like - California Air Resources Board - State of California

Document Sample
like - California Air Resources Board - State of California Powered By Docstoc
					                       BOARD MEETING

                   STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                   AIR RESOURCES BOARD


                       1001 I STREET

                   BYRON SHER AUDITORIUM

                  SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

              THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2006

                         9:00 A.M.





Dr. Robert F. Sawyer, Chairperson

Ms. Sandra Berg

Mrs. Barbara Riordan

Ms. Dorene D'Adamo

Supervisor Mark J. DeSaulnier

Dr. Henry Gong

Mayor Ronald O. Loveridge

Supervisor Ron Roberts


Ms. Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer

Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer

Mr. Michael Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer

Mr. Tom Jennings, Acting Chief Counsel

Mr. Steve Albu, Assistant Chief, Mobile Sources Control

Mr. Robert Barham, Assistant Division Chief, Stationary
Source Division

Mr. Dipak Bishnu, Air Resources Engineer

Mr. Richard Bode, Chief, Health and Exposure Assessment

Ms. Janette Brooks, Chief, Air Quality Measures Branch

Mr. Michael Carter, Chief, Emission Research & Regulatory
Development Branch

                   APPEARANCES CONTINUED


Dr. Bart Croes, Chief, Research Division

Mr. Bob Cross, Chief, Mobile Sources Control Division

Mr. Robert Fletcher, Chief, Stationary Source Division

Ms. Kitty Howard, Manager, Regulatory Assistance Section

Ms. Peggy Jenkins, Manager, Indoor Exposure Assessment

Mr. Bob Jenne, Senior Staff Counsel

Dr. Ashi Lashgari, Research Division

Mr. Stephan Lemieux, Manager, On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel

Mr. Mike McCarthy, Manager, Advanced Engineering Section

Mr. Tom Montes, Air Resources Engineer

Mr. Kirk Oliver, Senior Staff Counsel

Mr. George Poppic, Senior Staff Counsel

Mr. Shobna Sahni, Air Pollution Specialist

Ms. Dorothy Shimer, Research Division

Ms. Carla Takemoto, Manager, Technical Evaluation Section

Mr. Mike Terris, Senior Staff Counsel

Mr. Michael J. Tollstrup, Chief, Project Assessment Branch

Mr. Floyd Vergara, Staff Counsel


                   APPEARANCES CONTINUED


Mr. Don Anair, Union of Concerned Scientists

Mr. Ed Appleton, MFASC/STA

Mr. Brian Bateman, Bay Area Air Quality Management

Mr. Sam Bell, MFASC/STA

Ms. Maria Brook, Willits Resident

Mr. Jim Bury, Putzmeister, Inc.

Mr. John Cabaniss, Association of International Auto

Ms. Christi Collins, American Concrete Pumping Association

Mr. Daniel Cunningham, MFASC/STA

Mr. Mike Cusach, Conco Pumptin

Mr. William Davis, APLA, EUCA, SCCA, MCOG & CIAEC

Mr. Hank de Carbonel, Concrete Pumper

Mr. Steve Douglas, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers

Ms. Paula Forbis, Environmental Health Coalition

Mr. Frank Grana, MFASC/STA

Mr. Timothy Gundrum, International Truck & Engine

Mr. Paramo Hernandez, MFASC/STA

Mr. Dean High, MFASC/STA

Ms. Bonnie Holmes-Gen, American Lung Association

Ms. Jolynn Hoxie, Citizen

Mr. Allan Jones, MFASC/STA

                   APPEARANCES CONTINUED


Mr. Chung Liu, South Coast Air Quality Management District

Mr. Ray Lucas, MFASC/STA

Mr. Bill Magavern, Sierra Club of California

Mr. John Marrs, MFASC/STA

Dr. Melanie Marty, Manager, Air Toxicology and
Epidemiology Section Manager, Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment

Mr. Chris McDonald, CFT Concrete Pumping

Mr. Bryan McLelland, Citizen

Mr. Jim Nolan, Interstate Concrete Pumping

Mr. Alan Olick, MFASC/STA

Ms. Amber Parsons, Performance Concrete Pumpinig

Mr. Charles Pomeroy, MFASC/STA

Mr. Ed Pupka, South Coast Air Quality Management District

Ms. Sylvia Rodriguez, MFASC/STA

Mr. Mark Rubick, Sacramento Concrete, Inc.

Mr. David Rudin, Putzmeister, Inc.

Ms. Anita Sison, Willits Resident

Ms. Lisa Stegink, Engine Manufacturer's Association

Mr. Mark Stepper, Cummins, Inc.

Mr. Glen Stober, Business, Transportation and Housing

Mr. James Thomas, Nabors Well Services

Mr. Luke Tonachel, Natural Resources Defense Council


                   APPEARANCES CONTINUED


Mr. John Trajnowski, Ford Motor Co.

Ms. Jill Whynot, South Coast Air Quality Management

Ms. Jane Williams, California Communities Against Toxics



Pledge of Allegiance                    1

Opening remarks by Chairperson Sawyer   1

Roll Call                               12

Item 06-8-1
     Chairperson Sawyer                 2
     Executive Officer Witherspoon      3
     Staff Presentation                 3
     Board Discussion and Q&A           10

Item 06-8-2
     Chairperson Sawyer                 17
     Staff Presentation                 17
     Board Discussion and Q&A           20
     Motion                             24
     Vote                               24

Item 06-8-3
     Chairperson Sawyer                 25
     Executive Officer Witherspoon      25
     Staff Presentation                 27
     Acting Ombudsman Ferreira          48
     Board Discussion and Q&A           50
     Ms. Whynot                         72
     Mr. Pupka                          76
     Mr. Bateman                        86
     Mr. Cunningham                     88
     Mr. Marrs                          90
     Ms. Rodriguez                      95
     Mr. Olick                          97
     Mr. Appleton                       102
     Mr. Grana                          103
     Mr. Jones                          108
     Mr. High                           111
     Mr. Hernandez                      114
     Mr. Lucas                          115
     Mr. Bell                           118
     Mr. Pomeroy                        121
     Ms. Williams                       124
     Ms. Forbis                         141
     Ms. Brook                          145
     Ms. Sison                          149
     Ms. Holmes-Gen                     151
     Mr. Magavern                       153

                      INDEX CONTINUED


Item 06-8-3(cont'd)
     Board Discussion and Q&A                         155
     Motion                                           190
     Vote                                             190

Afternoon Session                                         192

Item 06-8-4
     Chairperson Sawyer                               192
     Executive Officer Witherspoon                    192
     Staff Presentation                               194
     Acting Ombudsman Ferreira                        212
     Mr. Douglas                                      213
     Mr. Cabaniss                                     220
     Ms. Stegink                                      221
     Mr. Stepper                                      230
     Mr. Trajnowski                                   237
     Mr. Gundrum                                      240
     Mr. Anair                                        245
     Mr. Tonachel                                     248
     Ms. Holmes-Gen                                   250
     Board Discussion and Q&A                         252
     Motion                                           254
     Vote                                             254

Item 06-8-5
     Chairperson Sawyer                               254
     Executive Officer Witherspoon                    256
     Staff Presentation                               256
     Acting Ombudsman Ferreira                        273
     Board Discussion and Q&A                         274
     Mr. Liu                                          275
     Ms. Stegink                                      280
     Board Discussion and Q&A                         282
     Motion                                           284
     Vote                                             284

Public Comment                                        284

Adjournment                                               324

Reporter's Certificate                                325


 1                              PROCEEDINGS

 2              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Good morning.   The September

 3   28th, 2006, public meeting of the Air Resources Board will

 4   now come to order.

 5              Would all please rise and join me in the Pledge

 6   of Allegiance.

 7              (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was

 8              Recited in unison.)

 9              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Will the Clerk of the Board

10   please call the roll.

11              We don't have a quorum yet?

12              Okay.   We'll have the roll as soon as we get our

13   sixth member here.

14              I have a few opening remarks before we get

15   started.    I would like to address the witnesses signing up

16   to speak today.     Please be aware, as usual we'll be

17   imposing a three-minute time limit so that everybody gets

18   a chance to speak.

19              I would like now for everyone in the room to note

20   where the exits are, on your right and your left and in

21   the rear.    If exiting through the rear of the hearing

22   room, please follow the exit signs to the left passed the

23   restrooms.

24              In the event of a fire alarm, we will indeed

25   evacuate this room immediately, exit down the stairways,

 1   and you will receive directions on where to go.    When the

 2   "all clear" signal is given, we will return to the room.

 3           Finally, I want to note the obvious.      The future

 4   of the Air Resources Board has been greatly altered by the

 5   events of the past month.     The Legislature passed and the

 6   Governor yesterday signed the California Global Warming

 7   Solutions Act of 2006.   This bill assigns major

 8   responsibility to the Air Resources Board for

 9   implementation of both regulations and market-based

10   measures that will reduce California's 2020 greenhouse gas

11   emissions to those of 1990.    Fortunately, other state

12   agencies, the California Energy Commission, the Public

13   Utilities Commission, the Resources Agency, the Integrated

14   Waste Management Board, and others will be working with

15   us.

16           We must remember that our primary mission remains

17   protecting the health of the people of California by

18   improving the quality of our air.

19           Issues of air quality and global warming are, of

20   course, interconnected, generally in a positive way so

21   that actions to improve air quality and to reduce

22   greenhouse gases reinforce each other.     We will be

23   receiving our first report on planning for the

24   implementation of AB 32 at our October Board meeting.

25           Agenda Item 06-8-1.      Anybody in the audience who

 1   wishes to testify on today's agenda items, please sign up

 2   with the Clerk of the Board.   Also if you have a written

 3   statement, please provide 30 copies when you sign up to

 4   testify.

 5              The first item on our agenda this morning is our

 6   health update.    For the past few years these monthly

 7   updates have provided the Board with briefings on topics

 8   related to our primary mission, to protect the public

 9   health of Californians.    This month staff will discuss

10   recently published research funded by the Air Resources

11   Board on cleaning products and air fresheners and their

12   potential indoor air quality impacts and health

13   implications.

14              Ms. Witherspoon, would you please introduce this

15   item.

16              EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:   Thank you, Dr.

17   Sawyer, and good morning, members of the Board.

18              The research study we'll discuss today was

19   designed to meet two objectives:

20              First, state law directs ARB to assess total

21   exposures of Californians to toxic air contaminants,

22   including indoor exposures.    This study provides data on

23   potential exposures to toxic air contaminants from the use

24   of cleaning products.

25              The second purpose of the study was to

 1   investigate the reactivity of fragrance compounds in

 2   cleaning products.   Preliminary work by other

 3   investigators indicates that reactive chemistry converts

 4   nontoxic pine and citrus fragrances into secondary

 5   pollutants that may pose health impacts.

 6           Dorothy Shimer, a member of the Health and

 7   Exposure Assessment Branch will make the staff

 8   presentation.

 9           (Thereupon an overhead presentation was

10           Presented as follows.)

11           MS. SHIMER:    Well, thank you, Ms. Witherspoon.

12   And good morning Dr. Sawyer and members of the Board.

13           Thank you for this opportunity to share results

14   from the recent ARB funded study on indoor air chemistry

15   and the possible health implications of this research.

16                              --o0o--

17           MS. SHIMER:    As just mentioned, the study had two

18   objectives:   To identify and measure emissions of toxic

19   air contaminants from cleaning products and air

20   fresheners; and to identify and measure reaction products

21   when cleaning products with reactive compounds are exposed

22   to ozone.

23           The study was conducted at UC Berkeley and

24   Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory with Dr. William

25   Nazaroff as the principal investigator.

 1                               --o0o--

 2             MS. SHIMER:   Results of this project have been

 3   published in four journal articles and a final research

 4   report to ARB.   The last article listed is in press.     And

 5   my presentation today will focus on the results from the

 6   last three papers listed.

 7                               --o0o--

 8             MS. SHIMER:   The investigators conducted the

 9   study in three sequential tasks.      First they conducted a

10   shelf survey of hundreds of products; then selected 21

11   widely available products, which they screened for

12   compounds listed as toxic air contaminants and compounds

13   that are reactive with ozone.

14             They included at least one disinfectant, a

15   general purpose degreaser, a general purpose cleaner, wood

16   cleaner, furniture maintenance product, spot remover,

17   multipurpose solvent, and air freshener.

18             For the second task, six of the products were

19   selected for the measurement of their emissions in a

20   room-sized chamber during realistic cleaning procedures.

21   Both full strength and dilute forms of the product were

22   tested.

23             Finally three products were selected for more

24   detailed study in the presence and absence of ozone to

25   examine the resultant indoor chemistry and measure

 1   secondary emissions.   A general purpose cleaner, a

 2   degreaser and an air freshener were tested at common usage

 3   rates and the chamber condition simulated a residential

 4   room.

 5           In the large chamber, ozone was introduced in to

 6   the room using a stream of 120 parts per billion, equal to

 7   the one hour federal standard level.    About half of this

 8   ozone reacted with the surfaces inside the chamber,

 9   leaving about 60 parts per billion available for reaction

10   during the experiment.

11                               --o0o--

12           MS. SHIMER:    For the second and third tasks of

13   the study the scientists developed precise protocols to

14   mop a floor, clean a cook top, and use plug-in air

15   fresheners.   To answer the question posed by this slide,

16   it took one scientist to do the cleaning, and four or five

17   to gather the air quality measurements.

18                               --o0o--

19           MS. SHIMER:    The primary emission results were

20   good news.    Only three toxic air contaminants were

21   identified in the products tested.     Six of the products

22   tested contained glycol ethers, with levels ranging from

23   .8 to 9.6 percent by weight.

24           Two-Butoxyethanol was the most prevalent, and if

25   the airborne concentrations when used in the cleaning

 1   protocols were below the OEHHA acute reference level of 14

 2   milligrams per cubic meter.

 3           Direct emissions of TACs from cleaning products

 4   and air fresheners did not appear to pose a risk to

 5   building occupants during cleaning activities.     However,

 6   modeled scenarios indicate that a worst-case situation,

 7   such as cleaning all interior windows with low

 8   ventilation, may lead to exposure of 2-Butoxyethanol above

 9   health guideline values.

10           Some products are now likely lower in VOC

11   content, because while the study was under way, ARB

12   regulations decreased the VOC limit by weight for

13   non-aerosol general purpose cleaners, general purpose

14   degreasers, and furniture maintenance products.    Hence,

15   some currently available products will have lower VOC

16   content than the products studied.

17           And 12 of the products contained ozone-reactive

18   compounds at levels ranging from .23 percent to 26 percent

19   by weight.   And these were primarily terpenes.

20                              --o0o--

21           MS. SHIMER:   So what are terpenes?

22           Terpenes are a complex class of compounds found

23   in plant oils.   Common terpenes in cleaning products and

24   air fresheners are alpha-pinene and d-limonene, which are

25   common to pine and citrus oils, respectively.     These

 1   compounds are used in cleaning products because of their

 2   pleasant odors and favorable solvent properties.

 3   Specifically they can remove grease and oil.

 4           Terpenes are reactive VOCs and, thus, are subject

 5   to the VOC limits for consumer products that I just

 6   mentioned.

 7           The Food and Drug Administration has classified

 8   them as generally recognized as safe, meaning they are not

 9   associated with adverse health effects.   Although some may

10   cause irritation at very high levels.

11           In ambient air, oxidants such as ozone react with

12   terpenes to produce more irritating and toxic compounds

13   such as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, formic acid

14   and acetic acid.   Some of these products are toxic air

15   contaminants with documented irritant and carcinogenic

16   properties.

17                               --o0o--

18           MS. SHIMER:    In the chamber study with ozone,

19   reactive chemistry did indeed occur when cleaning products

20   were used.    Formaldehyde levels were elevated by 9 to 16

21   parts per billion for the first four hours after cleaning.

22   These levels from a single cleaning event exceeded OEHHA's

23   chronic reference exposure level of 2.4 parts per billion,

24   and the Proposition 65 no significant risk level for

25   cancer of 1.6 part per billion.

 1             Particles were emitted as ultrafines.    Then

 2   aerosol aging processes led to particle growth from the

 3   ultrafine to the accumulation mode.

