturers Association. 5 (Thereupon, the reporter requested the 6 speaker to use podium's microphone.) 7 MR. DOUGLAS: I was afraid of these red buttons 8 here. Is that better? 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yeah, that's fine. 10 MR. DOUGLAS: I'm Steven Douglas with the American 11 Automobile Manufacturers Association. And I have a brief 12 statement on behalf of our association as well as Ford, 13 Chrysler, and General Motors. 14 I haven't prepared to address the zero-emission 15 vehicle technology. I don't have any remarks on that, and I 16 haven't prepared for it. 17 As you know, meeting the challenging requirements 18 of the low-emission vehicle program has not been easy and 19 further substantial progress will be required to meet the 20 ever-more stringent standards. 21 However, with the changes adopted by the Board in 22 March of this year, we agree with the staff's conclusion 23 that the low-emission vehicle program is progressing on 24 schedule, and no changes to the program's implementation are 25 currently needed. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 I'd like to point out several factors which have 2 led to the current success of this program as well as to 3 sound a note of caution about future requirements and costs. 4 First, the key to the success of any long-term 5 regulatory program is periodic review and open communication 6 between the regulated party and the regulators. Because 7 it's difficult to project emission control technology five, 8 ten, or fifteen years into the future, we must periodically 9 review, update, and modify plans and regulations based on 10 better information and new control strategies. 11 This ongoing review process, combined with -- 12 combined with effective communications between your agency 13 and our industry, has led to a more cost-effective and 14 practical implementation of the requirements. 15 However, the most vital and fundamental element in 16 the current success of the LEV program are the leadtime, 17 phase-in schedules, and the interim in-use standards that 18 have placed regulations in sync with technology. 19 Emission control changes are system changes, and 20 these changes require a detailed analysis of their effect on 21 fuel economy, safety, affordability, driveability, 22 emissions, as well as every other aspect of vehicle 23 performance. 24 In addition, new -- in addition, new technology 25 must not only be designed and tested to meet emission PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 standards today, they also have to be tested and ensure they 2 meet standards at 50,000 miles or 100,000 miles. Thus, new 3 technology can only be responsibly integrated into new 4 vehicle packages when there's sufficient leadtime, adequate 5 phase-in schedules, and appropriate interim in-use 6 standards. The less certain this technology is the more 7 flexible these factors must be. 8 Concurrently with tackling the LEV emission 9 standards, we're working diligently to meet the ULEV 10 standards. However, ULEV standards, are exceptionally 11 stringent, and meeting those standards are far from certain 12 right now. 13 To put this in context, the ULEV standards 14 represent a 99 percent reduction in emissions from 15 precontrol levels; and perhaps more astounding, they 16 represent a 75 percent reduction in emissions from vehicles 17 produced just four years ago. 18 And exhaust emission levels are not the only -- 19 they're not the only part of the challenge. These vehicles 20 must meet on-board diagnostics II requirements, on-board 21 refueling vapor recovery requirements, evaporative emissions 22 requirements, and very stringent emission standards on more 23 challenging drive cycles. In fact, even measuring emission 24 levels at the ULEV standards presents a formidable 25 challenge. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 As we've said, we appreciate the open 2 communications with your agency; however, open 3 communications don't immediately or automatically eradicate 4 differences. 5 At past biennial reviews, we have stated our 6 strong differences with the LEV program cost projections 7 made by the Air Resources Board. While the projected cost 8 of LEVs have come down since 1994, as we'd projected they 9 would, we do not believe that the cost will come down as low 10 that projected by the staff report. 11 Because we've not yet reached ULEV levels, it's 12 very difficult to project their cost. But the agency's 13 projection of $24 per vehicle for ULEVs as compared to LEVs 14 seems overly optimistic. 15 I don't want to belabor that point. I would refer 16 you to the 1994 testimony and the more recent Rand study, 17 and that provides more details on the methodology. 18 Finally, I'd like to sound a note of caution. The 19 early products of the young LEV program represent the "low 20 hanging fruit." These are the vehicles that were the 21 easiest to certify. That's always true. You always produce 22 vehicles which are the easiest to certify. 23 As more vehicles meet the LEV standards and as 24 ULEV requirements come into play, we'll have a much fuller 25 picture of the technical capability as well as the cost. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 We support the staff's recommendations not to make 2 any changes to the LEV program and, in particular, any 3 changes that would make them more stringent. We simply 4 don't have enough experience yet. 5 What we do know from experience with the current 6 program is that any future regulatory changes should 7 incorporate periodic reviews and be preceded by open 8 communications and, ultimately, they must be in sync with 9 technology. 10 In summary, the LEV program is on track, but much 11 hard work remains, and its ultimate success is yet to be 12 determined. 13 We look forward to a continued open dialogue with 14 you and your staff. 15 Thanks. 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Thank you very much. We 17 appreciate those words of caution. But I would disagree 18 with the point that you don't have enough experience to deal 19 with these things. 20 Your industry has risen to the occasion time after 21 time. We've pushed you, but you've done that, and I think 22 you should take some credit for that. Thank you very much. 23 Mr. Bertelsen. Is Bruce here? Good morning. 24 MR. BERTELSEN: Good morning. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And Ms. Hathaway's next. Bruce, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 it says you concur with the staff report. 2 MR. BERTELSEN: And that's about as brief as my 3 testimony's going to be. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 5 MR. BERTELSEN: For the record, my name is Bruce 6 Bertelsen, and I'm the Executive Director of the 7 Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association. I'd like to 8 say good morning to the Chairman and members of the Board, 9 and to extend our congratulations on a program that is a 10 tremendous success. 11 We compliment the staff on a thorough review of 12 the technology status and progress and concur with their 13 conclusions. 14 The technological progress that has occurred since 15 1990 is nothing short of remarkable. The LEV program, when 16 it was adopted, triggered a technology revolution both in 17 emission control of conventional vehicles, as you heard 18 today, as well as ZEV vehicles. And it's truly a remarkable 19 story. 20 Our member companies are very proud of the role 21 that we've played in helping to develop advanced catalyst 22 technology that is being used and will be used in the 23 future. But I also want to take a moment to compliment the 24 auto industry for the incredibly innovative work that 25 they've done and really the tremendous effort that they've PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 put into this. It's been very, very remarkable. 2 I think the LEV program demonstrates what can be 3 done when standards are set that challenge the development 4 of technology. And the success of the program really is 5 that it put forth that challenge; but, at the same time, it 6 did provide adequate leadtime to develop the technologies. 7 It provided compliance flexibility, and it also provided 8 periodic review. So, in that regard, I would agree very 9 strongly with the testimony that was previously presented. 10 I think the LEV program can serve as a model for 11 future regulatory initiatives. We clearly are on schedule, 12 if not even a little bit ahead of schedule. The compliance 13 strategies that are going to be used are certainly less 14 complex and costly than any of us could have imagined five 15 or six years ago. 16 Looking to the future, should CARB decide that 17 additional emission reductions are required, we believe 18 there is technology available and being developed that will 19 help meet future challenges. 20 Again, I want to commend the Board and the staff 21 and the auto industry on -- collectively -- a tremendous 22 success story, and pledge our continuing support to do what 23 we can to make this an even greater success in the future. 24 Thank you very much. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mr. Bertelsen. I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 appreciate your attendance here today. Thank you. 2 Any questions of the witness? 3 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. I guess I'd like to ask Mr. 4 Bertelsen one question. 5 The statement you made just a few moments ago 6 about -- "If the Board concludes that emission reductions 7 are needed in the post-2000 time frame, technologies are 8 available or are being developed to meet challenges as 9 well." 10 Does this apply to used vehicles as well or were 11 you focusing primarily the new technology on new vehicles? 12 MR. BERTELSEN: That is really in response to some 13 observations that were made back in -- I guess it was about 14 1994, when CARB adopted -- ARB adopted the State 15 Implementation Plan, which has subsequently been approved by 16 EPA -- and I congratulate you on that -- where the Board 17 suggested it may be necessary to lower the NMOG curve beyond 18 the year 2003, and possibly to look at a possible tightening 19 of the NOx standard. When the Board speaks, we listen. And 20 that certainly caught the attention of our industry, and we 21 are certainly looking to that possibility. 22 But there certainly are technologies today on the 23 nonmethane organic gas side, cold start technologies that 24 are achieving levels that are very low, ULEV and beyond. 25 So, we're optimistic about the possibility of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 meeting future challenges should they -- should they be 2 established. 3 MR. CALHOUN: Thank you. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. I guess, Mr. 5 Cackette and Mr. Cross, you're going to have to get on your 6 horses and see if there's more that can be squeezed here. 7 We have an industry rep telling us that they're poised to do 8 that. We need to hear from you soon, I guess. 9 Ms. Hathaway. 10 MS. HATHAWAY: Hi. Janet Hathaway with the 11 Natural Resources Defense Council. 12 I just am so pleased to hear the progress that's 13 been made on the LEV, the ULEV, and the ZEVs. And I wanted 14 to congratulate you. There is no question that a tremendous 15 amount of the appreciation has to go to the auto industry 16 and the people who've been developing these emission control 17 systems, and also battery researchers and developers for 18 this incredible progress. 19 But it wouldn't have happened without setting a 20 standard that is necessary for public health protection and 21 really working with the industry to ensure that those 22 standards can be met. 23 I think that this is a success not just for 24 California; it's a success that will have ramifications all 25 over the world. And I think it's important to take this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 moment to thank you for that. 2 I also want to urge you to continue the progress. 3 Because you've seen what can be done when the standard is 4 set with enough advance leadtime, and encouragement, and 5 incentives for the auto industry, we're going to have to 6 continue that kind of progress. 7 I want to just turn your attention for one instant 8 away from just certification standards to the in-use 9 emissions of the vehicles. That's where our key challenge 10 is going to be in the next decade or couple of decades. 11 I know we're working very closely on these on- 12 board diagnostics; we're working on smog check. But we're 13 going to also need to find ways to reward manufacturers who 14 come up with systems that are inherently durable, either 15 because they don't even involve emission control systems, as 16 the ZEV does not, or because they offer warranties even at 17 the time of sale of the vehicle for lifetime emission 18 control service. 19 This is going to be so key, because recent studies 20 indicate that the emissions in-use range from about five 21 times to seven times the certification standards even in new 22 vehicles. So, it's not enough to get good certification 23 standards. We're going to need to find a way to reward and 24 develop better ways of getting the durability up. And I 25 don't want that to take away from the achievement. I just PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 think that's the next task. 2 But the achievement that you all have heard about 3 from your staff is really to your credit. And I just thank 4 you for Californians who are going to breathe better because 5 of it, and want to work with you as we try to tackle the 6 next challenge. 7 Thank you. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Ms. Hathaway. 9 Ms. Edgerton. 10 MS. EDGERTON: Ms. Hathaway, I want to thank you, 11 also. You've been a very important player in the 12 development of this program as well, and you've been a 13 contributor right along. And you have regularly eschewed 14 ideological response, and have looked at the facts, and have 15 worked with people, with us, with industry. And that's the 16 kind of openness I think we need in government to get there 17 together. 18 So, thank you. And I guess I should probably not 19 make a request at the same time that I thank you, but 20 because time is not always available, I will make another 21 request. And that is that, if you can see that there would 22 be some moment of recognition of the achievements of this 23 particular Administration in this particular program. 24 I have been privileged to sit on this Board for 25 three years, and privileged to work with the appointees and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 the staff. And it's not been easy, and it has been 2 successful. 3 So, that doesn't mean we don't need to do the 4 other things, too. But it would be appropriate. 5 Thank you. 6 MS. HATHAWAY: Yes. Let me just say that, in 7 speaking with firm congratulations for the members of this 8 Board for what you've done, I really am also representing 9 the Union of Concerned Scientists, who've worked very 10 closely with us on -- 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. 12 MS. HATHAWAY: -- ZEV and ULEV programs. And 13 they, too, are just very pleased to see that the costs are 14 going down, the technologies are proliferating, and we're 15 going to be able to succeed in a way that is even easier 16 than we had thought. 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Supervisor Roberts and then Joe 18 Calhoun. 19 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: My comment's very quick. I 20 think the acknowledgment of what is being done here is being 21 noticed far and wide. 22 The presentation that we received at General 23 Motors, they had a very clever cartoon that is part of their 24 presentation -- or not a cartoon -- in the sense of a 25 drawing that showed three elephants, nonpolitical elephants. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 They were just three elephants. It was started with a 2 smaller elephant leading a midsize, little larger, elephant 3 leading a huge elephant. 4 And the first one was marked, "California." The 5 second was marked, "U.S." And the third one was marked "The 6 World." 7 And they were showing that, basically, the work 8 that's being done here in this State is really setting the 9 stage for the improvements that we're seeing worldwide in 10 this area of pollution reduction. 11 MS. HATHAWAY: And one of the remarkable things 12 that your staff identified is that some of these 13 technologies that are excellent for reducing the emissions 14 of criteria pollutant are, in fact, even better at improving 15 fuel economy. And that was just amazing to me, because 16 people have, in the past, operated with the idea that it's a 17 zero-sum gain. But some of these technologies improve both. 18 And the whole world needs that, so. . . 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Calhoun. 20 MR. CALHOUN: I'd like to make one comment, Ms. 21 Hathaway, in connection with what you said. 22 The auto industry, in my view, has really stepped 23 up to the plate and they've done a fairly good job in 24 meeting the emission requirements. But they still have a 25 challenge. Meeting those ULEV standards isn't going to very PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 easy and, especially so, because there's another 2 requirement, which is even far more complicated. And that's 3 OBD II. And of all of these different requirements 4 interact. 5 So, they still have a lot of work to do. And I 6 may be wrong in this observation, but I think I'm correct. 7 I think, as the industry learns -- speaking now to the 8 in-use performance, once this technology is on the vehicle, 9 they will do everything they can to try and improve it and 10 get the cost down. And I think that, in doing so, you'll 11 also see that the emission performance in-use will also 12 improve. 13 MS. HATHAWAY: And that is something I'm very 14 hopeful about, and it will have a tremendous benefit for the 15 consumer. It will have a tremendous benefit for actual 16 State Government expenditures. Because when we can stop 17 putting so much into trying to get people to do smog check, 18 because we actually have inherently clean vehicles, things 19 are going to be a lot easier for State Government as well. 20 We won't have to have this kind of round of debate about 21 keeping cars clean, because they'll simply have a lot more 22 durable systems. 23 And I think that that's the hope, and that's where 24 we hope you all can find ways of helping them along, and 25 also helping to distinguish the real successful stories from PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 the ones that aren't so successful. Because some 2 manufacturers have outstanding records in durability 3 already, and now there's somewhat less, so. . . 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yeah. Good point. Thank you 5 very much. 6 MS. HATHAWAY: Thanks. 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. With that, we've 8 heard from our witnesses. That will conclude the public 9 testimony on this item. 10 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Mr. Chairman? 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes. Supervisor Vagim. 12 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: I just want to make a couple 13 comments. As Supervisor Roberts so aptly summed up, our 14 trip was quite rewarding. And I think probably Supervisors 15 Silva and Roberts and I could probably talk about it for the 16 next two and a half hours at least. 17 (Laughter.) 18 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: I don't think you'll get a 19 chance. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: The Chair would not favor any 21 such movement. 22 (Laughter.) 23 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: But it was fascinating. 24 Indeed, it was a privilege and a honor to have the 25 opportunity to go back on the trip with the contingent from PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 California. 2 But there was a couple -- we had so much 3 information, and it bordered on information overload, but 4 you, as you try to do, become huge sponges and think about 5 it later, and sort it out later. 6 And something came to mind on the question that 7 was still outstanding. And where are we with the NLEV 8 program, and where is that commitment? 9 And did anybody -- because I really didn't hear 10 any specificity to that, and the staff have any more 11 information on that? 12 MR. CACKETTE: Yes. On the NLEV, which is the 13 national application of the California LEV standard -- not 14 the whole package, but the middle LEV standard itself -- 15 we're not actively involved in that, but we pick up bits and 16 pieces of information every once in a while on it. 17 It seemed like the negotiations between the 18 Northeast States and the auto manufacturers have been kind 19 of cyclical; at times, you know, moving words of agreement; 20 at times, breaking down. To my knowledge, there's not been 21 a lot of discussion. 22 In the past couple of months, there seem to be 23 some proposals on the table that have been perhaps 24 characterized as "take it or leave it." I think a lot of 25 people have speculated that after the elections were over PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 that there'd be more active discussions going on again. 2 So, I don't know whether those have happened or 3 not. What it means for the Board, however, is that, as part 4 of the MOA, when the two percent and five percent 5 requirements for ZEVs were dropped, it was the Board's 6 nonnegotiable point that the -- any lost emissions 7 reductions must be made up. And they were to be made up by 8 the auto manufacturers' commitment to do LEVs nationally. 9 And then, when a fraction of those vehicles end up 10 in California, it reduces our emissions, because we get -- 11 roughly 20 percent of our fleet ends up being vehicles that 12 were sold somewhere else initially, but end up living in 13 California. 14 So, we still have -- they still are committed by 15 that MOA to deliver the tons. The first choice was NLEV. I 16 guess, if it breaks it down, they're going to have to look 17 at other approaches. 18 Given how difficult it is to find real, 19 enforceable, quantifiable emission reductions, and given how 20 deep into the well we've gone -- the Board's gone in putting 21 its SIP together -- to put commitments in to do almost 22 everything that we could even think of to reduce emissions, 23 finding alternatives is not going to be easy. 24 So, I'm hopeful -- or it's my hope, I should say, 25 that the NLEV program goes ahead, and that we end up getting PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 the benefit of that, and we don't have to go through a 2 protracted negotiation of what else can you do. 3 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: And, in addition, and finally, 4 Mr. Chairman, it was, I guess, some kind of -- depending on 5 which side of the spectrum you are in the fuels world, the 6 pleasant irony is the fact that it looks like your 7 benefactors are going to be able to make the ULEV standard 8 with regular California reform fuel; which, in some cases, 9 some may not appreciate that. But I think, in the general 10 marketplace, it's a good thing. 11 And, of course, they credit California's reform 12 for their ability to do it -- reformulated fuel -- in 13 addition to, of course, OBD II, and the evap canisters, and 14 whatever else that California's put forth. 15 So, it's a pleasantry, the fact that we cannot 16 interrupt our California marketplace, but still achieve the 17 emissions that we set out in our SIP. So, I think that's 18 congratulations to the whole California program. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes. Well said, Supervisor 20 Vagim. 21 Okay. With that, Mr. Kenny, do you want to have 22 your team summarize any other written testimony or comments 23 we received from the public? 24 MR. ALBU: Yes. Volvo produced some written 25 testimony or comments that they have some unique engine PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 configurations that were not specifically analyzed in the 2 staff report. 3 And they wish to point out that they feel their 4 incremental costs for TLEVs to ULEVs range from $200 to $430 5 for Tier 1 vehicles. 6 Also, we received a letter from the Coalition of 7 Small Volume Manufacturers. They have 19 members that 8 produce less than 5,000 vehicles per year in California. 9 Their participation in the LEV program begins in the year 10 2000, not 1994 as the rest of industry. 11 And they felt that the staff report did not 12 specifically analyze technology in relation to their 13 interests. And, as such, they would like to meet with staff 14 or possibly have a workshop in early 1997 to discuss their 15 issues more fully. 16 And we've already sent them a letter agreeing to 17 do so. 18 That's it. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 20 MR. CALHOUN: Let me ask a question, because I 21 forgot. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure. Mr. Calhoun. 23 MR. CALHOUN: Do the small volume manufacturers 24 buy their technology from the other manufacturers for the 25 most part? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 MR. ALBU: I think that the manufacturers, for 2 example in the MECA organization, do have catalyst 3 technology. But there are fuel injection system 4 manufacturers, such as Bosch, for example -- Siemens and so 5 forth -- that could provide technology to these companies as 6 well. 7 So, we do think that the technology assessment 8 that we did in the staff report does apply them, and they 9 have had a lot of leadtime that, you know, others haven't 10 had. 11 But, on the other hand, they do come in at the LEV 12 level in the year 2000. They never really have to do TLEVs. 13 So, there may be some issues that we may have missed, but we 14 think that, overall, the technology is available. But we 15 will talk with them further. 16 MR. CALHOUN: All right. Thank you. 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Thank you. 18 Mr. Kenny, anything else on this item before we 19 move on? 20 MR. KENNY: No, there's nothing else, Mr. 21 Chairman. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Fine. Mr. Wong, 23 thank you for a fine presentation. And, staff, appreciate 24 your preparatory work to bring this forward. And 25 congratulations on a fine, fine program effort. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 All right. Yes, I should mention that there was a 2 sighting of Jack Lagarias here somewhere, and we need to 3 recognize Jack. Hello, Jack. 4 (Applause.) 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Jack, as many of you know, 6 served on the Board for many years and was, of course, 7 instrumental in bringing forward the LEV program here in our 8 State. 9 So, thank you again, staff. 10 Let's move on to the next item. We have kind of a 11 bittersweet item we need to attend to next, and that is Dr. 12 Eugene Boston's retirement from our Board. 13 And, Gene and his wife Eva I see in the front row. 14 If I could get you both to come forward, please, to the 15 podium right here, and ask Mr. Parnell and Mr. Calhoun to 16 queue up and join you at the podium. 