MEETING BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD BOARD HEARING ROOM 2020 L STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA FRIDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1999 9:30 A.M. Vicki L. Ogelvie, C.S.R. License No. 7871 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii MEMBERS PRESENT Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D., Chairman Joseph C. Calhoun Doreen D'Adamo Dr. William Friedman C. Hugh Friedman Barbara Patrick Ron Roberts Staff: Michael Kenny, Executive Director Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mike Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer Kathleen Walsh, General Counsel Catherine Tschogl, Ombudsman PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii I N D E X --o0o-- Page Proceedings 1 Call to Order 1 Opening remarks by Chairman Lloyd 1 AGENDA ITEMS: 99-10-4 Public Meeting to Consider Research Proposals Introductory remarks by Chairman Lloyd 1 Staff Presentation: Mike Kenny 1 Dr. Bob Barham 1 Dr. Karlyn Black 2 99-10-5 Public Meeting to Consider Appointments to the Research Screening Committee Introductory remarks by Chairman Lloyd 28 Staff Presentation: Mike Kenny 30 Dr. Bob Barham 30 99-9-2 Continuation of a Public Meeting to Consider the 1999 Report to the Legislature-Progress Report on the Phase-Down of Rice Straw Burning in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin Introductory remarks by Chairman Lloyd 32 Staff Presentation: Mike Kenny 33 Lesha Hyrnchuk 33 Catherine Tschogl 42 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv I N D E X (Continued) --o0o-- Page Public Comment: Joe A. Carrancho 43 Dr. Fritz Reid 47 Robert Sutton 51 William R. Waite 66 Bob Herkert 69 Stan Van Vleck 78 Isla Gentry 96 Cynthia Cory 99 Carolyn Martin 101 Dennis Albiani 103 Rick Nelson 104 Open Session to Provide an Opportunity for Members of the Public to Address the Board on Subject Matters within the Jurisdiction of the Board 112 Adjournment 112 Certificate of Reporter 113 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 --o0o-- 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I would like to reconvene the 4 December Board meeting. 5 I don't think I officially closed it last night. 6 The first Agenda Item today is consideration of 7 eight research proposals, and I understand there will be a 8 staff presentation on at least some of these. 9 So, Mr. Kenny, would you like to introduce the 10 staff on this issue? 11 MR. KENNY: One moment, please. 12 I think what I am going to do is simply turn it 13 over to the staff to go ahead and begin. 14 Bob. 15 DR. BARHAM: We have eight proposals on the Agenda 16 this morning. 17 We're asking that the first two Agenda Items be 18 removed from today's Agenda. There are some questions that 19 have come up regarding those proposals, and we are going to 20 try and get some clarifications before the next Board meeting 21 in January. 22 The next three items having to do with Particulate 23 Matter Toxicity, there will be a short presentation by Karlyn 24 Black, and I will come back and go over the last three items 25 with the Board. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you Dr. Barham. 2 DR. BLACK: Thank you, Bob, Chairman Lloyd and 3 Members of the Board. 4 Good morning. Today, I will provide some 5 information on three proposed Particulate Matter Toxicology 6 Research Projects, which you have before you today. I plan 7 to be the Project Manager on all three of these efforts. 8 It is important for ARB to study the toxicity of 9 particulate matter for a number of reasons. As we enter the 10 new century, it is clear that particulate matter air 11 pollution has displaced ozone as the largest air quality 12 concern in California. 13 It is critical that we study particulate matter 14 toxicity because PM is a major component of California air 15 pollution. PM or particulate matter is also a mixture, a 16 very complex mixture of many different kinds and sizes of 17 particles. 18 Numerous health effects have been seen with PM 19 exposure, but we do not yet understand the biological 20 mechanisms necessary to explain how PM worsens or may even 21 cause the health effects seen with epidemiology studies. 22 Many different mechanisms are likely involved, and 23 these different mechanisms depend greatly on the nature of 24 the health effects associated with that exposure and the 25 extent of the PM exposure. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 We also have many different people in our 2 population who are especially sensitive to air pollution, and 3 in order to minimize public health threat, it is critical to 4 identify which portions of PM might be potentially most 5 harmful. 6 It is clear that we have a great deal of important 7 work ahead of us. 8 While we know from epidemiology studies which use 9 powerful statistical tools to examine populations, the PM air 10 pollution causes a variety of adverse health effects in 11 humans, that mortality and illness track the levels of PM 12 exposure very closely, that there is a high consistency and 13 coherence among studies and that these effects are being seen 14 world wide. 15 We do not yet know which characteristics of PM have 16 the most effect. 17 Is particle size, particle concentration, particle 18 number or possibly the confounding effects of other air 19 pollutants, such as ozone or nitrogen dioxide, or nitro 20 oxide, for example, that we should be most concerned about. 21 We do not know what the specific mechanisms are 22 because of adverse health effects. They may be allergic 23 responses or inflammation reactions. 24 They may simply be a function of cellular injury 25 and damage, or they may be more complex immune responses. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 The mechanisms involved probably depend on what 2 health effects you are investigating. Different particulate 3 species, if you will, most likely act by different 4 mechanisms. 5 Some may be involved in the worsening of asthma 6 conditions, while others may play a larger role in decreased 7 life expectancy, and there is no question that overall 8 exposure plays a role, especially with respect to sensitive 9 populations. 10 We do not yet understand fully what the short 11 versus long-term effects are, although we know quite a bit 12 about the short-term health effects. 13 To answer these kinds of questions ,we need 14 controlled laboratory exposure studies. These make up an 15 integral part of the Air Resources Board Particulate Matter 16 Research Program. 17 You have before you today three such projects. 18 These research efforts are designed to continue ARB's 19 systematic investigation of the mechanisms associated with 20 particulate toxicity. 21 They are referred to in resolution, for example, 22 99-42, which is entitled, Mechanisms of Particulate Toxicity: 23 Health Effects in Susceptible Humans. 24 Resolution Number 99-43, Mechanism of Particulate 25 Toxicity: Effects on the Respiratory System of Sensitive PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 Animals and Asthmatic Humans; and Resolution Number 99-44, 2 Mechanisms of Particulate Toxicity: Systemic Effects in 3 Sensitive Animal Models and Susceptible Humans. 4 You may have noticed that the first portion of the 5 title of each of these three projects is the same. This 6 reflects the concept that all three are part of a larger 7 program, a coordinated effort to examine particulate 8 toxicity. 9 Before I discuss each project individually, I would 10 like to take a quick moment here to provide a brief overview 11 of the research concept. 12 These three projects are part of a multi-campus 13 collaborative research effort. The campuses involved include 14 UC San Francisco, UC Davis and UC Irvine. 15 These projects incorporate the skills and knowledge 16 of 10 different investigators. These projects will be 17 carried out over the next three years. 18 All three projects are laboratory studies. They 19 involve either human clinical exposure or animal toxicology 20 exposure research. 21 These projects have been carefully designed. They 22 are well-coordinated and well-controlled. 23 The collaborative research is designed as 24 scientifically sound, time efficient and very cost-effective, 25 since tissues from the various exposures on each of the three PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 campuses will be shared among the other two campuses for 2 different biological analysis. 3 All three of these projects build on previous ARB 4 successes. One such success is the ARB funded UC Davis-UC 5 Irvine Collaborative Particulate Matter Research Project. 6 This is a three-year ARB effort, initiated in 7 1998, but it will continue and be finalized in the spring of 8 2000. 9 It is in its final year of three years. Using 10 novel biological endpoints and state-of-the-art laboratory 11 techniques, investigators in this effort were able to see 12 different PM exposure effects in animals using different size 13 particles and different concentrations of particles. 14 These adverse effects have been tied to particle 15 size, and they appear to be independent of the presence of 16 ozone in the atmosphere mixtures delivered to the individual 17 animals. 18 The effects seen include cellular injury in 19 different parts of the lung, systemic effects such as 20 decreased blood pressure and the effects on the immune 21 system, the very system we all rely on to fight respiratory 22 infections. 23 These effects are of interest to ARB because they 24 give us insight into the relative importance of size and 25 composition, especially as it may relate to more sensitive PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 members of our population. 2 Such information is critical for helping us to 3 design effective health protective programs. This effort 4 while challenging from a project management perspective has 5 been tremendously successful and is an excellent, highly 6 functional integrated research approach that will be used for 7 the three projects that you have before you today. 8 This diagram shows how staff envisions this effort. 9 The three proposed research projects will become 10 part of a larger effort to systematically study particulate 11 toxicity, the mechanisms associated with particulate matter 12 components that you can find in California atmospheres. 13 On the right-hand side of this diagram, in the 14 white boxes, we have the previous ARB funded UC Davis-UC 15 Irvine effort. 16 While it is in its final year, results from these 17 successful projects have been used to define the newly 18 proposed projects you have before you today. 19 These are new projects shown in the yellow boxes. 20 These include two animal toxicology efforts, the UC 21 Davis and UC Irvine projects on the top and very bottom of 22 our diagram here, and it includes a human clinical exposure 23 study found on the UC San Francisco campus, found on the very 24 left-hand side of our diagram. 25 Taken together, these newly proposed projects, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 along with the previous two UC Davis-UC Irvine efforts make 2 up a closely coordinated systematic approach to addressing 3 how PM air pollution may cause the health effects which we 4 observe in epidemiology efforts. 5 One of the keys to the success of these efforts is 6 closely coordinated ARB design project management, which we 7 have indicated this year by stars in key areas for project 8 coordination. 9 With the UC Davis-UC Irvine collaborative effort 10 and its success, ARB staff has shown that this strategy will 11 work and propose to use this for the three you have before 12 you today as well. 13 Some of the biological endpoints that will be 14 examined in the three risk research efforts include both 15 cellular processes and systemic markers for a variety of 16 effects throughout the body. 17 So, injury will be examined as well as the location 18 of that injury. Cellular repair mechanisms will be observed, 19 cellular function, markers of inflammation, immune responses, 20 other cellular responses and biochemical endpoints. 21 Systemic markers include airway inflammation, 22 pulmonary function, asthmatic systems and a variety of 23 systemic effects. 24 Now, you have here before you an actual photograph, 25 a scanned image of an image that was generated during the UC PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 Davis-UC Irvine effort. 2 Since endpoints can be difficult to identify for 3 most of us who do not work in a laboratory on a daily basis, 4 let me show you some of the kinds of information you can get 5 with novel techniques first developed in that previous 6 effort. 7 These techniques will also be used in the newly 8 proposed projects. 9 This is a three-D type image, basically inside of a 10 rat lung, generated by special microscope techniques on the 11 UC Davis campus. 12 To orient you a bit better, you are actually 13 looking down into the animal's lungs and down to what we call 14 a bifurcation. It is a saddle, or a split, if you will, 15 between a larger airway, where it goes into two smaller 16 airways. 17 The dark area to the left of the image is the open 18 airway, and the green portions of this image are actually the 19 cells that line the inside of the respiratory track. 20 So, you are literally looking down into two parts, 21 one on the left and one on the right of each of the two 22 images. 23 The image on the left is from a controlled animal 24 that does not show any cellular damage from PM exposure. The 25 image on the right in red and green shows damaged cells, and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 these cells are shown in red, from an animal that was exposed 2 to a particle mixture. 3 Using highly sophisticated techniques such as 4 these, investigators not only identify where the damage 5 occurs within the lungs, but they can also quantify using 6 computers the extent of that damage. 7 The examination of cellular damage and other 8 endpoints, which I have just mentioned, in animals can give 9 us some clues into the nature and effects that particle 10 exposure might have on a variety of related human health 11 effects. 12 Some of these include asthma, chronic pulmonary 13 disease, allergic challenges, airway inflammation, 14 cardiopulmonary stresses or failure, the effects of sensitive 15 populations, including age and developmental concerns when 16 you are looking at the development of children's lungs over 17 time. 18 All of these are a concern to us here at the ARB 19 since these are often associated with members in our 20 population who are especially sensitive to air pollution. 21 In the next three slides, I will cover a few 22 details about each of the three projects. In the first, we 23 have UC San Francisco. The principal investigator is Dr. 24 Colin Solomon. The co-investigator is Dr. John Balmes. 25 John Balmes is a reknown scientist who has done a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 great deal of work with the Air Resources Board 2 internationally, and he is also a known member of our 3 Research Screening Committee. 4 These are human exposure studies being conducted in 5 a clinical setting with mild asthmatic volunteers, ages 18 to 6 50. The investigators will examine airway inflammation, 7 cellular functions, cardiovascular effects and pulmonary 8 function. 9 Ammonium nitrate and carbon particles with and 10 without ozone will be the exposures, and sample tissues and 11 lung fluids will be taken from these individuals under very 12 carefully controlled clinical settings, and they will be 13 shared with UC Davis and UC Irvine for different biochemical 14 analysis. 15 On the UC Davis campus, we have as principal 16 investigator, Dr. Kent Pinkerton, and five other 17 investigators on the Davis campus working closely with Dr. 18 Pinkerton. 19 These will be animal toxicology efforts as well as 20 human tissue studies, taking advantage of the UC San 21 Francisco exposures. 22 There will be asthmatic rat models used, 23 developmental study looking at the development in young 24 animals over time based on PM exposure. They will be looking 25 at things like lung growth and cell damage, immune system PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 responses and other biochemical measures. 2 Tissues will also be shared and fluids as well from 3 these exposures with the Irvine campus. 4 On the Irvine campus, we have Dr. Kleinman, and one 5 other co-principal investigator, Dr. Dianne Meacher. 6 Atmosphere generation and UC San Francisco support 7 will be a major component of the contribution on the part of 8 the UC Irvine campus. They will do some toxicology studies 9 using samples from UC Davis exposures but also ages, animals 10 and exposure settings on the Irvine campus. 11 They will be looking at particle size questions and 12 systemic effects, including blood pressure and some endocrine 13 responses. 14 Taken together, all three projects are 15 cost-effective and will be carried out in a timely fashion. 16 The timing and costs include a three-year 17 coordinated effort, beginning about March of 2000. These 18 projects have been approved by the Research Screening 19 Committee, and money has been allocated in the amount of 20 $409,937 for UC San Francisco, $567,529 for UC Davis, 21 $231,982 for UC Irvine, for a total of $1.2 million over 22 three campuses for three years. 23 This money will purchase in a highly efficient 24 manner the expert services of three UC campuses and more than 25 ten investigators. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 Now, the benefits to the Board are many. These 2 projects will continue the systematic investigation of 3 particulate matter toxicity. 4 They will provide essential information on 5 mechanisms. The collaborative approach effectively utilizes 6 extensive experience and resources offered by California UC 7 system campuses. 8 It is very cost-effective and scientifically sound. 9 The research design maximizes comparability between studies 10 which is essential when you look at toxicology efforts, and 11 it will provide maximum data efficiently over time. 12 It is also very important to note for the Board 13 that these projects utilized known California mixtures, 14 including carbon and ammonium nitrate, both with and without 15 the presence of ozone. 16 They will examine biological endpoints related to 17 human health, including those sensitive individuals that are 18 the more sensitive health endpoints seen in these efforts 19 cannot be detected by other kinds of studies, such as large 20 population-based epidemiology efforts and that these projects 21 are essential to our research program efforts. 