 4             Investigators estimated particle mass from

 5   particle size and number for comparison to ambient air

 6   quality standards.   Results indicate that enough particles

 7   were generated to increase the average PM2.5 mass by 30 to

 8   90 micrograms per cubic meter over a 12-hour averaging

 9   period.   This concentration of ultrafine particles from a

10   single cleaning event is greater than the new national

11   24-hour standard for PM2.5 of 35 micrograms per cubic

12   meter.

13             In an attempt to understand the implication of

14   these results the investigator modeled some high-end use

15   scenarios to estimate exposure for a person using these

16   products.   Calculations indicate formaldehyde intake could

17   exceed the Prop 65 no significant risk level for a

18   professional house cleaner and for a child who has an air

19   freshener as well as an ozone generator in his room.

20                               --o0o--

21             MS. SHIMER:   The results of this study lead us to

22   several conclusions and related implications.     The good

23   news, as stated earlier, is that very few toxic air

24   contaminants are directly emitted from cleaning products

25   and exposures are generally below guideline values.

 1           However, results of this study do have potential

 2   health implications.   The secondary emissions, that is,

 3   the formaldehyde and particles that formed as a result of

 4   the reaction of terpenes with ozone, may pose a previously

 5   unrecognized exposure and health risk.     Personal exposure

 6   can be elevated due to the close proximity of the person

 7   cleaning to the source of secondary pollutants.

 8           As indicated in the AB 1173 report to the

 9   Legislature on indoor air pollution in California,

10   continued research is needed on secondary indoor emissions

11   to better understand exposures.     It's not adequate to

12   examine and assess only the directly emitted pollutants.

13           Lastly, these results support further reduction

14   of outdoor ozone levels and prevention of indoor ozone

15   emissions.

16                              --o0o--

17           MS. SHIMER:    And this concludes my presentation.

18   And I'd be happy to try to answer any questions you may

19   have.

20           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Do Board members have any

21   questions?

22           Dr. Gong.

23           BOARD MEMBER GONG:    Very nicely done.   Thank you,

24   Dr. Sawyer.

25           Two questions.    One is:    Were there any health

 1   effects related to these studies?      I assume none of the

 2   six scientists got ill from mopping the floors.      But I

 3   don't know that for a fact.

 4            MS. SHIMER:   No, that's correct.    There were no

 5   health effects.

 6            BOARD MEMBER GONG:    Okay.    So far as we know.

 7            And the other question is really related to

 8   another oxidizing agent, and that's nitrogen dioxide or

 9   NOx's.   That to me is a more common indoor oxidizing agent

10   than even ozone, because we generate it ourselves quite

11   commonly in various households and offices.     Have they

12   performed any nitrogen oxide studies?

13            MS. SHIMER:   Yes.   In this experiment, one of the

14   scenarios they did was that in the chamber they the

15   cleaning products and went through the cleaning protocol.

16   They also had ozone.   NO2 I think was around 70 some parts

17   per billion.   A trace amount of NO.

18            And they did find that some of the terpenes that

19   did not react with ozone-only reacted.      So presumably the

20   nitrogen species went to a nitrate radical and reacted,

21   and they got different -- some different reaction products

22   and a decline of a couple of the terpenoids that did not

23   decline with ozone alone.

24            ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS:     Dr. Sawyer, we

25   have a quorum now, so it would be appropriate to take the

 1   roll.

 2             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Would the Clerk of the Board

 3   please call the roll.

 4             BOARD CLERK ANDREONI:   Ms. Berg?

 5             BOARD MEMBER BERG:    Present.

 6             BOARD CLERK ANDREONI:   Ms. D'Adamo?

 7             BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:   Here.

 8             BOARD CLERK ANDREONI:   Supervisor DeSaulnier?

 9             BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:      Here.

10             BOARD CLERK ANDREONI:   Dr. Gong?

11             BOARD MEMBER GONG:    Present.

12             BOARD CLERK ANDREONI:   Ms. Kennard?

13             Mayor Loveridge?

14             BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE:    Here.

15             BOARD CLERK ANDREONI:   Supervisor Patrick?

16             Ms. Riordan?

17             BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:   Here.

18             BOARD CLERK ANDREONI:   Supervisor Roberts?

19             BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS:   Here.

20             BOARD CLERK ANDREONI:   Dr. Sawyer?

21             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Here.

22             BOARD CLERK ANDREONI:   Mr. Chairman, we have a

23   quorum.

24             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you.

25             Are there any other questions or comments from

 1   the Board?

 2           Ms. D'Adamo.

 3           BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:    It just seems to me

 4   intuitively that there should be a problem, because some

 5   of those things smell horrible, some of those cleaning

 6   products.    And so I'm just curious as to why you -- what

 7   methods you used for selection of the 21 products.      Was it

 8   based upon VOC content -- higher VOC contents?    Did you

 9   consider -- I mean I don't know exactly what I'm getting

10   at, except that there are certain products that just smell

11   so horrible and when they're used, you really do have to

12   have a window open.

13           MS. SHIMER:    Yeah, the selection process, they

14   went through hundreds of products, and then kind of

15   narrowed it down to what they thought had the compounds of

16   interest, which were the terpenes and the TACs.   And then

17   they went -- I think they selected about 50.   They further

18   got the material safety data sheets, saw if the compounds

19   of interest were listed, and then they did a screening.

20   So they just kept, you know, narrowing the final three and

21   six products they would be studying.

22           And of the actual products they studied, one was

23   an aerosol product, and it was 26 percent terpene-type

24   compounds.    The air freshener was about 13 percent.   And

25   the general purpose cleaner was 7.6 percent or something

 1   like that.

 2             So they went through a selection process with the

 3   material safety data sheets looking for compounds of

 4   interest.    Odor per se was not a consideration.

 5             BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:   Okay.   And then the other

 6   question is:    What about -- I guess there was some

 7   analysis of direct exposure, in other words the person

 8   that's using the product.    Did you consider long-term

 9   exposure, for example, housekeepers that are exposed to

10   this over an eight-hour period everyday, five days a week?

11             MS. SHIMER:   Yeah, but that -- the investigator

12   did some modeling.    And one of the scenarios he modeled

13   was a housekeeper who does this professionally.     And that

14   person would be getting definitely above formaldehyde

15   levels.   But, interestingly, the PM was not above other

16   levels.   And that's -- it's kind of a difficult thing to

17   get a handle on because of different units.    When you

18   consider exposure or dose, you have to consider not only

19   the high concentration in the room, but estimate the

20   amount of time you're in the room and the breathing rate.

21   And so even though there were some really high peaks, the

22   daily intake for particulate matter did not exceed an

23   equivalent standard -- federal standard.     So they got

24   peaks that were really high.   But averaged over a 24-hour

25   day, it didn't exceed the standard.

 1             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Are there any other -- Dr.

 2   Gong.

 3             BOARD MEMBER GONG:    One follow-up question.

 4             Are there sufficient lessons learned from this

 5   series of research that the ARB can apply to its outreach

 6   program and the information sheets, et cetera, to the

 7   public?

 8             MS. SHIMER:   Certainly.    This type of reactive

 9   chemistry is known particularly in the ambient atmosphere.

10   I think this is a first time that it's been done to this

11   extent in the indoor environment.      And some of the other

12   experiments they did included mitigation exercises.       For

13   example, if the surface is rinsed with water after it's

14   cleaned, it greatly reduces the VOCs that can volatilize

15   and, hence, reactive chemistry that occurs.

16             Likewise, if paper towels, sponges, mops are

17   removed from the house after cleaning, you put them in

18   your garage or whatever, it has a huge impact.      It can

19   reduce the emissions by 50 percent.      So --

20             EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:     Doctor --

21             MS. SHIMER:   That's all.

22             EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:     Doctor, we did

23   talk about this at the staff level and what the

24   implications were and if we should be telling people not

25   to use pine and citrus cleaners through the whole ozone

 1   season.   But I think the most simple instruction is to do

 2   it in the morning before the ozone levels are elevated and

 3   do it with plenty of ventilation; and as Dorothy just

 4   indicated, to get the cleaning products out of the house

 5   when you're finished, and that would cut the exposure

 6   quite a bit, because the ozone has to be present in order

 7   for these secondary pollutants to form.

 8             BOARD MEMBER GONG:    And dilution of the

 9   chemicals.

10             MS. SHIMER:   Yeah, that -- excuse me -- that was

11   another scenario.   They did dilute form.    And obviously

12   less volatilization with dilute form.     So only use as much

13   as you need.

14             BOARD MEMBER GONG:    So did you answer my question

15   about are we -- is the ARB going to implement it in any

16   outreach event?

17             EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:     Yes.   Yes, we

18   will.   Not putting on an event, but update our materials

19   about indoor air cleaners, in the same way that we suggest

20   people jog during ozone season in the morning rather than

21   the afternoon, that kind of advice.

22             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you.

23             Since we have no witnesses, is there any further

24   comment from the staff?

25             Since this is not a regulatory item, it's not

 1   necessary to officially close this record.

 2           The next item on our addenda is 06-8-2, a

 3   research proposal for the Board's consideration.

 4           As usual, I will recuse myself from consideration

 5   and approval of this proposal.

 6           RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES:    Dr. Lashgari will

 7   present the staff presentation.

 8           (Thereupon an overhead presentation was

 9           Presented as follows.)

10           DR. LASHGARI:    Good morning, Dr. Sawyer and

11   members of the Board.

12           Today we have one research proposal for your

13   review and approval.    This proposal has been reviewed by

14   staff and approved by the Research Screening Committee.

15           I will briefly explain the problem addressed by

16   the proposal, its objectives and the expected results.

17                               --o0o--

18           DR. LASHGARI:     Generally small and medium

19   commercial buildings are served by package rooftop

20   heating, ventilation and air conditioning, the so, called

21   HVAC units.   Nail salons, hardware stores, restaurants,

22   mall shopping centers, auto parts dealers, grocery stores

23   and dental offices are a few of the diverse commercial

24   enterprises within the small and medium commercial

25   building sector.   Californians likely spend a good deal of

 1   time breathing indoor air within these enterprises.

 2              Aside from schools that have been studied to some

 3   extent, information on these buildings' operation and

 4   maintenance relevant to heating, ventilation and air

 5   conditioning as well as indoor air quality is very

 6   limited.

 7              The California Energy Commission, with the

 8   assistance of the Air Resources Board, has developed a

 9   two-phase field study investigating the ventilation and

10   indoor air quality in small and medium commercial

11   buildings.

12              The first phase will be conducted by UC Berkeley

13   and was brought before the Board in April 2006.

14              This is the second phase of the larger project

15   the contractors will be UC Davis and Lawrence Berkeley

16   National Laboratory.    The budget is a little more than $1

17   million and will be funded entirely by the California

18   Energy Commission.    The duration of project is 27 months.

19                                --o0o--

20              DR. LASHGARI:   With the help of an expert

21   advisory group, the survey part of the project, as

22   previously approved by the Board, will collect size,

23   occupancy, HVAC type and other particular information from

24   the California small and medium commercial building

25   sector.

 1              The objective of the first phase is to develop

 2   statewide survey information on ventilation

 3   characteristics, including design and performance for HVAC

 4   systems and indoor air quality characteristics.    The first

 5   phase was also designed to guide the selection of

 6   facilities for inspection and to create a contact list of

 7   small and medium commercial building owners and operators

 8   sufficient for properly conducting the field study

 9   program.

10                                --o0o--

11              DR. LASHGARI:   In the second phase the contractor

12   will collect relevant details on heating, ventilation and

13   air conditioning systems as well as indoor environmental

14   quality.

15              The kind of data that would be obtained includes:

16              Operation and maintenance of the HVAC and air

17   filtration systems; indoor air pollutant levels,

18   especially toxic air contaminants and potential pollutant

19   sources; and PM measurements inside and outside to

20   determine air exchange rates.

21              After thorough analysis the contractor will

22   produce the first statewide multi-climate regions

23   representative database that will be used by the

24   California Energy Commission to guide the development of

25   future building energy design standards that protect

 1   indoor air quality and comfort in California.

 2                                --o0o--

 3             DR. LASHGARI:   The successful execution of this

 4   project reinforces the complementary roles of ARB and CEC

 5   in setting building standards and providing indoor air

 6   quality guidelines.    Therefore, we request that you

 7   approve the resolution for this research proposal.

 8             Than you.   And I will be happy to answer any

 9   questions.

10             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Do Board members have any

11   questions?

12             Dr. Gong.

13             BOARD MEMBER GONG:    Thank you.

14             Just one quick question.     I assume that the data

15   derived from this extensive study is not currently

16   available to a sufficient degree for making statements

17   about indoor air.     Is that a safe statement?

18             DR. LASHGARI:   That's correct.    The data on small

19   and medium commercial buildings is very, very rare.

20   There's only one study that has been done nationwide, the

21   so-called VASE study by the Environmental Protection

22   Agency.   And that only included 15 buildings out of the

23   100 buildings in the U.S. and California.      And only 11 of

24   them were small and commercial -- medium commercial

25   buildings in California.

 1           BOARD MEMBER GONG:     Why is that?   Why is there

 2   such scarce data?   I mean I know we've been quite

 3   concerned about outdoor air quality.    But since we spend

 4   more than 80 percent of our time indoors, it seems like

 5   it's sort of a disproportionate certain here.

 6           DR. LASHGARI:     These studies require unique

 7   expertise to carry them out.   Also, they are tremendously

 8   expensive.   As you noticed, a million dollars per 40

 9   buildings in the study.    Also the base study, perhaps when

10   the tally is completed, costs relatively close to a

11   hundred million dollars.   So they are not -- they are

12   difficult to do, they require expertise and they are

13   expensive.   And small and commercial -- small and medium

14   commercial buildings are a very heterogeneous sector, as I

15   made mention to you.   Nail salons to Home Depot type

16   stores, are all covered.   Churches are covered.

17           BOARD MEMBER GONG:     So even 40 may not be that

18   representative of California buildings -- commercial

19   buildings?

20           DR. LASHGARI:     It's our first effort, yeah.

21           BOARD MEMBER GONG:     I assume that the results

22   derived here in California buildings will be able to be

23   extrapolated to other buildings in the United States?        I

24   mean there's more than just California benefits from this

25   study too, I would assume.

 1           DR. LASHGARI:   There certainly are aspects of

 2   this study that can be extended.   I should note, however,

 3   that California within it has regional climates that are

 4   very, very unique to it.   Interior of the California has

 5   climates that are very unique and, therefore, building

 6   characteristics are very unique, the coastal areas.    For

 7   example, I doubt many people or many businesses run their

 8   air conditioning in the San Francisco area, while in

 9   Sacramento during summertime that is not the case.

10           BOARD MEMBER GONG:    Thank you.

11           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:    Just to follow up on that.

12   My hope would be when they choose the 40 to review, that

13   they do indeed look at the different climate areas of

14   California and then also the different maybe air basins

15   too, because, you know, you never know how people

16   function.   And it would be interesting to see if people

17   maintain air-conditioners better in warmer climates.     They

18   may not actually.   But it would be interesting to see if

19   there is a difference of, you know, attentiveness to

20   changing filters, doing all those things that are

21   necessary, compared to those areas that may turn an

22   air-conditioner on a very few days during a year.

23           So I'm hopeful they'll do a broad look at

24   California, not just one area.

25           DR. LASHGARI:   We will have four particular areas

 1   in mind.    One will be southern coastal, one will be

 2   southern inland, one would be northern coastal and one

 3   would be northern inland is what we're looking at.

 4              But I do want to make mention that this is only a

 5   first taste of a very, very large, very, very broad area

 6   of California commercial enterprises.

 7              BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:    Oh, sure.

 8              DR. LASHGARI:   Perhaps a good chunk of California

 9   commercial buildings are in this sector.         We're talking

10   about tens of thousands of buildings.

11              BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:    Absolutely.     But at least

12   you're going to have four different regions to look at.

13   That's the main thing, I think.

14              DR. LASHGARI:   Yes.

15              BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:    Thank you.

16              BOARD MEMBER BERG:     Just so that I'm clear on

17   what I'm voting on.    On the Phase 2 field study, on the

18   first item, that is being funded by the California Energy

19   Commission.   On the Phase 1 of the next item, we've

20   already approved that.