17 I'll ask the audience to please keep it down for a 18 moment while we make this important presentation. 19 MR. PARNELL: Dr. Boston, I'd like to, if I may -- 20 is this on (speaking of microphone)? 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes, it is. Go ahead, Jack. 22 MR. PARNELL: I'd like to read a letter to Dr. 23 Boston if I may. It says: "To Dr. Eugene A. Boston: 24 "On behalf of the State of California, 25 it gives great pleasure to extend my sincere PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 congratulations as you retire following ten 2 years of outstanding service as a member of 3 the Air Resources Board. 4 "Throughout your long and distinguished 5 career, you have established an exemplary 6 reputation for quality management and 7 effective leadership, and earned the respect 8 and admiration of all of those who have had 9 the pleasure of serving with you. Your 10 expertise, as well as your friendship, will 11 sorely be missed by your colleagues at ARB. 12 "As you take the time to reflect on the 13 significant accomplishments that have marked 14 your career in State service, you can take 15 great pride in knowing that your efforts have 16 made a profound difference in the lives of 17 Californians. 18 "I join everyone at the Air Resources 19 Board in applauding you and thanking you for 20 the many contributions to the Golden State. 21 Please accept my very best wishes for your 22 future that continues to bring you great reward 23 and fulfillment. 24 "Sincerely, Pete Wilson, Governor of 25 the State of California." PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 (Applause.) 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right, Gene, we have another 3 item that we'd like to present, too. We've asked Joe 4 Calhoun to read a resolution that your colleagues on the 5 Board have prepared for you. 6 MR. CALHOUN: I have two presentations, Mr. 7 Chairman, that I'd like to make. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 9 MR. CALHOUN: One is from the Board and the other 10 one is somewhat personal. I will read the Board Resolution 11 96-59. 12 "WHEREAS, Dr. Eugene A. Boston has 13 conscientiously served as the medical 14 expert of the Air Resources Board for ten 15 years; 16 "WHEREAS, Gene approached public health 17 issues comprehensively and holistically, 18 contenting himself not only with the birthing 19 of hundreds of Californians and the 20 subsequent medical care of thousands, but also 21 with pursuing regulatory directives which 22 would leave the air cleaner for millions of 23 Californians; 24 "WHEREAS, Gene's knowledge and input 25 were instrumental in establishing such crucial PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 ARB programs as clean cars and clean fuels, 2 reduction in emissions of toxic air 3 contaminants, reformulated consumer products, 4 and less polluting internal combustion engines; 5 "WHEREAS, Gene combines the Southern 6 California easy style, gracious manner, and 7 appreciation of the good things in life with a 8 desire to serve humanity, protect the planet, 9 and improve the quality of life for all people; 10 "WHEREAS, Gene's quiet and unflagging 11 persistence in applying his medical knowledge 12 and public health commitment to the difficult 13 policy issues faced by the Board provided 14 comfort, courage, and motivation to other Board 15 members and ARB staff in proposing and making 16 far-reaching clean air decisions; 17 "WHEREAS, with the approval of the State 18 Implementation Program and his exhortation to 19 'just implement it,' Gene Boston is returning 20 to private medical practice in a Southern 21 California whose visible boundaries he has 22 immeasurably helped to expand. 23 "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that 24 the Board commends Dr. Boston for his years of 25 efforts on behalf of clean air and thanks him PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 for his excellent delivery of a healthy SIP. 2 "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board 3 requests Gene to monitor the view from his 4 Los Angeles home and to notify the Board if 5 his views of the mountains on one side and 6 Catalina Island on the other slip back into 7 the smog, and to send us a good word as his 8 views improve over the years due in large 9 part to regulatory efforts which he helped 10 put in place. 11 "Executed at Sacramento, California, this 12 21st day of November, 1996." 13 Signed by John Dunlap and all the other Board members. 14 Thank you. 15 (Applause and standing ovation.) 16 MR. CALHOUN: The other award I want to make today 17 is somewhat personal. As many of you know, Dr. Boston and I 18 sat next to each other and, on occasion, I would need his 19 professional assistance. 20 But, addition to that, being that this is the big 21 week in Southern California where USC and UCLA are going to 22 battle each other out, I'd like to present Dr. Boston with a 23 special pin and hope that he will wear it proudly. 24 (Laughter.) 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And, Dr. Boston, this makes you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 an honorary Trojan. 2 (Laughter and applause.) 3 MR. CALHOUN: Mr. Chairman, if you would be 4 receptive to a motion, I'd like to move at this particular 5 time that the Board support me unanimously in encouraging 6 Dr. Boston to wear this item. I'm hopeful he, too, will 7 believe the words that "God is a Trojan." 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I think we can support that by 9 acclamation. All those in favor -- 10 (Thereupon, there was some disagreement 11 among the Southern California members.) 12 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Wait. We're sorry. My 13 brother is a graduate of UCLA. I cannot do that. I would 14 abstain. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Your motion is foundering, Joe. 16 But for those that can support it, you can do that. 17 (Laughter.) 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Gene, we'd like you to say a few 19 words. But if I might add a few words of my own and thank 20 you very much for your -- not only your leadership, but a 21 deep sense that you have about what makes sense for 22 government to do and, also, never forgetting your role on 23 this Board, which is to look out for the public health 24 implications of our actions or inactions. 25 And for those of you in the audience and those PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 that may be listening, it is so important for us to keep our 2 eye on the public health implications of our work. And that 3 has to be the core, the basis, whereby we go forward with 4 any regulatory agenda or any clean air plan. And the role 5 of the public health professional, the medical member, on 6 our Board is absolutely essential. 7 And I want you all to know how important it is and 8 how well Gene has served, not just during my two years here 9 as Chairman but prior, those previous eight years. Because 10 those issues are complex, involved, and oftentimes expensive 11 for us to support research in these areas, and I have had a 12 great deal of confidence in Gene's expertise and commitment 13 to the mission. And that has been a comfort to me. 14 And so, Gene, thank you very much. You will be 15 missed, but not forgotten. 16 DR. BOSTON: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, 17 thank you very much. I'm really overwhelmed from all the 18 honors I've had over the last two days, and the lovely meal 19 that we had together, and shared some camaraderie last 20 night. And I appreciate all of you being there. And I 21 missed a couple of you who couldn't be there, but we will be 22 in touch. 23 Mr. Chairman, I wrote a letter to you a couple 24 weeks ago explaining my position, and I think it was 25 circulated to the Board. So, I'm not going to repeat all PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 those things right now, because I know you've got a full 2 agenda. 3 But I did want to take the opportunity to thank 4 two outstanding Republican Governors for giving me the 5 chance to serve on this Board for the last ten years -- 6 Governor Pete Wilson, of course; and before him, Governor 7 George Deukmejian. 8 Our accomplishments have been absolutely 9 phenomenal over the last ten years, and I like to think that 10 the air in California is a lot healthier today than it was 11 when I joined the Board ten years ago. 12 And, as a practicing physician in Southern 13 California for over 40 years, I have delivered a lot of 14 babies over the last ten years and over the last 40 years, 15 Joe. And I've treated thousands of sick patients. A few of 16 them got well. 17 (Laughter.) 18 DR. BOSTON: I've even signed a few death 19 certificates. But, overall, many doctors can say those 20 things, but it's very few doctors -- I think only a very few 21 handful -- that have had the opportunity that I've had to 22 influence the health of millions of individuals, not only in 23 California, but in other States and even the rest of the 24 world as other States and nations have adopted our ideas on 25 pollution control. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 And so, I'm really very thankful for having the 2 opportunity to take part in that. 3 I must thank my staff of this Air Resources Board 4 who have been so gracious and so helpful to me over the last 5 ten years. They've made my job so easy, every one of them, 6 from the administrative staff to the research people, and 7 the technicians, just -- PR people. 8 Everybody involved with the Air Board has been 9 just wonderful to me and very courteous. And their 10 dedication to duty and their ability to work as a team has 11 just impressed me so much over the last few years that I've 12 been associated with them. And I'm going to, of course, 13 miss every one of them. 14 I think a couple of things really stood out in my 15 mind as I listened to this discussion this morning. I 16 remember about six years ago, when I first saw the report 17 from our think tank people that they were going to have a 18 car with no emissions, zero emissions, I thought, "Wow. 19 These guys have been breathing too much exhaust." 20 (Laughter.) 21 DR. BOSTON: There's no way there's going to be a 22 car with zero emissions. And here we are six years later 23 with television showing the first electric vehicles rolling 24 out of Detroit, and the President of GM driving that 25 vehicle. And that is quite a compliment to our staff. And PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 I want to again thank them for all that foresight that 2 they've had and the ability to put it together. 3 Little things that other people may not notice, 4 but I have noticed -- just taking a body like this and 5 moving it down to Southern California, or to San Francisco, 6 or to San Diego to hold a Board meeting, and all the 7 logistics involved in that has been a major effort. And 8 it's come off like a military operation. We hardly even 9 notice this taking place. And I want to thank our staff for 10 being able to do that for us over the years. 11 And some of those meetings did seem like military 12 operations when the flak was flying over our head and a few 13 bombs were going off. But we did survive and we pulled out 14 without taking any casualties -- well, maybe a few 15 casualties -- and moved on to the next battle. 16 And I think we'll go on to win many more battles 17 in the future. 18 I also wanted to state that I've been very 19 fortunate in my life to have had two very passionate love 20 affairs; one is with my beautiful wife here of 41 years, 21 Eva. 22 (Applause.) 23 DR. BOSTON: And the other has been with my 24 medical practice of 40 years. And now that I won't be 25 receiving the reams of mail Patti sends me, I think I'll PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 have more time to spend with both of those first two love 2 affairs. 3 And one other thing before I leave. I feel 4 compelled to state for my many friends in the various 5 collector car clubs around the State -- I belong to a few of 6 those myself -- but, you know, there's a big difference -- 7 as you get ready to implement the buy-back programs, there's 8 a big difference between an old car and a collector car. 9 A collector car is beautifully restored and 10 well-maintained, and it does not pollute. And those cars 11 need to be protected and their parts need to be protected 12 from the dreaded crusher. And I know you feel that way 13 about it, too. 14 Just as you look out over this audience and see 15 some beautiful women, so is it nice to look out over a 16 parking lot and see a beautiful Lamborghini or a beautiful 17 Ferrari, a beautiful Maserati. And if you took all those 18 beauties out of the world, it wouldn't really put a dimple 19 in our pollution inventory, but it would be a much duller 20 place. 21 So, keep the air healthful, but keep it beautiful, 22 and we'll see you all again. 23 Thank you very much. 24 (Applause.) 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. If I can get staff in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 their places and the audience to take their seats, we will 2 move on to the next item. Okay. 3 The next item on the agenda today is 96-9-2, a 4 public hearing to consider amendments to the area 5 designations foor the State ambient air quality standards. 6 This item is for the Board to consider the staff's 7 recommendations for designations areas of the State with 8 respect to the attainment status of the State ambient air 9 standards. Once again, it is a pleasure to bring another 10 good news item to the Board today. 11 The good news conveyed by this item is that the 12 air continues to get cleaner, a sure sign that our programs 13 are working, and that is something that we certainly all 14 desire. 15 So, with that, I'd like to ask Mr. Kenny to 16 introduce this second item and begin the staff's 17 presentation. 18 Mike? 19 MR. KENNY: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of 20 the Board, as you heard, the staff is proposing amendments 21 to the area designations for the State ambient air quality 22 standards. 23 The California Clean Air Act requires that the 24 Board establish and periodically review the criteria used 25 for designating areas with respect to the State standards. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 The staff is not proposing any amendments to the designation 2 criteria today. 3 The Act also requires the Board to use these 4 criteria to designate each area of the State as attainment, 5 nonattainment, or unclassified for the pollutants for which 6 there are State standards. 7 The Board must review these area designations each 8 year and update them when new information indicates it is 9 appropriate. The Board initially designated areas of the 10 State in 1989, and it has amended these regulations every 11 year since then. 12 The staff proposes today that the Board update the 13 designations based on the review of air quality for 1993 14 through 1995. Of the changes due to air quality data, six 15 of them are changes that affect carbon monoxide. 16 All of these proposed carbon monoxide changes are 17 either a change to attainment or a change in the direction 18 toward attainment. This trend toward attainment for carbon 19 monoxide is largely a result of the continued implementation 20 of the Board's vehicle standards in combination with the 21 oxygenates requirements for gasoline, which were put in 22 place in 1992. 23 Of the remaining three areas proposed for 24 redesignation, all except one are either a change to 25 attainment or a change in the direction toward attainment. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 The one area being proposed for redesignation to 2 nonattainment is Calaveras County for PM10. This change is 3 not an indication of deterioration in air quality, but 4 rather reflects the availability of recent air quality from 5 a new monitor. 6 In addition, the staff proposes today that the 7 Board update the designations reflecting changes in air 8 basin boundaries made by the Board in May of this year. 9 With that, I would like to introduce Ms. Cynthia 10 Garcia, who works in the Air Quality Analysis Section in the 11 Technical Support Division. And Cynthia will discuss 12 today's proposal. Cynthia? 13 MS. GARCIA: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. Good morning, 14 Chairman Dunlap and members of the Board. 15 As Mr. Kenny explained, I will be addressing the 16 proposed amendments to the area designations for State 17 ambient air quality standards for 1993 through 1995. Most 18 of these changes proposed today are good news. Six of them 19 are either a change to attainment or a change in the 20 direction of attainment for carbon monoxide. 21 This trend towards attainment for carbon monoxide 22 can be attributed to the continued implementation of the 23 Board's vehicle standards in combination with the oxygenates 24 requirement for gasoline put into place in 1992. 25 I will begin by briefly discussing the designation PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 criteria. Then, I will move on to discuss the area 2 redesignations due to annual review and area redesignations 3 due to air basin boundary changes, to end with a list of 4 areas not recommended for redesignation, although these 5 areas had exceedances. 6 Now, I will briefly go over some of the legal 7 requirements covered by the designation criteria. 8 The designation criteria covers what data to use. 9 the designations must be based on recent ambient air quality 10 data from monitors which satisfy specific siting and quality 11 assurance procedures established by EPA. The data used in 12 this year's designations was collected in 1993 through 1995. 13 The designation criteria covers the size of an 14 area to be designation. The size of the area may vary 15 dependent on the pollutant. Normally, an air basin is the 16 area designated for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, PM10, sulfates, 17 and visibility reducing particles. Whereas, a county or a 18 portion of a county within an air basin is the area 19 designated for carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, and 20 hydrogen sulfide. 21 However, the Board may designate a smaller area if 22 the area is distinct based on air quality data, meteorology, 23 topography, distribution of population, and emissions. 24 The designation criteria also covers the 25 requirements for the designation categories. These PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 categories are nonattainment, attainment, and unclassified. 2 In addition, the designation criteria specifies that the 3 area designations must be reviewed annually. 4 Before I move on to describe the requirements for 5 each designation category, I would like to clarify some key 6 terminologies. To begin with, I will clarify the difference 7 between an exceedance and a violation. 8 An exceedance is any concentration which is higher 9 than the level of the State standard. A violation is an 10 exceedance which is not affected by a highly irregular or 11 infrequent event. Therefore, not all exceedances are 12 considered violations. 13 Highly irregular or infrequent events are 14 exceedances beyond reasonable regulatory control and are 15 excluded from the designation process. However, all 16 exceedances remain in the database. 17 There are three types of events: The "exceptional 18 events" have specific identifiable causes, such as forest 19 fires, high winds, or industrial accidents. The "extreme 20 concentration events" may have no identifiable cause and are 21 statistically calculated to recur less than once a year. A 22 potential cause for such exceedances could be due to 23 meteorology. 24 The criteria for determining the "unusual 25 concentration events" were adopted in November of 1995. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 These events are anomalous exceedances, which are not either 2 exceptional or extreme concentrations, and only apply to 3 attainment or unclassified areas. 4 Now that I have explained some key terminologies, 5 I will cover the requirements for the designation 6 categories. To be designated nonattainment, the area must 7 have one or more violations in the last three years. 8 For nonattainment/transitional, a subcategory of 9 nonattainment, the area must have two or fewer violations at 10 any site during the last a year for pollutants other than 11 ozone. For ozone, the area must have three or fewer 12 exceedances during the last year. 13 To be designated attainment, the area must have no 14 violations in the last three years. Areas for which 15 sufficient data are not available must be designated 16 unclassified. 17 This chart illustrates the affected pollutants and 18 the number of areas proposed for redesignation due to the 19 staff's annual review. The staff is proposing to 20 redesignate one area for ozone, six areas for carbon 21 monoxide, one area for PM10, and one area for sulfates. 22 Next, I will be covering these areas proposed for 23 redesignation in more detail. 24 The first pollutant to be discussed is ozone. The 25 State standard for ozone is a one-hour average of .09 parts PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 per million not to be exceeded. 2 The only area that qualifies for ozone 3 redesignation this year is Mono County in the Great Basin 4 Valley Air Basin. Currently, Mono County is designated 5 nonattainment. The staff proposes to redesignate Mono 6 County as nonattainment/transitional. 7 Mono County qualifies for 8 nonattainment/transitional by operation of law. The maximum 9 concentration during the three-year period was .12 parts per 10 million; and during 1995, there were only two exceedances. 11 Now that we have finished discussing ozone, let's 12 move on to the second pollutant, carbon monoxide. There are 13 two State standards for carbon monoxide, a one-hour standard 14 of 20 parts per million and an eight-hour average standard 15 of 9.0 parts per million, both not to be exceeded. 16 The eight-hour standard is harder to attain than 17 the one-hour standard, and areas which meet the eight-hour 18 standard do not exceed the one-hour standard. Therefore, to 19 simplify my discussion of areas proposed for redesignation, 20 I will limit this discussion to details of the eight-hour 21 standard. 22 Tuolumne County in the Mountain Counties Air Basin 23 is currently unclassified. The staff recommends to 24 redesignate Tuolumne county attainment for carbon monoxide. 25 There were no exceedances during the three-year period, and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 the maximum concentration was 3.4 parts per million. 2 Butte county in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin 3 iis currently nonattainment in the Chico Urbanized Area and 4 unclassified in the remainder of the county. The staff is 5 proposing to redesignate the entire county as attainment. 6 There were no exceedances of the eight-hour standard during 7 the three-year period, and the maximum concentration was 5.8 8 parts per million. 9 Placer County in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin 10 is currently unclassified. the staff is proposing to 11 redesignate this county portion as attainment. There were 12 no exceedances of the eight-hour standard during the three- 13 year period, and the maximum concentration was 3.0 parts 14 per million. 15 Sacramento County in the Sacramento Valley Air 16 Basin is currently nonattainment/transitional in the 17 Sacramento Urbanized Area and attainment in the remainder of 18 the county. The staff is proposing to redesignate the 19 entire county as attainment. There were two exceedances of 20 the eight-hour standard during 1993 of 9.4 parts per 21 million. Both exceedances are excluded as extreme 22 concentrations; therefore, the next highest concentration 23 during the three-year period is 9.0 parts per million, which 24 does not exceed the State standard. 25 The Lake Tahoe Air Basin has a more stringent PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 carbon monoxide standard. It is an eight-hour average 2 standard of 6 parts per million not to be equaled or 3 exceeded. The remaining two areas of this carbon monoxide 4 discussion are subject to this standard. 5 El Dorado County in the Lake Tahoe Air Basin is 6 currently nonattainment. The El Dorado County Air Pollution 7 Control District requested redesignation to 8 nonattainment/transitional. The staff expects the area to 9 reach attainment within three years and, therefore, proposes 10 to redesignate this area as nonattainment/transitional. 11 There was one violation of 6.3 parts per million 12 during 1995, and the maximum concentration for this 13 three-year period was 7.5 parts per million. 14 Placer County in the Lake Tahoe Air Basin is 15 currently unclassified. The staff is proposing to 16 redesignate this area as attainment for carbon monoxide. 17 There were no exceedances during the three-year period, and 18 the maximum concentration during this period was 3.6 parts 19 per million. 20 The third pollutant to have an area for 21 redesignation is PM10. There are two State standards for 22 PM10: an annual geometric mean of 30 micrograms per cubic 23 meter and a 24-hour average of 50 micrograms per cubic 24 meter, both not to be exceeded. 25 Calaveras County in the Mountain Counties Air PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 Basin is currently designated unclassified. The staff 2 proposes to redesignate this area as nonattainment for the 3 24-hour standard. There were two violations of the 24-hour 4 standard in 1995, one of 118 micrograms per cubic meter and 5 57 micrograms per cubic meter. 6 The last pollutant to be covered for 7 redesignations is sulfates. The State sulfates standard is 8 a 24-hour average of 25 micrograms per cubic meter not to be 9 equaled or exceeded. 10 The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is currently 11 designated unclassified for sulfates. The staff proposes to 12 redesignate this air basin to attainment. There were no 13 exceedances during the three-year period, and the maximum 14 concentration was 50 micrograms per cubic meter, and 15 occurred in Kern County. 16 This concludes the proposed areas for 17 redesignation subject to staff's annual review. 18 I will proceed with the area redesignations 19 subject to the recently divided South East Desert Air Basin 20 into the Mojave Desert and Salton Sea Air Basins. The 21 staff's redesignations for areas within the new air basins 22 are consistent with the areas' previous designations for all 23 criteria pollutants, except for Riverside County within the 24 Mojave Desert Air Basin. This portion of Riverside County 25 was attainment for carbon monoxide when part of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 Southeast Desert Air Basin. Now the staff is proposing to 2 redesignate this area to unclassified. The staff was unable 3 to redesignate this area to attainment, because there are no 4 monitors for this area within the new Mojave Desert Air 5 Basin. 6 In addition to the new air basins, the Board 7 changed the South Coast Air Basin boundaries to include the 8 San Gorgonio Pass Area. The only monitoring site in this 9 area is Banning. The concentrations for this site do not 10 affect the area designations for the South Coast Air Basin. 