22 As we enter the new century, it is clear that 23 particulate matter air pollution is the greatest air quality 24 concern we face here in California. Results from these 25 efforts and efforts like these will clearly help us design PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 and implement effective health protective air quality 2 programs. 3 Thank you. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you, Dr. Black. 5 Questions or comments from the Board? 6 Yes, Dr. Friedman. 7 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Karlyn, I want to thank you 8 for really a fun presentation. 9 I really liked in particular your inventory of the 10 things that we do not know about particulate matter. In that 11 regard, these studies are very consistent with the research 12 strategic plan for ARB. 13 What I like is roping the UCSF clinical human 14 investigations in tandem with what has been very successful 15 between UCI and UC Davis, because I think we get a big bang 16 for the dollar from that collaboration. 17 As a matter of fact, these studies are very 18 modestly priced. This is a remarkably low price tag for the 19 kind of studies that ordinarily would cost about twice this 20 much if funded by the National Institute of Health. 21 So, I really think that these are a slam dunk. 22 These are really good studies by excellent scientists. 23 With an expectation that not everything is going to 24 be answered but new questions are going to arise that are 25 much more sophisticated than the questions that we are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 currently asking, but as a result of these studies. 2 So, I am very positive about all three of these 3 studies. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Question, how much, what linkage 5 will it be to any efforts in this area to the national level? 6 Is EPA doing anything or any of the health 7 institutes that Dr. Friedman mentioned? 8 DR. BLACK: I think we have a distinct advantage 9 or, if you will, a heads-up front-line effort here where 10 there is not a lot going on at the national level with the 11 kinds of techniques and technology that the campuses offer. 12 But I will tell you that the investigators are 13 involved and participate regularly in national meetings, 14 scientific meetings, and they are coordinating through EPA 15 grants and those kinds of things, sharing intellectual 16 property, if you will, in helping to design some of these 17 efforts. 18 So, actually U.S. EPA and some of the other 19 national researchers are looking to us to see what we get 20 from these studies. 21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Great. 22 I thoroughly echo Dr. Friedman's comments. I think 23 it is great to have these investigators in California doing 24 this critical work, which is going to help us in the years 25 ahead. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 Mr. Kenny, how are we doing on this? 2 We have got some other proposals here. Are we 3 going to have presentations on those, or we are just going to 4 go ahead with questions on them? 5 MR. KENNY: Two of them were pulled, and then we 6 have some more. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I have questions on three other 8 one's that we had here. 9 Are there presentations on that? 10 MR. BARHAM: At this time, we do not have a formal 11 presentation. 12 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: May I move approval of the 13 three that we just heard about? 14 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I will second. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: All in favor, say aye. 16 Unanimous approval. 17 I am not going to disapprove the other one's. That 18 was not my intention. 19 I had some questions on one, on the revegetation 20 issue, and I noticed that ARB is rejoining this effort. 21 Some of this started when I was even in the South 22 Coast, and after a four-year hiatus, what has happened in 23 that four years? 24 Are we making any progress on this vegetation 25 issue? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 MR. BARHAM: Well, there was some progress made a 2 number of years ago when we were not in a drought mode and 3 when we had excess rains. 4 We were very optimistic at that point, or the 5 investigators were very optimistic at point. Then things got 6 dry again, and we have learned that it is a much more complex 7 ecosystem than we had originally expected. 8 Point of this work is to try some more innovative 9 ideas, and hopefully it will take this time. 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: So, we are trying something that 11 is more drought tolerant? 12 MR. BARHAM: Not only that but in terms of 13 technique of actually planting the plants. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: What types of plants? 15 MR. BARHAM: Primarily, natives to the area. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Obviously, we are talking about a 17 minimum amount of dollars here. 18 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Why don't we act on 19 this. 20 Move approval. 21 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Second. 22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: All in favor, say aye. 23 It passes. 24 The next one on the non registration rates, 25 obviously it is a critical component as the SIRS staff has PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 pointed out of the INM. That is the missing vehicles there. 2 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I do have a question 3 on it when you are done. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. 5 Do you want to go first? 6 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: No. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: So, this could fill a very 8 important gap there. 9 On the other hand, I have also been aware that we 10 have made efforts in the past, and other people have to try 11 and find these. 12 Why do you think we are going to be successful this 13 time, and also, I guess we have got 18 months, why do we give 14 the contract 18 months? 15 DR. BARHAM: Well, I think we have put together a 16 much more comprehensive team this time with this proposal. 17 Also, we are involving the Highway Patrol and some 18 other police departments so that we can go into areas perhaps 19 that were not investigated before. 20 There were some major concerns in fact raised by 21 the Research Screening Committee in terms of some of the 22 areas we are proposing to investigate. 23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Could you elaborate? 24 What do you mean by investigate? 25 MR BARHAM: The idea in this project is to actually PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 go into various areas around the state. 2 Hopefully, we can get into most every country, but 3 in certain areas, San Francisco and the Sacramento and 4 certain areas of Los Angeles, for example, with high crime 5 rates, there were concerns expressed about sending folks into 6 those areas, researchers into the areas without adequate 7 protection. 8 So, in those cases we are actually having off-duty 9 CHP officers and local sheriffs participating with the 10 researchers to get a better handle of what some of the non 11 registration rates may be in those areas. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Elaborate a little bit on exactly 13 what will they do. 14 DR. BARHAM: Well, they will actually go out and 15 take pictures of license plates where the license plates have 16 not been or the registration has not been updated, and then 17 we will work with the Department of Motor Vehicles to go and 18 correlate that information with what the DMV has on their 19 records and determine what the status of that license plate, 20 whether it is actually in process at this point or whether 21 it's a stolen plate, whatever the outcome is. 22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Are you going to concentrate on 23 the Bay Area? 24 DR. BARHAM: It will be a statewide effort. 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: But a statistical sampling? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 DR. BARHAM: Exactly. 2 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: The search is for 3 non-compliant vehicles from a point of view of registration 4 renewals, and that is because it is not clear whether they 5 did not renew the registration because of the proof of 6 insurance, the cost of it or the failure to get a smog 7 control clearance? 8 DR. BARHAM: That is what is driving a lot of this. 9 There is suspicion that the registration rates have 10 gone down, but the insurance requirements -- 11 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I don't know how 12 statistically valid that will be. 13 I am not a statistician, but I mean we could all go 14 out for several days just looking for that, and maybe we 15 would find a couple and maybe we wouldn't, and then I am not 16 sure whether that tells us it is because of the insurance 17 problem, cost of insurance. 18 DR. BARHAM: I think ultimately what we are trying 19 to get back to is not so much whether the car is registered 20 or not, that is certainly a concern that DMV has, and they 21 are working very closely with us to try and answer that 22 question, but our concern has to do more with whether or not 23 the automobiles are participating in smog check program and 24 whether or not those if they are high emitters or other 25 problems that are being missed because the cars are not going PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 through that. 2 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Then explain to me how 3 you learn that from taking a picture of a license? 4 MR. CACKETTE: We did this one time before in Los 5 Angeles, and what we did was go out, and at that time we 6 actually used parking lots that were demographically picked 7 throughout the area, we found out whether there are tabs on 8 there or not. 9 The next step is to go look at the Department of 10 Motor Vehicles and find out whether the person registered the 11 car or not, and many people just do not bother to put the tab 12 on it for a while, so it could be fully registered. 13 Based on the one's that are not registered, they 14 did not go to the Bureau Automotive Repair Smog Check records 15 and go through those, figure out whether the car got the Smog 16 Check, but was not registered for some other reason, or 17 whether it did not get a Smog Check. 18 We can also look back on the history to see whether 19 it got a Smog Check two years before or has it been 20 chronically non registered in the state. 21 That way we are able to ferret out what is the non 22 compliance rate with Smog Check, which is what the real 23 unknown is. 24 This is a dynamic situation where we found out in 25 the first place, in that first study in Los Angeles, was that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 at one month the non compliance rate is about 10 or 11 2 percent. At one year, it was about one or two percent. 3 So, what people do is they forget, they defer, some 4 get caught. Eventually that study showed that most people do 5 get registered, but that was before the insurance 6 requirement, and after the insurance requirement, or roughly 7 in that time frame. 8 I do not want to conclude that it was the insurance 9 that caused it, but we have found a lot more cars that do not 10 seem to be showing up at the Smog Check stations or at least 11 not completing the Smog Check, when we look at just the Smog 12 Check data. 13 So this thing will sort of pull it all together. 14 One of the reasons for the higher is, in fact, which you will 15 be seeing in March, we have gone more and more towards trying 16 to have data that is county-specific. 17 So, in the past, we often would have a study in Los 18 Angeles, typically, where we would look at things, and then 19 the statistics not just for reregistration, but for maybe 20 miles traveled, for lengths of trips, things like that, were 21 all applied to every other county in the state. 22 So, Alpine County gets the same thing as Los 23 Angeles. What we have done over the past years is try to get 24 more and more specific data oriented at individual counties, 25 and this is enough of a concern that we wanted to look at PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 virtually all the counties and come up with what is a non 2 compliance rate. 3 Well, Alpine County is not a good example, because 4 they do not have Smog Check, but in the counties that do have 5 Smog Check, with some non compliance rate. 6 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I understand how that 7 would be used, but I am wondering about the 8 cost-effectiveness. 9 Is it a violation of the DMV or Vehicle Code to not 10 have a current registration and operate a vehicle? 11 Is that subject to some fine or penalty? 12 MR. CACKETTE: Yes. 13 Initially, the penalties are the payments you have 14 to pay to DMV escalate on some schedule. 15 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: It is not something 16 that could be a ticketable offense locally, so, local 17 communities could generate revenue if they ticketed a vehicle 18 that is seen on their streets or being operated that is not 19 currently registered? 20 MR. CACKETTE: Right. 21 In fact, we have looked at ways in which we could 22 try to incentivise that, for example, if more of the meter 23 enforcers had stronger incentives, like the money going to 24 county or city instead of going back mostly to the state. 25 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: That is because of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 statutory scheme presently, so, that would take a legislative 2 change? 3 MR. CACKETTE: Right. 4 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: For ongoing monitoring 5 of this problem, assuming that it is reasonably predictable 6 to continue if it might be desirable to consider if that is 7 feasible, if it is achievable to get some incentive that you 8 have been describing. 9 MR. CACKETTE: I think this data will help us do 10 that. 11 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: If that is important 12 data to continue to have, as long as there is Smog Check, 13 then maybe we ought to. 14 I do not know what is our appropriate role here. 15 In addition to this research, which is ad hoc, and from time 16 to time, that would not cost us anything. The communities 17 could raise some money, and it would get people to register 18 sooner if they are being ticketed, and we could get the data 19 for free, basically. 20 MR. CACKETTE: Right, and hopefully the non 21 compliance rate would drop way down. 22 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I just, I don't know 23 if that is worthy to pursue. 24 MR. CACKETTE: The big concern I think is to try to 25 remedy the fact that people's eyes find the wrong color tabs, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 especially towards the end of the year, when it should be 2 shifting, you see this happen. 3 People have perceptions, and we do know that it is 4 very high initially, but what the previous study showed that 5 it went down over time, and as long as people do get the Smog 6 Check eventually, it is not quite as bad as never getting it. 7 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: This way you get a 8 county specific count. 9 MR. CACKETTE: The other concern is that what is 10 the motivation for not getting the Smog Check, if it 11 correlates with the dirtiest cars, then one or two percent 12 non compliance can be 10, 20, 30 percent of the Smog Check 13 benefit. 14 If it turns out that it is because of insurance or 15 randomness, then the impact is still significant that it 16 would be a lot lower. 17 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: If staff feels this is 18 useful information on an ongoing basis, maybe there ought to 19 be some consideration of generating a request or a proposal 20 through, I guess, through the agency or whatever for a 21 legislative action. 22 MR. CACKETTE: I think that is a good idea. 23 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Thank you. 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. Calhoun. 25 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Yes. This is a problem that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 has been around for quite some time. 2 I have a very vivid memory of statement made by 3 Commissioner Sullivan years ago, when this Board was composed 4 of five members, the Commissioner of the California Highway 5 Patrol was a Member of this Board, and I remember hearing 6 Commissioner Sullivan state that anywhere from 5 to 15 7 percent of the vehicles that they stop on the road are not 8 registered. 9 So, that is a problem that we just have to try and 10 deal with somehow, especially as it impacts the Smog Check 11 program. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Good. Thank you. 13 Any more questions? 14 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Move it. 15 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Second. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: All in favor, say aye. 17 Unanimous agreement there. 18 Last one is the proposal to look at concentration 19 within 100 meters of point source. I think there is just a 20 question there on the validation. 21 How will validation be done and are we talking 22 about gases as well as particulates? 23 DR. BARHAM: Yes, both. 24 The validation would be done with actual field 25 testing in both complex and simple terrain situations where PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 there would be samples taken, concentrations determined and 2 then the researchers would go back and actually look at the 3 model and determine whether or not models are accurately 4 predicting what we saw in the field testing. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: So, where would the experimental 6 program be conducted and what type of particulate would be 7 used? 8 DR. BARHAM: It is actually being done in Southern 9 California at the US Army proving ground. 10 The particulate matter would be used -- I am sorry. 11 I do not have an answer for that. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I support the concept. 13 DR. BARHAM: I suspect it is a general mix. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: It is a very much needed issue. 15 I think for fellow Board Members here, this issue 16 of being able to predict dispersion from a point source close 17 which is not just a guess in distribution, this is a very 18 important issue, and I can see directly the application here 19 to our issue with diesel particulate, and that is very 20 important to be able to characterize those concentrations in 21 that region. 22 DR. BARHAM: It is also a very important issue with 23 regard to community health. 