21              Is there additional funding that is being

22   approved here by approving these research?

23              EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:    There's no Air

24   Resources Board funding.    But you're voting on the use of

25   the CEC funding.

 1           BOARD MEMBER BERG:    It's no problem.   Thank you.

 2   I just wanted to be clear.   Thank you.

 3           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   I'd like to remind Board

 4   members of our policy concerning ex parte communications.

 5   While we may communicate off the record with outside

 6   persons regarding Board rule making, we must disclose the

 7   names of our contacts and the nature of the contents of

 8   our communications on the record.     This requirement

 9   applies specifically to communications which take place

10   after the public agenda of the Board hearing has been

11   published.

12           Are there any communications that you need to

13   disclose?

14           Hearing none, I assume that all members of the

15   Board had the opportunity to review the proposal.    And if

16   there are no additional concerns or comments, do I have a

17   motion to adopt Resolution No. 624?

18           BOARD MEMBER GONG:    So moved.

19           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:   Second, Mr. Chairman.

20           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   And it's been moved and

21   seconded.

22           All those in favor please say aye.

23           (Ayes.)

24           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   And opposed?

25           And please record me as abstaining.

 1             Since this is not a regulatory item, it is not

 2   necessary to officially close the record.

 3             The next item for our consideration is Agenda

 4   Item 6-8-3, proposed amendments to airborne toxic control

 5   measure for chrome plating and chromic acid anodizing

 6   operations.

 7             (Thereupon an overhead presentation was

 8             Presented as follows.)

 9             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   These amendments are

10   important from the perspective of reducing neighborhood

11   exposures to hexavalent chromium.    They also take

12   advantage of the most advanced control technologies

13   available by updating what counts as BACT, or best

14   available control technology, for these facilities.

15             Ms. Witherspoon, would you please introduce this

16   item and begin staff's presentation.

17             EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:   Thank you, Dr.

18   Sawyer.

19             Hexavalent chromium is one of the most potent

20   compounds that the Board has identified as a toxic air

21   contaminant, second only to dioxins.    Because of this

22   potency, exposures to hexavalent chromium are dangerous at

23   very small amounts.

24             And we have a special visitor with us today, Dr.

25   Melanie Marty, from the Office of Environmental Health

 1   Hazard Assessment, if you have questions about health

 2   effects during the course of this item.

 3           Over the years this Board and local air districts

 4   have taken several regulatory actions to reduce public

 5   exposure to hexavalent chromium.   In 1998 -- excuse me --

 6   1988 this Board adopted chrome plating regulations and you

 7   amended them ten years later, in 1998.    Those regulations

 8   together reduced statewide chrome emissions by more than

 9   95 percent.   In addition, the South Coast Air Quality

10   Management District adopted amendments in 2003 that

11   further reduced emissions from chrome operations in their

12   district.

13           As a result of these actions, ambient levels of

14   hexavalent chromium in California have been reduced by 70

15   percent over the last 15 years.

16           Unfortunately, there is still a significant

17   near-source risk.    Staff has found several facilities that

18   pose a cancer risk in excess of 10 in a million per

19   persons exposed.    Also, these facilities are frequently

20   located within communities, often near sensitive

21   receptors, such as homes, schools, and day care centers.

22   Our proposal today is designed to reduce this risk through

23   the application of best available control technology.

24           In our presentation and in the testimony today,

25   you'll hear a lot about the economic impacts of this

 1   regulation.   Clearly some facilities will have difficulty

 2   complying, particularly if they cannot recover their

 3   investment costs through increased prices.    And some may

 4   stop working in the chrome plating profession altogether.

 5   Staff is sensitive to the economic impacts of this

 6   regulation and have incorporated flexibility wherever we

 7   could to minimize costs.

 8           You also hear that the rule is not stringent

 9   enough because we are not recommending HEPA filters or the

10   equivalent for every source of hexavalent chrome.    Staff

11   believes we've crafted a protective rule and that the

12   flexibility for smaller platers who use fume suppressants

13   will not pose an unreasonable risk.

14           I'll now turn the staff presentation over to Ms.

15   Shobna Sahni of the Stationary Source Division.

16           AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:    Good morning,

17   Dr. Sawyer and members of the Board.

18           Today we are proposing for your consideration

19   amendments to the control measure for chromium plating.

20                              --o0o--

21           AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:      The presentation

22   will cover the topics on this slide.   First, some

23   background on hexavalent chromium and chromium plating and

24   chromic acid anodizing facilities.

25                              --o0o--

 1           AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:      In 1986 the Air

 2   Resources Board identified hexavalent chromium as a toxic

 3   air contaminant.   The Board found that hexavalent chromium

 4   is an extremely potent human carcinogen and that no level

 5   of exposure is considered safe.     Inhalation of this

 6   compound causes lung cancer.     Because of the extreme

 7   potency of hexavalent chromium, even grams of emissions

 8   pose a significant public health risk.

 9           I'd like now to introduce Dr. Melanie Marty of

10   the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, who

11   will discuss some of the health impacts related to

12   exposure to hexavalent chromium.

13                              --o0o--


15   MANAGER MARTY:   Good morning, members of the Board.

16           There.     Now I'm on.

17           Good morning.    I just wanted to go over a few

18   things about hexavalent chromium to put it into

19   perspective why people are concerned about exposures.

20           Hexavalent chromium is a known human carcinogen.

21   It's been declared as such since at least 1980 by the

22   International Agency for Research on Cancer, U.S. EPA and

23   our National Toxicology Program all consider hexavalent

24   chromium to be a human carcinogen.     It's also carcinogenic

25   in animals.   There are literally dozens of worker studies

 1   that have shown over the years high risks of lung

 2   cancer -- and this is going back into the forties and with

 3   case reports back in the thirties -- in the chromate

 4   production, chrome pigment and chrome plating industries.

 5   This is a very carcinogen in humans.    It causes genetic

 6   damage.   In other words it damages your DNA.   And that's

 7   been shown in many studies.

 8                               --o0o--


10   MANAGER MARTY:   In addition to being a carcinogen,

11   Chromium 6 also has other toxicity.    It is an immune

12   sensitizer, which means it causes workers to become

13   allergic.   So there are health effects in workers related

14   to dermatitis, which is some allergic reaction on your

15   skin.   It's also a known occupational asthma hazard.     So

16   individuals who become sensitized can then have allergic

17   asthma in response to exposure to hexavalent chromium.

18             It also increases the risk of noncancer

19   respiratory disease in workers, in putting measured

20   decreases in lung function, and damage to the lining of

21   the nose and the airways.

22                               --o0o--


24   MANAGER MARTY:   This table is meant to portray the potency

25   of hexavalent chromium in relation to other toxic air

 1   contaminants that have been identified by the Board.      If

 2   you assign hexavalent chromium a potency of 1 -- a

 3   relative potency of 1, you can see that there's only one

 4   other TAC so far identified by the Board that is more

 5   potent than hexavalent chromium as a carcinogen.    And that

 6   is the dioxin and the whole class of chlorinated dioxins

 7   and furans.

 8           Cadmium is the next one down.     And it's, you

 9   know, only 3 percent of the potency basically of

10   hexavalent chromium.

11           A number of those, by the way, are known human

12   carcinogens.

13                               --o0o--


15   MANAGER MARTY:    The cancer potency factor that's been in

16   use for CalEPA, including ARB, was generated by CalEPA's

17   Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment -- this

18   was back when we were in the Department of Health

19   Services -- using human studies.

20           We have kept our finger on the pulse in part

21   because our drinking water program is very involved in

22   looking at hexavalent chromium.    And so we have kept pace

23   with the new human studies.    These studies have reinforced

24   the status of hexavalent chromium as a potent human

25   carcinogen.    In using the most recent study, that has very

 1   good exposure data -- that study is by Gibb and

 2   colleagues -- we have looked at those data, looked again

 3   at the potency, and it supports the potency we're already

 4   using.   You can use different models with those data, and

 5   you get maybe a little under or a little over the existing

 6   potency, but it does support.    The use of that number is a

 7   good -- it's a good number.

 8            And that's it for me.

 9            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you very much.

10            AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:    Thank you, Dr.

11   Marty.

12                               --o0o--


14   identification of hexavalent chromium as a toxic air

15   contaminant, airborne toxic control measures, or ATCMs,

16   were adopted to reduce emissions from many sources.

17            Air districts are required by law to implement

18   the ATCMs and can also adopt rules that are more

19   stringent.    This was the case when the South Coast Air

20   Quality Management District amended their Rule 1469 to

21   further reduce emissions and exposure from chromium

22   operations.

23                               --o0o--

24            AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:    Because of our

25   regulations, the regional risk from hexavalent chromium

 1   has been significantly reduced.     Ambient levels have

 2   declined by about 70 percent.     These levels continue to be

 3   stable and low.    Emissions from chromium plating and

 4   chromic acid anodizing facilities do not contribute

 5   significantly to ambient concentrations and regional

 6   health risks.

 7                               --o0o--

 8              AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:   However,

 9   near-source risk is still of concern.     As a result of the

10   existing ATCM, emissions from some plating and anodizing

11   facilities have been controlled by 95 percent and other

12   facilities have controlled emissions by 99 percent.       Other

13   air district rules or policies have also required further

14   control.

15              Even with these reductions, 30 percent of the

16   facilities currently have estimated cancer risk of greater

17   than or equal to 10 in a million.     The focus of the staff

18   proposal today is to address these near-source risks.

19                               --o0o--

20              AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:   The next few

21   slides describe the chrome plating and anodizing

22   facilities in California.

23              First of all, there are three processes as shown

24   on the slide.   Each of these processes requires parts to

25   be placed in a tank containing a chromium solution.

 1   During chrome plating when electrical current is applied

 2   to the solution, the chromium deposits on to the part.

 3   Thus the part is plated.

 4           During the electrolysis bubbles are produced.

 5   When they burst at the surface, a fine mist containing

 6   hexavalent chromium is emitted.

 7                              --o0o--

 8           AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:    The difference

 9   between hard and decorative plating is the thickness of

10   the deposit.

11           Hard chrome plating provides a relatively thick

12   layer of corrosion protection which is accomplished by

13   plating for very long periods of time.

14           Decorative chrome plating provides a thin layer.

15   And as shown on the slide, a typical application is a

16   shiny chrome-plated wheel.

17           The chromic acid anodizing process seals the

18   parts, providing corrosion and abrasion resistance.

19                              --o0o--

20           AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:    This slide shows

21   the distribution of the various chrome plating facilities.

22                              --o0o--

23           AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:    The next slide

24   shows a chrome plating tank.   To plate parts, they are

25   hung from the bar shown in the picture and immersed in the

 1   solution of chromium.    When electricity is supplied to the

 2   tank, the chromium and the solution deposits on to the

 3   part.

 4                               --o0o--

 5           AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:     In 2003 our

 6   survey identified 220 hexavalent chromium plating and

 7   anodizing facilities and 10 decorative chrome plating

 8   facilities using the trivalent chromium process.   About

 9   half of these businesses are small, with gross annual

10   revenue less than or equal to $1 million.   75 percent are

11   located in the South Coast Air District.

12                               --o0o--

13           AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:     Emissions are

14   calculated using an emission factor and multiplying by

15   amp-hours, which is a measure of throughput.   An amp-hour

16   is the amount of current applied to the tank over time.

17   Therefore, as amp-hours increase, emissions increase.

18           There is a wide distribution in facility size

19   based on throughput.    This can be seen in the next slide.

20                               --o0o--

21           AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:     Over 20 percent

22   of the facilities are small, with less than or equal to

23   20,000 annual amp-hours.    About 30 percent of facilities

24   have annual amp-hours of over 1 million.    Some of the

25   largest facilities have over 10 million amp-hours per

 1   year.

 2                              --o0o--

 3            AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:   Many control

 4   methods are currently used to comply with the existing

 5   ATCM.   Most decorative plating operations use in-tank

 6   controls, including chemical fume suppressants.    These are

 7   chemicals that reduce chromium emissions by reducing the

 8   surface tension of the solution.

 9            The picture shows a tank which is using polyballs

10   as part of the emission control.

11                              --o0o--

12            AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:   For most hard

13   chromium plating facilities add-on controls are required.

14   Some of the controls are listed on the slide.    Generally

15   these types of controls are more efficient at reducing

16   emissions than are in-tank controls alone.     Some districts

17   have required add-on controls to reduce emissions from

18   larger decorative chrome plating facilities.

19            HEPA filters, among the most common form of

20   add-on controls, have been shown to control emissions by

21   99.97 percent.   Many facilities use a combination of

22   in-tank and add-on controls to reduce emissions.

23                              --o0o--

24            AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:   Based on our

25   review of control technologies, we are redefining best

 1   available control technology, or BACT, for this industry.

 2              For intermediate and large facilities staff

 3   believes BACT is use of HEPA filtration devices or other

 4   controls which achieve an emission rate equivalent to HEPA

 5   systems.

 6              Large facilities with higher risk would be

 7   required to use effective add-on controls to meet the

 8   emission rate.

 9              For small facilities that can achieve lower risk

10   levels with less efficient control methods, staff believes

11   BACT can be met through the use of specific chemical fume

12   suppressant which reduces emissions to .01 milligram per

13   amp-hour.

14                               --o0o--

15              AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:   We have

16   determined that there is a need for further control based

17   on factors shown here.   In general, these sources have

18   elevated exposures, are located close to sensitive

19   receptors, and are located within communities.    In

20   addition, BACT can significantly reduce risk.

21                               --o0o--

22              AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:   As mentioned,

23   staff believes further control is warranted because the

24   remaining cancer risk near many facilities is elevated.

25   As the table shows, about 30 percent of the facilities

 1   have cancer risk greater than 10 per million exposed

 2   people and another 30 percent have risk between 1 and 10

 3   per million people exposed.

 4              Although not shown, 40 percent of facilities have

 5   estimated cancer risks of less than 1 per million people

 6   exposed.

 7              These numbers do not account for potential

 8   fugitive emissions which, as we learned from our Barrio

 9   Logan study, can be quite high.

10                               --o0o--

11              AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:   Now I'd like to

12   summarize the proposed amendments, which are designed to

13   reduce these remaining near-source cancer risk.

14                               --o0o--

15              AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:   In accordance

16   with state law, the proposal would require BACT for all

17   facilities.    By applying BACT, near-source risk for about

18   90 facilities would be reduced by up to 85 percent.

19   Overall cancer risks for over the 90 percent of the

20   facilities would be below 10 per million people exposed.

21              The proposal would also reduce exposure and risk

22   from new facilities by not allowing new operations in

23   communities.

24              Because we've learned that fugitive emissions

25   also impact communities, housekeeping requirements would

 1   reduce dust.

 2                              --o0o--

 3             AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:   This table shows

 4   the proposed emission limits.   As you can see, the

 5   effective date of the requirements take into account

 6   emission potentials and proximity to sensitive receptors.

 7             To prevent the operation of new hexavalent

 8   chromium and anodizing facilities near sensitive

 9   receptors, the proposal would prohibit operation of these

10   new facilities in any area zoned residential or mixed use

11   or within 150 meters from the boundary of any such area.

12             As you will see when we discuss modifications, we

13   are proposing to increase this distance to 300 meters,

14   which would be consistent with ARB's land-use guidelines.

15                              --o0o--

16             AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:   We are also

17   proposing housekeeping measures to control dust emissions

18   and a training requirement to assure continuous

19   compliance.

20             We are also proposing to prohibit the sale or use

21   of chromium plating and anodizing kits by untrained

22   people.   We have seen these kits for sale on the Internet

23   and in catalogs.

24                              --o0o--

25             AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:   Facilities

 1   complying with chemical fume suppressants would be

 2   required to use one or more of the products listed here.

 3                             --o0o--

 4           AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:    Staff has

 5   proposed modified and new definitions.    We would like to

 6   highlight the definition of sensitive receptor.    This

 7   includes any residence, educational resources, day care

 8   centers and health care facilities.   This is consistent

 9   with the thermal spring ATCM definition already approved

10   by the Board.

11           There's also an organizational change which would

12   renumber the ATCM.