11 Next, I will list the areas not recommended for 12 redesignation. All of these areas have had exceedances, but 13 these exceedances have been excluded as highly irregular or 14 infrequent events. I will be addressing the unusual 15 concentration events, extreme concentration events, and 16 exceptional events in this order. 17 Areas affected by unusual concentration events are 18 Inyo County and Plumas County for ozone. 19 Areas affected by extreme concentration events 20 are: for ozone, Sonoma County in the North Coast Air Basin; 21 for nitrogen dioxide, Los Angeles County in the South Coast 22 Air Basin and San Bernardino County in the Mojave Desert Air 23 Basin; for sulfur dioxide, San Luis Obispo County; for 24 sulfates, Los Angeles County in the South Coast Air Basin 25 and Riverside County in the South Coast Air Basin; for lead, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 Los Angeles County in the South Coast Air Basin; for 2 hydrogen sulfide, Lake County, Santa Barbara County, and San 3 Luis Obispo County. 4 One area is affected by an exceptional event, Los 5 Angeles County in the South Coast Air Basin for lead. 6 In summary, staff's annual review proposes to 7 redesignate one area for ozone, six areas for carbon 8 monoxide, one area for PM10, and one area for sulfates. 9 In addition, staff's redesignations for areas 10 within the new air basins are consistent with the areas' 11 previous designations for all criteria pollutants, except 12 for Riverside County within the Mojave Desert Air Basin. 13 This portion of Riverside County currently is attainment for 14 carbon monoxide. The staff is proposing to redesignate it 15 to unclassified. 16 This concludes my presentation. If there are any 17 questions, we'll be happy to answer them. Debbie Popejoy, 18 Manager of the Air Quality Analysis Section, will summarize 19 any comments received during the public comment period. 20 Thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Thank you. 22 MS. POPEJOY: Thank you, Cynthia. We received 23 three letters, one from Calaveras County -- and I believe 24 Mr. Lakhmir Grewal, the Deputy APCO, is here today to 25 testify; so, we will comment after his testimony. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 Attached to his letter was a letter from a 2 citizen, Mr. Jim Reed of Burson, California. And we wrote a 3 paper basically to promote common sense with restraint in 4 fiscal planning and policy development. 5 He made three points in his paper, which I will go 6 through. The first point was that, "The only pollution 7 generating in our vicinity" -- that's Calaveras County -- 8 "is that of campfires, woodstoves, and occasional forest 9 fires." 10 Our comment is that the PM10 emission sources and 11 inventory in Calaveras County are very similar to those of 12 other counties in the Mountain Counties Air Basin, which are 13 designated as nonattainment. 14 We looked at the 1994 emission inventory. 15 Calaveras has a total of 25 tons per day of PM10 emissions 16 compared to El Dorado County of 29; Mariposa, 14; Nevada, 17 29; Placer County, 24. 18 And the majority -- or the two major sources of 19 PM10 are fugitive dust from paved and unpaved roads as well 20 as residential combustion. 21 So, we feel that there are sources of PM10 in the 22 area that would -- could make it nonattainment. 23 His second point was that the (reading) Board's 24 findings will affect not only growth of our community, but 25 will influence future studies made in our region. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 I'm not really sure what he means about future 2 studies in his region. But we don't feel that it really 3 will impact his growth, since -- although the California 4 Clean Air Act does require attainment of the PM10 standard, 5 a finding of nonattainment for PM10 does not carry with it 6 the planning requirements and the mandated rule adoption as 7 required for areas that are nonattainment for ozone or 8 carbon monoxide. 9 His third point was that he wants ARB to go after 10 the heavily industrialized areas of San Joaquin and 11 Sacramento Counties and not the regions that are -- not the 12 regions that are downwind. 13 As with ozone, designation decisions do not 14 consider the causes of pollution, but rather affect -- they 15 reflect the quality of the air. A nonattainment designation 16 identifies an area as having unhealthful air on some days. 17 And even though we have not looked into it specifically, 18 there may be some transport from San Joaquin or Sacramento 19 Valleys into the Mountain Counties of PM10. We have done an 20 extensive evaluation on ozone, which you will hear later. 21 But even if it is transport, an area that shows 22 poor air quality is designated as nonattainment. And within 23 the planning process is when you address the actual causes. 24 So, those were the three comments from Jim Reed. 25 We also received a letter from Noel Bonderson, who PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 is the APCO of Amador County. At our workshop, we had 2 proposed to call Amador County in attainment of the CO 3 standard. After the workshop and upon further 4 investigation, we found that the monitor in Amador did not 5 really reflect the area that we expected high CO. 6 We are working with the district. Our people from 7 Monitoring and Laboratory will be working with the district 8 to find a -- an appropriate site where we expect the high CO 9 to be in Amador County, some -- in an area closer to the 10 downtown area of Jackson. 11 So, I don't believe there's any real issue left 12 with Amador County on that. So, those are the comments we 13 have received other than Calaveras, and Lakhmir will discuss 14 those. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Any questions of 16 staff before we go to the witness list? 17 Yes, Mayor Hilligoss. 18 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: I just was wondering if you 19 could explain about the areas affected by extreme 20 concentration events for Sonoma County, the northern part? 21 MS. POPEJOY: Right. That was for ozone, wasn't 22 it, Cynthia? 23 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Yes, it was for ozone. 24 MS. POPEJOY: Right. Under the criteria, we are 25 allowed -- we look at the distribution of the data of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 max value on a daily, and we do a statistical evaluation to 2 determine the concentration that's not expected to occur 3 more than once per year. 4 Any concentration that's greater than that is 5 considered extreme and not considered a violation. It's 6 very similar to the Federal process, in which they allow 7 three exceedances in a three-year period. 8 Ours is very similar, in that we allow "on 9 average" three exceedances in a three-year period not to be 10 considered violations. But we do a statistical test rather 11 than just an automatic three exclusions. 12 So, their one exceedance was considered extreme 13 and, therefore, not a violation, and they maintain -- 14 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: What caused it? 15 MS. POPEJOY: We didn't actually look into the 16 cause, because it was just considered extreme. 17 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: I mean, was it a forest fire or 18 something like that? 19 MS. POPEJOY: I really don't know. 20 MR. MC GUIRE: Typically, when we use a 21 statistical test, what that tells us is the day that that 22 high value occurred was probably reflecting some sort of 23 extremely bad meteorology. And the Board's decision several 24 years ago was to say, when you have an extraordinarily bad 25 meteorological day, it should not be considered for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 designation or planning purposes. 2 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Okay. Thank you. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Any other questions of 4 staff? All right. Then we'll go to the witness list. 5 Lakhmir Grewal from Calaveras County APCD is the 6 only witness that has signed up. 7 I think we have the testimony up here. 8 MR. GREWAL: There's some attachments to it, too, 9 Mr. Chairman. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 11 MR. GREWAL: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, 12 good morning. 13 First of all, I would like to introduce the letter 14 from the Air Pollution Control Officer into the record. 15 Attached to the letter, there are about four more pages, 16 which are describing the general area and the general air 17 quality, and the three readings I would like to talk to the 18 Board about. 19 The months during which these exceedances take 20 place are October, November, and December sometimes. And 21 the two readings, which are either exceedances or could be 22 considered as violations, are October 6th, 1995, and 23 November 11th, 1995. 24 And I personally believe, based on the 18 or so 25 years experience all over San Joaquin Valley -- Kern County, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 Yuba, Sutter, and now in Calaveras County -- that these two 2 readings are either not representative of the general air 3 quality in that region or possibly from transport, because 4 during that time, half of the State -- starting from the Bay 5 Area into the San Joaquin Valley -- suffered a lot of fires. 6 And there were approximately 10 fires going on. 7 And this morning, I was shown two filters for 8 those days, and one of them definitely smells like fire even 9 after a one-year period. 10 And my proposal to the Air Resources Board's staff 11 was that these two are extreme concentrations, which are not 12 only representing data as compared to the air monitored in 13 that area, but when I compare these readings with the 14 similar areas or similar stations in Sacramento County, if 15 we exclude these readings, then the charts and the graphs I 16 have prepared, they put us below 50 micrograms per meter 17 cubed. 18 And our stipulation is that these two readings are 19 extreme concentrations. And as the State staff has 20 mentioned, that the forest fires, and high winds, industrial 21 accidents should be considered as exceptional events. 22 So, I am assuming that due to forest fires, these 23 readings should be thrown out. And this year's data 24 reflects the readings which are way below 50 micrograms per 25 meter cubed so far for the entire year. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 I'll be happy to answer any questions. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Staff, what about this? 3 We're talking about the fall of '95, right? 4 MR. GREWAL: That's correct. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: The October/November time 6 period? 7 MR. GREWAL: October 6th and November 11th. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Staff, what about this 9 assertion? 10 MR. MC GUIRE: Members of the Board, I'm Terry 11 McGuire. When we do PM10 sampling, one of the first things 12 that we have to remember that is different from ozone 13 sampling, we only sample every six days. So, when you 14 detect a PM10 exceedance, statistically it probably occurred 15 on a lot more days you didn't sample. 16 In the case of Calaveras County, as Mr. Grewal has 17 advised you, there have been two exceedances in 1995. And 18 both of those -- incidentally, you probably received a 19 letter from us early in the week. At the district's 20 request, we went back and reaffirmed the integrity of those 21 values. There was one that was slightly over 50. We had 22 the lab take it out and reweigh it to confirm that indeed 23 there was no laboratory error. 24 We went back and checked the records. The 25 instruments were functioning and calibrated during the time. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 We believe, first, those two exceedances were clear, 2 legitimate exceedances and not instrumental aberrations. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 4 MR. MC GUIRE: Second, with respect to them being 5 unusual events, the Board's criteria for what constitutes 6 unusual events are fairly specific, in that we have to make 7 certain findings. We have looked fairly closely at both of 8 these readings. And based upon the data available now, we 9 do not believe there is any basis in the criteria for 10 exceeding them -- or for excluding them. 11 So, the staff may want to add a little bit more 12 technical detail. But, in conclusion, we believe they are 13 legitimate violations. We believe that they represent the 14 air in the area where the samples were collected. 15 As was stated earlier, designation of attainment 16 or nonattainment is not affected by where the violation 17 came from. That is addressed later in the planning and 18 attainment process. But the purpose of designation is to 19 make a clear statement as to whether the quality of air is 20 better than the standards or worse than the standards. In 21 these cases, it was clearly worse than the standards. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. And you would also say 23 that because of the infrequent monitoring, every six days, 24 that it's likely that there would have been more days if the 25 equipment would have been set up to monitor that extra PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 period of time? 2 MR. MC GUIRE: Yeah. And where we have put up 3 daily monitoring, we found that to be so. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Grewal, what about that 5 point? Do you agree with that point? 6 MR. GREWAL: Well, if there was a fire and if it 7 went seven days or 365 days, then that violation is going to 8 occur 365 days. 9 And the other comment I would like to make is -- 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, are we talking 11 specifically about a fire here? I know you'd indicated it 12 smells -- the filter -- 13 MR. GREWAL: One of the first -- 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: -- still smells like a fire. 15 MR. GREWAL: That's right. 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: One or both? 17 MR. GREWAL: One of them. 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 19 MR. GREWAL: So, that is definitely due to the -- 20 either the forest fire or -- 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Let me, and I'm not a lawyer, so 22 I can't frame this question to be air right. But let me 23 try. 24 Do you think that if the air monitoring equipment 25 would have been able to monitor during this period daily, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 for example, you would have had more than the two 2 exceedances -- 3 MR. GREWAL: If that fire -- 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: -- based upon your 18 years of 5 experience in the Valley? 6 MR. GREWAL: If that fire lasted six days -- 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I'm not talking about a fire. 8 I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about any 9 exceedance for whatever reason, you think you would have had 10 more than the two if the equipment would have been set up to 11 monitor daily? 12 MR. GREWAL: I would say, no. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Staff? 14 MR. MC GUIRE: We disagree on that point. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 16 MR. MC GUIRE: And the other thing that I would 17 like to say is that we saw no evidence of a fire, no other 18 requests from adjacent districts that would have indicated a 19 fire. Smelling a filter could suggest that it could be 20 wood-burning stoves in the area -- 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure. 22 MR. MC GUIRE: -- as well as a fire. 23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. Do any of my 24 colleagues have any questions for our friend from Calaveras 25 County? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 Okay. Thank you very much. 2 MR. GREWAL: I would like to make one additional 3 comment. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure. 5 MR. GREWAL: If I may, Mr. Chairman, the entire 6 State on the day Calaveras County is being monitored as 118, 7 the entire State was below 100 or close to a hundred. And 8 the date that Calaveras County's being monitored at 57, the 9 entire area, which I'm comparing based on the readings I 10 received for Sacramento -- even the Sacramento readings are 11 below 35 and 37. It's hard to believe -- there is a dead 12 body, definitely. These are the two filters. 13 But how it happened, I don't think the State has 14 been able to prove or I have been able to substantiate that 15 transport possibly is a definite culprit. And just to 16 assume that based on the transport of a typical county (sic) 17 should be designated as nonattainment. 18 And in the public notice, the State has mentioned, 19 even if we are not supposed to do anything under the law, 20 the State is not mandating for us, but it's almost three- 21 quarter of the page on the public notice what the county can 22 do. 23 And a county 34,500 people, with a limited of 24 staff of one, who is here, who is fighting the fires right 25 there right now -- so, an assumption of maintaining a solid PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 program with the foreseeable future that we can attain the 2 standard in the next 10 years -- by doing what? I think 3 it's unreasonable from the basis of one reading only to put 4 the county through the hurdles off of these 10 steps, which 5 will be proposed. 6 I thank you very much. 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I certainly appreciate that 8 perspective, and want you to know of our commitment -- 9 certainly of the Board, and I know from the staff, having 10 been in a number of discussions on these points -- we have 11 to depend on the data. 12 We also -- as I understand it, there had been an 13 opportunity, at least in the technical discussion phase, for 14 you all to work with the staff. There was some requests to 15 get some data and some information, and perhaps you weren't 16 as quick to respond, as you might have been, maybe because 17 of resource constraints. But that kind of put this issue on 18 a track to come before us with this recommendation. 19 I think you could have had some -- a more complete 20 discussion perhaps, if you had made the time to do it, as I 21 understand it. But -- 22 MR. GREWAL: The letter that Mr. McGuire has 23 mentioned, I received that letter in the fax yesterday. 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. Okay. Thank 25 you very much. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 That's our only witness. Mr. Kenny, can I impose 2 upon you perhaps to summarize or address this contentious 3 issue with Calaveras County and their concern? I mean are 4 you feeling complete confidence in the element of it that 5 applies to them? 6 MR. KENNY: Yes. I think the difficulty here is 7 that what happens with regard to designations is that we are 8 simply looking at a reading on what the air quality is. And 9 we are looking at that air quality and determining whether 10 or not it's in compliance with or above the standards. 11 We're not looking at the causality. We're just 12 simply looking at what is the fact of the matter. 13 In this particular situation, the monitors show 14 that the air quality readings for PM10 are high. In that 15 particular situation, this designation is appropriate. 16 When we look at causality, we can then talk about 17 what we're going to do to address it. But that's not the 18 purpose of designations. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. If there are 20 no other questions of the staff, Mr. Schoning, do you have 21 anything to add as our Ombudsman on this matter? 22 MR. SCHONING: Mr. Chairman, as you heard, the 23 staff did a thorough job of reaching out to all 34 air 24 districts and workshopped the proposal. 25 A relatively small number of affected districts PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 all had the opportunity to respond, and numerous notices 2 were sent to more than 2500 stakeholders. 3 The representatives from the Department of 4 Forestry, and Calaveras County Air Pollution Control 5 District, and the California Energy Commission attended a 6 workshop. And these proposed amendments were sent -- that 7 are before you today -- were sent to all individuals 8 representing air districts and all individuals who attended 9 the August workshop. 10 In conclusion, it would appear that a reasonable 11 effort has been made to reach out. 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. Very good. 13 Then what I'll do is I'll close the -- Mr. Kenny? 14 MR. KENNY: I guess I would like to make one 15 other comment, and that is just simply with regard to kind 16 of the -- the carbon monoxide redesignations. I really 17 think that that reflects sort of the success this Board has 18 had with the cleaner burning gasoline and the vehicle 19 programs. 20 And I just thought I'd like to sort of take note 21 of that. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: So, we're reaping the benefits 23 here from the regulatory program. 24 MR. KENNY: Yes. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. In realtime. All right. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 I'll close the record. Since all testimony, 2 written submissions, and staff comments for this item have 3 been entered into the record and the Board has not granted 4 an extension of the comment period, I am officially closing 5 the record on this portion of Agenda Item 96-9-2. 6 Written or oral comments received after the 7 comment period has been closed will not be accepted as part 8 of the official record on this agenda item. 9 Again, ex parte communications need to be 10 reported. While we may, of course, communicate off the 11 record with outside persons regarding Board rulemaking, we 12 must disclose the names of our contacts and the nature of 13 the contents on the record. 14 So, is there any ex parte communication that needs 15 to be reported on this item? Okay. Very good. 16 We have before us and have had for some time now a 17 resolution on this item. The resolution number's 96-55, 18 which contains the staff recommendations. and the Chair 19 would entertain a motion and a second to adopt the staff 20 proposal. 21 SUPERVISOR SILVA: I so move. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Moved by Supervisor 23 Silva? Is there a second? 24 MR. CALHOUN: Second. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Calhoun. Very good. Any PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 discussion on this resolution? 2 All right. With that, I will do a voice vote. 3 All those in favor of Resolution 96-55, say aye? 4 (Ayes.) 5 Any opposed? Very good. Motion carries. It 6 appears unanimously. 7 Thank you very much. 8 Staff, I appreciate your presentation. 9 All right. While the staff is taking their 10 places, why don't we introduce this item. 96-9-3 is a 11 public hearing to consider amendments to the assessment of 12 the impacts of transported pollutants on ozone 13 concentrations in California. 14 The California Clean Air Act requires that every 15 three years the Board reassess the contributions that 16 emissions transported from sources in upwind air districts 17 make to violations of the State ozone standard in downwind 18 air basins. 19 At this juncture, I'd like Mr. Kenny to introduce 20 the item and get the staff's presentation underway. But 21 before we do that, Mr. Kenny, we need to have your staff in 22 their places. 23 So, Mr. McGuire, can I get you to take your place, 24 please. All right, Mr. Kenny. 25 MR. KENNY: Thank you. As the Chairman explained, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 the California Clean Air Act requires the Board to update 2 the assessment of transport impacts every three years. The 3 Board approved the initial assessment of transport in 1990. 4 Today's update is the second triennial update 5 based upon new technical data as well as changes to air 6 basin boundaries. In the update report, the staff proposes 7 that the Board identify one new transport couple and update 8 findings for one already identified transport couple. 9 In addition, changes are recommended to reflect 10 the Board's recent action to split the Southeast Desert Air 11 Basin into the Mojave Desert and Salton Sea Air Basins. 12 Today's presentation will be made by Mr. Dennis 13 King of our Control Strategy Modeling Section of the 14 Technical Support Division. 15 Mr. King? 16 MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. Good morning, 17 Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. 18 As indicated in the introduction, today's 19 presentation represents the second triennial update of the 20 transport assessment findings. The previous triennial 21 update was adopted by the Board in August, 1993. 22 Our discussion today will cover the following 23 elements: background information on transport, including its 24 definition, the legal requirements, and previous milestones; 25 transport classification definitions and mitigation PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 requirements; the analysis techniques that were used as the 2 basis for the proposed transport findings update; the review 3 process for staff's recommended findings; and staff's 4 recommended changes to the transport regulations. 5 Transport is the movement of pollutants -- in this 6 case, ozone and ozone precursors -- from an upwind area to a 7 downwind area by means of the prevailing winds. These 8 pollutants can be carried along the ground by surface winds, 9 in which case they may directly affect downwind air quality. 10 They may also be carried aloft by upper level 11 winds, and then subsequently mixed down to the surface or 12 directly affect sites in elevated terrain. 13 As an illustration of transport, the staff would 14 like to present an excellent animation sequence that was put 15 together by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 16 The video portrays the movement downwind of air parcels 17 originating at a few sites in the Bay Area for June 22nd 18 through June 26th, 1995. 19 Before showing the complete video, I'd like to 20 orient you with the area shown, and point out a few of the 21 video's features. 22 The purple lines represent major highways. The 23 various colored balls represent air parcels originating in 24 the Bay Area. The purple balls are from Oakland, the blue 25 balls are from San Francisco, and the white balls are from PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 San Jose. 2 Sacramento is located in the upper right-hand 3 corner. Stockton is located midway down the right-hand 4 side. The white arrows on the map are interpolated winds. 5 The blue lines represent air basin boundaries between the 6 Bay Area and the San Joaquin Valley. 7 Finally, the day and time are shown in the upper 8 left-hand corner. 9 On the first day, we can see a buildup of 10 emissions in the Bay Area during the morning hours; later 11 on, being transported out to the San Joaquin Valley. This 12 condition persists for three days or up to the third day, 13 and is transported out into the San Joaquin Valley. 14 As you can see here, it's doing it again, being 15 transported out through the Altamont Pass. And again the 16 buildup. 