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Exactly. That was my point. 25 Where is it being carried out? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 I understand an Army base. On the other hand, a 2 lot of these things we are looking at, truck stops, loading 3 up at grocery stores, and whatnot, I would suggest you also 4 look at the application there, so that when in fact we get 5 information from this study, know to what maximum extent 6 possible we can look for the applicability to actual urban 7 areas or to areas which clearly have buildings and whatnot 8 around, and I recognize it is difficult to come up with a 9 generic building, but at least do not be limited just to flat 10 terrain or whatever. 11 DR. BARHAM: The researchers have recognized that 12 and will take that into consideration. 13 The type of release and those kinds of issues will 14 need to be refined as part of the project. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: That is good. 16 I endorse that. 17 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Move approval. 18 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Second. 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: All in favor, say aye. 20 Thank you. 21 Next, we move onto Agenda Item 99-10-5, and this is 22 to discuss the appointments to the Research Screening 23 Committee. 24 State law authorizes this Board to appoint the 25 Research Screening Committee, or RSC, to advise the Board on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 its extramural research activities or at least many of those. 2 Again, I was very privileged to serve on this 3 Committee with Dr. Holmes and Dr. Barham, when they were 4 running the Research Division there, when I was Chief 5 Scientist for the South Coast Air Quality Management 6 District, but I think they do an excellent, a lot of work 7 here. 8 I think it is very important to continue having the 9 Research Screening Committee staffed by scientists who can be 10 major contributors, and over the years, many eminent 11 scientists have offered their services and their input has 12 been invaluable. 13 I guess we also had a Noble Prize winner serve on 14 there for a brief period of time. So, to me it is 15 particularly extraordinary that you consider the workload is 16 significant and the pay is symbolic, at best, but I think 17 that they serve very well. 18 As we move ahead in this arena, I think it is very 19 important that we have the best possible people there. 20 So, we have nine members each representing a 21 scientific or technical discipline that is relevant to our 22 air quality research. From time to time it is necessary to 23 look at may be changing those to reflect particular areas of 24 expertise. 25 Today, three excellent candidates have been brought PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 forth for the Board's consideration. 2 In addition, staff is proposing to add an equally 3 qualified candidate to the Committee, an ex officio member, 4 and this is important to give us a better -- on whether we 5 interact with them, so in this way we are basically forcing 6 the staffs to get together, if you like, but in a collegian 7 way, and I think this will be big help to both us and OEHHA. 8 So, we have had the opportunity to review each 9 candidate's credentials and resumes. 10 Before we discuss them further, Mr. Kenny, would 11 you or your staff read off the name, affiliation and areas of 12 expertise for each candidate? 13 MR. KENNY: I am going to refer to Dr. Barham to 14 essentially go through the names and affiliations. 15 Bob. 16 DR. BARHAM: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. 17 As the Chairman said, we have under consideration 18 today four names who are eligible and willing to serve on the 19 Committee, and I will quickly go through their backgrounds 20 and names. 21 The first is Dr. Lynn Haldeman. Dr. Haldeman is an 22 Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering in the 23 Department of Civil Engineering and Environmental Engineering 24 at Stanford University. 25 Her area of expertise is aerosol chemistry exposure PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 assessment and indoor air quality. 2 The second new member is Dr. William Nasarath, a 3 Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental 4 Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. 5 His area of expertise is in air quality 6 engineering, air pollutant dynamics and indoor air quality, 7 also. 8 Dr. Amy Walton is the third candidate. She is a 9 Technical Executive Assistant to the Director at Aero Jet 10 Propulsion Laboratory. 11 Her areas of expertise are economics theory, 12 econometrics, environmental economics energy, public policy, 13 research management and technical innovation. 14 The last candidate is the ex officio, Dr. Michael 15 Lipsett. Dr. Lipsett is with the Office of Environmental 16 Health and Hazard Assessment in Cal EPA. 17 I have known Dr. Lipsett for probably 20 years, and 18 he is probably one of the most capable scientists that I have 19 had the opportunity to run into. 20 So, that summarizes the candidates. 21 The one additional thing with Dr. Lipsett, he also 22 has a JD degree, so he will serve as both the health advisor 23 and a legal advisor. 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Please use him for his technical 25 expertise. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I do not know if that is 2 good or bad. 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: No disrespect, Professor Friedman. 4 This is the Research Screening Committee. Again, I 5 would like to entertain any comments from the Board or 6 questions from the Board before we approve these or entertain 7 the motion. 8 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Entertain the motion right 9 away. 10 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Second. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: All in favor, say aye. 12 Unanimous there. 13 Again, thank you for bringing those to our 14 attention. 15 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Mr. Chairman, we know that 16 two Friedman's make one Lipsett. 17 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Is that one of those 18 inexorable axioms? 19 MR. CACKETTE: The F, F equals L. 20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 21 Final item on the Agenda today is 99-9-2, the 1999 22 Report to the Legislature on Rice Straw Burning in the 23 Sacramento Valley Air Basin. 24 So, you know this item was carried over from our 25 November meeting to give the public sufficient time to review PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 the draft report. 2 It also gives staff some additional time to make 3 changes, including those suggested by Board Member D'Adamo, 4 at our last meeting. 5 Given the level of interest in the Rice Straw 6 Issue, I believe the extra three weeks was time well spent. 7 We got 18 letters after our last Board meeting, which is a 8 significant quantity for any Report to the Legislature. 9 Mr. Kenny, would you like to begin the staff's 10 presentation? 11 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of 12 the Board. 13 As discussed at last month's Board meeting, we 14 extended the comment period on the report to December 2. The 15 staff reviewed all the comments received, met with a number 16 of the commentators and made several clarifications to the 17 report in response to public comments that we received. 18 These changes are shown in strike-out and 19 highlighted form in the document before you today. 20 The revised report was made available to the public 21 on Monday, December 6, and it is also on the back table. 22 Staff will now make a brief presentation 23 highlighting the proposed revisions, and what I would like to 24 do is turn it over to Ms. Lesha Hrynchuk to do that. 25 MS. HRYNCHUK: Good morning, Chairman Lloyd and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 Members of the Board. 2 I will begin with an introduction of this item and 3 the Board's role. 4 The phase-down requirements for rice straw burning 5 are explicitly defined in state law. On a biennial basis, 6 the Board and the California Department of Food and 7 Agriculture are to jointly report on the implementation and 8 impacts of the phase-down law. 9 The topics to be covered are compliance with 10 phase-down, the status of alternatives to burning, economic 11 and environmental impacts and recommendations, if any. 12 In the initial proposed report, we focused on what 13 we saw as the key issues, compliance with the phase-down, 14 status of alternatives to burning and the benefits of the 15 smoke management program when burning does occur. 16 In response to comments from Board Members at our 17 last meeting and the public comments received, we have 18 expanded discussion of other important issues. 19 After I briefly summarize the implementation 20 status, I will describe how the proposed report has been 21 revised in light of the comments received. 22 This slide recaps the status of the phase-down law 23 and its implementation. The current annual limit on burning 24 is 200,000 acres of rice straw. 25 The current fall limit is 90,000 acres. In 1998, a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 total of about 141,000 acres were burned; 89,400 of those 2 acres were burned during the fall. 3 As the data show, the statutory phase-down 4 requirements continue to be met as they have in past years. 5 Next, I will summarize the status of alternatives 6 to rice straw burning. 7 There is no disagreement that alternatives have 8 been slow to develop. The primary alternative continues to 9 be incorporation of rice straw into the soil. In 1998, only 10 about one percent of rice straw was used commercially. 11 Achieving the 50 percent diversion discussed in the 12 1998 diversion plan will require funding to stimulate 13 commercial uses. 14 As we discussed last month, ethanol production has 15 important potential for use in California fuel. 16 The Rice Straw Advisory Committee has produced 17 draft recommendations which support the need for financial 18 incentives for commercial uses, such as ethanol production. 19 Now, I will move on to discuss staff's proposed 20 revisions to the initial report in response to the comments 21 received. 22 These revisions are based on a meeting with rice 23 growers and local district representatives we had in Chico on 24 December 2, and our review of the 20 comment letters we 25 received. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 Regarding compliance comments that were made, the 2 Executive Summary should emphasize that the phase-out 3 schedule has been met. We agree and have added language to 4 highlight this in the conclusions. 5 Regarding alternatives, we received several 6 comments that we should promote ethanol production, and 7 received one comment related to the use of butanol for fuel 8 blending. 9 Assemblymember Darryl Steinberg asked whether the 10 availability of rice straw storage plays a role in the low 11 demand for rice straw, and the common theme for many 12 commentators was the importance of acknowledging the current 13 lack of alternatives other than soil incorporation, the need 14 for financial incentives and the need for legislative action. 15 We have generally proposed new or expanding 16 language to address these issues in more detail. However, we 17 have not included any additional language for butanol as we 18 generally did not identify all possible uses for rice straw. 19 To highlight the need for financial incentives such 20 as subsidies or tax credits and a consistent rice straw 21 supply, we have added a specific recommendation for the 22 Legislature to appropriate additional funding to support the 23 development of alternatives. 24 Regarding economics, Board Member D'Adamo and 25 others commented that farrow subsidies effect the income data PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 in the report and that these subsidies eventually go away 2 under Federal law. We have added that information to section 3 on economics. 4 We have received comments that we should include 5 estimates of the region wide economic impacts of the 6 phase-down. 7 In response, we have included an assessment of 8 these impacts in the Executive Summary and the economic 9 section. 10 Another comment was that data on rice yields should 11 be included, because yields have been going down concurrently 12 with the implementation of the phase-down. 13 The Agricultural Council made similar comments 14 connecting increased disease and declining yield as well as 15 the added cost of chemicals to address disease. 16 We have included yield data from the United States 17 Department of Agriculture with a discussion that emphasizes 18 the need for research to determine the impact of the 19 phase-down on disease and yield. 20 Because weather conditions and other factors cause 21 fluctuations in yield, research is needed to try to isolate 22 the impacts of the phase-down alone. 23 While some research has been done, more is needed 24 to answer the question quantitatively. Therefore, we have 25 included a specific recommendation that the Legislature PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 provide funding to research the economic impacts of the 2 phase-down in terms of reduced yield potential. 3 At last month's meeting, Board Member D'Adamo asked 4 us to include a discussion of possible adverse environmental 5 impacts of the phase-down. We have done so. 6 The Agricultural Council of California made similar 7 comments regarding methane emissions from soil incorporation, 8 increased chemical use from additional pesticide and 9 herbicide use and potential impacts on water quality. 10 As with the issue of yields, research is needed to 11 address these issues to provide a more thorough understanding 12 of potential impacts. 13 Consequently, we have included a specific 14 recommendation for the Legislature to provide funding to 15 study these potential environmental impacts. 16 A number of comments were made regarding fall 17 burning and air quality. Virtually all of these comments 18 have resulted in proposed clarifications to the report. 19 I will highlight the main changes to the report. 20 First, we clarified that there has been a decrease 21 in fall burning over the last 10 years. 22 Next, we added other sources which contribute to 23 high particulate matter concentrations during the fall such 24 as prescribed burning. 25 Third, we added a reference to the smoke impacts PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 from recent wild fires. 2 Finally, the reported knowledge that growers need 3 to burn in the fall for effective disease control. 4 We believe that our proposed clarifications and 5 additions will improve the report by making it more accurate 6 and complete. 7 In response to comments on the public health 8 section, clarifications and additional documentation was 9 suggested, and we have generally addressed these in the 10 report. 11 As Board Member D'Adamo requested, we have added 12 additional references for health studies on particulate 13 matter and added language to clarify where health studies 14 have looked at particulate matter effects in general but not 15 specifically at health effects from rice straw smoke. 16 We have decided to delete the discussion of silica 17 in rice straw smoke as it no longer appears to be at issue. 18 A number of comments were made regarding smoke 19 management and the Sacramento Valley burn program. Most 20 common was the comment that smoke management via the burn 21 plan is successful, important for public health and should be 22 highlighted. 23 We certainly agree. 24 The Sacramento Valley Burn Program specifies how, 25 the amount, location and conditions for all agricultural PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 burning are managed in order to minimize the public's 2 exposure to smoke. 3 The allocation system in the burn plan is a model 4 for the State, because it provides a means for taking 5 meteorology and air quality conditions into account on a 6 daily basis. 7 We have modified the report to emphasize the 8 success of the burn plan and indicate that it is being used 9 as a model for the entire state. 10 In summary, we have revised the report based on 11 comments from the Board, the public comments, and our meeting 12 with rice growers and district's staff last week. 13 We have proposed two major types of revisions. 14 First, we are proposing that the Legislature 15 appropriate funding to support the development of alternative 16 uses of rice straw to research the economic impacts of the 17 phase-down in terms of reduced yield potential and to study 18 the potential and environmental effects of changes in rice 19 straw management. 20 Second, we are proposing to revise the report to 21 ensure that it is technically clear and accurate. As 22 previously mentioned, this report is a joint effort with the 23 California Department of Food and Agriculture. 24 CDFA staff was unable to be here today, but they 25 asked that we convey their appreciation to the Board and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 staff for working so closely with the stakeholders and CDFA 2 in amending the report, and they think the report is very 3 good, unquote. 4 To document the proposed revisions, we have 5 developed a strike-out underline version of the report, 6 showing the changes since the November report, a five-page 7 summary of the major comments and responses and a detailed 8 listing of each individual comment and the staff's response. 9 We have included this information in your Board 10 package and have provided copies on the tables in the lobby. 11 On December 6, we posted a draft strike-out, 12 underlined version of the report on the Website. The version 13 available today represents additional revisions made based on 14 discussions with CDFA, our detailed review of the comments 15 and our own evaluation of the report. 16 These changes are limited in scope, although we did 17 expand the discussion of market potential on ethanol. 18 The staff recommends that the Board approve the 19 report with proposed revisions. 20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you for your prompt ending. 21 We have, and I nearly did it again, do the Board 22 Members have any questions? 23 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I will defer until the 24 witnesses. 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Madam Ombudsman, since I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 overlooked you last time, do you have any comments this time 2 on the process? 3 MS. TSCHOGL: Just a few. 4 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, the report 5 before you was developed by ARB staff between June of 1999 6 and the present. 