13                             --o0o--

14           AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:    No substantial

15   changes are proposed for the sections listed here.

16           In addition, the appendices would be contained in

17   new section 93102.16.

18                             --o0o--

19           AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:    The next few

20   slides outline the benefits and impacts of the staff's

21   proposal.

22                             --o0o--

23           AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:    The greatest

24   benefit from adoption of the proposal would be a

25   significant reduction in near-source cancer risk.    Note

 1   that no facilities would have cancer risk over 100.     Also

 2   by applying BACT an additional 46 facilities would have

 3   reduced cancer risk to below 10 per million people

 4   exposed.

 5              Only six facilities would have estimated cancer

 6   risk of over 25 per million exposed people.    These

 7   facilities would be required to conduct a site-specific

 8   analysis to determine if further measures to reduce risk

 9   are necessary.

10              Seventy-four percent, or 162 facilities, would

11   have estimated cancer risk of less than or equal to 1 per

12   million exposed people.    This is an increase of 72

13   facilities compared to the current status.

14              Overall, out of 220 facilities, 203 or, 92

15   percent, would have estimated cancer risk of less than or

16   equal to 10 per million exposed people.

17              Fugitive emissions that would be reduced through

18   housekeeping measures are not included in these health

19   risk numbers.

20                               --o0o--

21              AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:   Because many of

22   the facilities are located in low-income and ethnically

23   diverse neighborhoods, these communities would realize a

24   significant benefit from implementation of the proposal.

25                               --o0o--

 1           AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:    We did not

 2   identify any significant adverse environmental impacts

 3   that would occur from adoption of the proposed amendments.

 4                             --o0o--

 5           AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:   The total cost

 6   of the proposal is estimated to be $14.2 million.   Of this

 7   amount, capital costs are estimated to be $9.6 million.

 8   Ongoing costs of $3.6 million are also estimated.

 9           Next slide please.

10                             --o0o--

11           AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:   These costs are

12   associated with, for example, filter replacement and

13   disposal, chemical fume suppressant use and electrical

14   uses to operate the equipment.

15           Reporting, source testing, permit renewal, et

16   cetera, costs are estimated to be $1 million.

17                             --o0o--

18           AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:   This slide shows

19   estimated individual facility costs.   Note that 60 percent

20   of the facilities are in substantial compliance and after

21   the first year would have no new costs.

22           Costs for facilities installing add-on control

23   devices ranges from about 45,000 to 215,000 per year.

24   Intermediate size facilities successfully complying

25   without add-on controls would have initial cost of about

 1   $10,000, with ongoing costs related to chemical fume

 2   suppressants of between 100 to $200.

 3              Average initial cost for a small facility using

 4   chemical fume suppressants would be about $2,000 in the

 5   first year only.    After the first year, costs would be

 6   about $100 for chemical fume suppressants.

 7              Average initial costs for a facility in

 8   substantial compliance would be about $5,000.

 9                               --o0o--

10              AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:   While we

11   estimate the average profitability impacts for the

12   industry would not be significant, costs for some

13   individual businesses are expected to be significant and

14   may adversely impact their profitability.

15              Our cost analysis estimated that return of

16   owner's equity for some businesses may decline by up to 41

17   percent.    Return on owner's equity is a measure of

18   profitability.

19              Some of these businesses may be able to secure

20   the necessary capital by participating in the loan

21   guarantee program.

22                               --o0o--

23              AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:   Next I would

24   like to apprise you of several key issues.     We will be

25   discussing our responses to the issues after the

 1   testimony, if necessary.

 2                              --o0o--

 3           AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:     Comments have

 4   been received that the cost of the proposal is high, while

 5   emissions from plating and anodizing are low, about four

 6   pounds per year.

 7           Staff acknowledges that the costs are high.       But

 8   these businesses are located in communities and, to

 9   protect these neighborhoods, require costly controls.

10                              --o0o--

11           AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:     We've had

12   comments related to the emission control approach.      These

13   include that the provisions of South Coast AQMD Rule 1469

14   should be adopted statewide.   We do not think this rule is

15   as prospective as our proposal because BACT is not

16   required for all facilities.

17           We've also been asked to provide flexibility for

18   facilities with over 200,000 amp-hours to meet the

19   emission rate without add-on controls.

20           In contrast to this, we've also been asked to

21   require HEPA filters for all facilities because these are

22   the most reliable control technologies.

23           We believe the proposal provides a good balance

24   between cost of control and health risks.   Facilities

25   which present the highest risk should have the most

 1   effective controls with operating parameters that are easy

 2   to monitor.   We also believe providing flexibility for

 3   smaller facilities is appropriate because of their lower

 4   risk.

 5                               --o0o--

 6             AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:    We've received

 7   comments that use of the trivalent chromium should be

 8   required for decorative chrome platers.     We evaluated this

 9   approach and have determined that it is not yet feasible

10   for all applications.

11             Comments have been received that the ATCM should

12   address situations where people are allowed to move in

13   close to plating facilities and that cumulative impacts

14   should be addressed.    Our proposal is designed to reduce

15   emissions to the extent technology allows.     We are hopeful

16   that the land-use guidance document will prevent the

17   situations where zoning changes allow siting of residences

18   near plating operations.    With regard to cumulative

19   impacts, no methodology has yet been worked out to address

20   these situations.

21             To be consistent with the land-use guidance we've

22   been asked to extend the separation requirement for new

23   facilities to 300 meters.    We agree and are proposing this

24   change.

25                               --o0o--

 1           AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:     We are proposing

 2   some modifications to our proposal.

 3                              --o0o--

 4           AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:     This slide shows

 5   some of our proposed modifications.   Of note is that we

 6   are now proposing that the separation distance for new

 7   facilities be increased from 150 meters to 300 meters.

 8   This would be consistent with the earlier land-use

 9   guidance.   As a further measure of protection we are

10   proposing that new facilities could now operate within 300

11   meters -- could not operate within 300 meters of a school

12   or a school under construction.

13           Also the separation requirements for new

14   trivalent chromium facilities is proposed for deletion

15   because it is not a carcinogen.   Instead trivalent

16   chromium facilities would be required to do a facility

17   site-specific risk analysis.

18           We are also clarifying that compliance training

19   would be required for the owner or a current employee.

20                              --o0o--

21           AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:     For facilities

22   currently using chemical fume suppressants to comply we

23   are proposing that within six months after the rule

24   becomes effective that these facilities must begin using

25   the specified chemical fume suppressants.

 1                              --o0o--

 2            AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:     This slide shows

 3   some additional modifications.   Most of these are to

 4   further clarify various provisions.

 5            One clarification would relate to alternatives to

 6   be approved by U.S. EPA.

 7            We are clarifying that the alternative relating

 8   to equivalent emission reductions would only be applicable

 9   for the existing standards in Section 93102.4A.

10                              --o0o--

11            AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI:     Staff's

12   recommendation.

13            We recommend that the Board adopt the proposed

14   amendments with the proposed modifications suggested by

15   staff.

16            Thank you.   This concludes my presentation.    We

17   would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

18            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you.

19            At this time would the representative of the

20   Ombudsman's office please describe the public

21   participation process that occurred while this item was

22   being developed and share any concerns or comments you may

23   have with the Board at this time.

24            BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE:     Yeah, could I ask a --

25            ACTING OMBUDSMAN FERREIRA:     Dr. Sawyer and

 1   members of the Board.

 2              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Mayor Loveridge.

 3              BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE:   You mentioned something

 4   about a Barrio Logan study.      Could you expand on that a

 5   little bit.   It seemed to be important, but maybe I just

 6   missed it in the presentation.     But what was --


 8   Barrio Logan study was -- this is Carla Takemoto, by the

 9   way.

10              The Barrio Logan study was a air monitoring study

11   that we conducted in a neighborhood in San Diego.     And

12   there were community concerns about the location of some

13   plating shops in relation to where residences were

14   located.    And what we found in this study is that

15   emissions from a decorative chrome plating shop exceeded

16   what we would have expected if our emission rate and our

17   emission factor for decorative plating facilities was

18   correct.    And as a result of this study we began an

19   evaluation of our own control measure to make sure that it

20   continued to provide the needed health protection.      And

21   those findings were very important to us in this

22   evaluation.

23              BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE:   What kind of distances

24   were involved?


 1   we had a situation where we had a residence located

 2   directly between two plating shops, such that I would say

 3   that the distance between the residence and the plating

 4   shop was maybe 25 meters.   And then on the other side of

 5   the residence was a hard chrome plating operation that was

 6   controlled with a HEPA filtration system.

 7            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   We will be returning to the

 8   Board members for questions following the Ombudsman's

 9   statement.

10            ACTING OMBUDSMAN FERREIRA:   Dr. Sawyer and

11   members of the Board.   To develop this regulation staff

12   has worked with the chromium plating and anodizing

13   industry by contacting businesses individually.   They also

14   worked with two industry associations Metal Finishing

15   Association of Southern California and Surface Technology

16   Association.   Additionally staff contacted manufacturers

17   of chromium plating kits and chemical suppliers to the

18   plating industry.

19            The first stakeholder meeting was held in January

20   2002.   The first draft regulatory concepts were shared

21   with stakeholders at the May 2006 workshops.   The initial

22   draft of the regulation was posted on the website on June

23   7th and stakeholders were notified through a list serve.

24            There were four public workshops.   The first

25   workshop was held on June 27th, the second on June 30th,

 1   the third on August 21st, and the fourth on August 23rd.

 2   Staff also held nine workshops -- I'm sorry -- nine

 3   stakeholder meetings.

 4           The workshops and the work groups were held in

 5   multiple areas of the state to ensure that all

 6   stakeholders had an opportunity to participate.   On

 7   average, 20 to 30 stakeholders attended the meetings.

 8   Generally the attendance was higher in southern California

 9   than northern California.

10           Staff also had seven conference calls with air

11   districts, environmental groups, and the industry

12   associations.

13           Emissions testing was conducted in South Coast,

14   San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento Metro, and Shasta County

15   Air Districts.

16           Over the course of the emissions testing program,

17   from 2003 to 2006, protocols for source testing and source

18   test reports were posted to the web for comments.   The

19   source tests for Phase 1 of the emissions testing program

20   was conducted in the South Coast Air Basin during 2003

21   through April 2003 -- I'm sorry -- January 2003 through

22   April 2003.

23           Phase 2 of the testing program required

24   development of a new protocol.   Because of this staff

25   sought stakeholder input on each test report.

 1              The Phase 2 source tests were conducted in

 2   Sacramento, San Joaquin Valley and Shasta County.         All

 3   reports of the source tests were also posted to our

 4   website.     The staff report was released on August 11,

 5   2006.    It was noticed on the website on August 10, 2006.

 6              The hearing notice and staff report were also

 7   sent to our mailing list.       Nearly 400 stakeholders

 8   received the information through the mail, and

 9   approximately 450 received the information via the list

10   serve.

11              This concludes my comments.

12              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you.

13              Do any of the Board members have questions at

14   this time?

15              BOARD MEMBER BERG:    I'll save mine.

16              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Okay.   No?

17              Dr. Gong?

18              BOARD MEMBER GONG:    I'd just like to preface

19   this.    I'm looking forward to the discussion period as

20   well.

21              My initial reading of the staff paper was I think

22   very favorable.     I was very disappointed in one aspect of

23   the staff paper in that it did not call attention to the

24   air quality and land use handbook that was published in

25   April of last year.     Perhaps I have a little bias in that

 1   because I sort of helped with that development.    But I

 2   think that's very important, because the chromium issue

 3   was certainly one of the pivotal events pointed out in

 4   that particular document.

 5           And I realize it's only recommendations.    But I

 6   think as an organization, as a public health entity, in

 7   essence, we need to be consistent in our numbers.   And I'm

 8   very happy that you made it consistent with your

 9   modifications today.

10           And I think I'll just hold with that.     Thank you.

11           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Ms. Berg.

12           BOARD MEMBER BERG:    Thank you.

13           I just have a couple of questions to start out

14   with.

15           On slide number 37, you indicated that 60 percent

16   of the facilities are in substantial compliance.    I was

17   wondering if those facilities are in a specific area.

18   And, secondly, what circumstances brought them under

19   compliance?


21   Carla Takemoto.

22           The facilities are distributed in various parts

23   of the state where -- the air districts that do have

24   plating shops that are in substantial compliance.    The

25   facilities are in substantial compliance for a number of

 1   reasons.    Among them is that to comply with the current

 2   ATCM requirements, many facilities already were required

 3   to install add-on controls and reduce their emissions

 4   significantly.    And there are a number of facilities with

 5   add-on controls are already -- that are fully complying

 6   with the regulation.

 7              There are additionally a number of small

 8   facilities that are already using chemical fume

 9   suppressants and the chemical fume suppressants that we

10   would specify for use here.     And, again, use of those

11   chemical fume suppressants has already been required by

12   the current ATCM.

13              There are other situations where air district

14   rules have required controls beyond the ATCM.    So there

15   are a variety of reasons that businesses are in

16   substantial compliance.

17              BOARD MEMBER BERG:   So of the 40 percent that are

18   left, are they not following the current rules, or were

19   they under the -- were they excepted -- were they

20   exceptions from the current rule?


22   current rule allows different levels of control depending

23   on emissions.    So the 40 percent of facilities we feel are

24   in compliance with the existing ATCM.    We have just

25   determined that by application of BACT that we will be

 1   able to further reduce the risk of those facilities

 2   because there are technologies that allow us to further

 3   reduce the risks.

 4           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:   Mrs. Berg, I'd

 5   also say that we're dropping the threshold at which each

 6   level of BACT applies.   So this proposal's more stringent

 7   than the one on the books.

 8           BOARD MEMBER BERG:    But the 60 percent that are

 9   of substantial compliance, that will not cost them any

10   additional --

11           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:   That's correct.

12   It's taking the other 40 percent and adding new costs to

13   them.

14           BOARD MEMBER BERG:    And that 40 percent will be

15   the ones that will be absorbing that 14 -- the number that

16   you put in your proposal?



19   shoulder the bulk of those costs, that's correct.

20           BOARD MEMBER BERG:    A majority of those are small

21   businesses?


23   of them are small businesses, but it's probably about an

24   even split with businesses that are not small businesses

25   that would also shoulder some of those costs.

 1              BOARD MEMBER BERG:   Okay.   And I'm confused,

 2   since -- and I'm in full agreement that hexavalent

 3   chromium chromate is a toxic chemical known.     I'm confused

 4   as to why the Toxic Hot Spot is not handling some of this

 5   problem.


 7   that we have found from the facilities as we began our

 8   evaluation here already considered that the "Hot Spots"

 9   Program was fully implemented in the state.     So even with

10   the "Hot Spots" Program we found that there was a general

11   residual risk from these facilities which we could address

12   by requiring BACT.

13              EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:   Mrs. Berg, I

14   think there's two answers to that question.     First of all,

15   the "Hot Spots" Program does not impose a specific

16   outcome.    It says if you're over 10-in-a-million risk,

17   that you must come up with a plan to reduce those risks,

18   but not to what level.   So that's been a decision to be

19   made by each individual air district.

20              And then I also think that our work in Barrio

21   Logan and our source testing elsewhere has revealed to us

22   that the amount of control we thought we were getting from

23   the prior chrome rule in near-source applications was not

24   correct.    That because of issues with operating and

25   maintenance, because of fugitive emissions, you're going

 1   to have far more reliable control with a HEPA filter,

 2   which is why we're proposing that for the biggest chrome

 3   users today.

 4            So it's been a combination of policy decisions

 5   made at the local level, and not quite enough rigor in the

 6   existing chrome rule to produce the desired result.

 7            BOARD MEMBER BERG:    Do I understand that fume

 8   suppressant is as effective as HEPA filters if it is

 9   implemented properly?

10            EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:    That's a big

11   "if".   But --

12            BOARD MEMBER BERG:    But just given -- you know, I

13   guess I -- if fume suppressant is implemented properly, is

14   it as effective as HEPA filters?