17 On the fifth day, which is starting now, a 18 different condition arises where transport -- well, there is 19 no transport. The transport is out into the San Joaquin 20 Valley. A strong onward push. 21 In recognition of the fact that ozone and ozone 22 precursors can be carried by winds over air basin or 23 district boundaries, the Health and Safety Code requires the 24 Air Resources Board to do the following: 25 First, to identify downwind areas affected by PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 transported air pollutants and the source regions. 2 Second, to assess the relative contributions of 3 upwind emissions to downwind ozone levels as overwhelming, 4 significant, inconsequential, or some combination thereof, 5 based on the preponderance of the available data. These 6 classifications will be defined in a moment. 7 Third, to establish mitigation requirements for 8 upwind districts commensurate with their contributions to 9 air quality problems in downwind areas. 10 And lastly, to update the analysis at least once 11 every three years. 12 In December, 1989, the Board first adopted 13 transport regulations. After several updates, there are 14 currently 20 transport couples. As indicated previously, 15 one or more of three transport classifications are assigned 16 to each identified transport couple. 17 These classifications are overwhelming, 18 significant, and inconsequential. More than one assessment 19 may apply to a transport couple for different days, since 20 the assessments depend upon parameters, such as the wind 21 speed and wind direction, which vary from day to day. Thus, 22 different findings may exist for different days, and an area 23 may have multiple classifications. 24 Overwhelming transport describes a condition where 25 the emissions from the upwind area independently cause a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 violation of the State ozone standard in the downwind area 2 without significant contributions from the downwind area. 3 The responsibility for a violation caused by overwhelming 4 transport lies with the upwind area. 5 Significant ozone transport occurs when emissions 6 from the upwind area contribute measurably to a violation of 7 the State standard in the downwind area, but do not 8 overwhelm the area. In this case, emissions from sources 9 within the downwind area combine with the transported air 10 parcel carrying ozone or ozone precursors. 11 A violation classified as significant is 12 considered shared, with control responsibility lying with 13 both the upwind and downwind areas. 14 Significant ozone transport covers a wide range of 15 impacts, since this classification covers the range between 16 inconsequential to overwhelming. Thus, a finding of 17 significant transport means that an upwind area is 18 responsible for anywhere from some of the problem to most of 19 the problem. 20 Inconsequential ozone transport occurs when upwind 21 emissions do not contribute significantly to a violation of 22 the State ozone standard in the downwind area. That is, 23 local emissions are responsible for the violation. As a 24 result, the responsibility for inconsequential transport 25 lies with the downwind area. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 The mitigation regulations define specific 2 requirements for upwind areas in order to provide relief to 3 downwind areas. Before I list these requirements, please 4 note that the staff is not proposing any changes to the 5 mitigation requirements at this time; rather, staff is only 6 proposing amendments that redefine which areas are subject 7 to the mitigation requirements. 8 The requirements for upwind areas identified as 9 overwhelming are the following: Adopt and implement best 10 available retrofit control technology on all existing 11 stationary sources of ozone precursor emissions, and include 12 measures sufficient to attain the State standard for ozone 13 in the downwind area. 14 For upwind areas identified as significant, but 15 not overwhelming, the mitigation requirement is to adopt and 16 implement best available retrofit control technology. 17 Because the responsibility for inconsequential 18 transport lies with the downwind area, there are no 19 mitigation requirements for that classification for upwind 20 areas. 21 The staff used two general analysis techniques in 22 assessing transport impacts for the proposed update. These 23 techniques are data analysis and air quality modeling. 24 Data analysis relies upon interpretation of 25 measured pollutant concentrations and associated weather PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 conditions, such as winds and temperature. Examples of data 2 analysis techniques include the following: using wind 3 observations to determine the origin of a parcel of air; 4 using surface temperature in conjunction with upper air data 5 to estimate when trapped pollutants from aloft are mixed 6 down to the surface; consideration of large scale weather 7 conditions to provide additional information about the 8 extent of transport; and using air quality measurements to 9 examine the spatial distribution of ozone concentrations. 10 The staff also used air quality models. When 11 properly applied and validated, models provide a unique 12 opportunity to understand transport relationships. 13 The models used for the updated transport 14 assessments were those applied for the State Implementation 15 Plan process for the South Coast Air Basin and the San 16 Joaquin Valley and surrounding regions. 17 These models were validated using comprehensive 18 field study data collected in Southern California in 1987, 19 and in the San Joaquin Valley and surrounding regions during 20 the summer of 1990. 21 The review process for the updated assessments 22 consisted of a series of transport working groups and a 23 public workshop. 24 Six transport working groups were formed in 25 response to the Board's 1993 direction that the staff work PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 more directly with districts' staff to assess transport. 2 These groups were comprised of staff from the Air Resources 3 Board and the affected districts. 4 In one group -- that for the Mojave Desert -- 5 representatives from industry and affected facilities were 6 also included. 7 Specifically, the following transport working 8 groups were formed: San Francisco Bay Area to the broader 9 Sacramento, San Francisco Bay Area to the North Central 10 Coast, San Francisco Bay Area to the san Joaquin Valley, San 11 Diego, broader sacramento to the upper Sacramento Valley, 12 and the Mojave Desert. 13 The working groups met every few months for 14 approximately two years. 15 A public workshop was held on July 10th, 1996, in 16 Sacramento. The analysis techniques used by staff were 17 discussed, and staff's recommended changes to the transport 18 findings were presented. Comments received at and 19 subsequent to the workshop were considered during 20 preparation of the staff report. 21 The staff's proposed update includes assessments 22 of established ozone transport couples for the purpose of 23 keeping the assessments current based on more recent data. 24 It also recommends new transport couples based upon new data 25 or to conform with recently formed air basins. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 In the interest of brevity, we will focus our 2 discussion today on newly identified transport couples, 3 those with proposed changes, and one couple in which 4 modeling was used. 5 I'd now like to discuss staff's recommended 6 changes to the transport identification and assessment 7 regulations. 8 During the 1993 transport assessment update, the 9 Board concluded that the broader Sacramento area could 10 overwhelmingly impact the northern portion of the Mountain 11 Counties Air Basin resulting in upwind responsibility. 12 This area of impact is shown by the black arrows 13 in the figure. The broader Sacramento area includes the 14 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, the 15 Yolo-Solano Air Pollution Control District, and portions of 16 Sutter, El Dorado, and Placer Counties. 17 The staff has also identified that on some days 18 the central portion of the Mountain Counties Air Basin can 19 be overwhelmingly impacted by transport. This area of 20 impact is shown by the yellow arrow in the figure. 21 For the central Mountain Counties, 62 exceedance 22 days from 1994 and 1995 were analyzed. All were due to 23 overwhelming transport. The staff examined a few days in 24 greater detail to establish that the broader Sacramento area 25 was an upwind source area. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 Therefore, the staff recommends that the downwind 2 area overwhelmed by transport from the broader Sacramento 3 area be enlarged to include all counties in the Mountain 4 Counties Air Basin north of the Calaveras-Tuolumne County 5 border. 6 During the 1993 triennial transport update, the 7 Board characterized transport from the broader Sacramento 8 area to the upper Sacramento Valley as overwhelming, 9 significant, and inconsequential. The three different 10 findings were for different days. 11 Recently, 17 exceedance days from 1994 and 1995 12 were analyzed by the transport working group using several 13 data analysis techniques. The conclusion was that all 14 exceedance days were impacted by transport. Seven of the 15 days were clearly due to overwhelming transport. The 16 working group did not find any days with inconsequential 17 transport; that is, no locally caused violations of the 18 State ozone standard were found. 19 Based on this recent analysis, the staff 20 recommends that the upper Sacramento Valley classification 21 of inconsequential be discontinued. 22 The transport of pollutants from the San Joaquin 23 Valley to the North Central Coast Air Basin was not 24 evaluated for the 1993 triennial transport assessment, nor 25 were these two air basins identified as a transport couple. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 However, a recent staff analysis suggests that emissions 2 from the Valley contribute to the exceedances. 3 Staff analyzed 14 exceedance days which occurred 4 during 1994 and 1995. Staff's conclusion was that 12 of the 5 exceedances were due to either overwhelming transport or 6 significant transport from the Bay Area. However, on four 7 of the exceedance days, transport was from both the Bay Area 8 and the san Joaquin Valley. 9 One of these days was analyzed in detail. The 10 staff was unable to quantify the separate transport impacts 11 from the two upwind areas for this day; however, the 12 available data suggest that the impact from the Valley was 13 significant. 14 Therefore, the staff recommends that the san 15 Joaquin Valley Air Basin to the North Central Coast Air 16 Basin be identified as a new transport couple with 17 significant transport impacts requiring shared control 18 responsibility. 19 In May of this year, the Board approved the 20 splitting of the Southeast Desert Air Basin into the Mojave 21 Desert and Salton Sea Air Basins. 22 With this division, four new couples were created. 23 The staff is proposing to amend the ozone transport couple 24 identification and the transport mitigation regulations to 25 conform to the new air basins. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 The new couples would be as follows: 2 Mexico to the Salton Sea Air Basin -- No new 3 analysis work was performed for this transport couple. The 4 transport classifications would remain overwhelming and 5 significant. 6 The South Coast Air Basin to the Salton Sea Air 7 Basin -- The 1993 transport assessment concluded that the 8 transport contribution from the South Coast to Imperial 9 County in the Southeast Desert Air Basin was significant. 10 Because of the splitting of the Southeast Desert Air Basin, 11 the previous assessment now applies to the Salton Sea Air 12 Basin. A new analysis was performed for this couple, 13 because there had previously been no assessment of the 14 impacts in the Riverside County portion of the Salton Sea 15 Air basin. 16 For this couple, the staff analyzed an exceedance 17 day with common summertime meteorological conditions at Palm 18 Springs. The wind patterns observed on this day occur 19 approximately three-quarters of the time during the summer. 20 Based upon this analysis, the staff concluded that 21 on days with this type of meteorology, the Salton Sea Air 22 Basin is overwhelmed from the South Coast. Therefore, the 23 staff recommends that this couple be classified overwhelming 24 and significant. 25 The South Coast Air Basin to the Mojave Desert Air PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 Basin -- The 1993 transport assessment assigned transport 2 classifications of overwhelming with upwind responsibility 3 and inconsequential with local responsibility to this 4 couple. 5 However, a reassessment of this couple was 6 recently completed using information from a special data 7 collection effort that was conducted during the summer of 8 1995 to better characterize transport. 9 During this effort, upper air wind and temperature 10 measurements were collected to help identify transport 11 aloft, halocarbon measurements were taken to provide 12 additional information on transport, and special ozone 13 measurements were taken to measure the flux of ozone 14 entering the desert. These data provided valuable 15 information not previously available in assessing transport 16 into the desert. 17 The halocarbon data were used as tracers for air 18 masses originating in the South Coast. These data were for 19 chemical compounds not emitted to any appreciable degree in 20 the Desert. Thus, their presence or absence can be used as 21 an indicator of transported air. 22 There were seven exceedance days at Barstow in the 23 Mojave Desert during the 1995 special study. Using the 24 halocarbon data, it was determined by a contractor that all 25 of these days were impacted by transport from the South PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 Coast. This finding was reviewed and approved by the 2 transport committee. 3 The staff's analysis and work by contractors 4 suggest that, in addition to days with overwhelming 5 transport from the South Coast Air Basin, there are days 6 when a combination of both local emissions and transported 7 ozone and precursors contribute to violations of the State 8 standard in the Mojave Desert. That is, there are days with 9 significant transport and shared control responsibility. 10 Based on the 1995 special study data, there was no 11 evidence of violations which were caused solely by local 12 emissions in the Desert. Using this finding and previous 13 findings, the staff and the transport committee have 14 determined that locally caused violations occur less 15 frequently than once per year. 16 As a result, the staff is recommending that the 17 inconsequential classification be discontinued for this 18 couple. Please note that this recommendation differs from 19 that contained in the staff report in which the 20 classification of inconsequential was left in. 21 Therefore, the staff recommends that the Board 22 classify this couple as overwhelming and significant. 23 This change also affects the classification of 24 transport from the San Joaquin Valley to the Mojave Desert. 25 The staff is recommending that the inconsequential PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 classification be discontinued for this couple also due to 2 the infrequent occurrence of local episodes in the Desert as 3 discussed for the previous transport couple. 4 This recommendation is also a change from that 5 contained in the staff report in which the classification of 6 inconsequential was left in. 7 During the 1993 triennial transport update, it was 8 concluded that transport from the San Francisco Bay Area to 9 the San Joaquin Valley was overwhelming, significant, and 10 inconsequential. The staff has recently updated this 11 analysis using data collected during 1994 and 1995. 12 The staff analyzed all 13 exceedance days from 13 1994 and 1995. Using forward and backward trajectories, 14 spatial wind plots, and plots of ozone concentration with 15 time, the staff determined that two of the exceedance days 16 in a portion of the northern Valley were due to overwhelming 17 transport from the Bay Area, and that two other days were 18 possibly due to overwhelming transport from the Bay Area. 19 Therefore, the staff has concluded that transport 20 of ozone and precursors from the Bay Area overwhelmingly 21 impacted a small adjacent area of the San Joaquin Valley Air 22 Basin. 23 In addition to data analysis, the staff has used 24 air quality modeling to evaluate transport for this couple. 25 We would like to share the results of some pertinent PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 modeling runs with you today. 2 Two emissions scenarios were modeled. First, 3 anthropogenic emissions were removed for the San Joaquin 4 Valley and the Sacramento area, leaving only emissions from 5 the Bay Area and along the coast. 6 Second, anthropogenic emissions were removed from 7 the Bay Area and Sacramento regions, leaving no appreciable 8 emissions upwind of the Valley. 9 Although the assumption of zero anthropogenic 10 emissions over large areas is clearly an unreasonable 11 assumption, these exercises provide useful information for 12 understanding transport. 13 The first two sets of model outputs are for the 14 modeling exercise with no anthropogenic emissions in the San 15 Joaquin Valley and the Sacramento area. Their purpose is to 16 show the potential for transport from the Bay Area into the 17 Valley in the absence of downwind anthropogenic emissions. 18 Since ozone formation is a complex process, ozone 19 concentrations by themselves do not directly show transport. 20 Therefore, we'd first like to show modeled concentrations of 21 an inert chemical compound, which will give a better idea of 22 transport from the Bay Area. The video begins at midnight. 23 The Bay Area is shown in the upper left-hand 24 corner. Stockton is just east of that down the Valley; down 25 San Joaquin Valley, you see Fresno; and then down further, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 you see Bakersfield. 2 We can see that, as the day progresses, emissions 3 from the Bay Area are transported through the Carquinez 4 Straits and the Pacheco Pass into the San Joaquin Valley, 5 impacting Stockton and Modesto. 6 The next set of outputs are for the same modeling 7 exercise, but show ozone concentrations. Once again, there 8 were no anthropogenic emissions in the San Joaquin Valley or 9 the Sacramento area for this exercise. 10 This first slide is for ten o'clock. As indicated 11 by the legend, modeled ozone concentrations less than 8 12 parts per hundred million are in the background color, which 13 is green. The lighter blue areas have modeled 14 concentrations of 8 parts per hundred million or greater. 15 Dark Blue is for 10 or greater, yellow is for 11 16 or greater. the red areas indicate areas where modeled 17 concentrations greater than or equal to 12 parts per hundred 18 million, which is the Federal ozone standard. 19 As we step through the hourly slides, you'll note 20 that even without anthropogenic emissions in the San Joaquin 21 Valley and the Sacramento area, the model still predicts 22 ozone concentrations well above the State standard in the 23 northern Valley. 24 The previous two slides showed the Bay Area's 25 potential to affect ozone concentrations in the northern San PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 Joaquin Valley. However, they do not provide any indication 2 of the Valley's capability to produce its own local ozone 3 problem. To assess this, a modeling exercise was carried 4 out with all upwind anthropogenic emissions from the Bay 5 Area and Sacramento area removed. 6 Once again, this first slide begins at 10:00 in 7 the morning. As we step through the hourly slides, you'll 8 note that even without any upwind emissions, the Valley is 9 capable of producing exceedances on its own. 10 Based upon the staff's analysis of data collected 11 during 1994 through 1995 and on the modeling, the staff 12 recommends that the Bay Area to San Joaquin Valley 13 classification of overwhelming, significant, and 14 inconsequential be continued. 15 To summarize, the staff is recommending that five 16 new transport couples be identified. Four are a result of 17 the splitting of the Southeast Desert Air Basin into the 18 Mojave Desert and Salton Sea Air Basins. 19 These four couples are: 20 Mexico to the Salton Sea Air Basin -- The 21 classifications for this couple would remain overwhelming 22 and significant; the South Coast to the Salton Sea Air 23 Basin, with classifications of overwhelming and significant; 24 the South Coast to Mojave Desert, with classifications of 25 overwhelming and significant; and the San Joaquin Valley to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 Mojave Desert, with a classification of overwhelming. 2 In addition, the staff is recommending the 3 following new transport couple: the San Joaquin Valley to 4 the North Central Coast with a classification of significant 5 and shared control responsibility. 6 The staff is further recommending changes to two 7 existing couples: broader Sacramento to the upper 8 Sacramento Valley with elimination of the inconsequential 9 classification, and broader Sacramento to the Mountain 10 Counties; for this couple, the area with overwhelming 11 transport and upwind responsibility would be extended too 12 include the central portion of the Mountain Counties. 13 This concludes my presentation. Thank you. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Thank you very much. 15 Any questions of staff? 16 Yes, Supervisor Vagim. 17 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: I'm just trying to get a handle 18 on the Bay Area to the San Joaquin Valley. All three 19 designations are being applied. 20 Can you further explain that? 21 MR. MC GUIRE: That is correct. Of course, on 22 different times of days and at different places. 23 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Well, wouldn't that be true of 24 every transport? 25 MR. MC GUIRE: There are some places where the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 only exceedances that we have observed, for example, are a 2 result of overwhelming transport. So, those areas would 3 only get one classification. 4 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: And so, what you're saying is, 5 transport happens all the time, but different criteria or 6 different thresholds create a different -- 7 MR. MC GUIRE: Transport -- 8 MR. KENNY: Maybe I can help a little bit. 9 Essentially what's happening is that the staff is modeling 10 episodes. And what they're showing basically, in looking at 11 those episodes, is that particular episodes have different 12 effects. 13 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: So, is that then a byproduct of 14 better modeling, better data than you might have with the 15 same situation if you had the same kind of modeling and data 16 on all the transport areas? 17 MR. MC GUIRE: Well, this update is representing 18 more complete and better data. 19 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: So, in theory then, if you 20 applied it to every transport, you could end up with 21 something like this? 22 MR. MC GUIRE: Well, we've looked pretty 23 thoroughly. Again, the example I would give would be the 24 transport into the Mountain Counties. We've looked at all 25 the days and we're pretty persuaded that those days -- I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 don't believe we have any local days. And we don't have any 2 shared days. 3 We find that those days, ozone exceedances that 4 we've observed are consistently a result of overwhelming 5 transport. And we wouldn't expect more data to shed any 6 more light on it. A strange year in some future could cause 7 that to be different. 8 MR. SCHEIBLE: Oh, one thing to point out. The 9 modeling runs that you saw for the Bay Area were all on the 10 same day. And on that one day, you could have all three 11 classifications applied. It would be a small area of the 12 San Joaquin Valley that just saw emissions and ozone from 13 the Bay Area. It'd be a wider area in the northern Valley 14 that saw ozone in emissions that were contributed both from 15 the Bay Area and the Valley. 16 In the southern area of the Valley, basically, 17 most of its ozone was produced by local emissions. And when 18 you get big air basins interacting, you can have all three 19 classifications even in the same episode. 20 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: I guess I'm trying to get at 21 the control strategies, though, that would apply when you 22 have all three of a designate. You say that the best 23 available technology, retrofit technology should apply only 24 some of the time or should apply all of the time if you have 25 an overwhelming in -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 MR. SCHEIBLE: (Interjecting) Well, if you're 2 overwhelming or significant and you're the upwind area, you 3 have to put on best available retrofit control technology. 4 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: So, the insignificant 5 basically-- 6 MR. SCHEIBLE: (Interjecting) The insignificant 7 doesn't you do any good. 8 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: It's a nice title, but doesn't 9 do you much good. 10 MR. SCHEIBLE: Right. It just signifies that 11 there are times when you are not contributing to the problem 12 downwind, and then the downwind area has to figure out what 13 it can do itself to clean its own air. 14 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: But then, the difference 15 between significant and overwhelming, the same thing, you 16 take the course of best retrofit because you have an 17 overwhelming somewhere in that mix? 18 MR. SCHEIBLE: In terms of the direct controls, 19 it's the same for best available retrofit. But in that 20 case, the upwind area has to also say is that going to be 21 enough with the other things it's doing to attain in a 22 downwind area; and, if not, would be required to do 23 additional controls. 24 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: And significant doesn't have 25 that; is that correct? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 MR. SCHEIBLE: Significant doesn't have that. It 2 says the areas together must figure out the combination of 3 controls that work to clean the area. 4 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: So, basically, you leave this 5 as kind of a table top discussion on how to work it out. 6 MR. SCHEIBLE: Whether it's 80/20, or 50/50, or 7 20/80, that's correct. 8 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Thank you. 9 MR. SCHEIBLE: That's the interesting one to work 10 out. 11 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Okay. Thanks. 