7 Because this has been before you already, I will be 8 brief with my comments, and also, Lesha did an outstanding 9 job of giving you a list of what kind of outreach they 10 conducted. 11 First of all, I wanted to say that I am very 12 pleased by the Board's action to delay this item until today 13 so that all of the parties could have adequate time to review 14 the report. 15 Clearly, the time was insufficient last time. You 16 will be pleased to know that the time was used wisely by both 17 staff and the stakeholders. 18 A number of rice growers asked for it and received 19 an opportunity to present their written comments to the staff 20 in an informal meeting at the Butte Air Quality Management 21 District Office on December 2. 22 The staff listened attentively to all of the 23 comments and concerns presented by the industry leaders and 24 the air district officials. 25 They were able to make some adjustments to the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 report and resolve many of their concerns. As you will hear 2 from some of the witnesses today, they were obviously unable 3 to accommodate all of them. 4 The report that you have before you, as you know, 5 is the revised version that includes these adjustments as 6 well as the issues and concerns raised by the Board Members 7 on November 18. 8 Those are my only comments. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 10 Now, I would like to call on those persons who have 11 signed up to testify. 12 We have nine people signed up so far. 13 As you know, the Board heard a significant amount 14 of testimony last month on this item, so I would appreciate 15 if the people testifying today could in fact address those 16 issues that are new or respond to how staff has changed the 17 report. 18 First witness we have is Joe Carrancho, from Rice 19 Producers of California, and I know we heard from Joe last 20 time. 21 I noticed Mr. McGwire in the audience too, and he 22 is not cruising around in his car. He is not even paying 23 attention. 24 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: He used to pay attention. 25 MR. CARRANCHO: I want to thank you for giving us PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 the opportunity, and like I said, we really are pleased that 2 you postponed it another day and gave us a little time to 3 respond. 4 I have spoken to you before. I have got one letter 5 that you probably got. It came from me personally, but today 6 I am talking to you as President of Rice Producers of 7 California. 8 Lesha has done quite a job on this. There are a 9 few things that I will not go into that there may be some 10 disagreement on, but on the most part, she has done quite 11 well. 12 I believe that there are some things in this report 13 that stand out. 14 I was part of the negotiating team when we 15 negotiated 318. In that negotiation, there was a lot of 16 things said, a lot of things assumed, but if you would go to 17 page 16, on this report, and I will read to you from that, 18 says, Senate Bill 318 directed the ARB to develop an 19 implementation plan and schedule to find uses for 50 percent 20 of the rice straw by the year 2000. 21 If you will drop down a little lower to another two 22 paragraphs down -- 23 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Tell me what you are 24 reading from? 25 MR. CARRANCHO: Your report, the 1999 report, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 revised one, under rice straw diversion. 2 MR. FLETCHER: Just to clarify, he is probably 3 reading from the version that was posted on the Website on 4 December 6, and so we have made a few slight changes, as 5 Lesha has mentioned. 6 So, if you will bear with us, we will make sure you 7 get in the right place on the report that you have. 8 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: What is he reading? 9 Is that in here? 10 MR. CARRANCHO: If you will drop down another two 11 paragraphs -- 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Can you start again on that, so we 13 can follow along? 14 MR. CARRANCHO: Senate Bill 318 is under the rice 15 straw diversion plan, Senate Bill 318 directed the ARB to 16 develop an implementation plan and schedule to find uses for 17 50 percent of the rice straw by the year 2000. 18 They went further on later. 19 Because of the extreme difficulty and high cost of 20 achieving 50 diversion by the year 2000, the ARB staff also 21 identified an alternative plan that targeted the 50 percent 22 goal for the year 2003. 23 The plan also recognized that without government 24 assistance, only about 20 percent would likely to be used by 25 the year 2003. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 On mine, if you go to page 17, which would probably 2 be 18 on yours, on the fourth paragraph down, you will see it 3 says, to date, no legislative appropriations have been made 4 to provide the economic incentives needed to substantially 5 expand the use of rice straw. 6 I think if anyone has read this report to the 7 Legislature from one end to other, not like I have about 8 three different times already, it is pretty clear to me that 9 when we negotiated at 318, we made a mistake. 10 We should have stopped at 50 percent not at 40. I 11 think then we have left the farmer in pretty good shape. 12 I do not think there is a farmer out here that will 13 disagree that if we can get to 50 percent rice straw usage 14 that we could live with a 25 percent burn for disease control 15 only. 16 However, the stress that you are putting the farmer 17 under, we cannot just keep using the same old equipment and 18 trying to defer this. This is how we are getting by this, we 19 just keep going with what we have. 20 If we continue to phase-down, it is going to break 21 some of our backs. 22 I'm glad to see that this Board is starting to look 23 at the economy of the state and not just focus on one thing. 24 I would hope that this Board would look at putting a freeze 25 at 40 percent that we are earning, but at least leave us at PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 40 percent until we achieve the 50 percent rice straw usage 2 that we were promised. 3 Maybe it is not in law. By what I read you there, 4 it would sure implied, and that is what we based this on. We 5 thought that we would be at 50 percent by year 2000. 6 Without that 50 percent rice straw usage, all field 7 usage, I do not feel that we can last much longer. I would 8 recommend, I know you have power of recommendation, that you 9 recommend that we freeze this at 40 percent until we reach 10 the 50 percent rice straw usage. 11 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 13 Any questions from the Board? 14 I think we will have some questions, but we will 15 take the other witnesses here. 16 Next one is Dr. Fritz Reid, from Ducks Unlimited. 17 DR. REID: Thank you very much for the chance to 18 speak to you this morning. 19 I am going to be very succinct. I am going to talk 20 about one paragraph. 21 I would like you to go to Roman numeral VII, in the 22 last paragraph that exists there. Again, I do not mean to 23 ambush the staff and the report. 24 I think the report overall is quite good, and I 25 appreciate both the first sentence and last sentence of this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 paragraph, but there is some confusion as relates to the rest 2 of the paragraph, and that confusion -- 3 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Is this V-I-I, down 4 from the beginning? 5 DR. REID: Yes. 6 The paragraph begins, from an overall air quality 7 standpoint. 8 Again, as I read the first sentence is quite good, 9 the second sentence and beyond get into some issues which 10 there is quite a bit of research that has been done since 11 1992. 12 Congressman Vic Fasio made a million dollars 13 available to the Bureau of Reclamation that has been used 14 primarily by UC Davis and University of Nevada Reno and other 15 universities for a variety of research efforts here, and 16 there are a number of published manuscripts related to these 17 issues. 18 What I would request is that perhaps that at least 19 six words would be added to the second sentence, which now 20 reads, however, some growers have indicated that there may be 21 adverse environmental effects resulting from the change in 22 rice straw management practices. 23 I would ask if you add the words, and the variety 24 of techniques employed. 25 The reason that I ask that be added is that you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 just have talked about in this manuscript, you just talked 2 about one of the techniques being the flooding technique, and 3 it seems to imply in these various negative environmental 4 impacts that they are related to flooding not to other 5 potential management practices. 6 I think if that is added that would help. 7 I would like to suggest that I would be happy to 8 organize either for this committee or for the staff, a 9 presentation of some of those environmental projects that 10 have been under taken. 11 There really is some great work that has been done 12 among them. Dr. Chris Elvick, University of Nevada Reno, 13 found that out of the 34 species of water birds that use 14 rice, that 32 of them prefer flooded or saturated fields, and 15 those include a number of endangered and threaten species. 16 In addition, Dr. Mark Coldwell-Scholly, at Humboldt 17 State, shallow flooded rice fields are preferred by all four 18 of the goose species and swan species. 19 We further are doing investigations with satellite 20 work looking at where rice is flooded on a monthly basis and 21 looking at the landscape aspect of how that will influence 22 both shore bird and water fowl distributions within the 23 valley. 24 We will be happy to present that to you at some 25 other time. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 The final point that I would like to make is that 2 there is strong evidence by micro habitat used by a number of 3 water birds that burned rice fields when shallowly flooded 4 are an important component to the food aspects of a number of 5 water birds and that they provide both different variety of 6 rice that is available as well as often times when they are 7 burned in the fall and then flooded will heat up faster, and 8 so a different bird or fowl would go, and it needs to be 9 found in those other techniques. 10 So, thank you very much for the chance to speak to 11 you, and we look forward to giving a presentation to the 12 staff. 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: There is much more to this issue 14 than I ever thought. 15 If you told me that in fact some of these birds 16 actually have preference for actually barbecued rice straw; 17 is that right? 18 DR. REID: After straw, but by eliminating the 19 straw, they have a far better efficiency feeding on the rice. 20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: It's amazing, amazing. 21 Thank you very much. 22 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Charbroiled. 23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Staff, any problem, this seems 24 like a new contribution? 25 MR. KENNY: Dr. Reid's suggestion seems fine. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 I mean I think we would also like to take him up on 2 his offer to essentially provide us with some more 3 information, and it actually sounds like some tours. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: A field trip would be good. 5 DR. REID: I actually have to leave right now for a 6 field tour in Butte since the wind is blowing. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 8 The next one we have is Robert Sutton. 9 MR. SUTTON: Thank you for this opportunity to 10 speak today. 11 My speech or my delivery today is called 12 perspective and with a conclusion. So, I don't have exact 13 comments to the report, because I do not know how to write 14 the perspective into it, but I think it is lacking. 15 This is a complicated issue that we are working on 16 here. We are dealing with AB 1378, the phase-down, which 17 started in 1992. We are dealing with the fall ag burn 18 program, and we are dealing with SB 318. 19 So, I will start with some perspectives. 20 First, in the economics, which there is economics 21 in the report, but you have to -- I want to do it my way. 22 Okay. I have personally spent since 1992, 23 $113,000, and that is a lot of money when you look at me 24 standing here and the future value of that money. 25 I spent that in the name of air quality. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 The rice farmers collectively have spent, this is 2 just to get rid of the straw, it does not count research, $56 3 million in the name of air quality, incorporating the straw. 4 I do not know if that number is in the report. 5 Last year, the rice farmers, part of the $56 million, but 6 last year we spent $12 million dealing with straw. 7 Next year we are going to spend $12 million dealing 8 with straw only in the air quality. 9 If you backup a little bit, the rice industry has 10 not really been given credit for, starting about 1970, is 11 that we changed our rice straw and did some rice breeding and 12 shortened the straw, which got rid of about 30 percent of it. 13 We removed the little fuzzy thing that made it 14 itchy, and it was flying around the air. We have increased 15 water quality 99.9 percent. 16 We have spent over $5 million, and that is a 1995 17 figure on research to find alternatives. That is before we 18 came to AB 1378, which mandated it, and all at zero cost to 19 the public. 20 So, the rice growers have complied with everything 21 that they have been asked to do, done their share, and if you 22 count the research, in the last 10 years, we spent $60 23 million. 24 More perspective. 25 During this phase-down that started in 1992, one of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 the things that was a real blow to my back, I farm right 2 alongside I-5, the rice thing on an annual basis is about two 3 percent, and we are less than a percent now, if we 4 incorporate 60 percent of the straw. 5 During that time in 1992, we were driving 55 miles 6 an hour. 7 Well, they changed the speed limit to 70 miles an 8 hour on the freeways, and when they did that, at the time 9 Terry McGuire was here, and I asked him, Terry, what is the 10 net effect of that, and he said, oh, it is only two percent. 11 While I am phasing down from two percent to one 12 percent, at a cost of $60 million, the public, because they 13 want to go faster, has increased two percent. 14 That is a perspective. It certainly is not in this 15 report. 16 The other thing that bothers me, because I farm 17 right alongside I-5 and I drive down here, is I know the rice 18 farmers are complying. 19 I heard this morning something about 10 percent of 20 people are not registering vehicles and are not getting smog 21 things, and when I drive behind these trucks, which are a big 22 contributor, and I am not going to seek to t-off truck 23 drivers, but there is not a truck on that freeway going 55. 24 If many farmers were allowed to go, most trucks are 25 going about 65 and 68, and at night time, some of them are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 running 70 and 75, I do not see any of them pulled over for 2 speeding tickets. This is perspective. 3 I get angry when I am complying 100 percent, and at 4 a cost of $60 million, and other people can speed, and the 5 will of the public says, let's go 70 miles a hour, not 50 6 miles a hour, which contributes equally to rice straw or 7 doubles the impact of incorporating my straw. 8 The airport had a sign out here -- we all love the 9 airport. I use it too, but they have increased since 1991, 10 70 percent, and that was like a year ago, and you have 11 fugitive jet fuel, you have traffic, buses, we all know that, 12 but they are on the upswing, and a lot of it is just houses, 13 cars, people, you know. 14 There is not a housing moratorium. I am 15 controlled. There is no moratorium that you cannot drive 16 your car, or people to manage people in a way helps our air 17 quality. 18 Perspective. Lets talk about complaints in 19 Sacramento, right here. I do not have an exact number, but 20 in Sacramento proper, 2.3 million people, 2.4, throw out a 21 number, I don't know. 22 In 1996, we had 17 complaints; 1997, 19 complaints; 23 1998, 2 complaints; 1999, 1 complaint. 24 I think we are doing a pretty good job. The system 25 is working. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 Now, I have a little chart that I want to put up, 2 which you have seen many times, but I want to look at it in a 3 different way from perspective. 4 We have seen this many times. It is probably in 5 the report. On the left-side, we show acres burned. That is 6 the bar graph. 7 So, the black bar graph, and there is one really 8 high there, which means we burned a lot of acres on that day. 9 We also have the line with little squares on it that goes 10 around and shows spikes. 11 So, once again the bars are acres burnt and the 12 line with the little squares on it is coefficient of haze. I 13 wish I had a pointer, but let's look at the line, the 14 squiggly line, and you will notice, if you, like about 25 15 percent to the right, you will see the first spike, and you 16 will notice that that is a no burn day, which means we didn't 17 contribute. 18 This is my perspective, and this is what is not in 19 the report. 20 We were not burning and you have this gigantic 21 spike. Which leads me to believe, we are not controlling 22 other people, but you are controlling me. 23 Then we go into a series of burn days there, and it 24 is working. That is what the atmosphere and the conditions 25 and how much and everything is working. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 Then we go to a series of another no burn days, 2 tremendous spiking again. 3 Then you go along there where there is one large 4 burn day, but the coefficient haze is extreme, as a matter a 5 fact, it is lower after the burn day than the day before, 6 which by the way, that brings up another thing, I think in 7 the entire history of the fall ag burn program, every day 8 after a burn day has been a better day than the day before. 9 That is unbelievable. 10 Then you get to the big spike, the bar graph where 11 we burnt all those acres on a real good day. It is lower, 12 but what is amazing is we should be educating people to 13 breathe easy on a burn day, instead of, don't look at the 14 smoke bar and get all excited. 