16   say that use of a chemical fume suppressant alone is not

17   equivalent to a HEPA filler.   In fact, we would find that

18   it's about an order of magnitude better control with a

19   HEPA filter system.

20            We have looked at one source test result where a

21   combination of maybe two types of chemical fume

22   suppressants along with what is called polyballs --

23   they're sort of like ping pong balls that you place across

24   the top of the tank.    In this one source test they did

25   achieve a very low emission rate, which was in the same

 1   ballpark as we would expect with a HEPA filter system.

 2   And so that's -- based on sort of that combination of

 3   controls as why we're providing that flexibility for the

 4   medium-sized facilities.

 5              BOARD MEMBER BERG:   And that would be for

 6   everybody under the 200 amp-hours -- 200,000 amp-hours?


 8   correct.

 9              BOARD MEMBER BERG:   Okay.    And, finally, who's

10   doing the training for -- we're requiring an owner or an

11   employee to attend some training.       Who's doing that

12   training?


14   already have an ARB training class designed to do this

15   type of training.    So it would be an ARB-conducted class.

16   However, the South Coast has a training class as well that

17   would suffice.

18              BOARD MEMBER BERG:   Is there any OSHA data that

19   suggests that plating employees suffer more long-term

20   health effects, do you know?


22   MANAGER MARTY:    Yes.

23              BOARD MEMBER BERG:   Yes?


25   MANAGER MARTY:    Yes.

 1            BOARD MEMBER BERG:    Okay.   Thank you.

 2            Thank you very much.

 3            BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS:   You know, since you've

 4   used Barrio Logan as an example, would you complete the

 5   story so my colleagues will know what the ending was with

 6   that.   I don't want them having heartburn over this.


 8   guess the short answer to that is that the decorative

 9   chrome plating shop was closed down.

10            BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS:   By the APCD in San Diego.

11            (Laughter.)

12            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you, Mayor Roberts,

13   for asking that question.

14            Are there other Board questions?


16   HEPA-equipped facility was allowed to continue operation

17   as not posing --

18            BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS:    Because it didn't pose a

19   risk there.

20            EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:     -- a significant

21   risk to the adjacent neighbors, even though they were

22   very, very close.

23            BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS:   Yeah.    And you all should

24   understand, this is one of those very old communities

25   where it's hard to even understand the history of whether

 1   the industrial came first or -- it's on the edge of the

 2   port in a very industrial area, and there's been

 3   encroachments of housing into the industrial and

 4   industrial into the housing.   So it was an inherited

 5   issue.   And I think the work of the ARB staff along with

 6   the APCD, Air Pollution Control District, staff is to be

 7   commended.

 8            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Mayor Loveridge.

 9            BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE:    Good to hear the end of

10   the story.

11            The other -- quick question.    We have this letter

12   from Caswell Electroplating in Miniature.    I take it our

13   current rules as we're proposing would essentially say no

14   to these kits?


16   the proposal before you today, yes.

17            BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE:    And the reason for that

18   is there's --


20   these kits are sold to do-it-yourselfers that may have

21   this little plating bath setup in their garage.    And their

22   really is little to no oversight of the emissions or

23   controlling that type of process.

24            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Dr. Gong.

25            BOARD MEMBER GONG:    Okay.   I'm warming up now.

 1           (Laughter.)

 2           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Need a filter.   I thought no

 3   one was going to say anything.   Here they come.

 4           But a couple things.     One is clarification on

 5   Table 33, Near-Source Cancer Risk Reduction.

 6           I just wanted to be clear in my mind what you're

 7   saying with that, with the risk greater than 10 in a

 8   million, before and after, 63 and then 17.

 9           Does that mean that there are still 17 facilities

10   who have a risk greater than 10 in a million even with the

11   staff proposal?


13   that's what that -- that's what the information says.

14           BOARD MEMBER GONG:    As was said.   How is that

15   possible?


17           BOARD MEMBER GONG:    I mean how did -- shouldn't

18   they all be in compliance?


20   they would be in full compliance.   But the situation -- as

21   you'll recall, we kind of talked about that emissions are

22   related to throughput and that's amp-hours.     So eventually

23   a facility is going to operate so many amp-hours that,

24   even with having the most stringent control, that they

25   will exceed the risk threshold of 10 per million.    And

 1   that's just based on the size, how much plating they do.

 2           BOARD MEMBER GONG:   So it goes in cycles in a

 3   sense or --


 5           BOARD MEMBER GONG:   Cycles of plating.


 7   would be the emissions over the course of a year would

 8   lead to a cancer risk in excess of 10.


10   Gong, we -- this is Bob Fletcher -- we also have a

11   provision in the regulation for facilities that emit more

12   than a specified level.   I think that's 15 grams.   Then we

13   require them to do a site-specific risk analysis, so

14   that -- for these very large facilities we want to make

15   sure that the districts have the right data.   There will

16   be site-specific considerations to take into account in

17   that case to determine whether any additional risk

18   reduction is appropriate.

19           BOARD MEMBER GONG:   So are you saying you'll

20   pre-identify some of these potentially large output

21   units and --


23           They'll be identified as part of the compliance

24   process, yes.

25           BOARD MEMBER GONG:   All right.   So you're just

 1   using a placeholder a 17 here, is that -- I don't --


 3              DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE:    And this is

 4   the risks that's next to the facility.     There may or may

 5   not be a residential or a sensitive receptor there.       So

 6   through this process we'll find out exactly how many

 7   people are exposed in these situations and what more might

 8   be done about it.

 9              BOARD MEMBER GONG:   So this could be 0 or a 5,

10   for that matter?

11              DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE:     It will be a

12   number less than 17.   We don't know yet exactly what it

13   will be.

14              BOARD MEMBER GONG:   Okay.   Interesting how you

15   did that.   I didn't -- okay.

16              Barrio Logan.   Interesting story.

17              My question is:   How typical is Barrio Logan?      Or

18   can you call it typical?     I guess it's what you would call

19   a worst-case scenario.     But do you see many of these

20   throughout the state anymore?

21              We're using it, for example, in the land-use

22   booklet and even now in the staff paper as an example, as

23   a poster child or something.    But -- because ARB has done

24   a study of it and obviously we have data.       But what does

25   it represent, in a sense of, is it typical, is it what

 1   we're --


 3   think in terms of proximity to sensitive receptors, the

 4   Barrio Logan situation was not that unusual.     We have

 5   found that of the current facilities there's over 40

 6   percent of them that have a sensitive receptor within a

 7   100 meters.

 8              We have also found that this particular plating

 9   shop probably was not doing very good housekeeping

10   measures, so fugitive emissions probably played a large

11   impact on the emissions from the facility.

12              But the Barrio Logan experience is just one

13   supporting piece of information from our proposal.       It's

14   not the -- it's not really the basis of our proposal.

15              BOARD MEMBER GONG:   Okay.   Slide 36, Cost

16   Impacts.    This is the business end of the cost impacts.

17              I would also advise staff and the Board that

18   there are also health impacts that are not tallied up in

19   your slide.   And I'm sure OEHHA can provide numbers if

20   necessary.    But obviously, if we're trying to protect

21   public health and avoid certain cancers, et cetera, and

22   noncancer endpoints, there are costs associated with that,

23   as I well know.

24              So I think you're looking at one side of the

25   equation.    But there's also another, again, health

 1   economics side of the equation as well, and we should not

 2   overlook that in our decision making.

 3           And the last point I'd just like to bring up is,

 4   I'm still in a quandary as to receptors -- sensitive

 5   receptors moving in closer to a chromium facility.    What

 6   assurances do I have that these people, through no fault

 7   of their own necessarily, and, for that matter, no fault

 8   of the chromium factory -- how do we try to protect public

 9   health in that situation?    Are there regs or anything like

10   that that we can use or lean on?   Because, again,

11   preexisting plants, receptors moving in because the land

12   is cheaper there, et cetera -- whatever -- poor land use

13   decision making by powers to be.


15   think we've tried to address this issue to the extent

16   possible.   And we believe that we're addressing it

17   partially by requiring emissions to be reduced to as low

18   as technology allows.

19           We also are dealing with new facilities by not

20   allowing them to operate in any such area where there

21   would be a school or residence, things like that.

22           And we also think that the land-use guidance

23   handbook will be helpful in this area, such that

24   situations that we see today will not occur again.

25           BOARD MEMBER GONG:    Thank you for your comments.

 1   I'm sure some of these challenges will be commented on

 2   during a subsequent period.

 3           Thank you.

 4           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Supervisor DeSaulnier.

 5           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:    Thank you, Mr.

 6   Chairman.

 7           Maybe I'm imagining this, but I'm hearing either

 8   a slight contradiction between the staff report and your

 9   comments today in regards to best available control

10   measure for the smaller facility.   So, in the staff report

11   it says that the high efficiency particulate arrester you

12   can reach the same equivalence with chemical fume

13   suppressants for the smaller facilities.   But then today,

14   at least what I heard, was less of an equivocation, that

15   the HEPA is just -- that's best available control

16   technology, period.

17           So the question for me would be:   Why not just

18   require that for all of the facilities?


20   have tiers of requirements, and those are pretty much

21   related to risk from the facilities.   And what we've found

22   for small facilities, that we can reduce their risk to

23   very low levels by using a cheaper technology, such as a

24   chemical fume suppressant.

25           However, as facilities grow in terms of

 1   throughput and emissions, you reach a level where the

 2   control provided by fume suppressants is not sufficient to

 3   address the risk.    And that's why we would be

 4   considered -- why we would be requiring tighter controls

 5   meeting lower emission rates for facilities with higher

 6   throughput.

 7              BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:   Are we more concerned

 8   with the cost for the smaller operators or is this -- are

 9   we more focused on what is best available control

10   technology or an equivalent?

11              EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:   I would say both.

12   That we are more open to taking a risk with the smaller

13   facilities because their emissions are lower and if

14   something goes wrong or you lose a margin of control,

15   you're still not over a large risk to the adjacent

16   population.   But our greatest confidence is with the HEPA

17   filters.    And so above 200,000 amp-hours we think that

18   really should be the requirement.

19              BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:   Well, not to pick on

20   Ron, but in the case of Barrio Logan, that was a small

21   operation.    Where would that have fit?


23   amp-hours from the plating shop in Barrio Logan probably

24   would have fallen into the intermediate-size facilities,

25   but closer to the bottom range, closer to 20,000 than

 1   closer to 200,000.

 2           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:      And do you have more

 3   problems as a general rule with the smaller operators in

 4   terms of housekeeping -- you used that word -- and

 5   compliance?   As a general rule, just intuitively, having

 6   been here for a long time, that seems to be the case.


 8   there's a pretty wide spectrum.    From the facilities that

 9   we have visited over the course of our evaluation, we see

10   a wide range of varying degrees of cleanliness, and it

11   doesn't necessarily relate to size.


13   think that the facilities that are HEPA controlled though

14   are generally cleaner than the other facilities because

15   they don't have the potential for the fugitive emissions

16   to get out.

17           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:    So do you have an

18   estimate if you just required HEPA for everyone what the

19   consequences would be for business, how many of those

20   facilities might go out of business, how many might be

21   forced to move?   And how difficult is it to move these

22   facilities?


24           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:    Sorry.   For a group

25   that didn't have any questions ten minutes ago --

 1           (Laughter.)

 2           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:    Well, let me just

 3   remind you of the cost differential.   A HEPA device is

 4   going to run 50,000 a year and the fumes depressants are

 5   going to run 10,000 a year.

 6           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:   Understood.     But I'm

 7   trying to get that in the context of --



10   our view was the smaller facilities have much lower levels

11   of businesses and revenue, that it would be -- that the

12   smaller you get, it gets much, much more difficult to

13   generate enough income so that as a business to say, "I

14   can put that control on and still be viable."

15           So we kind of did a balancing act.   We believe

16   that HEPA day in and day out, year after year, is much

17   more effective than the emission standard.   And we've

18   got -- we've seen multiple source test data to show that.

19   That the in-tank technologies can perform well.    It

20   involves some more risks.   But for the smaller facilities,

21   since their base emission rate is much, much lower, we can

22   still achieve very low risk levels.

23           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:   I understand.    I

24   appreciate what you're trying to do.   As a small business

25   owner, I know what you're trying to do.   But in the other

 1   case I think we're trying to balance that, as you have,

 2   versus the health risks to environmental justice

 3   community.

 4           DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE:     And, quite

 5   frankly, with chrome, we view chrome as a very, very

 6   threatening toxic contaminant that needs to be handled

 7   extremely carefully, if at all, in communities.    We

 8   probably would prefer a situation, as we are proposing for

 9   new facilities, to isolate them from people.    We have a

10   situation where they're adjacent.    So we felt incumbent on

11   us to propose the best control that we could get to get

12   risks reduced as much as possible.     And in some cases we

13   said, you know what, the risk is very low, so maybe we can

14   get by with a somewhat lesser level.

15           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:     Just one last question.

16           How difficult would it be to move some of these

17   facilities?   And have some of them moved?

18           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:     I think more

19   likely they'd consolidate, you know, so that you would

20   have one of the larger players putting in the HEPA and

21   taking the business, and the smaller ones would fall away.

22   And the lamp shops that chrome, you know, the base of the

23   lamp, in the back; and if not their main business, would

24   send it out instead of doing it on-site.     And that kind of

25   thing, where it wouldn't be an incidental part of your

 1   business, you'd have to go to a central shop for the

 2   chrome part.


 4   thinking out loud, if we're talking for these smaller

 5   people of 50,000 or $100,000 investment, you can't move

 6   for that amount of money in California.      You just -- you

 7   can't add two rooms to your house.


 9   a comment.

10           There are about 50 facilities that are less than

11   20,000 amp-hours.   So the cost we think would be roughly

12   an additional $5 million capital cost.

13           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:     And most of these, I

14   assume, proportionately are in South Coast?


16           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:     Okay.    Thank you, Mr.

17   Chairman.

18           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Ms. Berg.

19           BOARD MEMBER BERG:    If we're concerned about the

20   17 remaining facilities and that they're out of -- or

21   they're over the 1 in 10 million because of the amount of

22   volume they put through, consolidation would not be the

23   answer; wouldn't that be true?

24           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:       Remote

25   consolidation would be the answer.

 1            BOARD MEMBER BERG:    Yeah, but how many platers

 2   are in the Mojave Desert?     I mean --

 3            EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:    It's going to

 4   be -- economics will drive it depending on where you

 5   ultimately put the line and who stays in business and who

 6   goes out.   But I think consolidation is inherently more

 7   risky.   And of those 17, as Mr. Scheible indicated, some

 8   of them are not immediately adjacent.     It's chrome platers

 9   on an aerodynamic facility -- or aerospace facilities, you

10   know, that kind of thing.   So they might be very far from

11   the fence line.   So it all depends.

12            BOARD MEMBER BERG:    But they're not likely to

13   take outside jobs?

14            EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:    No.   But there

15   could be others where, you know, it's well inside an

16   industrial area, not in light mixed industrial, which is

17   where we're seeing a lot of the chrome platers right now.

18            BOARD MEMBER BERG:    When we first -- when you

19   first started the regulations for this industry, how many

20   facilities were there, in 2000?


22   probably -- back in 1988 we estimated there were probably

23   about twice as many facilities as we have today.    And we

24   think that there are about 220 hexavalent chromium and

25   anodizing facilities today.

 1           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:     And when South

 2   Coast went through its 2003 rule making, I believe they

 3   observed a decline of 20 percent.     But they can testify --

 4   20 to 30 percent -- they could testify to that.

 5           BOARD MEMBER BERG:    And do we feel we're moving

 6   it to somebody else's backyard?

 7           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:     No, I think we're

 8   moving it to a more professional standard, that the price

 9   of doing business in California is to use a HEPA filter.

10   And so that indicates who stays in and who gets out.

11           BOARD MEMBER BERG:    Okay.    Thank you.

12           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Mayor Loveridge.

13           BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE:     Question in ignorance.

14           But is this a technology which is fading away?

15   Is there something taking its place?


17   of the hexavalent chromium process, is that your question,

18   sir?

19           BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE:     Basically.


21   a number of alternative processes that may work for very

22   specific types of applications.   But in terms of their

23   being a general overall replacement for the hexavalent

24   chromium process, we don't believe that there is such a

25   replacement yet.   Although, research continues to go on

 1   and there continues to be improvements in alternative

 2   processes.