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: What I'd like to do is hold the 13 questions for a moment and give Mr. Schoning a moment to 14 talk to us a bit about the process prior to today by which 15 the item came before us, and share any concerns or any 16 comments he has with the Board at this time about this item. 17 Jim? 18 MR. SCHONING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As staff 19 indicated, they have worked with a number of transport 20 working groups around the State for more than a year and a 21 half to develop and discuss transport analyses for various 22 regions. 23 And the make-up of the groups was primarily ARB 24 and district staff. 25 Notice of this proposed rule development was sent PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 to about 2500 stakeholders statewide for a July 10, 1996 2 workshop. Approximately 30 individuals attended that 3 workshop, and they included a number of air district 4 representatives, representatives of the California Council 5 for Environmental and Economic Balance, Chevron Corporation, 6 Desert Research Institute, Sonoma Technology, and the 7 California Energy Commission. 8 The proposed amendments to the assessment of 9 impacts on transport ozone concentrations in California were 10 sent to approximately 60 individuals, including all affected 11 air districts and individuals that attended the July 10 12 workshop. 13 Notices of today's proposed rulemaking were sent 14 to approximately 2500 individuals. 15 In conclusion, it would appear that staff has made 16 a solid effort to reach out and incorporate all affected 17 stakeholders in the deliberations of this process as it 18 comes before you. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. Thanks, Mr. 20 Schoning. Any other questions of staff before we move into 21 the witnesses? 22 We only have two witnesses today on this item. 23 So, all right. We'll proceed. I'll call forward Eldon 24 Heaston from Mojave Desert AQMD, followed by Gene Kulesza 25 from Riverside Cement Company. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 It's good to see you. 2 MR. HEASTON: Thank you, Mr. Dunlap. 3 I'm Eldon Heaston, Deputy Air Pollution Control 4 Officer for the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management 5 District. 6 I'd first, on behalf of our Board and our Air 7 Pollution Control Officer, thank the Air Resources Board for 8 allowing us to participate in the transport committee 9 working groups. I think that, as you noticed in the 10 presentation, that this was a unique group, insofar as that 11 had industry. And the partnering that went on certainly 12 made the results, I think, very valued and something 13 worthwhile that we all learned a lot about. And, of course, 14 we generated a lot more questions in some cases than just 15 answers. 16 We would urge support of the adoption of the 17 amendments to this document, and also to the continued work 18 in this area insofar as that the national air quality 19 standards are under review, and the transport couples will 20 be significant with respect to the areas of influence or 21 areas of violation that may be determined. 22 And we need to at least have information as to how 23 we may be approaching those, and how California intends to 24 address those issues. But once again, I'd like to thank and 25 compliment ARB staff and the Air Resources Board for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 allowing us to do this. It was really worthwhile. We all 2 enjoyed working on it each and every time. 3 Thank you. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Thank you, Eldon. I 5 appreciate that. 6 Also, Supervisor Riordan mentioned to me that the 7 committee process was very positive as Eldon had mentioned. 8 Staff, is there any feeling about keeping those 9 going in some form? What's your kind of plan in that area? 10 MR. MC NERNY: I think we would like to keep those 11 going. The communication with the districts, both upwind 12 and downwind -- and, in this case, with the industries and 13 affected military facilities -- has been very useful. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 15 MR. MC NERNY: There's been a lot of good shared 16 communication and useful tools for understanding transport. 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. And I suspect, Mr. 18 Heaston, that would be acceptable to you all, particularly 19 for your region? 20 (Thereupon, Mr. Heaston nodded affirmatively.) 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. Gene Kulesza, 22 Riverside Cement Company. Good morning. 23 MR. KULESZA: Good morning. 24 Good morning, Chairman Dunlap, Board members, and 25 staff. I'm just going to tell you a few things about the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 committee, and how it reacted, and how it came about, and 2 let you know that we support the staff's findings. 3 Being the regulatory manager for Riverside Cement 4 Company, as well as being Chairman for the Mojave Desert 5 Mining Advisory Council, which involves about 30 mining 6 companies as well as consultants and other affected people 7 in the desert, as well as being the secretary of the Mojave 8 Desert Air Pollution Transport Committee -- it's kind of a 9 long acronym. 10 I've been involved with the desert very, very 11 strongly on what happens to it because we're interested in 12 the truth, we're interested in the scientific basis. And I 13 think that was in 1993, where we came to a difference with 14 the Board staff. And the formation of the transport 15 committee came to be after that. 16 The industry portion of the committee has been 17 very active in this. And I'd just like to tell you who they 18 are for everyone's benefit. 19 Allied Signal, which is Goldstone; Calaveras 20 Cement, California Portland Cement, the Cement Industry 21 Environmental Consortium, Desert Research Institute, Edwards 22 Air Force Base, JPL, Kern County APCD, Mitsubishi Cement; of 23 course, the Mojave Desert AQMD; National Cement, China Lake 24 NAWS; Fort Irwin NTC, Riverside Cement, the South Coast 25 AQMD, Southern California Edison, and Southwest Portland PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 Cement. 2 So, we had a very, I think, prestigious group and 3 a lot of talent. A lot of common sense went into our work. 4 Many of those industry members have lived in the desert for 5 years. And so, they saw the transport as it was coming in 6 from the South Cost and San Joaquin, also. 7 The impact from that particular -- those 8 particular areas, plus other couples, were identified as the 9 transport committee moved forward. There is another couple 10 that needs to be investigated coming up from the Salton Sea, 11 which is, of course, is being fed by Mexico. 12 There's another one's identified, as far as the 13 committee was concerned, and that came out of San Joaquin 14 through Walker Pass. 15 And then we have some other potential couples 16 that, if you kind of think about the Mojave being here, and 17 its 22,000 mile square (sic) capacity, being impacted from 18 several different directions. 19 We've also found transport couples potentially 20 coming in from Las Vegas and Laughlin. We have wind 21 reversal, the Santa Ana conditions. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. 23 MR. KULESZA: We have those every once in a while; 24 how does that impact the desert? That's part of the truth I 25 think that we really were looking for. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 We also identified that there is heavy 2 transportation corridors in I-15 and I-40. We'd like to get 3 to the bottom of those kind of issues. And in many of our 4 industry's minds, we're wondering whether local generation 5 is really significant at all. 6 But I guess when you stop and really try to 7 quantify what the automobiles, the trains, as well as the 8 heavy trucks that come through the transportation corridor, 9 it becomes increasingly more difficult. 10 We're looking about interstate transfer of 11 transport coming back that way. 12 We really want to commend the staff for its 13 willingness to work with industry. I think this has been 14 one of the best efforts that I've seen We're now going 15 beyond the adversarial stage, and we're now getting to the 16 point where we're starting to work with our local 17 industries, as well as the State industries, as well as EPA. 18 I think this is where we've been heading for a 19 long while. I think this committee has done really good 20 job. We studied 33 different studies, which is in the back 21 of your staff report. We still have other charges ahead of 22 us. 23 I think the industry and the Mojave Desert AQMD 24 really want to push forward. We want to further identify 25 the local generation, whether it's significant, and what PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 part the transportation really takes in the local generation 2 idea. 3 And I think that I want to also commend Don 4 McNerny being chairman for the staff -- from the staff side, 5 being the chairman of the transport committee. 6 And once again, I'd like to commend the staff for 7 its recommendation and urge you to support it. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. I apologize for 9 getting ahead of you about keeping the committee going in 10 some form. But you certainly echoed what Eldon had said and 11 what the Supervisor had already communicated to me. 12 Thank you. Okay. Yes, Ms. Edgerton. 13 MS. EDGERTON: I just want to say that I 14 appreciate very much the work that you did. The transport 15 issue has been one that I have been very interested in and 16 will continue to be very interested in. 17 The work that you're doing, of course, is 18 tremendously important to California, and particularly so 19 that the control strategies that we do have in place 20 actually produce the air results that we want. But I think 21 they're also very important ultimately around the world as 22 well as other areas of the world increasingly have very 23 serious air pollution problems and try to determine what to 24 do -- where the controls should be put, what country should 25 be doing what. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 So, the implications, I think, politically and 2 economically are tremendous, and I appreciate very much the 3 very clear presentation that you made. It's fascinating. 4 Thank you. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well said, thank you. 6 What I would like to do is ask staff at this 7 juncture to summarize those written comments that we have. 8 Apparently there are three letters in our -- two from San 9 Joaquin Valley and one from the Bay Area District. 10 Can staff give a brief overview of what's in 11 there? 12 MR. DA MASSA: I'm John DaMassa. I'd like to 13 briefly summarize the three letters that we received. 14 One letter was from Ellen Garvey, who's the Air 15 Pollution Control Officer of the Bay Area District, to Mr. 16 Terry McGuire. 17 In that letter, the Bay Area essentially disagrees 18 with the overwhelming classification to the San Joaquin 19 Valley that they've been assigned. They would prefer a 20 significant. They point out that the 1993 assessment was 21 based upon a statistically extreme value, which the staff 22 agrees with, but which has not been used in the current 23 findings. 24 And they disagree with the staff's data analysis 25 based finding of overwhelming. Subsequent to that, the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 staff has provided them with some additional modeling 2 results, which you saw today. 3 The second letter is from David Crow, Air 4 Pollution Control Officer of the San Joaquin Valley to Ms. 5 Ellen Garvey. The district agrees with the ARB staff's 6 finding of overwhelming, and they urge the Bay Area to 7 implement all existing and contingency measures to attain 8 the State and Federal ozone standards, and further maintain 9 that the Bay Area should be implementing an enhanced I & M 10 program to benefit the Bay Area and the Valley. 11 The third letter is from Mr. David Crow to Terry 12 McGuire. That letter is substantively the same as the 13 previous letter I mentioned. They do also express concern 14 over the first letter that I mentioned, where the Bay Area 15 disagrees with the overwhelming classification. 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. This will 17 conclude the public testimony and written testimony that 18 we've received. Mr. Kenny, do you have any further 19 comments? 20 MR. KENNY: The only comment I guess I would make 21 is in reference to Supervisor Roberts' elements -- the 22 small, medium, and large. This is really one more example 23 of where the State of California's really sort of leading 24 the way. And I think you'll see that next month when the 25 staff provides you with a presentation on what U.S. EPA's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 doing with regard to its new standards that are going to be 2 proposed on ozone and PM10, and also with regard to the 3 areas of influence and areas of impact that he is talking 4 about. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Thank you. 6 Mr. McGuire, I saw you growing a fondness for that 7 microphone a moment ago. I suspect you want to say 8 something briefly? 9 MR. MC GUIRE: No, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to 10 be sure that we didn't let the three letters go unspoken. 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. All right. Then, 12 we'll officially close the record. 13 Since all testimony, written submissions, and 14 staff comments for this item have been entered into the 15 record and the Board has not granted an extension of the 16 comment period, I am officially closing the record on the 17 portion of Agenda Item No. 96-9-3. 18 Written or oral comments received after the 19 comment period has been closed will not be accepted as part 20 of the official record on this agenda item. 21 Just a reminder to Board members of our policy 22 concerning ex parte communications disclosure on this item. 23 Is there anything that needs to be disclosed? 24 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I did 25 meet with Mr. Kulesza, both as a member of the transport PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 committee for Mojave as well as representing Riverside 2 Cement, and basically covered the items that he mentioned in 3 the report today. 4 And I would just secondarily, not as a public 5 disclosure, thank the Air Resources Board staff for working 6 with us in the desert. We really appreciate the work that 7 you've done and the work that we still have to do. So, 8 thank you very much. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well said. Thank you. Anything 10 else that needs to be disclosed? All right. 11 We have before us Resolution 96-56, which contains 12 the staff recommendations. It's been before us for a few 13 moments. 14 The Chair would entertain a motion and a second to 15 adopt the staff proposal if that is the Board's will. 16 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I would be 17 pleased to make tha motion to adopt the staff proposal. 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Is there a second? 19 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Second. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Supervisor Vagim. Okay. Very 21 good. Any discussion on the Resolution 96-56? All right. 22 Then, we'll proceed with a voice vote. 23 All those in favor, say aye? 24 (Ayes.) 25 Any opposed? Very good. Motion appears to have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 passed unanimously. 2 Thank you very much, staff. Again, I'd echo what 3 Supervisor Riordan said about the -- or Ms. Edgerton said 4 about the presentation. I like the high-tech electronics 5 and appreciate that very much. It came off well. It came 6 off well. 7 Okay. As staff is moving into their positions, 8 let's proceed to the next item and get it going. Court 9 reporter, you okay? 10 (Thereupon, the reporter requested a 11 five-minute pause in the proceedings.) 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure. We'll take a five-minute 13 break. 14 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken.) 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: We need to reconvene. I'd ask 16 the audience and the staff and my colleagues to take their 17 seats and move on to the next item here, 96-9-4, which is a 18 public hearing to consider the adoption of a new test method 19 for the determination of volatile organic compounds in 20 consumer products and the adoption of amendments to the test 21 method sections of the California regulations for reducing 22 VOC emissions from antiperspirants and deodorants, consumer 23 products, and aerosol coating products. 24 The best decisions are based on sound technical 25 information, which means the measurement techniques PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 described in test methods must be accurate, precise, and 2 appropriate. 3 Analytical test methods provide the foundation to 4 all of the Board's regulatory programs, in that they're used 5 for determining compliance with specific emission standards 6 and indicate if a particular control measure is doing its 7 intended job. 8 Today, the staff will present a proposal to revise 9 the consumer product test method. State law requires the 10 ARB to adopt regulations to achieve the maximum feasible 11 reduction in reactive volatile organic compounds from 12 consumer products. 13 This item is to improve the consumer products test 14 methods. And after the staff presentation, I've asked the 15 Ombudsman to discuss the outreach efforts by staff on this 16 item. 17 At this point, I'd like to ask Mr. Kenny to 18 introduce the item and begin the staff's presentation. 19 Mike? 20 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Chairman Dunlap, members of 21 the Board. 22 Since the Legislature enacted the California Clean 23 Air Act in 1988, authorizing the Board to control VOCs from 24 consumer products, the Board has adopted four regulations to 25 fulfill the requirements of the Act as it pertains to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 consumer products. 2 As you'll recall, the State Implementation Plan 3 states that further reductions in VOCs from consumer 4 products are needed to attain the air quality standards for 5 ozone. 6 Today, we'll hear two regulatory items on consumer 7 products. The first deals with amending the test method 8 sections of the regulations, which will be presented by the 9 Monitoring and Laboratory Division. The second deals with 10 modifications to the existing consumer product regulations, 11 which will be presented by the Stationary Source Division. 12 Before we begin, I would like to take this 13 opportunity to inform the Board that we have established a 14 consumer product testing laboratory here in Sacramento. 15 This laboratory has evaluated all the proposed procedures. 16 It also tests consumer products to determine compliance with 17 the regulations. 18 During the preparation of the proposed revised 19 methods, the staff has consulted interested parties and some 20 of the revisions were prompted by this outreach effort. 21 Care has been taken to promote consistency with the U.S. EPA 22 methods. However, U.S. EPA's proposed consumer product rule 23 relies predominantly on formulation information to 24 demonstrate compliance and does not include a test method. 25 Although the existing regulations contain several PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 methods for VOC determinations, new analytical procedures 2 have been added to provide more flexibility and to improve 3 the quality of the data. 4 At this time, I would like to turn the 5 presentation over to Dr. Terry Houston of our Monitoring and 6 Laboratory Division, who will review the staff's 7 recommendations. 8 Terry? 9 DR. HOUSTON: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. Good morning, 10 Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. 11 The proposal before you is to amend the test 12 method sections of the consumer products regulations to 13 adopt an encompassing test method, ARB Test Method 310. 14 The proposal is a screening tool for enforcement 15 and will not add any new requirements on the industry. It 16 will make more specific the process used by the ARB 17 Executive Officer in enforcing the regulations. I will 18 briefly go over with you the development of Method 310 and 19 the steps involved in determining the VOC content. 20 The California Health and Safety Code, as part of 21 the California Clean Air Act, requires t he ARAB to achieve 22 the maximum feasible reduction in volatile organic 23 compounds, or VOCs, emitted by consumer products. This 24 emission reduction has been included in the California State 25 Implementation Plan. The testing of a product is necessary PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 134 1 to assure compliance to the regulations. 2 Since 1989, three regulations have been adopted 3 which establish VOC limits for various categories of 4 consumer products. These are the antiperspirant regulation, 5 the consumer product regulation, which currently comprises 6 28 categories, and the aerosol coatings regulation. 7 The current test method is comprised of five EPA, 8 NIOSH, and Bay Area AQMD analytical procedures. These 9 procedures were developed originally for paints and 10 coatings. They are equally applicable for consumer 11 products. 12 These five procedures represent the existing piece 13 of a puzzle for determining VOC content in consumer 14 products. Unfortunately, the limitations inherent to the 15 current methods make it difficult to apply the determination 16 of the VOC content as a compliance tool. 17 As mentioned, the current test method is only one 18 piece of the puzzle. With only the single piece, the 19 regulations may be more difficult to enforce since the user 20 must interpret how to implement the procedures. To complete 21 the puzzle, all other pieces are needed. 22 Also, the current methods do not account for all 23 the volatile components that may be present. This is 24 particularly important for ammonia containing products. In 25 addition, there is no precision documentation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 135 1 To address these limitations, staff is proposing 2 to update the current procedures with Method 310 as 3 described in the next slide. 4 Method 310 completes the puzzle and connects all 5 the individual pieces together in a unifying method for 6 determining the VOC content. In addition to the five 7 current test methods, eight additional procedures are 8 proposed, thereby increasing the applicability and 9 flexibility of the analysis. 10 Based on industry comments, we have removed two of 11 the procedures as shown in the staff's suggested 12 modification to Method 310. 13 In essence, Method 310 represents the sum of its 14 parts, tying together all the individual analytical 15 procedures to identify volatile compounds, detailing a 16 calculation for determining the VOC content, specifying the 17 precision of the method, and stating how the results will be 18 used by the ARB Executive Officer for determining the 19 compliance with the VOC standards. 20 This last statement is significant. Normally, 21 test methods specify analytical tools and procedures to be 22 used, but state nothing about how the test methods would be 23 applied for compliance determination. 24 Method 310 is the first time that we have included 25 in a test method section the process of how initial and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 136 1 final determinations of VOC content will be made by the ARB 2 Executive Officer. 3 I will now review the analytical procedures which 4 we will use to determine the VOC for various products. We 5 will discuss the overall process later. 6 What is the process of determining the VOC 7 content? An important step in the evaluation and 8 determination of the total volatile material in a product. 9 For the liquid portion of an aerosol and all 10 nonaerosol products, an aliquot of the sample is weighed and 11 then heated for an hour at 110 degrees celsius. 12 Through heating, the volatile content is driven 13 off. The difference in weight between the sample before and 14 after heating represents the total volatile material, which 15 may include water, ammonia, and any exempt compounds. 16 To ensure an accurate VOC content, subsequent 17 analyses must be done to quantitate the volatile components, 18 like water and ammonia that are not VOCs, and determine the 19 presence of any exempt VOCs like acetone or ethanol, which 20 is a solvent that is exempt only in the 21 antiperspirant/deodorant regulations. 22 The water content of a product may be determined 23 by two widely used methods -- the Karl Fischer analysis, as 24 shown, a titration procedure, or by gas chromatography. 25 For flexibility, we propose that one or both PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 137 1 procedures may be used. 2 Gas chromatographic instrumentation, as shown in 3 this slide, is used for not only the water analysis, but for 4 the analysis of propellant and exempt compounds as well. 5 Ammonia is a volatile compound that would be 6 included in the quantitation (sic) of total volatiles, but 7 is not a VOC. Therefore, any ammonia present must be 8 determined and subtracted from the total volatiles. 9 This slide shows the ion selective electrode used 10 for ammonia determination. 11 Another procedure that may be used is ion 12 chromatography, which is a separation method similar to gas 13 chromatography. 14 Earlier, I mentioned that the analysis for the 15 exempt compounds is also done by gas chromatography. This 16 analysis includes the presence of acetone, ethanol, and 17 perchloroethylene, which is a proposed exempt. 18 The analysis also includes the presence of VOCs 19 like methanol and isopropanol. 20 An aerosol product represents a rather interesting 21 challenge. The aerosol can is pierced under a controlled 22 system. A portion of the propellant is collected for 23 analysis on a gas chromatograph, and the remainder of the 24 propellant vented. The liquid portion is then analyzed as I 25 have described to you earlier. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 138 1 Method 310 unifies the procedures by incorporating 2 a formula for the determination of the VOC content based on 3 the individual analyses that have been performed. 4 The calculation depends on whether the product is 5 an aerosol or a nonaerosol. For an aerosol, we have the 6 weight of the liquid portion and the weight of the 7 propellant portion. 8 The liquid weight is multiplied by the weight 9 fraction of the total volatile content from which we have 10 subtracted the weight fraction of water, ammonia, and any 11 exempts, if present. 12 Add this to the propellant weight from which has 13 been subtracted the weight of any exempt compounds and 14 divided by the total weight of the product, gives the 15 percent VOC. 16 For nonaerosol products, this is much simpler -- 17 where the weight fraction of water, ammonia, and exempts is 18 subtracted from the total volatiles and the remaining being 19 the VOC content. 20 In August, we initiated a consumer product 21 round-robin testing program to determine the interlaboratory 22 precision associated with the analysis of typical products 23 using the procedures outlined in Method 310. Six samples 24 were prepared representative of the range of VOC content 25 that is normally found in consumer products. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 139 1 The results of the analyses gave a maximum 2 standard deviation of 1.7 percent. The data support the 3 precision of the method at the 95 percent confidence 4 interval of 3 percent as we had initially reported. 5 How will the analytical results of Method 310 be 6 used? This is the process that I referred to earlier. It 7 is unusual to specify within a test method a compliance 8 determination procedure. However, it is included in Method 9 310 because of the diversity of potential products tested 10 and the strong desire expressed by industry at workshops to 11 delineate the compliance process within the test method. 12 This is how the analytical results will be used. 13 A determination of the initial percent VOC content will be 14 made using the calculation procedure. If the initial 15 results show that the product does not meet the applicable 16 VOC standard, additional tests may be performed to confirm 17 the initial determinations. 18 If the results still exceed the standards, we will 19 ask for formulation data and try to verify this. 20 Industry has expressed concern that they would not 21 be provided an opportunity to respond if we were not able to 22 verify the formulation data. We have agreed to add language 23 to the test method which would allow the manufacturer to 24 explain the discrepancy. We are confident that virtually 25 all discrepancies will be resolved. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 140 1 However, if there is still a discrepancy between 2 Method 310 and the formulation data after this process, the 3 results of Method 310 will be used for enforcement. 4 This slide compares the enforcement process 5 present in the current regulations to that proposed in 6 Method 310. As I have discussed in the previous slide, 7 every effort will be made to reconcile discrepancies between 8 Method 310 and formulation data in the event of a dispute. 9 The current methods parallel other compliance testing 10 programs, such as fuels and stationary sources. Method 310, 11 however, is unique in describing an enforcement process. 12 This slide shows the public process used to 13 develop Method 310. We have held three workshops covering 14 the details of the procedures. We've had tours of the lab. 15 We have received and discussed comments with the 16 manufacturers, and we have initiated a round-robin for 17 interlaboratory precision determination. 18 The Office of the Ombudsman will discuss some of 19 the public outreach for this item. 20 Method 310 is a tool to determine compliance with 21 the regulations. Staff's proposal will have minimal effect 22 on the industry, since it does not alter the regulations of 23 VOC limits already in place or impose any new requirements 24 on industry from the previous regulations. 25 I will now summarize the written comments that we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 141 1 have received in the 45-day notice period. 2 So far, we have received four letters. On October 3 25th, a letter from Dow Corning, a Mr. Michael Thelan states 4 that one of the tests, ASTM D859, may not be applicable for 5 volatile methyl siloxanes, which is an exempt VOC. Mr. 6 Thelan also states that gas chromatography should be used to 7 determine the volatile methyl siloxanes. 8 In response, we have stated that one reason for 9 the ASTM D859 procedure is that we need a general method for 10 determining silicon in the event manufacturers wish to 11 replace partial hydrocarbon solvents with the polymethyl 12 siloxane 200 mixtures. 13 Mr. Thelan is correct that gas chromatography is 14 the appropriate method for quantifying individual volatile 15 methyl siloxanes. It was always our intent to use gas 16 chromatography to quantitate these, and this is reflected in 17 our laboratory standard operating procedures. 18 We have received two letters from Mr. Wayne 19 Sorensen of Condia Vista, dated November 4th and November 20 19th. Mr. Sorensen raises four issues. 21 First, he suggested deleting ASTM D2887, which we 22 have already agreed to in the staff suggested changes. 23 Second, he stated that our calculation of the precision was 24 incorrect. We have reviewed both Mr. Sorensen's and our 25 calculation methodology. The precision of the method will PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 142 1 be reported as 3 percent. 2 Third, Mr. Sorensen requested that the product 3 efficacy be considered in regard to reactivity. This issue 4 of product efficacy is related to reactivity is not 5 addressed by this item, but may be in future consumer 6 product control measures. 7 Fourth, Mr. Sorensen stated that the cost of the 8 method was not considered, and whether ARB would recognize 9 results from outside laboratories or in-house laboratories. 10 The proposal (sic) should be minimal, because the 11 proposal retains the current practice of allowing 12 manufacturers to determine compliance either by testing or 13 by formulation data. 14 In regards to whether we would recognize results 15 generated by other laboratories, the answer is, yes, but 16 would be determined on a case-by-case basis. 17 We also retain the ability to run confirmatory 18 testing. 19 We have received also a letter from B. J. Kerwin 20 dated November 25th. She made no comments on Method 310, 21 other than to compliment the staff on the handling of the 22 LVP issue. 23 In addition to the comments received prior to the 24 hearing, staff has agreed with industry to provide a report 25 to the Board in six months and annually thereafter for a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 143 1 minimum of three years. The report will cover the 2 implementation of Method 310 and highlight any issues that 3 may arise, such as the performance of the method. 4 Language incorporating this reporting commitment 5 is included in the resolution prepared for your 6 consideration today. 7 Mr. Jenne will discuss now additional changes to 8 the 15-day package. 9 MR. JENNE: Over the past few days, staff has been 10 meeting with industry representatives to resolve one 11 additional concern that they've had with the regulatory 12 language. We have been able to successfully resolve this 13 concern by agreeing to propose one additional modification. 14 We are proposing that the language in Sections 3.5 15 and 3.6 of Method 310 appear not only in Method 310, but 16 also be placed in the actual test method sections of the 17 three consumer products regulations. 18 This language was discussed by Terry just a minute 19 ago. It's language that establishes the compliance 20 enforcement process within Method 310, requiring staff to 21 request formulation data and perform additional testing 22 before making a final determination of VOC content. 23 Including this language in the actual regulatory 24 test will clarify that this process must be followed before 25 the results of Method 310 would take precedence over any PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 144 1 formulation data that might differ from those results. 2 Now, Terry will go through the final staff 3 recommendation. 4 DR. HOUSTON: Thank you. In conclusion, staff 5 recommends that the Board approve the regulations which will 6 reference Method 310, a unifying procedure for determining 7 VOC content. 8 Based on the comments received, we will be making 9 some additional changes. This will necessitate reopening 10 the comment period for 15 days. 11 Thank you. 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Mr. Schoning, as staff 13 outlined, you're going to illuminate for us the process that 14 staff followed to bring forward this proposal. 15 MR. SCHONING: Mr. Chairman and members, as staff 16 indicated, in developing Method 310, the ARB has involved 17 manufacturers, industry, and -- as far as we can tell -- all 18 other affected stakeholders, including Chemical Specialties 19 Manufacturers Association, the Cosmetic Toiletries and 20 Fragrance Association, individual retailers, individual 21 chemical companies, individual laboratories, and technical 22 representatives of other States, including New York and 23 Texas. 24 Four workshops were conducted in October of 1995 25 and in January, June, and August of 1996. The consumer PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 145 1 product working group, composed of manufacturers, industry 2 associations, U. S. EPA, and the ARB staff received a total 3 of three briefings in 1995, and two more in 1996. 4 The last briefing was October 29th and 30th of 5 this year. And at this briefing, ARB offered to hold yet 6 another workshop, but no one expressed a need. 7 Notices for these meetings and workshops were 8 mailed to over 3,000 interested parties. As you have heard, 9 the ARB staff has listened to stakeholders and modified the 10 proposal which is before you today. 11 For example, the isoteniscopic method was removed 12 pending more interlaboratory study. And, in addition, the 13 ARB staff initiated in August of this year a round-robin 14 study program using the Method 310 to further scientific 15 consensus by determining interlaboratory precision and 16 accuracy. 17 ARB staff went the extra mile, in fact, in the 18 stakeholder participation and conducted tours for 19 stakeholders at MLD's consumer product laboratory located 20 here in Sacramento. And we have no concerns as to the 21 process. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Schoning. 23 I appreciate it. Any of those workshops held in New York or 24 Texas, Jim? 25 MR. SCHONING: I think they were all here. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 146 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All here. All right. Good. 2 Okay. Did any of the Board members -- Ms. 3 Edgerton -- have any questions of staff? 4 MS. EDGERTON: First, I have a comment. They say 5 the staff is willing to go the extra mile. It sounds like 6 you were willing to go the extra workshop. 7 But I just wanted to clarify that this is not 8 applicable retroactively in any way. This is only 9 prospective? 10 MR. LOSCUTOFF: No, it's not retroactive. 11 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: So, forward. 13 Mr. Calhoun. 14 MR. CALHOUN: I had one question. Method 310 is a 15 method that is used for -- intended to be used for 16 determining compliance. And I think you indicated that in 17 the event there is a violation -- you can see that there's a 18 violation, you'll get formulation data from the manufacturer 19 and then make a determination. 20 Do you envision there being any discrepancy 21 between the two? 22 DR. LOSCUTOFF: Board Member Calhoun, we don't 23 envision any discrepancy. But what we have laid out is a 24 process which ensures that, if there are any discrepancies, 25 we can go through a systematic approach of determining why PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 147 1 the discrepancies would occur, and then dealing with them, 2 including -- as Ms. Houston outlined -- the opportunity for 3 us to look at the formulation data, do additional analyses 4 to determine whether the formulation data are -- were indeed 5 accurate, and then provide an opportunity for the 6 manufacturer to come in and look at our analyses, look at 7 what has gone into the formulation data and see if there is 8 anything wrong. 9 So, we don't anticipate having discrepancies. But 10 if they occur, I think the process that we've outlined here 11 is one that will lead to resolutions where we would be able 12 to understand exactly what happened. 13 MR. CALHOUN: You also mentioned that you had a 14 round-robin. And I'm wondering if you would take advantage 15 of input from, shall we say, one of the members who 16 participated in that in the event there was a discrepancy. 17 It's not a matter of formality, but in addition of -- you 18 may want to get some additional -- someone else to analyze 19 the test. 20 MR. LOSCUTOFF: To the extent that we would 21 protect confidentiality, we would use whatever is available 22 to us in order to resolve a discrepancy. And if that 23 included looking at another laboratory's data, I believe we 24 would do that. 25 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 148 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. If there are no other 2 questions or comments at this juncture, we have three 3 witnesses. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Parnell, please. 5 MR. PARNELL: Chairman Dunlap, well, we won't talk 6 about our private conversation. 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Private conversation, we will 8 not. 9 MR. PARNELL: I was just struck, as I was briefed 10 on the issue, with the completeness and the thoroughness of 11 the staff's endeavor to really reach out to industry, which 12 this is a relatively new area of regulation. And when it 13 comes to the compliance determination section, I just wanted 14 to applaud the staff for what I consider to be very 15 innovative thinking, which would allow a dialogue as we go 16 through the ambiguities of basically regulating in a 17 relatively new area. 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well said, Jack. I've come to 19 know how important these types of signals are to the 20 regulatory community. And you have kind of a hybrid 21 situation here, and I think the participation that you've 22 sought -- and I think what we're going to hear from the 23 witnesses -- will certainly bear fruit that this is a 24 worthwhile endeavor and something that should be supported. 25 So, with that, could I fall forward the three PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 149 1 witnesses? Laurie Nelson from the Chemical Specialties 2 Manufacturing Association, Robin Gentz from The Clorox 3 Company, and Michele Stephens from The Dial Corporation. 4 I would like to point out to these three witnesses 5 that the cards indicate support. Time is of the essence. 6 Mr. Parnell alluded to an agreement that we had. He's 7 encouraging me to be particularly judicious in the use of 8 time today. And I support that. 9 So, if you could be brief, I'd be grateful, 10 because we have one item that's going to take a bit more 11 time than this right after this. 12 MS. NELSON: With that in mind, Mr. Chair, I will 13 be brief and speak very quickly. 14 Mr. Chair and Board members, good afternoon. I'm 15 Laurie Nelson, representing the Chemical Specialties 16 Manufacturers Association headquartered in Washington, D. C. 17 CSMA represents over 400 companies which 18 manufacture, distribute, and sell chemical specialty 19 products; and, therefore, we're very interested in this test 20 method you're considering today. 21 We've worked for more than two years with ARB 22 staff in the development of Method 310, and we look forward 23 to continuing the cooperatives efforts. We are now in 24 support of all the revisions to Method 310 being proposed 25 today. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 150 1 ARB staff has made a number of key revisions at 2 our request. The last of these agreements were reached in 3 the last 24 hours. 4 Our written statements express some concerns 5 related to Method 310 that have since been resolved. Our 6 one remaining concern was the circumstance under which the 7 results of Method 310 may be used to accuse a manufacturer 8 of submitting false formulation data, and then initiate 9 enforcement action. And that concern has now been resolved. 10 And I just want to take two seconds to really 11 acknowledge and appreciate your staff. They went the extra 12 mile last night to resolve this concern. 13 Again, as I said, the concern was the term "shall 14 take precedence" when it relates to the situation where the 15 formulation data disagrees with the results of Method 310. 16 We were concerned that Section 94515(b)(3) could be 17 interpreted out of context to make an erroneous Method 310 18 result take precedence over accurate formulation data. 19 However, we believe the additional modifications 20 being proposed today to that section, plus the status report 21 that's in the resolution before the Board will allow the 22 performance of Method 310 and the effectiveness of its 23 procedures to be monitored so, if problems occur, they can 24 be addressed. 25 So, thank you very much. And if you have any PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 151 1 questions, I have Doug Fratz, who's our scientific director. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Ms. Nelson. I 3 appreciate that. The mention of working late into the 4 night, Mr. Loscutoff, that won't involve overtime in any 5 way, will it? 6 (Laughter.) 7 MR. LOSCUTOFF: No. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. Thank you, 9 Ms. Nelson. 10 All right. Robin Gentz? I'm probably 11 mispronouncing that. Clorox. 12 MS. GENTZ: My name is Robin Gentz, government 13 relations representative for The Clorox Company, with 14 headquarters in Oakland for more than 80 years. Clorox 15 manufactures and markets a wide variety of household 16 cleaning products, charcoal briquets, insecticides, cat 17 litter, and water filters. 18 We have submitted to the Board written comments 19 for the public record, which were prepared prior to the 20 modifications presented by CARB staff today. Clorox 21 supports the adoption of Method 310. 22 Clorox has been an active participant and 23 supporter of sound enforcement methods for consumer 24 products. Clorox was one of the four corporate participates 25 in the round-robin testing for Method 310. The round-robin PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 152 1 has been a valuable starting point for evaluating the 2 precision and accuracy of Method 310. 3 We encourage the Air Resources Board to perform 4 additional validation testing, and we offer our assistance 5 with these future efforts. 6 The Clorox Company commends the Air Resources 7 Board staff, including the Monitoring and Laboratory 8 Division, who has provided technical assistance throughout 9 this regulatory process, and we appreciate the opportunity 10 to come before you today. 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you very much. 12 Okay. Our final witness, Michele Stephens from 13 The Dial Corporation. 14 MS. STEPHENS: Thank you. Good afternoon. My 15 name is Michelle Stephens, and I am providing testimony on 16 behalf of The Dial Corporation. 17 Our company nationally manufacturers consumer 18 products, many of which are subject to California's consumer 19 product VOC regulations. The Dial Corporation, along with 20 many other consumer product companies, has cooperatively 21 worked with the ARB to develop air quality regulations which 22 are technically and commercially feasible. 23 We appreciate ARB's continuing efforts to work 24 with the regulated community in developing reasonable and 25 effective air quality standards. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 153 1 My original testimony, which was submitted 2 written, regarding Method 310, was prepared prior to ARB's 3 latest modifications, which were made last night. Our 4 concern with Method 310 is that additional validation is 5 necessary before it can be used as a sole enforcement tool 6 for determination of the VOC content for consumer products. 7 The modifications made to the proposed rule have 8 incorporated steps for manufacturers to submit formulation 9 data and discuss discrepancies between Method 310 results 10 and formulation data. 11 With these modifications, our company can support 12 the method. We strongly urge the Air Resources Board to 13 continue validation of these procedures using representative 14 consumer product formulations. 15 We hope that, if warranted, modifications will be 16 made to the method as additional validation is completed. 17 Thank you for the opportunity to present these 18 comments today. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Where is your 20 company located, your headquarters? 21 MS. STEPHENS: Phoenix, Arizona. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Thank you. 23 Well, it appears that staff was working late into 24 the night to accommodate industry and find common ground, 25 and I am grateful for that. I also appreciate those PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 154 1 witnesses that have seen fit to participate today. Staff is 2 to be commended for going the extra mile as the Ombudsman 3 mentioned. 4 With that, Mr. Kenny, do you have anything to add? 5 MR. KENNY: No further comments. I just recommend 6 adoption of Method 310. 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Any questions by the 8 Board? Not that I'm looking for any necessarily; it appears 9 we have a solid item before us. 10 Okay. We have before us -- well, I'll take care 11 of this. We need to close the record. So, I will now close 12 the record on this agenda item; however, the record will be 13 reopened when the 15-day notice of public availability is 14 issued. 15 Written or oral comments received after this 16 hearing date but before the 15-day notice is issued will not 17 be accepted as part of the official record on this item. 18 When the record is reopened for a 15-day comment 19 period, the public may submit written comments on the 20 proposed changes, which will be considered and responded to 21 in the final statement of reasons for the regulation. 22 Again, a reminder on ex parte communications. Do 23 we have anything to report on this item? 24 Okay. We have before us and we've had for a few 25 moments, Resolution 96-9-4 (sic), which I believe outlines PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 155 1 the staff recommendations. And I certainly would entertain 2 a motion and a second to adopt the staff proposal. 3 MR. PARNELL: So move. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Moved by Mr. Parnell. 5 SUPERVISOR SILVA: Second. 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Seconded by Supervisor Silva. 7 Any discussion? 8 All right. With that, we'll take a voice vote. 9 All those in favor, say aye? 10 (Ayes.) 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Any opposed? It appears the 12 vote was unanimous. 13 Thank you very much. Thank you, staff. 14 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, what was the 15 resolution number you read? 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: 96-57. If my remarks did not 17 reflect that, I apologize. But that is what I meant. So, 18 Ms. Walsh, is there anything I need to do to correct that 19 oversight on my part? 20 MS. WALSH: No problem. You identified the agenda 21 item number rather than the resolution number. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very good. Thank you, Chairman 23 Roberts, from his time as Chair of the San Diego Board, he 24 recognized a mistake. Thank you for that. 25 All right. We have one item remaining. It's my PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 156 1 understanding that the same team will stay in place. 2 MR. KENNY: Different team. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Different team? Okay. All 4 right. 5 Mr. Kenny, how long do you anticipate the staff 6 presentation to set up this item? 7 MR. KENNY: 15. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: 15 minutes. Okay. We'll have a 9 lunch break at the end of the 15 minutes, because sandwiches 10 don't arrive until 12:30. 11 So, I'll ask staff again to be efficient in their 12 use of time, but we'll proceed for 15 more minutes. And 13 then we will take a break at that point, have lunch, and 14 then come back and consider the rest of the item and 15 discussion. 16 The next item is 96-9-5, a public hearing to 17 consider the adoption of amendments to the California 18 regulations for volatile organic compound emissions from 19 consumer products and aerosol coating products. 20 This item is the proposed amendments to the 21 California regulation. In today's hearing, we will also be 22 considering amendments to the volatile organic compound, or 23 VOC, definition in the consumer products regulation and the 24 aerosol coatings regulation. 25 About two years ago, the Board approved the State PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 157 1 Implementation Plan for ozone. since then, our plan has 2 been reviewed and approved by the U.S. EPA. 3 The reduction of VOC emissions from consumer 4 products is a central element in California's commitment to 5 attain State and Federal ambient air quality standards. To 6 date, the Board has taken to reduce VOC emissions from 27 7 categories of consumer products and 35 categories of aerosol 8 coatings. 9 In order to meet the SIP commitments, we are 10 presently in the process of developing the next phase of the 11 consumer products regulatory framework. When the first 12 consumer regulations were adopted, the Board directed the 13 staff to work closely with industry to address 14 implementation issues and to return to the Board with any 15 necessary modifications. 16 Since adoption of the consumer products 17 regulation, issues have come to our attention which we 18 believe merit careful consideration. For this reason, staff 19 has worked closely with industry representatives and trade 20 organizations to draft amendments for the Board's 21 consideration which addresses these concerns, yet preserve 22 again the emission reductions contained in that SIP. 23 Along with the proposed amendments to the consumer 24 products regulation, we will also consider amendments to the 25 VOC definition in the consumer product regulation and the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 158 1 aerosol coatings regulation. We are considering this change 2 in response to U.S. EPA's decision to exempt certain 3 volatile organic compounds from their VOC definition due to 4 low reactivity considerations. 5 After the staff's presentation, the Ombudsman will 6 again address the staff's outreach efforts on this item. 7 So, at this point, Mr. Kenny, I'd like to ask you to 8 introduce the item and begin the staff's remarks. 9 MR. KENNY: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of 10 the Board, the consumer products regulation has been on the 11 books now for about five years. It's a major component of 12 our strategy to reduce VOCs to reduce ozone, and has been 13 approved by the United States Environmental Protection 14 Agency as a component of the State Implementation Plan for 15 ozone. 16 At the time the Board adopts a regulation, staff 17 always commits to closely monitoring the implementation of 18 the measure. On occasion, issues that were not identified 19 by any of the participants during the rulemaking process 20 will come to our attention during the implementation phase. 21 If we identify implementation problems that we can 22 address through an amendment to the regulation, which does 23 not compromise emission reductions or enforceability, we 24 will recommend changes to the Board. 25 We feel that the process is worked well in the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 159 1 past and continues to work well today. Also, as is our 2 normal practice, staff assessed manufacturers' success in 3 reformulating to meet the future effective standards to 4 determine if any changes are needed to respond to issues 5 which affect successful implementation of the rule. 6 Through this process, we concluded that several 7 amendments to the consumer products regulations are 8 warranted. First, we are proposing to postpone the 25 9 percent standard for aerosol adhesives to 2002. 