15 The best day to breathe is on a burn day. The day 16 to be cautious is a no burn. 17 So, when you do not see agricultural burning is the 18 days you get your gas mask on, because that is what is going 19 to get you. 20 So, the point is when the air quality is poor, we 21 don't burn. Then I say how about the other causes of 22 pollution, and where are they. 23 Now, I'm reading to you from a speech that I gave 24 in September 29, 1995, at this podium. 25 I am quoting myself here. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 A recent study done by the ARB dated September 8, 2 1995, which was not included in the final draft, that was the 3 1995 report, was not included in the 1997 report, is not 4 included in the 1999 report, clearly indicates that PM 10 5 contribution from rice smoke on an average day was recorded 6 has 1.6 percent of the problem. 7 While more vehicles contributed 20.0 percent, 8 fugitive dust 46.8 percent, unexplained 24.8 percent, the 9 balance of sulfides, nitrates, crude oil, that is 91.6 10 percent, based on this study, it concluded that the rice 11 burning is not a major contributor to PM 10. 12 This only begs the question, why is rice being 13 singled out when burning is not the major problem? 14 I really think that -- 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: May I ask a question there? 16 When you raised that issue in 1995, were any 17 promises made that that would be incorporated into the staff 18 report? 19 MR. SUTTON: I do not know if promises were made or 20 not. 21 I cannot remember four years ago. I know it was 22 not included in the report at that time, and it was a real 23 recent thing that they had just done here. 24 I'm trying, once again, I am using all of this for 25 a perspective for you to help understand that here we are, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 from your records, 1.6, on an average burn day, percent of 2 the total problem, and yet we are the one's that are being 3 regulated on a daily basis. 4 So, the base load is always there, and yet it is 5 costing us $60 million to worry about 1.6 percent. 6 The burn plan is a model for everyone. I heard it 7 earlier in the comments. 8 It is a model for the State, and it is working, and 9 we had one complaint in Sacramento. 10 More perspective. 11 Effects on the phase-down, right now in the winter 12 time, we have 300,000 flooded acres out there, because that 13 is the only method that we have to get rid of our straw. 14 The impacts of that are unknown, even at this hour, 15 even though we have started in 1992, and I just have to tell 16 you a little story. 17 I have a son, and we like to pheasant hunt, but the 18 fields that I am incorporating are the fields where I used to 19 pheasant hunt. 20 This thing gets real personal, because I like to go 21 out and hunt there. But now it is flooded with water. 22 If we continue, it could all be flooded with water, 23 and we will not even be able to hunt on our own land. 24 We are being asked to do this in the name of air 25 quality when we probably really aren't the problem to begin PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 with. 2 We are using more water that could be used for 3 people, next year's irrigation, and if we can get into 4 drought years, which has not been addressed, it was in my 5 speech in 1995, upland game, I talked about, there are a 6 known 22 sensitive species in rice fields, and you want us to 7 be there because we are good neighbors. 8 There are more species than that. I said 9 sensitive. 10 Our rice diseases right now because of the 11 incorporation of rice straw are increasing, and our weeds are 12 increasing. The buzz word when I read The Sacramento Bee 13 now, is the open spaces, you know, we are the open spaces. 14 We provide them. We are a good neighbor. 15 My comment here is we are the open spaces except we 16 are under water all winter. So, we have talked about AB 1378 17 the phase-down, and we have talked about the fall ag burn 18 program, all of which are working, and we are complying with, 19 and now SB 318, that is basically the pause at the 40 percent 20 level with a limit of 200,000 overall, which is roughly 40 21 percent or 38 percent depending on acreage and has a limited 22 amount per fall of 90,000 acres. 23 The reason that took place is two years ago when it 24 started was because there was no alternatives. When the 25 alternatives are here, we can continue. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 But I do not have any alternatives except to 2 incorporate, and we have talked about the problems with that, 3 and we have also talked about the cost of doing that. 4 SB 318 did something else. It limited the fall 5 burn. This really appeased the breathers. 6 It was a negotiating point. I was in on the 7 negotiating team up until the very last few weeks. 8 If 318 expires, then the law, it is goofy, this is 9 why it is such a complicated thing, and I want to talk about 10 all three issues, if it expires, the fall burn is now only 11 limited by the total burn, which is 125,000 acres or 25 12 percent for disease control, not to exceed 125, the whole 13 thing has been messed up by politics. 14 So, if we go all the way, I think it is going to 15 kill me, put me out of business, not help the air quality. 16 It is really going to upset the breathers, because 17 if we have enough disease to burn 25 percent, and if you get 18 fall, then we are going to burn more in the fall than if we 19 kept 318, which I can barely live with, and that is the whole 20 point why I am talking today. 21 I am just barely going to manage with that. 22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: What do you want us to do in that 23 case? 24 MR. SUTTON: I want you to put a conclusion in the 25 report that this Board recommends that 318 be extended PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 indefinitely until we have reached 50 percent alternative 2 uses, and my speech was going to last one minute longer, and 3 you just stole my bacon, and that's fine. 4 That means I did a good job. You're expecting 5 that. 6 So, my conclusion is there should be a conclusion 7 in this report. If it was responsible and the conclusion 8 should be just what I stated, 318 has to be extended. We 9 have no alternatives. 10 We are not really the culprit. 11 If it is allowed to expire, the breathers will be 12 more unhappy. I will be more unhappy. 13 We are going to spend all this money incorporating 14 all this rice straw and go absolutely no where and no one has 15 achieved what you have set out to do, but at this hour with 16 one complaint in this building last year, we are there. 17 I can live with that. 18 If the alternatives come up, I will be the first 19 person to say, I can now incorporate, take more rice straw. 20 Then there was another study that was just completed by Dr. 21 Webster, who is our expert on disease control, is that the 22 baling of rice straw, you have to swath it below the water 23 line, you can bale it behind harvesters, but if you swath it 24 below water line, bale and remove, that technique, they have 25 just found out as far as disease control is right behind fall PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 burning, it is this close, and he thinks that we can use 2 alternatives. 3 Then the baling removal and usage, hopefully 4 economically, and we are hoping to do it at no cost to me. 5 I would like to make money, but if I can just break 6 even on it, then I can manage my diseases and everybody comes 7 out a winner, and our fall burn thing is so good now, 8 sometimes one of the hardest to do even on your farm or your 9 business, you reach certain flat levels and you need to know 10 when to, this is about the best we can do unless you really 11 throw a lot of money, and I have seen a lot, we can study 12 things to death and go on forever, but I really think we are 13 there, and if we can maintain it until we have alternatives, 14 we would be a lot better off. 15 So, my conclusion is you need a conclusion if you 16 know what it is. 17 Thank you. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 19 Staff a response on that? 20 MR. KENNY: If I could make a couple of quick 21 comments on that. 22 I think Lynn Terry and staff may have some 23 additional one's. 24 I think the chart that Mr. Sutton put up is 25 actually very good, because what it does show is that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 essentially what we are trying to do is maximize the 2 balancing act between the days that burning can be allowed 3 and the days that burning is really inappropriate. 4 What the chart really shows is that burning does 5 occur basically at pretty high levels on the days the 6 atmosphere can absorb it, and those are the kinds of days 7 when we think it is appropriate to allow for burning. 8 As a follow-along to that, what we do in the 9 Sacramento Valley is we actually have a burn plan. 10 The burn plan essentially looks at those kinds of 11 meteorological issues, and then we allocate an acreage amount 12 that can be burned on particular days when the atmosphere is 13 able to absorb the smoke, and that is when you see, for 14 example, that really large bar on the right-hand side. 15 It is a very good air quality day. It probably had 16 good winds, and it had good dispersion, so we can provide for 17 a lot of burning on those days without really having any 18 health impacts at all. 19 Part of what I think is important though is one of 20 the things that Mr. Sutton said is something that I disagree 21 with a little bit, which is that if 318 expires, what is 22 going to happen is that the 125,000 acre limit is going to be 23 essentially fully allowed in the fall, and that will be in 24 excess of the 90,000 acreage limit which we currently have 25 today. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 That is theoretically true, but there is a fairly 2 substantial strain on that, and that is the exact same fall 3 burn plan that we basically saw illustrated on the chart that 4 Mr. Sutton put up, we will, again, only allow burning and 5 acreage allocation for burning based on what the atmosphere 6 can absorb in the fall while protecting public health. 7 MS. TERRY: I just wanted to add a brief comment in 8 terms of the characterization of the contribution to the 9 particulate problem, because I think it is very important 10 that we talk and not just about percent inventory numbers on 11 an annual basis, because of the nature of the health based 12 standard, which is a 24-hour standard on a daily basis, and 13 so we did take care in the staff report to talk very directly 14 about the differences between contributions on an annual 15 basis and on a daily basis. 16 For example, on a daily basis, when there are 17 several thousand acres burned, that direct particulate 18 emission can be a significant contribution, and there are 19 some examples in the staff report, for example, 3,000 acre 20 burn day, in a 9,000 acre burn day, can be as much as 23 21 percent of the direct particulate emissions. 22 So, from a public health standpoint, we do have to 23 be careful about drawing broad-based conclusions about the 24 annual emissions contributions. 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 MR. FLETCHER: I just had a few technical comments 2 in response. 3 One of Mr. Sutton's comments had to do with looking 4 at the economic impacts. I would point you to page 43 of the 5 report, where in response to the comments we have looked at 6 and have added information on the regional impacts of the 7 cost of soil incorporation. 8 So, that actually have been added into the report 9 as a result of the comments both here and in the Executive 10 Summary. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Now, was that an addition to the 12 one that is posted on the Web? 13 MR. FLETCHER: No. 14 It was the one on the Website version. 15 The second, as Mr. Kenny pointed out, we are aware 16 of the burn, no burn day phenomena, and have added a section 17 in the report on page 36 of the report where we have added a 18 section that discusses that phenomena. 19 Third, Mr. Sutton was commenting about the other 20 sources of particulate matter, and as Ms. Terry pointed out, 21 we have been conscious of the annual versus the daily, and 22 there is information in the report about that. 23 On page 28, we have identified on an annual basis 24 all of the pollutants that are emitted from burning and 25 indicate what percentage of that is relative to the total PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 emissions in the Sacramento Valley, and we have added a 2 discussion of other sources of particulate matter including 3 motor vehicles to the report. 4 Then relative to the phase-down issues and the 5 flooding, we are still concerned about the environmental 6 effects that was not mentioned. As we mentioned in the 7 presentation, we have added information both in the Executive 8 Summary and in the text of the report on page 45 dealing with 9 outlining what those potential environmental effects are and 10 recommending that we take a more serious look at what those 11 effects would be. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 13 Next witness is William Waite, Supervisor, County 14 of Colusa. 15 Then we have Bob Herkert and Isla Gentry. 16 MR. WAITE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Board. 17 I'm William Waite, Supervisor in Colusa County, and 18 also Chairman of the Air Basin Control Council. 19 One thing I would like to say that I appreciate the 20 time that you have put in for this thing to allow us to have 21 additional comments on the changes that you have made. 22 I have been Chairman for last eight years. 23 We have burn plan every year. It has evolved into 24 a year-round process. We have to adopt it in July, but every 25 month or every two months, we have a meeting. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 In fact, we have one today after this meeting, 2 here, on the second floor. That is a year-round thing. 3 I think that this is the process. You have had a 4 lot of changes made, but you are even finding out more today 5 that there is still additional information that you are 6 getting. 7 I think every two years you have your report to the 8 Legislature, I think you need to start as soon as you get 9 done with this report to start on the next one, because there 10 is so much information, new information, very important 11 information. 12 Mr. Sutton had an excellent presentation, I feel, 13 and some of the things that were pointed out and some of the 14 things that maybe were not pointed out up to this time are, 15 they are going to be allowed to do things; there are still 16 going to be more comments. 17 I think we need to do it on a year-round basis, 18 start now and keep getting this information. I think it is 19 very important. 20 I think you need to sit down with our control 21 council coordinator, which was Lesha, who has much 22 information who did contribute to some of the changes, one of 23 her emission reduction credit, it is very important for 24 smaller counties to utilize these things. 25 So, for any industry that is coming in and many of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 the industries coming in are ag related, some are even 2 processing the rice straw, we need these things. We need to 3 have these looked at. 4 Mr. Sutton talked about the economics to the rice 5 grower. I am maybe coming from the county standpoint, 6 economics development standpoint that we need these, to look 7 at these things to clarify them. 8 This whole broad thing is very important thing. 9 Colusa County is one of the largest rice growing counties in 10 the United States. 11 We need to take a careful look. We are a breather 12 like everyone else. I think we need to all sit down. It has 13 been a very cooperative aspect, but we need to work on this 14 as a year-round thing. 15 I see it more, because I work with it year-round. 16 This is just probably one small aspect of the things that you 17 look at, but I think it is still a very important aspect. 18 I would encourage you to start your next two-year 19 program now. 20 Thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 22 I'm sure Lynn will be implementing that. 23 MS. TERRY: Happy to do that. 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Bob Herkert. 25 Good morning, Bob. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 MR. HERKERT: Good morning, Dr. Lloyd. 2 How are you this morning? 3 Mr. Kenny, it is good to see you again. I hope you 4 are well, and your fine staff. 5 I want to start off by first of all thanking you 6 and complementing your staff for coming up to Chico and 7 hearing the concerns of the growers and exchanging some 8 ideas, and I found that to be an interesting session and 9 definitely a productive session, and we think it went well 10 beyond where you really needed to go, and we appreciate that 11 very much. 12 Thank you. 13 Also my compliments to Lesha and Bob Fletcher, who 14 did manage to put a lot of changes in the document and get 15 them out in rather quick order. 16 We were able in fact, in a phone call to Lesha, to 17 get our comments to you on time yesterday. So, we need to 18 pat ourselves on the back, too. 19 Beyond that, the thing that I want to talk about is 20 as the Environmental Affairs Manager for the California Rice 21 Commission, that page 7 that Dr. Reid talked about, you could 22 imagine my concern when I saw the list of environmental items 23 that were in that paragraph 1, 2, 3 there, and what I was 24 struck by was that at the end of the paragraph, staff is 25 recommending that the Legislature actually fund studies to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 look at all these aspects within this document. 2 That may be real or may not be real. 3 The fact of the matter is that there is a large 4 array of regulatory agencies and in other areas that would be 5 and are looking at these areas not only with rice but with 6 virtually every other industry and agricultural crop, but to 7 request that a special focus study be done on rice culture 8 probably would not serve the public interest and would 9 probably be quite wasteful. 10 In fact, when it comes to the resources of the 11 State of California, we believe that if you are indeed 12 supporting a position to look at addressing where money 13 should be spent, to do good things for industry and good 14 things for the economy, we think that that money should go 15 towards stimulating businesses that use rice straw. 16 You already have a very good program in place that 17 Lesha and others are managing the funds. 18 However, we believe that additional investment is 19 needed in ethanol facilities perhaps and other practical uses 20 that are coming about. 21 More than likely, the biggest bang for the buck 22 would be put into investing in research or in investment 23 capabilities and private enterprise to stimulate uses for 24 rice straw. 