 3           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:     Fortunately we're going to

 4   have the opportunity to hear from the affected industry.

 5           Before we do that, I'd like to take a ten-minute

 6   break for our court reporter.     And we'll resume at 20

 7   minutes to 11.

 8           (Thereupon a recess was taken.)

 9           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:     We'll now begin the public

10   testimony.

11           The first three speakers are Jill Whynot, Ed

12   Pupka, and Brian Bateman.

13           And, again, I would remind you that we're at a

14   three-minute limit.

15           (Thereupon an overhead presentation was

16           Presented as follows.)

17           MS. WHYNOT:   Good morning.    My name is Jill

18   Whynot, and I'm very pleased today to present some

19   comments on behalf of the South Coast Air Quality staff.

20           The next slide please.

21                               --o0o--

22           MS. WHYNOT:   We've had a negotiated rule making

23   on the books since May of 2003.    At that time it was the

24   most stringent rule anywhere in the country.    But because

25   of our experience with that rule, we believe that both the

 1   ATCM that's proposed by the staff today and our current

 2   rule can and should be improved.       And what we're offering

 3   is a package that when taken together will not only

 4   provide better public health, but it will also enhance the

 5   current proposal before you today.

 6              Next slide please.

 7                                --o0o--

 8              MS. WHYNOT:   I think the key issue -- and you'll

 9   hear a lot of testimony about it today -- is the fume

10   suppressants versus the add-on controls, or the HEPA

11   filters.    We believe that both approaches can be very

12   effective.

13              Fume suppressants can be 99.5 percent effective

14   in reducing pollution.    It's actually a pollution

15   prevention because the emissions don't get out of the

16   tank.   And it's a volume source.      That's important for a

17   slide I'll show in a moment.

18              The HEPA systems are certified by the

19   manufacturers to be 99.97 percent.       So they are more

20   effective.

21              But either technology has potential problems.

22   They both need consistent operation by trained personnel.

23   And we've found that the HEPA system, you know, potential

24   area of problems there, is it's very dependent on getting

25   the emissions to the collection device.       If they don't get

 1   captured or collected efficiently, then you're going to

 2   have a lower emission reduction.

 3            Next slide please.

 4                              --o0o--

 5            MS. WHYNOT:   This slide is actually from page 72

 6   of the staff report, and it illustrates that the risk

 7   reduction is different from the volume or point source.

 8            Next slide.

 9                              --o0o--

10            MS. WHYNOT:   What we did was we took the same

11   data and just graphed it on a linear scale on the X axis.

12            And then if you can click for me again.

13            You can see that there's a difference.    You get

14   90 percent reduction in the risk from a volume source like

15   a fume suppressant within 100 meters --

16            And next.

17                              --o0o--

18            MS. WHYNOT:   -- and you get 90 percent reduction

19   from a point source at about 180 meters.   So it's just to

20   point out that they behave differently.

21            Next slide please.

22                              --o0o--

23            MS. WHYNOT:   We've put together an attachment to

24   a letter that we provided to the Board members in the

25   staff.   And basically it -- we're suggesting that this be

 1   taken as a package.     The basic difference with the staff

 2   proposal is it gets to the same place or better, but it's

 3   technology neutral.     And it would allow flexibility for

 4   industry, but require them to demonstrate through source

 5   tests.   And with all the other things that we're adding,

 6   we think you can get to the same health protective level

 7   or better with less economic impacts.

 8            We also think that for the larger facilities that

 9   are meeting the most stringent emission level with the

10   maximum technology, that instead of requiring them to go

11   through the very expensive process of an AB 25588, or "Hot

12   Spots" Report, that you let that be the option.    But we

13   also think that they should meet the toughest technology.

14            The third point here, it sounds like the staff

15   has also provided -- an that is as an addition today.

16            Next please.

17                                --o0o--

18            MS. WHYNOT:    Our proposal in general shortens the

19   timelines.   And as your staff has also recommended, that

20   in addition to adding the controls in the interim, if it's

21   not impossible, for technical reasons they should start

22   using fume suppressants.

23            Our proposal also has a backstop.     So if you're

24   not using the best controls and you have three

25   emission-related violations in a five-year period, then

 1   you're required then to step up and do those more

 2   stringent controls.

 3              And also we're suggesting that there needs to be

 4   a lot more enforcement presence.        We're testing, you know,

 5   minimum numbers of inspections at facilities --

 6              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Could you conclude please.

 7              MS. WHYNOT:   Yes.

 8              -- more frequent source tests, record keeping and

 9   training.

10              Next slide.

11                                 --o0o--

12              MS. WHYNOT:   So basically we're requesting that

13   the list of changes that we have provided be considered as

14   part of a 15-day change package.        And if it's not possible

15   to do that, then a 30-day delay would be all that we would

16   request.

17              Thank you very much.

18              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you.

19              Ed Pupka.

20              MR. PUPKA:    Good morning, Dr. Sawyer, Board

21   members.    My name is Edwin Pupka.      I'm a Senior

22   Enforcement Manager for the South Coast Air Quality

23   Management District.

24              (Thereupon an overhead presentation was

25              Presented as follows.)

 1           MR. PUPKA:     In follow-up to my colleague's

 2   presentation on key policy issues as they relate to fume

 3   suppressants and HEPA filtrations, cancer risks and also

 4   the districts's recommendations to improve the State ATCM,

 5   I want to take just a few minutes and bring the Board up

 6   to date on compliance status as it relates to various

 7   metal plating operations in the South Coast Air Basin.

 8           As was previously noted, there are approximately

 9   155 metal platers within our jurisdiction.    That is down

10   from about 173 when our Rule 1469 was amended.   We

11   comprise about 75 percent of the total facilities that are

12   operating statewide.

13           In our May 2003 amendments our governing board

14   took a slightly different approach, one of which you have

15   seen today, that looked not necessarily at setting

16   emission standards based solely on process type but also

17   on the associated health risk as it relates to various

18   impacted receptors within specified distances away from

19   the facility.

20           It also provided for options including

21   alternative compliance needs as well.

22                              --o0o--

23           MR. PUPKA:     Compliance trends with the original

24   Rule 1469 requirements initially were poor.   An audit was

25   conducted by the Air Resources Board -- actually it was

 1   multimedia audit which included air, waste and water --

 2   conducted back in late 1999, showed a compliance rate of

 3   about 22 percent.     Three years later, a significant

 4   improvement, up to 86 percent.    And then since our May

 5   2000 amendments, our rule compliance with the most latest

 6   revisions has been relatively good.

 7            Next slide please.

 8                               --o0o--

 9            MR. PUPKA:    Before you is just a summary of

10   facility compliance data.    Since amendments in May 2003 up

11   into September 1st of this year, our field inspection

12   staff have conducted approximately 1300 inspections at

13   these various metal plating facilities.    Many of them have

14   been visited two, three and four times, depending on their

15   proximity to receptors and also what we're seeing in terms

16   of their compliance trends and challenges.

17            Notice the violations.    Relatively flat and

18   constant.   But we are seeing a significant decrease in the

19   notices to comply that are issued for record keeping,

20   reporting and monitoring.

21            Also, as you will see, very low rates of

22   noncompliance with fume suppressant violations.

23                               --o0o--

24            MR. PUPKA:    In general what we're seeing in the

25   field:   Increased inspection frequency definitely

 1   increases compliance.    Increases in inspection frequency

 2   also speaks to sustained compliance.

 3             As Ms. Whynot pointed out in her presentation,

 4   operator attention counts for both fume suppressants and

 5   also add-on controls.

 6             Challenges that we see in the field:   HEPA

 7   filters can be turned off.    They could even be bypassed or

 8   even replaced with lower efficiency filters.

 9             Fume suppressants similarly are not without their

10   challenges.

11                               --o0o--

12             MR. PUPKA:    Recently one of our inspectors in the

13   field came across this facility that had been relocated

14   within our jurisdiction.    What you see before you is the

15   mist eliminator and also the gauges that show the pressure

16   drop across the equipment.

17             The slide on the right shows the magnehelic

18   gauges.   All of them are at zero.    After speaking with the

19   operator, we learned that a fuse had blown out.    And they

20   had no idea as to how long it had been blown out.       But

21   essentially every piece of that air pollution control

22   device was nonfunctional, including the HEPA filtration

23   system.

24                               --o0o--

25             MR. PUPKA:   This isn't necessarily to say that

 1   the fume suppressants, chemical suppressants are any more

 2   effective than the HEPA filtration system.      What we would

 3   like to leave you with is just to remind you that those

 4   fume suppressants, which you've already testified to,

 5   which are only about a half a percent lower of reduction

 6   in efficiency as HEPA filters, are a pollution-prevention

 7   approach because emissions are minimized before they leave

 8   the tank.

 9              The list of changes that are before you today is

10   meant to be implemented in total.     We believe that it

11   offers flexibility for industry to meet the very stringent

12   emission limits in a technology-neutral fashion while

13   providing the very most protective of health in terms of

14   the ATCM.

15              Thank you.

16              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you very much.

17              Dr. Gong.

18              BOARD MEMBER GONG:    A question about the fume

19   suppressants.

20              The violations that you were able to pick up,

21   what are those kinds of violations?      Is it -- was it the

22   three --

23              MR. PUPKA:   The three that we had noted over the

24   last few years.    One of them related to the fact that they

25   were not actually testing for surface tension.      The other

 1   two were the fact that one was not maintained, the other

 2   one actually did not have a suppressant at all.     So each

 3   one of them slightly different.

 4           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:     Mrs. Riordan.

 5           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:     Yes.   To the staff -- and

 6   I'm going to go back a little bit to Ms. Whynot's

 7   testimony.    I wanted to catch both at one time.

 8           What responses do you have to some of their

 9   suggestions?


11   South Coast Proposal today?

12           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:     Yes.


14   did evaluate the proposal and we did talk to some South

15   Coast staff so that we could better understand the

16   proposal.    And as Ms. Whynot mentioned, some of the items

17   that she discussed this morning we thought were very good

18   improvements to our proposal and we are proposing them as

19   modifications to our proposal today.     And that would be

20   relating to using the specified chemical fume suppressants

21   in a shorter amount of time.

22           And we also thought the schools issue that Ms.

23   Whynot brought up, that was very important.

24           But in terms of the overall emission

25   requirements, we still would believe that for those larger

 1   emitting facilities, that the add-on control device is the

 2   more effective, more reliable control.

 3           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:   Okay.    Thank you.


 5   received that the beginning of the week.    And it's fairly

 6   complicated, especially on some of the enforcement

 7   provision sides.   So those are things that districts can

 8   do if they desire.   And before we would go with those,

 9   we'd need to talk to the other districts.

10           Secondly, basically we and the South Coast are in

11   agreement that more stringent standards can and ought to

12   be applied to the sources than they were able to do three

13   years ago.   So that was -- and really the other discussion

14   of what's the best technique and how do you assure it?

15   I'm sure you'll hear more about that issue as time goes

16   on.

17           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:   Okay.

18           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Mayor Loveridge.

19           BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE:    Maybe you could just go

20   through the -- there were about -- there's seven

21   suggestions -- just pick them up so I know which ones are

22   included in modifications and --

23           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:     As Mike's pulling

24   that up -- I mean my general reaction in reading them --

25   and we did need to talk to staff -- district staff to

 1   understand them.   But essentially what they appear to do

 2   is delete the HEPA requirement and substitute for it

 3   adjustments in the timetable for when controls go in,

 4   added enforcement provisions, to be sure that the fume

 5   suppressants are as effective as the district asserts that

 6   they are.   We still have difference of opinion, even under

 7   best circumstances, how good the fume suppressants are.

 8             So it wasn't so -- it's a package proposal rather

 9   than a point by point, except for the ones that Carla

10   indicated on treatment of schools, the early application

11   of suppressants while we're waiting for the HEPA to come

12   later, and the 300-meter boundary.

13             But let's see if Mike identified other isolated

14   pieces.   Or staff's going to do it.


16   over the points from Ms. Whynot's presentation, I think

17   Ms. Witherspoon already covered the first one, the

18   technology neutral.   And I already made some comments on

19   that.

20             The second comment about allowing the option of

21   meeting the emission rate here for facilities with greater

22   that 15 grams per year of emissions, what we understand

23   from talking to South Coast staff is that this emission

24   rate presented here is achieved by a combination of HEPA

25   and chemical fume suppressants together.

 1            And we are aware of some facilities, because of

 2   the type of operation that they have, that they are not

 3   able to use chemical fume suppressants.   So in all cases,

 4   this may not be possible.   And applications where you

 5   can't use fume suppressants would be some aerospace

 6   applications or military applications.    And we've heard

 7   from those industries that you can't use fume suppressants

 8   all the time.   So we have concerns about this emission

 9   rate being achievable.

10            We did include in our modifications the schools

11   requirement there.

12            Shorter compliance timelines.    Well, I guess in

13   general some of their -- the overall compliance timelines

14   may be slightly shorter, but we would require controls for

15   some facilities in a shorter timeframe than this proposal

16   would.

17            The point on fume suppressants, we are making

18   that change.

19            The backstop provision.   I guess because our

20   proposal would already require those facilities to have

21   add-on controls, there wouldn't be this backstop

22   requirement needed.   The controls would already be in

23   place.

24            In terms of the inspections and source testing,

25   record keeping and training.   The inspections, that would

 1   be a sort of case-by-case air district decision.     Source

 2   testing, again that's at the discretion of the air

 3   district.   If they would want to require more frequent

 4   source testing, they can do that.     Our ATCM would require

 5   an initial test to demonstrate compliance.

 6           Record keeping.    The regulation already has

 7   fairly extensive record-keeping requirements.

 8           And the training class.     We are proposing that

 9   there be a training class for operators.     And the South

10   Coast has a training class as well.

11           So does that address your comments, Ms. Riordan?

12           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:   Yes.     And I think the

13   Mayor's too, yes.

14           Thank you.

15           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:     One thing I want

16   to bring to the Board's attention, and I think the Bay

17   Area witness will talk about this, state law is structured

18   in such a way that air districts must adopt ATCMs that are

19   at least as stringent as the Air Resources Board.    They

20   may be more stringent.   They also have an opportunity to

21   demonstrate equivalence.

22           So the choice if -- this is what you ultimately

23   do not do -- switch to the South Coast package proposal as

24   compared to ARB's package of requirements does not

25   foreclose this discussion from going on, if South Coast

 1   believes they can demonstrate equivalence overall with

 2   what we are recommending to you.   Or even a different

 3   approach, if the Bay Area has a different approach.    But

 4   we can come back to that later today.

 5            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Okay.   Next, Brian Bateman.

 6   And then we'll have Daniel Cunningham, John Marrs and

 7   Sylvia Rodriguez.

 8            MR. BATEMAN:   Good morning, Dr. Sawyer and

 9   members of the Board.   My name is Brian Bateman.    I'm the

10   Director of Engineering at the Bay Area Air Quality

11   Management District.

12            We have 17 chrome plating facilities in the Bay

13   Area.   Ten of these are decorative plating operations.

14   The other seven are hard chrome facilities.

15            We've seen some very significant emission

16   reductions from our chrome platers over the years.     These

17   reductions were made in response to the existing ATCM and

18   to the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program.    We think this

19   represents a great success story in terms of public health

20   protection.

21            The proposed amendments to the ATCM have much

22   more stringent emissions standards than the existing rule.

23   We support these standards and the additional public

24   health benefits they'll provide.   Most of our facilities

25   will need to implement additional control measures to

 1   comply with these standards.

 2           We feel that it's important to give these

 3   facilities the flexibility to comply with the new emission

 4   standards using a variety of control options.   A lot of

 5   progress has been made in improving the effectiveness of

 6   plating bath pollution prevention measures over the years.

 7   And the proposed emission standards are likely to push the

 8   development of these technologies even further.      We're

 9   still a few years off from the effective date of these new

10   amendments and we think that we should give the technology

11   a chance to develop.   Because of this, we favor a

12   technology-neutral approach that does not explicitly

13   require the use of add-on controls.

14           This increased flexibility could be achieved by

15   removing the explicit requirement for add-on controls for

16   greater than 200,000 amp-hour per year facilities while

17   retaining the proposed emission standard.