10 Second, staff is also proposing some changes to 11 improve clarity, compliance, and consistency in the consumer 12 products regulations. 13 Third, we are proposing to exempt 14 perchloroethylene from the VOC definition in both the 15 consumer products regulation and the aerosol coatings 16 regulation. 17 Finally, we are proposing changes to the consumer 18 products regulation, the aerosol coatings regulation, and 19 the antiperspirant and deodorant regulation to reflect 20 changes to the State law as a result of the recent passage 21 of Assembly Bill 1849. 22 These proposed changes will extend the sell- 23 through period and reflect change in authority to regulate 24 aerosol adhesives. 25 In summary, I would like to emphasize that it is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 160 1 essential that we maintain the emission reductions projected 2 in the original rulemaking and include it in the ozone SIP. 3 The amendments proposed above are responsive to industry's 4 concerns, yet preserve the SIP. 5 With that, I'd like to call upon Ms. Julia 6 Billington of our Stationary Source Division to present to 7 you the proposed amendments to the consumer products 8 regulation and the aerosol coatings regulations. 9 Julie? 10 MS. BILLINGTON: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. Chairman 11 Dunlap and members of the Board, as Mr. Kenny mentioned, 12 today we are proposing for your consideration amendments to 13 the consumer products regulation and aerosol coatings 14 regulation. 15 At the time the Phase 1 and 2 consumer products 16 regulations were adopted, you determined that the future 17 effective or second tier standards included in the 18 regulation were commercially and technologically feasible. 19 However, because you understood that this 20 standards pose challenges for manufacturers, you directed us 21 to consult with them on their progress in meeting the 22 upcoming standards, identify any significant problems, and 23 propose appropriate regulatory modifications. 24 This slide lists the four product categories which 25 have future effective standards that go into effect on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 161 1 January 1, 1997. We found that the manufacturers of fabric 2 protectants, aerosol dusting aids, and automotive brake 3 cleaners have met or are in the process of meeting the 4 formulation challenges to comply with the upcoming standards 5 through a variety of technologies. 6 Manufacturers of these products will be able to 7 meet the consumer demand for 1997 and beyond with complying 8 technologies. 9 However, we found the situation to be different in 10 the case of the aerosol adhesives category, which I will 11 discuss in the next few slides. 12 Aerosol adhesives are designed to bond one surface 13 to another by attachment. The current 75 percent standard 14 became effective in 1995, and is scheduled to be reduced to 15 25 percent in 1997. 16 As I mentioned, the situation with this standard 17 differs from that of the three standards I just discussed. 18 As we began our assessment of manufacturers' success, we 19 began hearing that they were having great difficulty with 20 the upcoming standard. 21 In response, we decided to survey the industry in 22 order to obtain a more comprehensive assessment of the 23 status of this category. To obtain 1995 product sales and 24 composition data, we surveyed 25 manufacturers and received 25 responses, which represent over 90 percent of the market, as PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 162 1 reported in the ARB 1990 database. 2 Our survey showed that four products out of 45 3 currently meet the 25 percent standard. Based on these 4 survey results and our discussions with manufacturers, it 5 appears that most of the industry cannot achieve the 25 6 percent VOC standard by the current January 1 effective 7 date. 8 We have made this determination because those in 9 the market that can comply are only able to do so with a 10 single technology. That one available technology requires 11 reformulation with methylene chloride, which has been 12 identified by the ARB as a toxic air contaminant. 13 Additionally, methylene chloride is not suitable 14 for all substrates as it degrades polystyrene foam, which is 15 commonly used in the arts and crafts market. 16 Also, because of potential health concerns, many 17 manufacturers have corporate policies against using this 18 solvent. 19 We believe that the 25 percent standard should be 20 maintained, because our assessment has indicated that there 21 are some promising technologies which may lead to a 22 breakthrough in formulating a low VOC product. 23 Manufacturers are continuing their research and 24 development programs and a number have indicated that, with 25 sufficient additional time, the 25 percent standard may be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 163 1 achievable. 2 Therefore, we are proposing to delay the future 3 effective 25 percent standard for aerosol adhesives from 4 January 1, 1997 to January 1, 2002. This will allow 5 manufacturers time to develop alternatives to meeting the 6 standard without relying solely on methylene chloride. 7 To help us assess manufacturers' progress towards 8 meeting the postponed future standard, we are proposing 9 special reporting requirements for them, including product 10 sales and composition in 1998, and a written update of their 11 research and development efforts. 12 Under our proposal, the Board would hold a public 13 hearing by June 1, 2000, to review and consider 14 modifications to the 25 percent limit, if appropriate. 15 Postponing the 25 percent limit will not result in 16 the State Implementation Plan, or SIP, shortfall. This is 17 because we have identified emission reductions from the 18 first tier standards in the aerosol coatings regulation that 19 are not being claimed by the districts in the SIP until 20 2002. This would make up the 0.2 tons per day emission 21 reduction that would be delayed by postponing the standard. 22 As required by the California Environmental 23 Quality Act, or CEQA, we must consider the potential 24 environmental impacts of any proposed regulation. 25 Postponing the 25 percent aerosol adhesive standard will PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 164 1 result in less VOC emission reductions than would have 2 occurred if there was no delay in the standard. 3 However, under CEQA, if we find an overriding 4 economic consideration, we can proceed. We believe that 5 several considerations override any impacts that might occur 6 as a result of the postponement. For instance, the proposed 7 amendment will allow manufacturers the time to develop 8 alternatives to the use of methylene chloride to comply with 9 the standard. 10 The following additional amendments to the 11 consumer products regulation are designed to provide 12 additional flexibility to manufacturers without compromising 13 emission benefits. 14 This slide indicates areas where we have made 15 modifications to improve the clarity of the regulation. 16 Next slide, please. 17 We will adjust the proposed amendment to the test 18 method section to be consistent with the action you just 19 took regarding the consumer products test Method 310. 20 Now, I'll discuss our proposal to exempt 21 perchloroethylene from the VOC definition in both the 22 consumer products and the aerosol coatings regulations. 23 As you know, the VOC definition in our consumer 24 products program and the U.S. EPA's definition exempts 25 compounds with low photochemical reactivity. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 165 1 Perchloroethylenes, or percs, low photochemical 2 reactivity is well established. Because of this, the U.S. 3 EPA recently exempted perc from their VOC definition. Over 4 90 percent of the total perc usage is from nonconsumer 5 products, such as dry cleaning and degreasing. The 6 remaining 10 percent consists of miscellaneous uses, of 7 which consumer products, such as brake cleaners, are a 8 portion. 9 We recently completed our own evaluation and have 10 concluded that perc should be exempt from the VOC definition 11 in the consumer products regulation and aerosol coatings 12 regulation because of its low reactivity. 13 We recognized, however, that perc has the 14 potential to impact the environment in other ways; thus, in 15 our evaluation, we also looked at the potential impact from 16 exempting perc on ground level ozone, stratospheric ozone 17 depletion, global warming, landfill loading, water quality, 18 and toxicity. 19 We conducted an in-depth analysis on these areas 20 using brake cleaners, because this is the main consumer 21 product with appreciable perc levels. We took a cross-media 22 impacts approach using conservative assumptions. We 23 assessed indoor and outdoor exposures. We concluded that an 24 adverse environmental impact, as a result of this proposed 25 amendment, is highly unlikely. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 166 1 For example, our indoor exposure analysis shows 2 that indoor levels are expected to be five to twelve-fold 3 below State permissible levels. 4 We also note that perc emissions are not likely to 5 increase significantly due to this exemption. This is 6 because most products will comply with the standard without 7 any reformulation if perc is exempted. This is because over 8 80 percent already contain the solvent. Also, some products 9 will comply without the use of perc. 10 While conducting our environmental impact 11 assessment, we also consulted with other Cal-EPA agencies, 12 including the Office of Environmental Health Hazard 13 Assessment and the Department of Toxic Substances Control. 14 We also consulted with Cal-OSHA, U.S. EPA Region 15 IX, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and Tri 16 Tac, which is a technical advisory committee sponsored by 17 the League of California Cities, the California Association 18 of Sanitation Agencies, and the California Water Environment 19 Association. 20 Together, these three groups represent 21 approximately 90 percent of the publicly owned treatment 22 works that treat sanitary wastewater in California. While 23 we believe it is highly unlikely that exposures or water 24 contamination will increase, we intend to conduct a needs 25 assessment to determine if it is appropriate to address perc PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 167 1 emissions from consumer products or stationary sources 2 through an airborne toxic control measure. We intend to 3 begin this work in 1997. 4 We also plan to closely track perc emissions from 5 consumer products and any resulting public exposure. To 6 accomplish this, we intend to include a requirement for 7 those manufacturers of any consumer products containing perc 8 to submit simple, one-page annual reports for five years. 9 This would allow us to discern any trends in perc use in 10 consumer products. 11 We have included a short description of the 12 proposed amendment in our handout describing the changes to 13 be provided to the public for a 15-day comment period. This 14 has been made available to you and to the public at the back 15 of the room. 16 We will also monitor ambient perc levels and track 17 the publicly owned wastewater treatment systems' monitored 18 perc levels. If our tracking foresees a potential problem, 19 we will initiate steps to address this issue. We will 20 coordinate our efforts with sanitation districts. 21 Please note that our proposal affects only the 22 consumer product and aerosol coating regulations and will 23 have no direct effect on the district regulations. 24 We have also determined that there will be no 25 negative economic impacts as a result of this proposal. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 168 1 Next, I'll present some additional changes we are 2 proposing today to reflect a recent change in State law. 3 We have two additional changes that were not 4 included in the staff report. These are being proposed to 5 reflect changes to State law as a result of Assembly Bill 6 1849, which was signed by the Governor in late September. 7 The proposed regulatory text for these changes is 8 included in the handout that was made available to you and 9 the public today. 10 The first change we are proposing is to extend 11 the amount of time manufacturers have to sell noncomplying 12 products produced prior to the effective date of their VOC 13 standard from 18 months to three years after the category's 14 effective date. 15 The second is to reflect an expansion in the 16 State's authority to regulate aerosol adhesives. I'll talk 17 more about this in the next slide. 18 Assembly Bill 1849 places the authority to 19 regulate all industrial aerosol adhesives, which was 20 previously with the local districts, with the State. 21 However, after June 1, 2000, it does allow the districts to 22 adopt a more stringent standard if they choose to do so. 23 There's also a provision for a technical 24 assessment which the ARB must complete prior to July 1, 25 2000, to assess the feasibility of a more stringent PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 169 1 standard. 2 The amendments I covered earlier for the consumer 3 aerosol adhesives are consistent with the new legislation. 4 If the Board chooses to adopt these amendments, we will 5 provide the changes to the public for a 15-day review 6 period. 7 To summarize the staff's technical assessment, the 8 manufacturers of fabric protectants, aerosol dusting aids, 9 and automotive brake cleaners have met or are in the process 10 of meeting their formulation challenges through a variety of 11 technologies. These manufacturers will be able to meet the 12 consumer demand for 1997 and beyond with complying product 13 formulations. 14 Therefore, we recommend no change to the standards 15 for these three categories. 16 For aerosol adhesives, we recommend that the 17 proposed extension of the future effective standard to 18 provide manufacturers additional time to investigate 19 reformulation options that do not rely on methylene 20 chloride. 21 The proposed five-year extension gives 22 manufacturers additional research time, including time to 23 test new products and time for our evaluation of their 24 progress. 25 We further recommend that perchloroethylene be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 170 1 exempted as a VOC in the consumer products and aerosol 2 coatings regulations. This is consistent with U.S. EPA. 3 However, because we found that there is a slight 4 potential for an adverse environmental impact, we have plans 5 to conduct a needs assessment for an airborne toxic control 6 measure. We'll track and monitor perchloroethylene usage 7 and will, if necessary, take appropriate steps to ensure 8 protection of public health. 9 Additionally, we recommend that the Board approve 10 our proposed minor amendments which will improve the 11 consumer products regulation's clarity, compliance, and 12 consistency. 13 Finally, we recommend that the Board approve the 14 three proposed changes to be provided to the public for a 15 15-day comment period, including the changes proposed to the 16 sell-through period, authority to regulate industrial 17 adhesives, and tracking the perchloroethylene use in 18 consumer products. 19 This concludes our presentation. At this time, 20 we'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: What I would propose at this 22 juncture is a 45-minute break for lunch. And I appreciate 23 the offer that staff just made that you'll be happy to 24 answer questions. 25 Could we get you to hold onto that thought for 45 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 171 1 minutes, and then we'll come back. 2 Board members, we have a fourth-floor conference 3 room we'll gather in. And, staff, some of you will be 4 joining us. 5 Thank you. Fine presentation. But we'll continue 6 when we come up. We'll adjourn for lunch until 1:30. 7 (Thereupon, a luncheon recess was taken.) 8 --o0o-- 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 172 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 --o0o-- 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: According to the clock behind 4 me, it's 1:31, I believe, and we'll reconvene. I was going 5 to wait for Mike. He was running a bit late. 6 Okay. There was a generous offer made from staff 7 and Mr. Ames, saying you'd answer any questions we had. 8 Before we do that, we can take questions, or get 9 an Ombudsman report, or go to the witness list. 10 So, why don't we ask Mr. Schoning to come here, 11 Jim. Why don't you give us your Ombudsman report. And then 12 we will go to the written correspondence. Okay. And then 13 we'll go to the witness list, because there's some witnesses 14 that are not here. 15 So, Mr. Schoning? 16 MR. SCHONING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In order 17 to prepare for today's proposal, SSD staff conducted two 18 surveys, 277 teleconferences and meetings, and one workshop. 19 Since the proposed regulatory changes are amendments to our 20 existing regulations, a single workshop was held on the 22nd 21 of August of this year. 22 It included manufacturers, trade associations, and 23 retailers. Both a draft staff report, dated August 7, 1996, 24 and a final staff report, dated October 4, 1996, along with 25 the workshop and Board hearing notices were sent to over PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 173 1 3,000 interested and affected parties, and were made 2 available as well over the Internet. 3 To evaluate manufacturers' capability to meet the 4 January 1997 VOC standards for these products, SSD contacted 5 over 100 companies. Those contacted represent between 89 6 and 99 percent of the market share. 7 To evaluate the proposed amendments to the VOC 8 standard for aerosol adhesives, an additional survey was 9 initiated on April 5, 1996. This survey was developed in 10 conjunction with such companies as 3M Company, Sherwin 11 Williams, Wilson Art International, as well as the Adhesive 12 and Sealant Council, and the Ventura County Air Pollution 13 Control District. 14 The 25 companies surveyed represented the majority 15 of the companies that manufacture aerosol adhesives in 16 California in 1995. 17 As to the proposal to exempt perchloroethylene 18 from the VOC definition, participation on this issue 19 included local and State health officials, local air and 20 sanitation districts, and interested parties such as the 21 Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, and other 22 industry representatives. 23 In view of the importance of these regulations to 24 ARB's State Implementation Plan, it appears that SSD made 25 extra efforts to ensure appropriate outreach, and involved PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 174 1 many of the stakeholders in making today's proposal, and we 2 believe those stakeholders have had more than ample 3 opportunity to participate in the development of these 4 regulations. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. Written 6 comments? Genevieve, how many did you have total? 7 MS. SHIROMA: We have -- here we go. All right. 8 We have over 60 letters altogether, but we've summarized 9 them by topic area. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 11 MS. SHIROMA: So, I can go ahead and provide you 12 with a summary of that, if you like. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure. Is this kind of a long 14 summary or is this -- 15 MS. SHIROMA: A very short summary. 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 17 (Laughter.) 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I'd prefer that. But I do want 19 to have you do justice to the concerns, legitimate or 20 make-believe concerns. But we should mention them. 21 MS. SHIROMA: Right. Absolutely. 22 We received a letter from S. C. Johnson, but I 23 understand that Chip Brewer is here today to provide 24 testimony in support of the miscellaneous changes. 25 We also received a letter from 3M on the fabric PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 175 1 protectant standard, supporting. But they are here as well. 2 CSMA submitted a letter supporting the fabric 3 protectant standard. I understand they are here as well. 4 Also, CSMA supports the three-year sell-through. 5 We received five letters of support on the aerosol 6 adhesive standard proposal from various manufacturers and 7 the CSMA. 8 We also received a letter of support from the 9 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District on the aerosol 10 adhesive standard. 11 The U.S. EPA also sent a letter of support on our 12 proposal on the aerosol adhesive standard. 13 On the brake cleaner proposal to have no change, 14 we received one letter from Cyclo Industries, which wanted a 15 separate standard for the nonchlorinated brake cleaners. We 16 discussed this comment with the company and let them know 17 that the majority of the brake cleaner market can now meet 18 the 50 percent standard for the nonchlorinated option. And 19 they understood this, and decided not to come to the Board 20 hearing. 21 On the perchloroethylene exemption, we received 22 several letters from Dr. Kathy Wolf with IRTA, Institute for 23 Research and Technical Assistance. 24 She went through a fairly extensive analysis 25 expressing opposition to the exemption of perc from the VOC PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 176 1 definition, recommending delay. 2 Now, we discussed with Dr. Wolf our mitigation 3 measures and our follow-up actions; discussed this with her 4 yesterday, and went over that we will be doing a needs 5 assessment starting in 1997 for the ATCM program, also that 6 we will be requiring the annual reporting by all consumer 7 product manufacturers who use perc in their products -- 8 annual reporting. And she indicated that she was pleased 9 with this direction. 10 She consequently decided not to come to the Board 11 hearing, and she said that we could indicate that she feels 12 these are good first steps. 13 All right. We also received 37 letters of support 14 for the perchloroethylene proposal from various 15 manufacturers. We also received a letter of support from 16 the U.S. EPA, and also from the South Coast Air Quality 17 Management District. 18 We also received a letter of support from Tri Tac, 19 which Julie mentioned earlier, an association representing 20 90 percent of the publicly owned treatment works. And they 21 support our proposal and they recommended, as we are 22 pursuing, the tracking of the perc in products, and also 23 proceeding with a needs assessment. And that's it. 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 67, did you say, letters? 25 MS. SHIROMA: Approximately 60 letters altogether. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 177 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: 60 letters. Okay. Well done. 2 All right. Any questions of staff at this 3 juncture before we go -- you have another shot at staff 4 after witnesses. So, if you want to go now, Lynne, you're 5 welcome. But we've got six witnesses -- excuse me, five 6 witnesses. If it's okay, can we go to witnesses? 7 MS. EDGERTON: Before that, though, I want to ask 8 one question. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure. 10 MS. EDGERTON: The discussion of whether there is 11 an environmental -- adverse environmental impact as a result 12 of the exemption perc, which was in our materials, is 13 conclusory with respect to it not having an adverse effect 14 on the environment. 15 What was the nature, the precise nature of your 16 analysis that brought you to that conclusion? There are no 17 underlying -- there's no underlying discussion of what the 18 health effects of perc are. I know it's a reproductive 19 toxin. And I'm concerned about the women of childbearing 20 age, and I'm concerned about any increase whatsoever in 21 reproductive toxins in the environment of California for 22 that reason. 23 MR. VENTURINI: Ms. Edgerton, let me begin, and 24 then I'd like to have staff amplify a little bit in terms of 25 the analyses, types of analyses that were conducted. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 178 1 Perc, as you know, was identified some time ago by 2 the Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant. And so, 3 we fully recognize that it is a toxic air contaminant, and 4 we also developed one control measure several years ago for 5 dry cleaners because of perc emissions. 6 So, from that perspective, in the some 20 pages or 7 so in the staff report, where we did our environmental 8 assessment, we did that because we wanted to do as much 9 analysis as we could to assure ourselves that a perc 10 exemption would not cause a potential increase program. 11 And we conducted basically an indoor assessment 12 where this would be used to determine if exposure levels may 13 be increased or may exceed -- permissible exposure levels I 14 believe is the term. We consulted with Cal-OSHA and so 15 forth. 16 And staff can go into that analysis a little more, 17 but I think the conclusion that we reached based on these 18 conservative analyses is that we didn't see a high potential 19 for significant increased perc usage in dry cleaners. But 20 having said that, we still felt very strongly that it was 21 very important to assure public health protection; that we 22 continue to track very closely increased usage of perc in 23 consumer products, should that occur. 24 And, as we propose, do a needs assessment of 25 whether or not we need to address perc in consumer products, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 179 1 particularly brake cleaners, as an air toxic control 2 measure, since it is a toxic air contaminant. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 4 MS. SHIROMA: Right. We looked at 5 perchloroethylene for acute and chronic effects, and also 6 for potential cancer effects, and discussed this, and had 7 the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment look at 8 this. Okay. 9 So, first of all, as we laid out in the staff 10 report, in looking at these health effects and comparing 11 them against the health values that are provided, we show 12 that for the indoor environment, for the worker environment, 13 that there is a many-fold lower predicted emission level. 14 Okay? 15 For the potential cancer, we estimate that 30 to 16 70 in million potential cancer risk, although more pointing 17 us towards working with the local districts on the AB 2588 18 hot spots program. Okay. 19 On the Prop 65, the Prop 65 information does not 20 have a level specified as a reproductive toxicant. It has a 21 requirement for labeling, because of the potential cancer 22 aspects. And so, in fact, then brake cleaner manufacturers 23 are placing the Prop 65 warning label on their products for 24 that. Okay. 25 And again, we had the Office of Environmental PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 180 1 Health Hazard Assessment toxicologist take a look at the 2 materials, review our modeling assessment, and they 3 indicated that it was satisfactory, and they had no comments 4 on our assessment. 