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: So, you like the wording on 9, the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 ARB and CDFA agree and recommend the Legislature appropriate 2 funding to support the development of all alternatives, 3 particularly ethanol, that is the approach that you like? 4 MR. HERKERT: We do agree with that, yes, sir, and 5 we would like, however, the suggestion to be strengthened to 6 actually go to the Legislature and allocate funds for 7 additional research on the items that were enumerated in that 8 paragraph on page 7. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think we will talk with staff on 10 how we could maybe make it clear to investigate what is being 11 covered and what is not being covered, but I get your point 12 that maybe other groups looking at that, but on the other 13 hand I do not want to on the spot make assessments there 14 without the knowledge, and maybe Mr. Kenny could just look at 15 that part. 16 MR. KENNY: We are happy to look at that and 17 actually we are happy to work with Bob and the other people 18 who have testified today. 19 I mean we do think that it is very important to 20 develop alternatives, that they clearly are the key to a 21 successful program for the future. 22 We are trying to work as much and as well as we can 23 with all the parties so that we can essentially look at those 24 alternatives, developments, and money is going to be part of 25 that equation, and we are happy to work with them. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think you are right, Mr. Kenny, 2 in capturing that clearly, does not help either of us to go 3 to the Legislature divided. 4 MR. HERKERT: Just to sort of highlight the point I 5 am trying to make, is that for instance we have done an 6 environmental balance sheet of rice culture in California, 7 and I would like to submit this to the record, late, if it is 8 possible, that particular document is one among many for 9 instance that do look at various aspects of rice culture from 10 an environmental view point. 11 In addition to that, Dr. Reid mentioned several 12 studies that also envelop some of the concerns that were 13 raised in that paragraph on page 7. 14 We would be more than pleased the attempt to find 15 those and get those in your hands at some other time. 16 Beyond that, I also have some concerns with the 17 language concerning emission reduction credits. 18 There is an attempt I believe in that paragraph to 19 draw a nexus between the burn program as well as the ERC 20 program. 21 Now, the ERC program, as you are aware, was 22 envisioned in AB 1378, and it was really the only mechanism 23 provided to growers to find some revenue to offset the 24 additional cost of burning. 25 There is really no nexus with the burn program. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 In other words, if you put a field into an emission 2 reduction credit, it does not influence the ag burn program 3 whatsoever. I think that is the point that the staff is 4 making, but the inference of the paragraph, but conclude is 5 that the program in some way needs to be adjusted in order to 6 accommodate an ERC that was developed, there is no need for 7 that. 8 The ERC program is a positive thing and probably 9 does not need to be contained in this document whatsoever. 10 So, I think it needs to be made clear that the burn program 11 is really not influenced by the ERC, and the ERC should not 12 be influenced by the burn program. 13 ERCs ultimately result in a better air quality 14 because it takes rice ground out of burning. It is 15 intuitive. 16 That would conclude my comments, unless there are 17 any questions. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 19 Any questions? 20 I know Mr. Kenny has a comment. 21 MR. KENNY: The one comment that I have on the ERC 22 issue is essentially the ERCs really do not provide 23 substantial improvement in terms of air quality. 24 What they do is they transfer the burning, excuse 25 me, they transfer the emissions from one source to another. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 So, there really has come more of a flat line associated with 2 an ERC than there is kind of an air quality downward trend. 3 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: The rice grower would not 4 get any credit in terms of a reduction and a result. 5 It is simply transferred to the purchaser? 6 MR. KENNY: Correct. 7 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Could you point out the 8 section in the report? 9 MR. KENNY: I believe it is in the final paragraph 10 of the document. 11 Is that right, Lesha? 12 MS. HRYNCHUK: Environmental assessment. 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Page 40? 14 MS. HRYNCHUK: Bottom of 39. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Okay. 16 MR. FLETCHER: Dr. Lloyd, we have included this 17 section in the report because we believe that there is some 18 environmental impacts associated with this program. 19 I think we have a little different view than 20 perhaps some members of the Basin Control Council do about 21 how the program is working and how it is operating up in the 22 Valley. 23 So, we are concerned about it. We believe it is an 24 issue that should be raised, and we have not included it in 25 the report for that reason. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 2 MR. HERKERT: May I comment further, Dr. Lloyd? 3 An ERC program is common throughout industry, as 4 you are aware. 5 There must be a net benefit when an ERC is granted. 6 Clearly this program is compliant with state guidelines as 7 well as federal guidelines. 8 What you are essentially doing is selling a part of 9 certain constituents that are contained in rice smoke to 10 other industries. There must be a net reduction in the 11 amount of the emissions that occur. 12 Would you agree with that? 13 MR. KENNY: Theoretically, I think that is 14 absolutely true, but the difficulty has been with regard to 15 the qualification methodologies throughout the state, whether 16 it is a stationary source, ERC program or whether it's an 17 agricultural ERC program. 18 MR. HERKERT: There is a process underway, clearly, 19 where we are working with the individual counties within the 20 Sacramento Valley to try and get uniformity in that program, 21 so that basically everybody is operating off the same slate, 22 and that indeed the guidelines are being followed. 23 We believe that they are, and we are glad that a 24 process is underway. However, we still question whether or 25 not the discussions about ERC is really necessary in this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 document and adds anything that the Legislature needs to know 2 about, and I would also like to defer to Isla, who is here, 3 that can speak with greater confidence than I on this topic. 4 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: If I could ask a question of 5 you? 6 Would it make you more comfortable if the 7 discussion were expanded to include reference to other 8 industries? 9 In other words, do you feel singled out in this 10 discussion of ERCs, that perhaps it would lead a person to 11 believe that does not know that much about the ERC program 12 that this is just a special thing for the rice industry? 13 MR. HERKERT: Because of the complexity between 14 this ERC program as it actually does not relate to the burn 15 program is why we feel it should be omitted, because it 16 really is not part of this document. 17 MR. KENNY: I am having some difficulty with this 18 in the sense that I understand where Mr. Herkert is coming 19 from, but at the same time, what we were trying to do with 20 the report is provide an overview for the Legislature with 21 the broadest mix of information that we can provide. 22 As part of the that, the ERC program with regard to 23 agricultural transfers of emission credit is appropriate to 24 be included, and I sort of feel like if we leave it out, we 25 are omitting kind of a key piece of information that the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 Legislature should be aware of. 2 It is part of this program in the sense that 3 burning allowances can be transferred from one party to 4 another, and that is a fact. 5 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Could we expand that to say 6 as with other industries? 7 MR. KENNY: Sure. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I would agree with that. 9 MR. HERKERT: Would you allow Mr. Gentry to address 10 this admission further on my behalf? 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: With the expectation that he is 12 not going to change anything, please. 13 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I wanted to ask if he 14 is coming back? 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: No. 16 Bob, we have a question from Professor Friedman. 17 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: You submitted written 18 comments for the Rice Commission? 19 MR. HERKERT: Yes, we did. 20 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: In the December draft, 21 is this before or after the revised report? 22 MR. HERKERT: We received the Monday edition on 23 Monday. 24 As my understanding a new draft has gone out since, 25 so we have not had the opportunity to review that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: So, these comments 2 were to an earlier? 3 MR. HERKERT: Yes. However, we have been scoping 4 out the draft that came out I guess today, was it, or 5 yesterday? 6 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Many if not all of 7 your comments, I take it, were -- well, all of them were 8 considered, and were some or many of them resolved in the 9 most recent draft? 10 Do you see a reflection of that consideration? 11 MR. VAN VLECK: If I may, Mr. Friedman, my name is 12 Stan Van Vleck, legal counsel for the California Rice 13 Commission. 14 Mr. Chair, thank you for allowing me to come back 15 again. Briefly, two sentences of concern that are contained 16 on page 40, if we can take a look at, there is only one 17 paragraph on that. 18 Let's take a look first, it deals with the language 19 that has been inserted, and I will wait to give you a chance 20 to reference that page. 21 It's the third line down. 22 One thing that we are looking at is the sentence 23 starts out really on the second line, however, then goes down 24 to the third line, another field which is ready to burn takes 25 its place on another list, that is we start to get into the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 area of misleading, then if you boot strap in the last 2 sentence, that talks about the issue of ERCs that have been 3 sold to another area, that is, no, it says the words, that 4 have not been offset by decreased burning, because of what we 5 just talked about, where there is a reduction of what can be 6 transferred, it is not a one-to-one transfer, that is blankly 7 wrong. 8 So, now you have something when you take something 9 that is inaccurate and then something that can be misleading, 10 those two things are problematic for us, and if we can work 11 with staff, and we don't have to deliberate this today, but 12 if we can for purposes of the record for today's meeting get 13 that on the record, and with your direction, to work with 14 staff to get that dealt with. 15 MR. KENNY: Can I add something, and I think that 16 goes to Ms. D'Adamo's question a few moments ago about adding 17 and the comparison with stationary source program, there is 18 something that I had forgotten, but as I was talking with 19 Lesha, she reminded me of it. 20 The ERC program here is different than any other 21 stationary source in the sense that in ways the credits are 22 calculated is different. There is not a requirement here 23 like there is with the stationary source program that the 24 credits not be surplus. 25 In the stationary source program, they cannot be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 surplused. Here they can be. 2 So, there is a situation in which essentially 3 because of the fact that there was a phase-down occurring in 4 fields that are not potentially being burned, credit can be 5 acquired for those, despite the fact that they are required 6 by law to phase those down and not burn them, they still get 7 credit. 8 Every other program in the state, if there is a 9 regulatory requirement or a statutory requirement in place, 10 they are considered to not to be surplused because they are 11 required by law. 12 Here, despite the fact that they are being required 13 by law, they are being provided credit. So, that is a really 14 fairly important distinction between this and the other 15 programs. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: It seems to me, given the 17 complexity you talk about now, that maybe the chance for the 18 growers to work with the staff would be a good one, because I 19 realize that it is not something that you can capture here, 20 and I understand why it could not put out, but the way we 21 explain it should be put in, but it clearly cannot be put in 22 in just two sentences either. 23 MR. VAN VLECK: That would be fine for us to defer 24 as well and work with staff. 25 Thank you very much. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Is that okay with the Board? 2 MR. KENNY: From a mechanistic standpoint, I guess 3 I am looking for some sense of timing on how you would like 4 us to do that, and also the provision of this report to the 5 Legislature. 6 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Well, I'm still not 7 clear what it is precisely they would like to change. 8 Do you have specific wording or proposing or do you 9 have a specific -- 10 MR. VAN VLECK: At least at this time without 11 sitting down and seeing the sentences that could be offered 12 as an alternative, the elimination of line 3, where you will 13 see the new language has been added, that language struck as 14 well as the last sentence -- 15 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: You mean another field 16 which is ready to burn takes it place on the list? 17 MR. VAN VLECK: Yes. 18 Until we see something that is different. 19 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Is that untrue? 20 MR. VAN VLECK: Well, you take that in combination 21 with the last one, and that is the problem we have, and you 22 have to take a look at the paragraph in totality, and it's 23 problematic. 24 So, if you could maybe modify it, we are okay. 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mostly what I am hearing from PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 Bob's earlier comment, you would like it out all together, 2 and staff says you cannot have that all together. 3 To me we should be able to come up with a 4 compromise there. 5 But I know what Mr. Kenny is saying, if you arrive 6 at a compromise, fine, but what happens if it doesn't. 7 Is that what you are saying, Mr. Kenny? 8 MR. KENNY: What I am worried about a little bit is 9 to the extent that, you know, the Board provides direction 10 that we should try to compromise, and we will make every 11 effort to do that, but if in fact we are unable to do that we 12 still have a report that we have an obligation to provide to 13 the Legislature, and I'm a little bit concerned that we again 14 take more time to report, which is already late, and bring it 15 back to you again at a later month. 16 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: That is why I am 17 trying to understand what it is that is bothering them. 18 It is not untrue that another field takes its 19 place, by itself -- 20 MR. VAN VLECK: It is a stand-alone sentence. 21 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: So, it is the last 22 sentence in conjunction with it, and that last sentence is 23 the use of ERC by new sources, that does not mean new fields 24 taking their place, that means power plants, other non burn 25 rice acreage burn. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 MR. VAN VLECK: Correct. 2 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Will result in 3 additional emissions during the fall that have not been 4 offset by decreased burning. 5 Is that untrue? 6 MR. VAN VLECK: Actually, we have the person who is 7 the manager of the program who can give you background. 8 That way it is not so much from the industry 9 speaking on behalf of the Basin. 10 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: What are you worried 11 about in that sentence? 12 I mean if you -- I do not need the technical, 13 because I do not understand, but I hope a lawyer like you 14 could explain to me what it is that is bothering you? 15 MR. VAN VLECK: I know better than to do it. 16 I am also a farm boy. You have to bear with me. 17 All sincerity, what we are looking at is what that 18 is saying is then that the ERCs do not work, then actually 19 nothing is received, that is what that sentence says. 20 What we are saying is that is not true, because 21 what you are saying then is a program that is certified by 22 the state, certified by the federal government to transfer is 23 not doing what it is supposed to do, and if so, then maybe 24 our programs are the one's that are at fault, and it is -- 25 now we should not be dealing with it in this program because PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 that is one of the few things that AB 1378, the Legislature 2 said, we want to give the growers something out of the deal, 3 hopefully, financially we can give them a future, and now we 4 are saying it does not work and should not be done, and that 5 is the inappropriate part that we have the problem with. 6 MR. KENNY: I have a suggestion. 7 I think basically in listening to that comment, if 8 you look at page 39, the first paragraph, underneath the 9 background section, there is the last two sentences, if you 10 simply just look at all three sentences that are underlined, 11 they provide at least an example and provide the context that 12 I think I hear you asking for. 13 Is that accurate, and if so, does it make a 14 difference if it is simply moved to put it in context of the 15 last paragraph on page 40, so that it is all then clear 16 because then the discount numbers are shown as .5 to .8. 17 MR. VAN VLECK: So, then in essence that last 18 sentence would be struck, and then you would replace it with 19 this? 20 MR. KENNY: No. 21 I am just adding it to there to essentially provide 22 context for the entire paragraph on page 40, which is what I 23 thought I heard you expressing concern about. 24 MR. VAN VLECK: So, then you would be taking the 25 information, so I make sure I understand what you are saying, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 so we know what it looks like when it comes out. 2 We would be taking information from 39, transposing 3 over to 40, copying it over and inserting 40. 