18           And I'd like to conclude by thanking the ARB

19   staff for their work on this ATCM.    We very much

20   appreciate all the hard work that Bob Fletcher and his

21   staff at SSD have put into this.

22           Thank you.

23           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you.

24           Daniel Cunningham.

25           (Thereupon an overhead presentation was

 1           Presented as follows.)

 2           MR. CUNNINGHAM:     Thank you.   Good morning, Dr.

 3   Sawyer and Board members.    My name is Dan Cunningham.    I'm

 4   the Executive Director of the Metal finishing Association

 5   of Southern California and the Surface Technology

 6   Association in northern California.

 7           My background in this industry -- I've been in

 8   the industry for 27 years.   I graduated from UCLA in 1979.

 9   I worked actually at a hard chrome shop near LAX for 12

10   and a half years.   Then I worked at an anodizing company

11   that did chromic acid anodizing for another 4 and a half

12   years, until I took this position 11 years ago.

13           Our two associations make up about 200 metal

14   finishing job shops in California, with the average size

15   being 20 to 25 employees.    We are very proactive small

16   business trade associations.   We offer monthly compliance

17   seminars, meetings, newsletters.    We have a state-approved

18   storm water monitoring group we've had for 14 years.      We

19   feel that our members are well informed on all current and

20   pending environmental health and safety regulations.

21           We are a very small but important industry to the

22   manufacturing base in California.    We protect metal parts

23   and other manufactured parts, to make them last longer,

24   work better, thus saving countless natural resources for

25   several decades.

 1           MFASC and STA have a long history of working with

 2   virtually every regulatory agency in California, including

 3   CARB, South Coast and Bay Area AQMDs.

 4           We continue to work with EPA Regional 9 and DTSC

 5   on the Southern California Goals Program and Environmental

 6   Management System Series.   For several years we were on

 7   the steering committee for EPA Regional 9 Merit

 8   Partnership for Pollution Prevention.   We currently Chair

 9   the Industry Advisory Council for the Sanitation Districts

10   of Los Angeles County.   And for over 18 months we worked

11   with South Coast on the negotiated rule making for Rule

12   1469, which is now the most stringent air reg in the

13   country and addresses most, if not all, the concerns we

14   are talking about here today.

15           This is a negotiated rule-making process where

16   all the parties signed off on the end, including some of

17   the environmental groups and AQMD staff.

18           For our efforts we won two clean air awards from

19   South Coast, one in 1992 for a chrome plating

20   demonstration project, and one in 2003 for our

21   participation in Rule 1469 negotiated rule making.

22           It is critical to note that since 1986 our

23   industry has reduced hexavalent chrome emissions by over

24   99.9 plus percent and are willing to comply with even more

25   stringent regulations.   All we ask is for the flexibility

 1   to meet whatever that target number is.      If it's .0015

 2   milligrams per amp-hour, give us the flexibility to do

 3   that.

 4           We feel that the South Coast proposal even

 5   addresses better the near-source concerns that staff was

 6   proposing.   And it also addresses the increased

 7   inspections, certifying training, record keeping,

 8   certified fume suppressants, compliance assistance,

 9   proximity to sensitive receptors, and a three-strikes

10   provision.

11           In closing, I'd like to state that this industry

12   cares about the environment, about our workers, about our

13   neighbors; and that past land-use decisions placing

14   schools near plating shops or houses or whatever should

15   not have been done, but has to be addressed now, and we

16   feel that we are addressing that at this time.

17           This industry wants to be part of the solution,

18   not a part of the problem.   And we hope you'll consider

19   the proposals and maybe a short postponement so we can

20   work together to get all this done together.

21           Thank you.

22           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:     Thank you.

23           John Marrs.

24           MR. MARRS:    Hi.   My name's John Marrs.   I am Vice

25   President and General Manager of Chrome Craft, that is

 1   located here in Sacramento.    It's a family-owned business,

 2   and we employ 36 people in our facility.    I'm also a

 3   member -- a board member of the Surface Technology

 4   Association here in northern California.

 5             Our facility, we perform industrial hard chroming

 6   as a part of our manufacturing and repairing operations.

 7   And about 17 percent of our revenue comes from outside the

 8   State of California.

 9             Slide 5 please.

10                               --o0o--

11             MR. MARRS:   What we would like to present is some

12   information regarding the chrome emissions and costs.

13             Metal finishers represent about 4 pounds out of

14   the total 3,000 pounds of chromium emissions in the state.

15   The proposed ATCM seeks to reduce 2.2 pounds of Chromium 6

16   from the metal finishing industry, which is .0724 percent

17   of the statewide total.

18             Staff suggests that the cost of this reduction is

19   14.2 million.   But I believe that that figure is even

20   higher.

21             Next slide please.

22                               --o0o--

23             MR. MARRS:   The risk from metal finishing

24   industry is low.   The total calculated cancer risk from

25   all metal finishers has been calculated to be about 4.1

 1   persons per 70 years exposure.   The statewide risk has

 2   been computed to be greater than 1,000 for the total

 3   statewide risk.

 4           The proposed air toxic measure seeks to reduce

 5   our risks to less than 1 in a million.     And that's

 6   something that we support.

 7           Next slide please.

 8                             --o0o--

 9           MR. MARRS:   The standard, as has been stated, is

10   that the ATCM is looking to be .0015 milligrams of Chrome

11   6 per amp-hour for facilities that are over 20,000

12   amp-hours in the year.

13           There are about 60 facilities within the 20,000

14   to 200,000 amp-hours per year category.    Current standard

15   for that is .01 milligrams or better for the South Coast

16   or .04 milligrams or better for the rest of the state.

17           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   I need to ask you to

18   conclude please.

19           MR. MARRS:   Okay.   My greatest concern is that we

20   get flexibility in meeting the proposed regulations and

21   that they be included in the regulations to ease the

22   financial burden placed on businesses.

23           Thank you.

24           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you.

25           BOARD MEMBER BERG:    Mr. Chairman, I just have a

 1   quick question.

 2              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Yes.

 3              BOARD MEMBER BERG:    Good morning.

 4              MR. MARRS:   Good morning.

 5              BOARD MEMBER BERG:    In your business you said you

 6   had about 30 to 35 employees.      What category would you

 7   fall in?    Above the 20,000 amp-hours?

 8              MR. MARRS:   Definitely.     We would be

 9   considered -- last year we were in about the 20 million

10   category.   Hard chrome plating requires a lot more

11   amperage, and so we are in the highest category.

12              BOARD MEMBER BERG:    And you're currently using

13   what types of controls?

14              MR. MARRS:   We are using a HEPA filter currently.

15   And at our present level of emissions, we are well below

16   current proposed limits.

17              BOARD MEMBER BERG:    Okay.    Thank you very much.

18              MR. MARRS:   You're welcome.

19              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Dr. Gong.

20              BOARD MEMBER GONG:    Yes.    You mention in one of

21   your slides that there are 3,000 pounds of Chromium 6

22   emissions in the state?

23              MR. MARRS:   Yes.

24              BOARD MEMBER GONG:    Could you give me the sources

25   of that 3,000 pounds besides the industry?

 1              MR. MARRS:   Definitely.   That can be found from

 2   the staff sources that -- that's on the website that they

 3   publish.     So staff can confirm that.


 5   that is our emission inventory data.

 6              BOARD MEMBER BERG:   But what other types of

 7   sources produce that type --


 9   we have found is that probably the largest emissions of

10   hexavalent chromium are from combustion of fossil fuels.

11   And that's true from point sources as well as I think

12   probably off-road mobile sources.      But there is also some

13   other sources.    But combustion is a large part of it.

14              BOARD MEMBER GONG:   Then that leads to my

15   question I guess about:     Are we controlling those sources

16   in that sense, the chromium?    I mean I'm -- we're talking

17   about four pounds, I guess.

18              DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE:   Well, I would

19   say, one, there's a lot of uncertainty in those emission

20   estimates.    And many of them are old and have not been

21   focused upon.    Second, those are basically trace levels of

22   chrome in fuels.    So we're -- we're not aware that they

23   are causing, you know, elevated risk close to sources.

24   Although we probably need to lock at that more and need re

25   refine the inventory.

 1            We know generally that ambient levels are low.

 2   And as we've said before, this measure really isn't

 3   designed to reduce general ambient exposure to chrome.

 4   It's designed to ensure that those that live close to

 5   chrome facilities have risk reduced to very low levels.

 6            BOARD MEMBER GONG:    I guess I would then say that

 7   that value of 3,000 pounds should have an asterisk with

 8   those caveats if it's on our web page, because it -- I

 9   mean it looks like someone could just pull it out and say,

10   "You have 3,000 pounds out there," you know.      So I'm

11   just -- it's a little confusing obviously if you say that.

12            Thank you.

13            DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE:      We agree.

14            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you.

15            Sylvia Rodriguez.    And then we'll Alan Olick, Ed

16   Appleton and Frank Grana.

17            MS. RODRIGUEZ:     Good morning.    My name is Sylvia

18   Rodriguez.   I've been in the metal finishing field for 23

19   years now.   I am the President and General Manager of Amex

20   Plating, Incorporated, which is located in Santa Clara.

21            I employ 33 people.    And together we generate

22   approximately $2 1/2 million in annual revenue.

23   Incidentally, our medical insurance covers about 110

24   lives.

25            I also serve as the National Director for the

 1   National Association of Metal Finishers.     And our trade

 2   association wanted to lock at risk.

 3             Our consultant, Dean High, prepared these slides.

 4             And we are in agreement that the proposed ATCM

 5   standards -- requirements -- excuse me -- seeks 1 to 1

 6   million reduction in cancer risk or less for exposed

 7   people.

 8             Our association wanted to assess the risk by

 9   location and facility size.   And we determined that 75

10   percent of the facilities where Rule 1469 was implemented

11   lie within the South Coast District, and that represents

12   0.5 cancer risks over a seven-year span.     And 25 percent

13   of the facilities lie outside of the state -- excuse me --

14   outside of the region.

15                               --o0o--

16             MS. RODRIGUEZ:   It's a complicated table.   But I

17   want to point out that it breaks down facilities by

18   ampere-hour per year.

19             Specifically the table illustrates that the

20   cancer burden facilities outside of the South Coast

21   District -- if you look at two of them, the medium size --

22   1 million to 5 million ampere-hours per year, that risk is

23   at 1.254.   And facilities at 5 million to 15 million,

24   cancer risk was determined to be at 1.633.

25             And I want also for you to note at those

 1   facilities of the size 20,000 to 200,000 ampere-hours per

 2   year, that cancer burden was determined to be at 0.128.

 3              Thank you.

 4              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you very much.

 5              Alan Olick.

 6              MR. OLICK:    Thank you, Dr. Sawyer.   Board members

 7   and ladies and gentlemen.     My name is Alan Olick.    I'm

 8   President of General Plating and Bright Plating and Alpha

 9   Polishing, all located in Los Angeles, California.       I've

10   been in the metal finishing industries for 37 years.

11   Prior to that I was a school teacher.

12              I'm concerned about health risks.      And my company

13   employs between 70 people and 100 people, with

14   capabilities of supporting 500 people.     The business is

15   leaving the country left and right.     I have many, many

16   customers locally that are all relatively high-end

17   customers:    Architectural, jewelry, and automotive.     Every

18   one of those customers will go out of the country if we

19   impose the rules that were working on here, not equally to

20   the rest of the United States and the rest of the world.

21              Dean High has worked with us.   He's an

22   environmentalist, as all of you are, and I consider myself

23   as well.

24                                --o0o--

25              MR. OLICK:    And understanding the risk -- this is

 1   slide 1.    Very little actual testing was conducted for the

 2   proposed ATCM.    The modeling requires many assumptions.

 3   Each step estimating, risk always errs to hippy health

 4   protective.    Certain evaluations like determining cancer

 5   risk must be done to inform the decision makers on how

 6   safe is safe.

 7              Slide 2 please.

 8                                --o0o--

 9              MR. OLICK:   The modeling scenario overestimated

10   risk.   All facilities released Chrome 6 -- using a

11   one-year Pasadena meteorological data study.

12              All point sources had one-foot stacks.   Very very

13   low.    Staff based modeling for 95 percent of facilities by

14   using different assumptions for small facilities.

15   Modeling less than 5,000 ampere-hours versus proposed ATCM

16   set for less than 20,000 ampere hours.    Hypothetical

17   exposure considers worst point, not actual receptor.

18              My company produces -- or uses over 1 million

19   ampere-hours of hexavalent chrome a year.    We use best

20   available technology fume suppressants.    We have a full

21   time laboratory fella who's examining the tanks six, seven

22   times a day.    We've had no significant violations in the

23   past 12 years.    And some of the violations are only minor

24   paperwork errors.    We will do better.

25              And I wish to have you all examine what we're

 1   being asked to do.    We're being asked to do the

 2   impossible.   We're being asked to go from what's

 3   relatively okay to absolute zero.    And there is no

 4   absolute zero in anything.   And the 3100 pounds of chrome

 5   that they're talking about in the atmosphere from other

 6   sources, jet fuels, diesel fuels and mobile sources, I

 7   think has to be considered more than 4 to 5 pounds of

 8   chromic acid from metal platers disbursed across the

 9   state.

10            Thank you very much for the opportunity.

11            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you.

12            Mayor Loveridge.

13            BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE:    Sir?

14            MR. OLICK:    Oh, I'm sorry.

15            BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE:    We've talked about

16   technology neutral.    And your own assessment of that

17   issue?

18            MR. OLICK:    Excuse me?

19            BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE:    One of -- see, one of

20   the key issues here has been the notion of technology

21   being -- technology neutral, something that's been offered

22   by the South Coast and the Bay Area districts.      So given

23   your experience in this, could you comment on that issue

24   of technology neutral?

25            MR. OLICK:    Well, we're all using the latest

 1   technology with fume suppressants and teaching the

 2   employees on how to handle chromic acid safely; designing

 3   parts so they have the least amount of gassing possible,

 4   which would give you the gas bubbles that they claim burst

 5   and go into the atmosphere.

 6              Another point was, they're talking about

 7   housekeeping.   And chromic acid is a -- it's a granular

 8   substance.    It comes in a bucket.    You open it and add it

 9   to the tank.    And they're concerned that when you open it

10   to the tank -- open it and add it to the tank, that the

11   dusting occurs.    Well, in my plant we actually punch holes

12   in the bucket and slowly submerge the entire bucket into

13   the chromic tank to dissolve the chrome, not having any

14   dusting.

15              So there's a lot of things that are very easy to

16   do that common sense and good training can avoid, rather

17   than having to buy a piece of equipment that costs

18   hundreds of thousands of dollars to maintain it.      And

19   people think that that piece of equipment will be the

20   panacea, when really it's good training and good people

21   that is what it would take.

22              Any other questions?

23              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Dr. Gong.

24              BOARD MEMBER GONG:    I was wondering if Dr. Marty

25   or ARB staff have any comments to the speaker's slides on

 1   risk -- understanding risk.


 3   we'd need to go back to a different slide than what we

 4   have here to look at those -- the numbers.    Could we --


 6   let me just comment on that.   The discussion on cancer

 7   burden that was raised is one that is done in some risk

 8   analysis.   For this application we don't think it's

 9   appropriate because it's -- what we're really faced with

10   here is the near source.   So we acknowledge that the

11   cancer burden calculation is not going to be great, the

12   number will be small, as I identified in the analysis.

13            The difficulty here is that you're dealing with

14   discrete facilities in communities.    And so that the

15   number of people that you're exposing is generally going

16   to be small, so your cancer burden calculation will be

17   small.

18            Relative to the modeling assumptions that were

19   raised in one of slides, the Pasadena met set is generally

20   a -- kind of a mid-level met set.     We recognize that there

21   are other met sets that will give you other data.    We

22   selected Pasadena as one in the L.A. Basin that is a

23   fairly average met set.    West L.A. is one that's often

24   used as a worst case.   And clearly you'll get higher

25   numbers if you use that met set.

 1              So we can go through the other modeling

 2   assumptions if you would like as well.

 3              BOARD MEMBER GONG:    Thank you.

 4              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you.