5 MS. EDGERTON: I was confused with a couple of 6 terms, probably because of things I don't know. But it did 7 seem to me that you said that you tested it for acute and 8 chronic effects. But generally, those are not reproductive 9 tests, are they? 10 MS. SHIROMA: It's central nervous system effects, 11 as far as affecting the -- causing dizziness or the central 12 nervous system kinds of impacts. 13 And there can be reactions from a 15-minute 14 exposure or there can be reactions over an eight-hour 15 exposure. And this is, as it's been described to us by the 16 experts at the Office of Environmental Health Hazard 17 Assessment and also at Cal-OSHA. 18 MS. EDGERTON: So, it's my understanding from 19 reading this and from what you say, I think what I'm hearing 20 iis that your model concluded that you would not be 21 significantly increasing the amount of perc that would be 22 used by brake cleaners over the existing amount -- will be 23 used in brake cleaners over the existing amount, and sort of 24 res ipso loquitur. I mean, there's no significant 25 environmental problem? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 181 1 MR. SCHEIBLE: Well, let me jump in here. I think 2 it's as you stated, Ms. Edgerton, that we found that there's 3 no likely -- there's a small likelihood that we'll see an 4 increase or significant increase in the use of perc if we 5 exempt it as a VOC. 6 That does not convey -- in fact, we found when we 7 did this study and looked at it, that the current exposures 8 are at levels where one would want to have them. And the 9 current exposures may well warrant some additional action 10 under some element of the toxics program to reduce them. 11 And so, we've committed to start that process and figure 12 that out. 13 So, the finding that the exemption as a VOC 14 doesn't increase risk. It simply means that we don't have 15 an additional adverse environmental or health effect through 16 that action, and leaves open for us to go in and 17 investigate. Are the current levels -- can something be 18 effectively done to lower them, and is that a significant 19 risk that we ought to be concerned about? 20 MS. EDGERTON: Well, I suppose we'd be -- I 21 appreciate that. That was helpful. 22 We are splitting hairs a little when we're saying 23 that it will not be additional. Because it will be 24 significantly more than it would have been had the 25 prohibition gone into effect of using it in 1999. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 182 1 If we don't change it and exempt it, then -- if it 2 were not exempted, it would fall dramatically. Since we are 3 talking about exempting it, it will not fall. 4 MR. SCHEIBLE: That's correct. It's also that the 5 primary intent of the regulation is to reduce ozone, and 6 that's the reason why we adopted it. It will have no affect 7 on ozone if we control perc. 8 MS. EDGERTON: I understand. 9 MS. SHIROMA: However -- 10 MS. EDGERTON: Let me. Pardon me. Let me back up 11 just a little for the members of the Board and for the 12 Chairman, because I've had some of t his conversation with 13 Mike Kenny. 14 For me, as someone who's been on the Board and a 15 member of Cal-EPA for the last three years, I'm always 16 mindful of the charge -- in fact, Governor Wilson ran on 17 this in 1990, and Secretary Strock has bee very active 18 throughout his career as Secretary in ensuring that we have 19 an integrated pollution control environmental protection 20 system in California. 21 That's not always been easy, because we have 22 conflicting laws and laws that don't neatly fit together. 23 For example, in this case, we have CEQA, a CEQA 24 analysis which, to me, leaves it open as to whether there 25 might be some increase in perc. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 183 1 I appreciate that we are talking about exempting 2 perc as a VOC for ozone production. My difficulty is 3 reading that together with CEQA in connection with the toxic 4 substances air control act, and the charge to have 5 integrated pollution control -- even for air contaminants -- 6 and we haven't even gotten to the issue of whether this 7 might, you know -- perc is getting increasingly into the 8 water supply. 9 So, just for my colleagues on the Board, it's not 10 that I don't see the forest for the trees, it's that I'm 11 trying to see the forest instead of only the trees. 12 And I think that you've done -- have gone a long 13 way toward solving that by recommending that there be an 14 investigation and needs assessment into whether there should 15 be a toxic control measure for this. 16 And I'd just like to ask the Chairman to support 17 that aspect and have -- if possible, I would like to have 18 some reports back regularly from the staff or even have 19 within the resolution a commitment to have that take place 20 at the same time as we remove the VOC exemption. 21 Otherwise, we -- 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure. 23 MS. EDGERTON: -- we will be potentially putting 24 our citizens at greater risk -- 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Why don't -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 184 1 MS. EDGERTON: -- with the left and the right hand 2 both doing the same thing. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Why don't we do this, Lynne. 4 While we hear from the witnesses, why don't you think about 5 proper language you'd like to have amended, and then I'll 6 promise you that we'll discuss it and consider it. 7 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And I'm not -- by the way, I 9 want to figure out how to say this properly. The staff -- I 10 appreciated Mike Scheible's comment a moment ago about the 11 focus for this discussion is on ozone. And while I have 12 seen some very positive things emerge -- as have, I know, my 13 colleagues that serve on county boards of supervisors and 14 air districts -- have seen authority X being used to get at 15 problem Y. And while I have seen some positive things 16 emerge, I've also seen some conflicts emerge that were 17 unnecessary. 18 And what I want to make sure we do, as we consider 19 this item and discuss it later in particular, is that we're 20 very clear about our mission, our goals, our objectives and 21 then what other side benefits -- to perhaps misuse your 22 words -- the Cal-EPA benefits, the other -- the multimedia 23 issue, issues that we need to consider and make sure that we 24 do all we can to maximize that element of our work as well. 25 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 185 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: So, if you'll indulge me, I'd 2 like to go to the witness list. We have five witnesses. 3 Let's hear from them, then let's come back. 4 And, Lynne, your charge is to figure out the 5 proper language here to get you assurance relative to some 6 reporting back, and let's see if we can integrate that some 7 way in the discussion about a resolution. 8 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. There may be some 9 language already. Counsel? Be sure that I get it if there 10 is any. 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I want to keep the ball moving 12 with the witnesses. Lynne, you have my charge. If you need 13 to get up and meet with counsel, I'm fine with that. 14 Laurie Nelson from the Chemical Specialties 15 Manufacturers Association, followed by Chip Brewer, Stephen 16 Risotto, Bob Graham, and Dennis Stein. 17 If you'd move forward to that front row that says 18 "Reserved" and queue up, we'll move rapidly. 19 Good afternoon. Good to see you again. 20 MS. NELSON: Thank you. Mr. Chair and members, 21 Laurie Nelson again, representing the Chemical Specialties 22 Manufacturers Association. 23 And again we manufacture, distribute, and sell 24 chemical specialty products and, therefore, we're very 25 interested in the amendments before you today. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 186 1 This association and the chemical specialties 2 industry has worked cooperatively with your staff for nearly 3 a decade on the existing consumer products regulations. 4 CSMA is now in support of all the revisions to the existing 5 regulations being proposed today. 6 ARB staff has made a number of key revisions at 7 our request, and I'd like to note two key areas in 8 particualr where we have reached agreement. 9 The first is, CSMA is supportive of all the 10 modifications being proposed in the definition section. 11 Especially important is the addition of perchloroethylene to 12 the list of compounds exempted from the definition of 13 volatile organic compounds. 14 We also support the reporting requirements being 15 proposed today to track perc use. We also strongly support 16 the proposed revisions to the sell-through provisions which 17 conflict with the California Clean Air Act, as amended by AB 18 1849. 19 The statute requires consumer products be allowed 20 a three-year sell-through where the existing rule only 21 allowed for an 18-month sell-through. 22 In summary, we think we've worked successfully 23 with your staff to address our concerns. We are again 24 appreciative of their efforts and we're supportive of all 25 the modifications being proposed today. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 187 1 Thank you very much. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Any questions of Ms. 3 Nelson? Okay. 4 Mr. Brewer, S. C. Johnson Wax. And you're 5 headquartered? 6 MR. BREWER: In Racine, Wisconsin, Mr. Chairman. 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. With that remarkable 8 facility. 9 MR. BREWER: Frank Lloyd Wright's -- 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I was just -- 11 MR. BREWER: I work in that building. 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 13 MR. BREWER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 14 members of the Board. My name is Chip Brewer, and I'm 15 director of government relations at the S. C. Johnson Wax 16 Company in Racine, Wisconsin. 17 We have submitted written comments in support of 18 two of the definition changes being considered today, and I 19 won't go through the points in my written comments. But 20 rather, I would like to take just a moment to make two 21 points. 22 First, S. C. Johnson Wax supports those efforts 23 that the Board has taken to include flexibility into the 24 otherwise prescriptive consumer products regulation. 25 For example, we support the innovative product PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 188 1 provision that's in the current regulation and we have 2 introduced several products in California utilizing that 3 provision, and plan to do so in the future. 4 We have also supported adoption by the Board of 5 the alternative control plan, or ACP, and we have in place 6 an ACP covering part of our product inventory. And I might 7 add that due to the ACP, we are -- the use of that has 8 resulted in VOC emissions reductions that go beyond 9 compliance required by the table of standards. 10 But in spite of these actions to build flexibility 11 into the current regulation, we feel that it is appropriate 12 from time to time for the Board to consider amendments to 13 the definitions themselves to ensure that the regulation is 14 not unintentionally, and without any benefit to the 15 environment, denying California consumers access to new 16 products. 17 We think this is one such instance, and we 18 appreciate the Board's willingness to consider the changes 19 to the crawling bug insecticide definition and the flying 20 bug insecticide definitions. 21 Second, I just want to note S. C. Johnson 22 continues to be very much impressed with the professionalism 23 and the responsiveness of the ARB staff. Our experience in 24 working through technical changes to these definitions, in 25 putting together our alternative control plan, or in working PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 189 1 through innovative product exemptions I think reflects very 2 favorably upon the Board and upon the leadership, the 3 managers and the staff that reside within the Stationary 4 Source Division. 5 And that concludes my comments, Mr. Chairman. 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Thank you very much. Any 7 questions of the witness? 8 Okay. Appreciate it. Thanks for coming that 9 great distance to be with us today. 10 Okay. Mr. Risotto, Stephen Risotto, Halogenated 11 Solvents Industry. 12 MR. RISOTTO: Yes. Good afternoon, and my name is 13 Steve Risotto. I'm here on behalf of the Halogenated 14 Solvents Industry Alliance, which represents producers and 15 users of perchloroethylene. 16 HSIA petitioned the Federal EPA in 1991 to exempt 17 perc from Federal requirements for control of volatile 18 organic compounds. We strongly support the proposal to 19 exempt perc under Air Resources Board regulations. And we 20 believe the staff's review of the potential impacts of the 21 exemption is both comprehensive and thorough. 22 To our knowledge, only one public commenter has 23 voiced opposition to the staff's current proposal relating 24 to the exemption. The issues raised by that commenter have 25 been determined by the staff to be nonpersuasive or to be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 190 1 addressed by existing mitigation measures, and by the 2 proposal to require reporting from formulators. 3 On the other hand, numerous companies and 4 organizations have expressed their support for the 5 exemption. They note in particular that formulators and 6 users of automotive brake cleaners face a January 1 deadline 7 for compliance with the Board's 50 percent VOC limit. 8 Compliance with this limit is substantially 9 jeopardized without the exemption for perchloroethylene. 10 Thank you for the opportunity to participate in 11 these hearings. On behalf of HSIA, I want to commend the 12 staff of ARB for their cooperation and professionalism and 13 to express our appreciation for their hard work. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Any questions of the 15 witness? Okay. 16 Mr. Graham, Sherwin-Williams Diversified Brands. 17 MR. GRAHAM: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members 18 of the Board. My name is Bob Graham. I'm vice president 19 and technical director of Sherwin-Williams Diversified 20 Brands, at one time known as the Specialty Division or 21 Spray-On. 22 We're a major supplier to the consumer products 23 area of aerosol paints, consumer products, both aerosol and 24 nonaerosol, excluding pharmaceuticals and personal care 25 products. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 191 1 I would just like to say very briefly that we do 2 support all of the amendments to the regulations that are in 3 front of you today for reducing VOC emissions from consumer 4 products. I also would like to add my kudos to the staff 5 for defining and explicating the issues involved with this 6 process, and I want to thank them for a job well done. 7 I also wish to mention that there are other 8 supporting organizations for these amendments, such as the 9 National Aerosol Association and the Automotive Chemical 10 Manufacturing Council. 11 I urge the Board to adopt them and I wanted to 12 thank you for your consideration. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Any questions for 14 the witness? Okay. 15 Thanks very much. Mr. Stein. You are our last 16 witness. And you have some tough acts to follow. They've 17 been brief and supportive. 18 (Laughter.) 19 MR. STEIN: I will try to follow in their stead. 20 Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. 21 My name is Dennis Stein. I'm representing 3M 22 Company, located in St. Paul, Minnesota. I'm here to 23 support all the amendments that the staff is recommending. 24 What I'd really like to say is that I think staff 25 has done an excellent job of working diligently on assessing PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 192 1 the technology of aerosol adhesives. I think they've 2 crafted a rule change that does not create a SIP shortfall 3 and, at the same time, recognizes that the 25 percent limit 4 is not attainable today, other than use of methylene 5 chloride. And really, it may not be attainable in the 6 future, but it allows industry time to develop hopefully 7 technology and implement it into commerce. 8 With that, I think that concludes my comments. 9 Thank you very much. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Thank you. Any questions 11 of the witness? 12 Sir, you were certainly in the same league with 13 your colleagues. 14 (Laughter.) 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. That concludes -- is 16 there anyone else that wishes to testify on this item? All 17 right. 18 Okay. We've gone through the public testimony. 19 We've run through the written submissions. Mr. Kenny, we've 20 heard from the Ombudsman. Is there anything else you'd like 21 to add? 22 MR. KENNY: No. I would just simply recommend 23 support for the proposals of the staff and just simply 24 reassert that the staff in delisting perc as a VOC does 25 recognize that perc is a toxic air contaminant, and that we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 193 1 are recommending that we go forward and we look at the 2 consequences from the use of perc in the consumer product 3 arena. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 5 MR. KENNY: And we'll report back to the Board on 6 that. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kenny. Hold on to that point, 7 because I'm going to ask Ms. Walsh to talk about her 8 interaction with Ms. Edgerton, and about how Ms. Edgerton's 9 concern meshes with Mr. Kenny's last statement about the 10 staff holding the same level of concern, wanting to make 11 sure there's some reporting, follow-up, et cetera. 12 What did you two come up with? 13 MS. WALSH: What we're proposing to do is to make 14 a change to the resolution that's before you. This is the 15 draft Resolution 96-58. In one of -- the last paragraph on 16 page 4 of the resolution, which includes some additional 17 directions to the Executive Officer following the Board's 18 action today -- in terms of monitoring the progress of 19 industry and monitoring perchloroethylene emissions from 20 consumer products -- that we would include in that No. 4 -- 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Page 4, last paragraph, 22 parenthetical number (4), right? 23 MS. WALSH: No. (4), a reference there to 24 promoting a policy of integrated pollution control; that the 25 monitoring would be done in furtherance of promoting that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 194 1 policy. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 3 MS. WALSH: So, we would just add some language 4 there. And in addition, there would be an additional clause 5 that would be added to the resolution following that 6 paragraph, and I'm just going to read it for the record and 7 for the Board members. 8 And that would read, "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that 9 to promote the policy of integrated pollution control, the 10 Board directs staff to conduct an assessment under the State 11 Toxic Air Contaminant Program -- at Health & Safety Code 12 Section 39665 and the following sections -- of the need for 13 control of perchloroethylene used in consumer products, and 14 to report on the status of this assessment to the Board no 15 later than June, 1997." 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. For the technical staff, 17 does that work? 18 MR. VENTURINI: That's fine, Mr. Chairman. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. As far as -- 20 and I'm going to put you on the spot further. Actually, 21 I'll hold Mike Kenny responsible for your answer, Mr. 22 Venturini. 23 (Laughter.) 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Resource-wise, is there anything 25 that the Board needs to know about? Is this going to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 195 1 require, you know, a major effort, a different effort? Can 2 this be meshed well with the existing workplan? What can 3 you tell me? 4 MR. VENTURINI: I think we'll be able to 5 incorporate this into our efforts. We've recognized with 6 this that we were going to have to do this assessment. 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 8 MR. VENTURINI: And so, I think we'll be able to 9 accommodate this. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Mr. Kenny, are you 11 comfortable with that? 12 MR. KENNY: Yes, I am. I think Peter basically 13 really hit on the key words, which is that it's something 14 that we really have to do. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 16 MR. KENNY: It's clearly -- it's clear that, in 17 fact, this substance has some, you know, concerns associated 18 with it, and we really need to look into them. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. And this is consistent 20 with that pollution prevention priority that we have. I 21 know with the resolution we adopted some while ago, that 22 Supervisor Roberts was so supportive of as I recall, about 23 making sure that we make that priority. 24 Okay. Ms. Edgerton seems to have found a way for 25 us to accommodate* the continued interest in understanding PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 196 1 and examining perc's impact on our environment that seems to 2 fit well with what our mission is as a department within the 3 Cal-EPA family. 4 (Thereupon, Mr. Parnell consulted with the 5 Chair, which the reporter did not hear.) 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yeah. There was one witness 7 that had a particular interest in perc. Mr. Risotto, are 8 you still here, sir? 9 Can you come forward for a moment? Mr. Parnell 10 brings up a good point. Does this cause you concern? 11 MR. RISOTTO: With the assumption that we'll be 12 able to participate in the review by the Board and the 13 alleged health effects discussion. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, let me ask. There's some 15 heads nodding your way. Mr. Kenny, would you ensure that 16 Mr. Risotto and his organization and others that he 17 represents and knows of are included in this process? 18 MR. KENNY: Absolutely. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Any other issues that 20 you're concerned about? Okay. 21 Thank you. Good point, Mr. Parnell. 22 All right. For my Board member colleagues, 23 anything that you have concerns about or that I may have 24 overlooked? Lynne, you're pleased? 25 MS. EDGERTON: Yes. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 197 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Ron? 2 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Are you ready for a motion, 3 Mr. Chair? 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes. We have before us 5 Resolution No. -- 6 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: -- 96-58. 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: 58. Thank you, Ron. 8 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: As amended in the comments by 9 Ms. Walsh. I'd like to move approval. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. That is fine. But I need 11 to do one or two quick housekeeping items, if I may. 12 Is there a second to that motion? 13 MS. EDGERTON: Second. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Let's hold that in 15 abeyance for a moment. 16 I'm going to officially close the record on this 17 agenda item. However, the record will be reopened when the 18 15-day notice of public availability issued. 19 Written or oral comments received after this 20 hearing date but before the 15-day notice is issued will not 21 be accepted as part of the official record on this agenda 22 item. When the record is reopened for a 15-day comment 23 period, the public may submit written comments on the 24 proposed changes, which will be considered and responded to 25 in the final statement of reasons for the regulation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 198 1 We also have an ex parte consideration. Is there 2 anyone that has anything they need to report? Ms. Edgerton, 3 do you have anything? Okay. 4 I'd like to just comment before we get into the 5 motion. I'd like to thank staff. It's very gratifying, and 6 I know I speak for the entire Board on this point, to have 7 witnesses come here -- some have traveled great distances -- 8 and be complimentary towards you and your work. 9 And we've also seen today -- particularly not just 10 on this item, but on others today -- where you've been 11 willing to work with industry. And that means a great deal 12 to us. And I want you to know it's been noticed. And we've 13 certainly come to expect that whenever possible, but I know 14 it takes a lot of effort to do that. 15 And I particularly like hearing about the late 16 night Mr. Loscutoff had to keep last night to accommodate 17 his colleagues. As Mr. Parnell mentioned, consumer products 18 are an important area for us and a newer area for us. And 19 it is important for us to find common ground with industry, 20 not that we need to agree in every case. We're not going 21 to. But certainly be respectful of those positions, and the 22 impact that we can have on the marketplace is very, very 23 important. 24 And the emission reductions are essential for us 25 to get the clean air and to protect public health, which is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 199 1 important to all of us, and our reason for being here. 2 The staff's amendments fulfill those objectives as 3 I've outlined -- I feel comfortable with that -- and 4 represent a reasonable proposal considering the variety of 5 interests involved. And I appreciate very much your work. 6 So, we have a motion and a second in support of 7 Resolution 96-58, as amended by Ms. Walsh, or the language 8 outlined by Ms. Walsh. Is there any discussion that we need 9 to have on this item? Okay. We'll do another voice vote. 10 All those in favor, say aye? 11 (Ayes.) 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Any opposed? Motion carries. 13 Seems to be unanimous. 14 We have added an item to our agenda that allows 15 for an open session to provide an opportunity for members of 16 the public to address the Board on subject matters within 17 the jurisdiction of the Board. Is there anyone here that 18 wishes to speak on any item? All right. 19 Mr. Kenny, do you have anything to add before we 20 adjourn? 21 MR. KENNY: Nothing further. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. With that, we will 23 adjourn this, the November meeting of the California Air 24 Resources Board. 25 (The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m.) PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 200 CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER I, Nadine J. Parks, a shorthand reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify that I am a disinterested person herein; that the foregoing meeting was reported by me in shorthand writing, and thereafter transcribed into typewriting. I further certify that I am not of counsel or attorney for any of the parties to said meeting, nor am I interested in the outcome of said meeting. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 3rd day of December , 1996. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345