4 MR. KENNY: I was basically suggesting that we 5 simply move it. 6 We have it underlined on page 39, which I think 7 provides the context you were talking about, on page 40, and 8 so then we just simply add it on to page 40. 9 So, it is just a simple cut and paste. 10 MR. VAN VLECK: If that is the case, what you just 11 talked about, how then is it true that there has not been an 12 offset, if what we just talked about, that there was a ratio, 13 it is a partial offset, is that not true? 14 And if so, then why doesn't that sentence say that? 15 MR. KENNY: The sentence does say it when you 16 basically read .5 to .8, are you asking then for us to 17 provide a qualifying sentence that says there is the 18 difference, because if we do that, then I think we also need 19 to talk about essentially the 1378 provisions which we talk 20 about surplus and non surplus in the context of other ERCs. 21 MR. VAN VLECK: It is something that I think Mr. 22 Friedman would agree, when you come back and you use a word 23 that just says it does not happen, you are saying in totality 24 it does not versus well, partially there is an offset. 25 We are quibbling, and I do not want to take the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 Board's time on this issue, but what we are saying is they 2 are saying black and white, it does not work. 3 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: How about not entirely 4 or not fully. 5 MR. VAN VLECK: Only partially. 6 MR. KENNY: I have one difficultly with that which 7 is that because this program essentially generates credits 8 despite the fact that they are otherwise required by law to 9 reduce the burning, and then if you then transfer that credit 10 to a stationary source application, in that application the 11 requirement would be that they would be surplused. 12 So, you are going from two different types of 13 programs, one in which the credit is required to be 14 surplused, the stationary source side, and one in the 15 agricultural source, which is not required to be surplused. 16 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: The agricultural 17 credit cannot be transferred except to another agricultural, 18 and can it be transferred? 19 That is what you are talking about. 20 MR. KENNY: The difficulty here is if you actually 21 transfer an agricultural credit to a stationery source 22 application, you are taking a credit essentially that is 23 being in effect double counted because it is a surplus, it is 24 not a surplus. 25 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: That is an infirmity PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 in the program as designed by the Legislature, and they do 2 not want you to point that out. 3 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, I think that this is 4 somewhat misleading, even though I understand what you are 5 saying, that it may not be surplused, it may not be fully 6 offset or partially offset, but I think that it is somewhat 7 misleading to someone who does not understand the program 8 fully, such as myself. 9 It almost makes it sound like there is something 10 occurring here, where overall there is no benefit. You are 11 saying that in terms of what they are required to perform 12 under the law there may not be an additional benefit, but in 13 terms of actual air quality, there is still a benefit. 14 MR. KENNY: Depending on what program you count it 15 under. 16 I mean if you count it under the agricultural 17 burning program, there was a benefit to the extent that ag 18 burning did not occur on a particular day. 19 If you then take the credit that is associated with 20 that particular program, and you transfer it to a stationary 21 source side, and you give a power plant for example those 22 credits as a way of essentially allowing them to build, you 23 are now giving two programs one credit. 24 So, in effect what is happening is that the air 25 quality is potentially going to get worse from a statutory PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 required baseline standpoint, because the power plant is 2 going to operate on a regular basis, and the power plant is 3 going to use that credit on a regular basis, for example, to 4 achieve its obligations. 5 Now, the other difficulty that is associated with 6 that is the agricultural credits are often seasonal. We had 7 the chart that was put up earlier by Mr. Sutton, where he 8 showed basically that we allow the agricultural burn to occur 9 on the good burn days, when in fact we had good opportunities 10 for mixing and dispersion of the smoke, but the power plant 11 is going to run pretty much continuously. 12 It is not simply going to run on those days when we 13 can tolerate the good smoke. So, in effect, we are going to 14 see potentially a net decrease in air quality as a result of 15 that occurring. 16 MS. KRINSK: In addition, you may have a field that 17 will agree not to be burned and will instead generate 18 emission reduction credit, but you have a whole line of 19 growers who are ready to immediately substitute their fields 20 to be burned the very same period of time that the field 21 getting the ERC is not going to be burned and that the effect 22 on air quality is that burning is not reduced one iota. 23 MR. FIFE: My name is Les Fife, and as Stan 24 indicated, I wrote the rule that this valley operates in 25 conjunction with ARB staff. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 There are five criteria, surplus, actual, 2 quantifiable, permanent and enforceable. 3 Those are the five criteria that emission reduction 4 credit has to meet, whether it be from a stationary source, 5 such as a boiler, or from an agricultural source, such as 6 open burning. 7 The emission reduction credit, rice meets all five 8 of those criteria. Surplus is guaranteed in the law. 9 Mr. Kenny is a friend of mine, indicated that the 10 seasonality of rice burning is a question. In fact, it is 11 not. Seasonality was also mentioned in the original 12 phase-down law, and the emission reduction credits are 13 parcelled out by seasons. 14 They are not all put into one season. So, there 15 are some technical issues here though that we need to get 16 into, because it not as black and white, as it has been 17 portrayed. 18 MR. KENNY: If I could add one thing. 19 Les has probably more accurately portrayed this 20 than I think I did, but also the key element here is that 21 when you combine Les' comments essentially with what Ms. 22 Krinsk was just talking about, I think with what they said is 23 probably the best consideration of kind of the issue we are 24 trying to deal with. 25 The issue really with regards to essentially PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 whether or not there is going to be a net decrease in 2 burning, Les is correct to the extent that we are talking 3 about surplus. 4 There are federal requirements that will be 5 affectable, and I did omit those. So, he is right about 6 that, but at the same time, it is correct about the fact what 7 we are talking about is that the fact that you do have 8 burning that may be forsaken on a particular day, so credits 9 will be generated by that particular farmer, but at the same 10 time because there are other people who will not burn, they 11 will just simply move up in the line, and they will burn 12 their fields. 13 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I know we should not 14 be parcelling this here, except for the fact that this is 15 overdue, and I am concern that if we send it back to staff, 16 how long do they have to try and resolve it? 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: They have more -- 18 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I will leave it in a 19 second, but I was just wondering if May will do it. 20 MR. FIFE: Mr. Chairman, in fact the language that 21 Mike referred to on the background was inserted at our 22 request, but in my opinion, it is totally inconsistent with 23 the last line in that section that says, use of ERC sources, 24 power plants resulted in additional emission, and the fall, 25 that has not been offset, that is inconsistent, that is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 incorrect. 2 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Would it be incorrect 3 to say could or may? 4 MR. FIFE: I do not have the statement. 5 Those two things can occur simultaneously. 6 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I understand it better the 7 way you just described it. 8 How about, may not have been fully offset? 9 MR. FIFE: That is not the way the rule's done. 10 That is not the way the emissions are calculated. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I do not see an easy way of fixing 12 it here. 13 I understand the concern. We have a limited time 14 period, but I think both sides have incentive to get this 15 resolved. 16 The worst case is that if you do not get it 17 resolved, you just put a note in. But hopefully it comes 18 through as some compromised language there. 19 MR. VAN VLECK: We will be happy to discuss it with 20 staff. 21 MR. KENNY: The only other suggestion that I could 22 make is that we essentially add a sentence which simply 23 reflects that view point, and it is one that we do not 24 subscribe to, and we can simply acknowledge in there. 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: You could put a footnote or PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 something on that page, but that is admitting that there is 2 no way that you are going to get an agreement by meeting 3 separately. 4 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Mr. Chairman, if you were 5 just to remove the sentence that says the use of the ERCs by 6 new sources, the very last sentence, if you were to just 7 remove that, because I think what is above that goes to the 8 fundamental difference between the two. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I heard Mr. Kenny say that that 10 was not a good idea. 11 MR. KENNY: That's correct. 12 I think we are willing to sit down and try to 13 figure out a way to resolve this. 14 I guess what I am looking for is some direction 15 from the Board so that in fact we can move this particular 16 report onto the Legislature, and my suggestion would be is 17 that if we are unable to resolve it, and we will make every 18 effort to do so, that we just then simply add a sentence that 19 reflects the clear view that is being expressed by the 20 industry, but it is one we simply don't subscribe to. 21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: The point is make it clear that 22 that is the industry, and there is disagreement. 23 MR. VAN VLECK: One comment back to Supervisor 24 Patrick's point, what we have if I understand correctly, is 25 the Air Board that identified with assistance with Mr. Fife, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 a mechanism to describe in specifics how it works right above 2 them, they want to insert that and both sides agree that the 3 language is accurate, but we have a disagreement on what the 4 summary is, why don't we just not summarize it with one 5 sentence and leave it with the specifics and that way people 6 can pull from it what they believe, but we are not leaving 7 any details out, then that way both sides agree to something. 8 What is wrong with that? 9 MR. KENNY: The difficultly I have with that is the 10 purpose of the report was basically to provide our analysis 11 to the Legislature, and there is somewhat an advocation if we 12 do that. 13 This is essentially what we as a staff are 14 proposing to you. 15 MR. VAN VLECK: In essence you are describing how 16 it works, and then you are saying you are not comfortable 17 with just with a description, that you wanted an editorial. 18 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Counsel, I am reading 19 that paragraph that apparently Mr. Fife architectured, it has 20 concluding sentences, this discounting is designed to help 21 ensure there is a benefit to air quality from the ERC 22 program, designed, I assume by the Legislature. 23 MR. VAN VLECK: And staff agrees with that 24 sentence. 25 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Staff agrees that is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 the design of it, the purpose of it, but apparently the staff 2 is saying in their view, the use of ERC's may not, or could 3 not, or does not result automatically in reduced emissions. 4 And you disagree with that? 5 MR. VAN VLECK: They say have been, has not. 6 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Well, I suggested may, 7 could, and nobody jumped at it, so I assume that is not the 8 case. 9 I don't know what the case is. I am just trying to 10 facilitate a resolution. 11 So, if may or could is not acceptable, and if 12 wholly or partially isn't acceptable, then it seems to me the 13 only solution is to say that contrary to the view of the 14 industry, contrary to the position strenuously asserted by, 15 or rigidly held by, and then you have let the Legislature 16 know that they do not agree with your analysis. 17 With that, I am done. 18 MR. VAN VLECK: Could we ask it to be substantiated 19 to at least that they provide documentation to support such a 20 statement like that then, at least if they are going to a 21 make statement that is that bold, they should have to at 22 least be held accountable so we have the ability to respond 23 to something, because right now what we are responding to is 24 their statement, and we have someone who runs the program on 25 a daily basis that says ot does not work that way. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 He doesn't work for us. He works for government. 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I still would like to let staff 3 explore this to see if they can work something out and then 4 go with Professor Friedman's, that type of language if it 5 does not work. 6 Let's have some confidence we might be able to work 7 something. 8 MR. KENNY: The only request I have today is that 9 we try do so in a fairly short period of time, maybe like two 10 weeks. 11 Essentially, if we do not have it resolved in two 12 weeks, then we fall to the secondary position? 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I would agree with that. 14 Is that okay with you, Stan? 15 Now, Stan, are you going to come back? 16 MR. VAN VLECK: It is two sentences, regarding the 17 issue for funding for environmental issues, the agricultural 18 council requested that because they were not aware that we 19 were actually doing the industry funding. 20 I have spoke with representatives from them and 21 they no longer have that request. So, if that was what staff 22 was basing having that research done, they were not aware of 23 that, because we want to have as much money possibly going to 24 the alternative. 25 That is the end of my statement. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 2 Isla Gentry, Cynthia Cory and Carolyn Martin, that 3 would conclude the list here. 4 MS. GENTRY: Good morning, everybody. 5 I had to leave and pick up my children. I 6 appreciate the opportunity to address you this morning, and I 7 also appreciate the work that the staff has done on this 8 major project that you guys have undertaken. 9 Finally, I appreciate the members of the farming 10 community. 11 I represent Intergenetics Ag, a fuels and chemicals 12 company, a private corporation, in Delaware, a wholly owned 13 subsidiary company of Intergenetics International. 14 In 1998, to focus on the production of renewable 15 fuels and chemicals from by biomass, EGA Fuels is in the 16 process of establishing EG-AG in Oakland to commercially 17 employ these technologies in the Bay Area, and we like the 18 opportunity to meet with the ARB and the farming communities 19 here in Sacramento Valley. 20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Could you speak up a little bit 21 please, we are having difficulty. 22 MS. GENTRY: I am sorry. 23 Should I start over? 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: No. 25 MS. GENTRY: Okay. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 We would like the opportunity to meet with the ARB 2 and farming communities here in Sacramento Valley about these 3 new technologies that we have created. 4 In the past 20 years, EGI has conducted research 5 and alternative fuel developments at major universities. I 6 have a list of them. We have patented and trade marks, the 7 first by biodiesel fuel in the United States, which 8 incorporated butanol as the main component. 9 Butanol alcohol or grain alcohol, C-4 H 9 O H is 10 the liquid derived from rice, corn or other grain or other 11 agricultural products or waste. 12 Butanol will be superior to ethanol, the 13 alternative discussed in the report, because it has a higher 14 octane rating. 15 Butanol also burns cleaner than petroleum, than 16 methanol. It has less VOCs caused by the use of ethanol and 17 hotter climates because of the vapor point of butanol is much 18 higher than ethanol. 19 Butanol may also be used in diesel fuels up to 40 20 percent blends and 20 percent in gasoline because it has 21 infinity for petroleum. 22 Ethanol can be used only where 15 percent blends 23 with diesel fuel and 10 percent in gasoline. Butanol also 24 contains about 95 percent of the BTU capacities of gasoline, 25 whereas ethanol has only about 60 percent. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 It is clear butanol has a far greater potential as 2 an alternative fuel replacement than ethanol. Currently 3 EG-AG fuels is planning to enter into joint ventures with 4 farmers and cooperate in Missouri, Arizona and Illinois and 5 would also like to include these opportunities with the 6 farmers here in Sacramento Valley. 7 In Oakland, the plan is to go and extract sugar 8 water from the sweet sourgum, and rice straw, at outlining 9 farm sites, and rail, truck or barge the sugar waters into 10 the Port of Oakland, the former Oakland Army base, will be 11 formed into butanol, the company will then blend the butanol 12 into diesel fuel for use to reduce or eliminate emission 13 pollutants. 14 Other technologies will also be employed at the 15 base, imported to produce indoor and outdoor agriculture, 16 hydro-biomass and epiplastics industries, these operations 17 are spin-off technologies developed by our company. 18 Finally, participating farmers will haul the rice 19 straw to the plant in baled form. The straw will be chopped, 20 hydraulicized and then formed into butanol with the protein 21 going to cattle feed at 30 to 35 percent protein using our 22 technologies. 23 I think we did the math right. I'm not sure at 24 562,500 tons of rice straw available in the State of 25 California, approximately 50 million gallons of butanol PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 annually could be produced. 2 That is just in the State of California. Clearly 3 the new technology developed by EG-AG Fuel is a viable 4 alternative and creates solutions to the existing 5 environmental health and negative impacts on the quality of 6 life that the State of California and as citizens face, due 7 to the burning of rice straw and other destructive things 8 that are being done to the environment. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 10 I'm sure if you could make sure the staff has the 11 information, I know there are a couple of farmers out there 12 who would be delighted to talk with you to look at the 13 potential. 14 Thank you very much. 15 Next is Cynthia Cory. Carolyn Martin and then we 16 have one more person there, Dennis Albiani, who just signed 17 up. 18 MS. CORY: Good morning, Chairman and Members. 19 Cynthia Cory, from the California Farm Bureau. I'm 20 speaking on behalf of the farm bureau, the Yuba Sutter County 21 Farm Bureau, which I helped develop their comments. 22 So, I just wanted to speak very briefly and very 23 concisely about their comments. On the public health and 24 smoke management portion section of the report, they had 25 several points. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 We so appreciate your footnoting of that. Removing 2 the silica section, we thought was useful and then changing 3 the general tenor of the tone in your conclusion to a may 4 instead of a positive that there was a definite connection 5 between the smoke, the rice smoke and health impact, as said 6 in the smoke management section several times, you did note 7 the quantification, you did not have the direct correlation 8 that you need more research, we are totally for. 9 But we were just concerned, after you saying that 4 10 or 5 times, and it came down to the end you said, well, and 11 then there is a direct impact. 12 So, we appreciate that very very much. 13 At the end when you took your air quality 14 indicators, there was a concern that you were using the smoke 15 complaints as a way to quantify that there was air quality 16 problems, and we see you took that out, and we appreciate 17 that. 18 We think it is very important that the public and 19 air quality complaints be acknowledged, but to use them as an 20 indication of what you are technically looking at as the 21 quality of the air we felt was a concern for us. 22 I just wanted to reiterate that we thank you for 23 taking our points into consideration and do ask and I know 24 you have heard from a number of people in the industry that 25 there is a lot of concern as we approach 2001 and the next PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 deadline and ask for your leadership and support in dealing 2 with these concerns. 3 Thank you. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 5 Next we have Carolyn Martin, speaking on behalf of 6 the Breathers, American Lung Association. 7 MS. MARTIN: I have never been classified as a 8 breather before, but that is okay. We are all breathers. 9 I'm speaking on behalf of the Sacramento Lung 10 Association. I'm the Policy Consultant there. I would like 11 to point out that particulate matter from all smoke is a 12 health hazard, no matter how the report was changed to say it 13 may be. 14 Since 80 percent of the agricultural burning in the 15 Sacramento Valley is from rice straw burning, we are dealing 16 with a serious health problem. Asthma is on the rise. We 17 have had a 80 percent increase in the last 15 years in 18 asthma. 19 This is exacerbated by smoke in the air. 20 We have been strong supporters of finding 21 alternatives to rice straw burning. We strongly support the 22 money spent on the alternatives, and we think they are very 23 promising. 24 We are supportive of the revisions that urge that 25 that kind of expenditure continue. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 We are opposed to any limits, specific limits on 2 rice straw burning. We do not know what the future holds. 3 We have a keen concern that we not just produce a 4 factory to use rice straw, but that we take the next step to 5 create a market demand for that rice straw. 6 It is a nice circle not a straight line where 7 suddenly you have the factory and everybody can sell their 8 rice straw, all that they want, at whatever price they want. 9 So, in conclusion, I think this is a very complex 10 issue. It depends on the weather, depends on market demand, 11 depends on the feasibility of various alternatives to rice 12 straw use, including the option of ethanol, which we are 13 looking at now. 14 It depends on the world rice straw market, 15 etcetera, etcetera, and how much money they get for the rice 16 that is produced. 17 For the lung association, there is another cost 18 that has to be factored in, and that is indeed the public 19 health cost. We feel very strongly that this be seriously 20 addressed. 21 We urge the approval of this report to the 22 Legislature today. I was very interested to hear that the 23 farmers themselves have withdrawn their interest in the 24 environmental expenditure, and certainly that sounds 25 practical to us, because what we are interested in is less PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 particulate matter for all of us breathers to breathe. 2 Thank you. 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed. 4 We have acquired two more witnesses. 5 Dennis Albiani, and also Rick Nelson. 6 MR. ALBIANI: Dennis Albiani, Government Affairs 7 Counsel for the Agricultural Council of California. 8 I would like to expand on the previous speakers 9 statement and refer to the Executive Summary, page Roman 10 numeral VII, the last sentence on that paragraph, on that 11 page, and the first sentence of the other page, which says, 12 however, there are currently insufficient data available to 13 adequately assess these effects and funding as needed, those 14 two statements, I believe and would advocate, that they be 15 struck from the report, and we go from actually striking from 16 the report due to the fact that we heard earlier from the 17 doctor from Ducks Unlimited, about all the research that has 18 been done, I do not believe that there is insufficient 19 information, they just had inadequate amount of time to 20 address that and compile the information, so the research has 21 been done and industry's doing research, federal government 22 has done research, the EPA has done research, the research is 23 there, it just may need to be compiled. 24 That is another issue. 25 So, I would recommend that we strike those two, and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 that way it does not give the Legislature the idea that they 2 need to spend equal amounts of money on this recommendation 3 as well as alternative recommendation. 4 Let's put the money to the alternatives, and let's 5 give a clear signal to the Legislature that the priority 6 should be with the alternatives. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 8 I see staff caucusing. 9 We have one last speaker, Rick Nelson. 10 MR. NELSON: Thank you. 11 I will be very brief. I think a great job has been 12 done in the last week on the report as well, but a couple of 13 points of clarification. 14 First, for ERCs, I own a field that has the ERCs 15 sold. In terms of being eligible to be able to burn and then 16 be eligible on the list, it has been stricken from the list 17 and can't be burned, and no field replaces it, and to the 18 extent of your language does not make that unclear or saying 19 something different, that needs to be changed. 20 I could explain that to you if that would help. 21 From what my county burn commission tells me, I'm 22 not sure that I could go out and light a cigarette on that 23 property. 24 So, there is something that communicates 25 incorrectly about what you have done there. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 MR. KENNY: Could I ask a question? 2 Just one quick question. It is my understanding 3 that essentially, for example, if you take one of your fields 4 out of the burn list, you cannot touch that field with regard 5 to burning, but someone else who is maybe in a different 6 field, they could essentially replace you in line so that 7 they would be able to burn? 8 MR. NELSON: Well, you have to understand that 9 there is at least two burn lists. 10 One is eligible to burn, and on an annual basis, if 11 you are not on the eligible to burn list, it will not be 12 burned ever in that year. 13 So, when we sell the ERC, the field is taken off 14 the eligible to burn list, and it is never burned. 15 Now, there is an allocation process called the burn 16 plan, which says when those fields on the burn list can be 17 burned, and that is separate and aside, my field, which is 18 not eligible to burn, will never be on the burn list. 19 MR. KENNY: Thank you. 20 MR. NELSON: Secondly, I think the chart that was 21 done by Mr. Sutton is very important and gives a clear 22 picture of how the burn plan operates and how successful it 23 is, and I would ask for a positive comment that it will be 24 included in the report when it goes final. 25 MR. FLETCHER: Well, we have added a paragraph PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 discussing that. 2 We think that adequately covers it. 3 MR. NELSON: Well, it is a small thing, but it 4 communicates so clearly, and I would ask that it be included. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think Mr. Kenny agreed to do 6 that. 7 MR. NELSON: All in all, I think the report has 8 come a long way. I am not sure how you will deal with Mr. 9 Sutton's request that we freeze the current plan of 38 10 percent or whatever it is until we reach the 50 percent goal. 11 I would ask that that be clearly stated in the 12 final report. If you cannot recommend it, then it is the 13 desire of both practicality, fairness, that that be what 14 happens going forward. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 16 I guess there are no other people to testify. 17 Are there any written comments, Mr. Kenny, that 18 need to be summarized in addition to what we have heard? 19 MR. McNERNY: There is one additional comment. 20 Ed Remonor, Air Pollution Control Officer of Glenn 21 County, and he asked us to consider making a change to the 22 report where the report talks about emissions from rice straw 23 burning being 2 to 25 percent of the PM 10 emissions in the 24 Valley. 25 Another section of the report showing that biomass PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 burning is responsible for about 4 to 5 percent of PM 10 in 2 the Valley, which rice straw burning is less than 80 percent, 3 and our point is that those are two different measures of the 4 contribution of rice straw, in the first case, on individual 5 burn days, when different amounts of straw are burned, versus 6 on other days, looking at air quality data, we measure an 7 impact of 4 to 5 percent on individual days. 8 We think both representations are fair for 9 different types of days. 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: It that is? 11 Thank you very much, Don. 12 Again, since this is not a regulatory item, it is 13 not necessarily to officially close the record, when there is 14 no resolution, however, do I have a motion and a second to 15 approve the policy report on the phase-down of rice straw 16 burning in the Sacramento Valley basin. 17 A motion? 18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I have a question. 19 It looked like staff was discussing that research 20 issue that Mr. Albiani had raised. 21 MR. KENNY: Yes, we were, and we were trying to 22 figure out what to respond on that, and we do not have a very 23 good answer for you. 24 We put that language in actually at the request of 25 the industry. So, if other aspects of the industry are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 asking us to take it out -- 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: That is what I heard, there is 3 some misunderstanding. 4 MR. KENNY: Actually, we are willing to go either 5 way. 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I read that they were talking 7 about priorities. 8 They were afraid that we have to ask for too much 9 funding from the Legislature, obviously we make it a limited 10 amount. 11 MR. VAN VLECK: Just a point of clarification, it 12 is not other aspects of the industry asking for it. 13 The people who had asked for it are Mr. Albiani, 14 came up for his organization. He is now saying it is my 15 understanding it is here, he has seen it, he is comfortable 16 with it, he does not want to have the monies now diverted, he 17 said I want to rescind that from being done. 18 So, just to clarify, people questioned and 19 rescinded that request. 20 MR. McNERNY: I would note that we received 21 21 comment letters on the subject, and 5 of the comment letters 22 addressed environmental effects. 23 One of them was from Mr. Albiani, and his letter 24 did ask that we look at the effects of applications of 25 chemicals to combat disease and emissions of methane gas, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 unrelated to the burn discussion earlier, but I think if he 2 has retracted his comments, there are four additional 3 comments requesting that environmental effects be studied. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I look at this two different 5 categories, if in fact there is a body of research out there 6 that maybe staff could take a look at those research and 7 rather, do we need some sort of hundreds of thousands of 8 dollars from the Legislature to actually do additional 9 studies? 10 To me, that is where maybe the difference is there. 11 MR. FLETCHER: Dr. Lloyd, that is entirely true, 12 and our concern is that many of these issues fall outside the 13 expertise that the staff has, water quality, pesticides, we 14 do not believe that we have the technical expertise and 15 believe if we could tap into the University of California 16 system we would be able to do it better. 17 So, that is really the basis for our request on 18 that. 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: On the other hand, could you get 20 some language in there to at least first explore, unless you 21 have already, within sister agencies within Cal EPA to take a 22 look at that before we highlight this as a part. 23 That is just a suggestion, but I am open. 24 MS. TERRY: We do have to periodically come back 25 and report again on this very same issue. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 So, I think now that we are aware of the studies, 2 as staff, we could take a look at the studies and reassess 3 whether it is merely a matter of compiling the studies and 4 making the information available as opposed to doing the 5 research and come back with recommendations on this next 6 time. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I would be happy with that. 8 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I just got the 9 impression, maybe I misheard it, that the Ducks Unlimited 10 said there were studies that had showed the effects on water 11 fowl, or habitats, and this covers a lot of other things. 12 MS. TERRY: That is exactly my point. 13 We would have to go back and relook at the scope of 14 the studies and whether all of those things have been 15 addressed, and then basically compile that information. 16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Since it is in the Executive 17 Summary, I just would not want to mislead the Legislature 18 that our true priority really is focusing on funding for the 19 alternatives, and this would not preclude us from requesting 20 universities, or other agencies, so perhaps just that last 21 sentence being stricken. 22 MS. TERRY: I like Professor Friedman's earlier 23 comment about further research may be needed, and that in the 24 mean time we look at how to answer whether there is further 25 research needed or whether it is a matter of pulling it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 together. 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Delete the point about requesting 3 additional funding from the Legislature for this particular 4 item at this time. 5 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I think our priority 6 is clear. 7 MR. VAN VLECK: Thank you for your indulgence on 8 this matter, Mr. Chairman and members of staff. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any on the questions from Board 10 Members? 11 I apologize for not giving people a chance there. 12 Is there a motion? 13 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I am prepared to move 14 acceptance of the report, but I did want to comment on how 15 useful this presentation has been, not only the testimony but 16 the written format of what was provided to us, a copy that 17 was shown on the screen, the summary of major comments, and 18 then the actual summary of each of the comments listed that 19 were in our file and then the red lined revision. 20 This has just really facilitated my work, and I 21 really appreciate that, and I do move it. 22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 23 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Second. 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: All in favor, say aye. 25 Unanimous approval there. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 Again, thank you staff very much for those efforts 2 and particularly for working with the industry, etcetera. 3 I guess we have come now to open comment period. 4 We have nobody signed up for this open comment period. 5 So, unless the Board Members want to say anything, 6 I would like to officially bring the December Board meeting 7 to a close. 8 Thank you all very much. 9 (Thereupon the Air Resources Board meeting was 10 adjourned at 11:35 a.m.) 11 --o0o-- 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 2 3 I, VICKI L. OGELVIE, a Certified Shorthand 4 Reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify: 5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 6 foregoing hearing was reported in shorthand by me, Vicki L. 7 Ogelvie, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of 8 California, and thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 9 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 10 attorney for any of the parties to said hearing nor in any 11 way interested in the outcome of said hearing. 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 13 this nineteenth day of December, 1999. 14 15 16 VICKI L. OGELVIE 17 Certified Shorthand Reporter License No. 7871 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345