 5              Ed Appleton.

 6              MR. APPLETON:   Good morning, Dr. Sawyer and Board

 7   members.    My name is Ed Appleton.    I'm a with Metal

 8   Finishing Marketers located in Los Angeles.     We are

 9   probably considered a midsize company representing 47

10   employees and their families.

11              I've been involved in the electroplating industry

12   since 1975, with family ties that go back to 1932.

13              During the 31 years of my experience in this

14   industry I have seen many positive changes in regards to

15   our environment.    I have seen cooperative input between

16   our industry and regulatory agencies.

17                                --o0o--

18              MR. APPLETON:   But personally I'm very concerned

19   about the survival of our industry.     In the next couple of

20   slides we would like to address some technology issues

21   presented and some requests to be proposed before the

22   Board.

23              The staff claims that add-on control, HEPA

24   filtration, are best available control and are the only

25   technology that may be used for operations in companies

 1   greater than 2,000 amp-hours per year.

 2              Also, documentary evidence submitted showing

 3   alternatives include in-tank controls can achieve equal or

 4   better emission results.

 5              Whereas the cost difference of installation and

 6   ongoing maintenance is large.

 7                                 --o0o--

 8              MR. APPLETON:   We are asking the Board to find a

 9   balance that will be a workable solution for all.         We

10   respect the efforts of the Board in maintaining an

11   environmental -- environment for our beautiful state, in

12   which I'm a native southern Californian and proud of it.

13              We have three requests that we would request

14   changes by metal finishers that we would like to present

15   to you.    One is the flexibility to reach these emission

16   standards; number 2, use of all approved technologies to

17   reach these emission standards; and, number 3, consider

18   risk to setting emission standards.

19              Thank you very much.

20              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you.

21              Frank Grana.    And then we'll have Allan Jones,

22   Dean High, and Paramo Hernandez.

23              MR. GRANA:   Good morning, Dr. Sawyer and Board

24   members.    My name is Frank Grana.     I'm an owner of

25   California Electroplating located in Los Angeles.

 1              California Electroplating is a second generation

 2   midsize chrome plating shop and employ about 50 employees.

 3              I'm here today to talk about the alternatives

 4   available.    As you see in our slide, flexibility.   We

 5   chose to meet the Rule 1469 by running a source test,

 6   which I'd like to submit.     And in our source test we far

 7   exceeded -- or far surpassed the limits that were put on

 8   us.   We used a Fumetrol 140, a Dis-Mist NP, and we also

 9   added polyballs to increase the amount of control.

10                               --o0o--

11              MR. GRANA:   During our test, which was overseen

12   by the Metal Finishing Association of Southern California,

13   our results were quite low.    We had a results of .00013,

14   almost -- or more than ten times below the control

15   measure.

16              And at this point I would just like to say that

17   we would welcome the Board to retest us, to come and see

18   our facility, to see that it is possible to get there

19   without the thousands of dollars spent on equipment.       You

20   know, I mean proof is in the pudding, and we did it and we

21   passed with flying colors.

22              So I mean in closing I'd just like to say thank

23   you for the time.    And, once again, please, if you'd like

24   to retest, we're more than available to do that.

25              Thank you.

 1           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you very much.

 2           Mayor Loveridge.

 3           BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE:   Could staff respond

 4   to -- I mean I think this really becomes the issue of

 5   whether or not there are -- this technology neutral,

 6   looking for the best possible ways, or whether there's

 7   only one way to do this.


 9   aware of this source test and we do recognize that under

10   these conditions that they were able to achieve these

11   emission rates with this combination of in-tank controls.

12           Also be aware that this is a single test.    And we

13   have lots of source test data that we use in our

14   evaluation that leads us to continue to believe that the

15   add-on control device is the better control.

16           While this test does have very low emission

17   rates, we do have a couple of concerns with the test per

18   se in terms of if the test was run in a way that would be

19   typical of a decorative chromium plating facility.   And

20   were we're not sure that the results of this one test are

21   a good enough basis to override what we have learned about

22   HEPA filters and similar control devices over the years.


24   also add that, you know, in addition to the source test,

25   while it may achieve this at this point during this source

 1   test, we are concerned about the ongoing operation of

 2   these facilities.   This requires that there be a blanket

 3   of foam over the tank at all times.   And that is generated

 4   when you begin plating.   So you have issue associated with

 5   creating, you know, the foam blanket.    So we do have some

 6   concerns about this technology on a continuous basis as

 7   well.

 8           BOARD MEMBER BERG:    Mr. Chairman?

 9           Why don't we have the same concern about whether

10   they're changing out the HEPA filters or they're keeping

11   the pressure as we saw in the South Coast Air Quality?      I

12   mean I understand what the concerns are.    But at the end

13   of the day it really comes down to, is the business owner

14   going to follow the rules?   And most business owners

15   really truly want to follow the rules and some don't.       And

16   you're going to be able to find the ones that don't in any

17   industry.

18           So I'm concerned with the HEPA filters.      Why am I

19   not hearing from staff the same concerns about the

20   maintenance and what is needed on those?


22   think you're not hearing that same concern, because HEPA

23   is a much more established technology.     I mean we have

24   over 30 source tests that have been run on HEPA filters.

25   There are a number of those operating in the South Coast

 1   District already.    You saw from the data that the South

 2   Coast provided that they did find one facility.   I think

 3   that wasn't -- yeah, that was a HEPA filter system.   And

 4   they will find that from time to time.

 5           But I think that the history that we have with

 6   HEPA filtration in this application and other applications

 7   and the ability to have measurable and documentable data

 8   on pressure drop that allows you to see what's happening

 9   all the time as opposed to a visual measured -- you know,

10   measurement as part of the monitoring and record keeping

11   and reporting, it just gives us much more confidence that

12   the HEPA is able to operate effectively for a continuous

13   period of time.

14           BOARD MEMBER BERG:    But are then we saying that

15   companies such as this gentleman's who -- or the other

16   gentlemen that spoke that have hired staff to monitor

17   these things and are following their procedures, that we

18   just don't trust them, that they're not capable or

19   qualified to make these decisions?


21   don't think it's so much a question of trust.    Obviously,

22   you know, good business owners are going to try to do the

23   best they can.    The problem that we have with the

24   technology itself is the nature of how it operates in the

25   tank specifically.    And the fact that in order to have a

 1   blanket over the tank at all times, then you have to have

 2   current going through the tank at all times.       In some

 3   facilities you're not running that way.       You're on and

 4   you're off.   You're running in batches.      And we just don't

 5   have enough information about how that blanket forms, the

 6   length of time it takes for that blanket to form.        It's

 7   not like whipping cream where you just sort of spray it

 8   over the top of the tank and then begin plating.        It's

 9   generated from mist within -- you know, or from additives

10   within the tank itself that causes the blanket to form.

11   So you could potentially be generating emissions prior to

12   even the initiating of the plating.

13              So we have some concerns about that aspect of it.

14              BOARD MEMBER BERG:    Thank you very much.

15              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you.

16              Allan Jones.

17                                --o0o--

18              MR. JONES:   Good morning, Chairman and Board

19   members.    I'm Allan Jones, from Adeltech, an industry

20   supplier to the metal plating industry.       I have a PhD in

21   physical chemistry.     I have 25 years experience in metal

22   finishing.    And for 22 years I've been in the Worldwide

23   Research and Development Group Adeltech.       And I'm a group

24   leader performing research and development on functional

25   and decorative chromium plating and mist suppressant

 1   processes and the application of mist suppressants.      I've

 2   conducted numerous studies and given many presentations on

 3   mist or fume suppressants.

 4              Approved technologies are shown on this slide.

 5   In-tank controls are good and effective technology.      They

 6   include mist suppressants, foam blankets and polyballs.

 7              Fume suppressants work by lowering the surface

 8   tension and forming a foam.    They are very effective.

 9   They are chemically stable.    So if you make an addition,

10   it's not gone in a matter of minutes or hours.    It can

11   stay in that tank at that surface tension for days,

12   depending upon how many amp-hours pass through the

13   process.

14              Foam blankets add an additional lawyer of

15   protection.   They are very effective.   I think the Board

16   raised issues about explosions.    Those are not a problem

17   with proper technology and current chemistry and proper

18   procedures when used.

19              Polyballs add a mechanical barrier to the system.

20   And as we've seen in the prior speaker, his data shows

21   that these -- a combination of these three systems are

22   very effective.    Staff assumed that foam blankets were

23   unacceptable and failed to certify them, with no testing

24   or analysis by the staff.

25              As I just said, Cal Electro showed very low

 1   emission values, about an order of magnitude below the

 2   proposed limit.   South Coast Air Quality certifies foam

 3   blankets.

 4           On this slide we see certified fume suppressants.

 5   Adeltech is one of world's leaders in supplying chemicals

 6   to the metal finishing industry.   And Fumetrol 140 is one

 7   of our premier products.   And with this Fumetrol 140 and a

 8   certain surface tension, you get very low emission limits.

 9   In combination, Fumetrol 140 working with Dis-Mist NP can

10   even reduce those emissions down further by orders of

11   magnitude.

12           As you can see, the usage regulations according

13   to South Coast for a combination process means that these

14   two combinations -- the surface tension has to be below a

15   certain limit, there has to be a certain amount of foam on

16   the plating tank during plating, and it has to cover 95

17   percent of the area.

18           Fume suppressants and mist suppressants and foam

19   blankets are very effective control processes.   They also

20   control in the tank preventing chromium from getting

21   outside of the tank and causing fugitive emissions that

22   we've seen may be a problem in some cases.

23           Please give us a chance to demonstrated this

24   technology, that these technologies are very effective.

25           And just one last comment.    I know this morning

 1   I've heard that this Board is involved in global warming.

 2   And HEPA filters are very power intensive, requiring a lot

 3   of fans and exhaust motors.    And as we've heard already,

 4   this will lead to additional needs for generation,

 5   possibly from fossil fuels, which may additionally

 6   contribute to pollution and also to hexavalent chromium.

 7            Thank you for your attention.

 8            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you.

 9            Dean High.

10            MR. HIGH:    Good morning.   My name is Dean High.

11   I'm a technical consultant to the industry group here

12   today.

13                               --o0o--

14            MR. HIGH:    And I conducted the risk evaluations

15   for the PA ATCM as well as two alternatives.

16            Earlier speakers addressed two of the requests

17   that we have before this Board, to give us some relaxation

18   or freedom or flexibility.    And I will address the third

19   one, which is to focus on the small facilities in the 20

20   to 200,000 category.   And it represents a compromise, what

21   we're proposing, between what the PA ATCM would do and

22   what the Rule 1469 statewide would do.

23            We propose that those facilities in this category

24   be allowed to meet an emission rate of .01 milligram per

25   amp-hour if they can meet an MICR of 1 in a million.     This

 1   emission rate is the same as the tiny categories, the

 2   under 20,000 category, and it also meets the 1 in a

 3   million requirement, which is consistent with the new

 4   structure review rules in SCAQMD and elsewhere across the

 5   State.

 6            I will explain those a little better in more

 7   detail in just a minute.

 8                              --o0o--

 9            MR. HIGH:   The next slide is one -- I just want

10   to call to your attention a couple of points on it.   If

11   you look at the cancer burden in each of the categories,

12   you see it's only in three category where there's any

13   difference between Rule 1469 statewide and the PA ATCM.

14   And the total for all facilities, between the two rules,

15   is about a half of a cancer case.

16            The other thing to call to your attention is

17   that -- look at the cancer burden difference up there in

18   the 20,000 to 200,000 category, and you'll see that it's

19   only .02.

20            Next slide.

21                              --o0o--

22            MR. HIGH:   Now, addressing the 20 to 200,000

23   category again.   We only have about nine facilities on the

24   far right column -- there's nine facilities that are less

25   than 25 meters from a resident or a sensitive receptor.

 1   And those facilities, we would say, have to meet the

 2   .0015.

 3            But the other facilities, there's 36 others in

 4   that category that are not now compliant with the .0015.

 5   And we're suggesting that those 36, because of their

 6   emission rate or their distance from the receptors, should

 7   be allowed to meet .01 if they can in fact demonstrate

 8   that they're complying with a 1 in a million health risk.

 9            Each facility when they do a compliance plan --

10   as you implement this ATCM statewide and the local

11   districts adopt the appropriate rules, they have to supply

12   a compliance plan showing how they are going to comply.

13   Well, in that they would then have a calculation showing

14   that the MICR for both the MEIR or the MEIW would be below

15   1 in a million, to be allowed to operate at .01 milligrams

16   per amp-hour.   Otherwise they would have to meet the

17   .0015.

18            If the Board approves this modification, the

19   increased emissions statewide will be .074 pounds per

20   year, the increased cancer burden will be only .0035 over

21   a 70-year period, the public health will still be

22   protected, and the savings in capital and O&M costs will

23   be in the millions.

24            Thank you.   I'll answer any questions.

25            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you.

 1           Questions?

 2           If not, Paramo Hernandez.      And then we'll have

 3   Ray Lucas, Sam Bell and Charles Pomeroy.

 4           MR. HERNANDEZ:      Good morning, Dr. Sawyer.   My

 5   name is Paramo Hernandez.     I work as a processing engineer

 6   at Alta Plating and Chemical Corporation here in

 7   Sacramento.   This company is dedicated to serve the metal

 8   finishing needs of a variety of industries, including the

 9   military.

10           Among our different processes we operate the

11   corrective chromium tank that uses about 40,000 amp-hours

12   per year.    We control emissions with the fume

13   suppressants.

14           In addition, I own a small company that consults

15   to small platers in the region.    We do everything for

16   them, from waste treatment consulting to training of

17   employees.    And among those things, I run the -- analysis

18   for about five companies.    They, all of them, are between

19   30 and 40,000 amp-hours per year.     And they -- all of them

20   control their emissions with fume suppressants.    Most of

21   them keep their surface tension between 30 and 35 dynes

22   per centimeter.

23           Many of those companies are located far away from

24   people, far away from houses -- housing.     One of them is

25   almost one-quarter of a mile away.

 1             So I am here today to support the three proposals

 2   of the Surface Technology Association.

 3             Thank you very much.

 4             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you.

 5             Ray Lucas.

 6                               --o0o--

 7             MR. LUCAS:   Ladies and gentlemen.     My name is Ray

 8   Lucas and I am President of Valley Chrome Plating in

 9   Clovis as well as the President of the National

10   Association of Metal finishers.

11             We are a family-run business with over 100

12   employees.    And our only business is the manufacturing of

13   semi-truck bumpers for the heavy-duty aftermarket.       My

14   company currently has sales of $15 million, and over 90

15   percent of our product is shipped out of state, with over

16   55 percent of that east of the Mississippi.

17             I'd like to talk about the economic impact for a

18   minute.

19             The staff report stated that the cost of the

20   measure is 14.2 million, which is to be borne by about 90

21   facilities.   The staff report also identified that a

22   decline on the return of owner's equity will average about

23   9 percent.    Ten percent is significant.     If you assume a

24   margin of error of plus or minus 1 percent, we're already

25   at the significant, being 10 percent.

 1           Using CARB data and economics from

 2   Environmentrics, determined that the return on owner's

 3   equity declined to actually be 44 to 60 percent.        This

 4   demonstrates a significant adverse effect on business.

 5                               --o0o--

 6           MR. LUCAS:      If adopted as drafted, the ATCM

 7   causes the closure of 68 California facilities, which is

 8   30 percent, a loss of over 3800 jobs, and a ripple effect

 9   through the manufacturing business in California.

10           This ripple effect for me would be moving out of

11   the State of California.    It would not only affect my

12   employees and their families, but would affect companies

13   in the local economy such as producers of cardboard for my

14   product, machine tool sales, recyclers for steel product,

15   and a host of others.

16           I would guess that many hundreds of Californians

17   would be impacted by this rule just by the relocation of

18   my one company alone.    Add the effect of 50 to 100 other

19   hex chrome platers moving or, more likely, just closing,

20   and this ripple effect will affect thousands of

21   Californians.

22           Also there's an impact on out-of-state

23   competitiveness.   My company is the only company in

24   California that manufactures truck bumpers.    And my only

25   competition is in Alabama and Tennessee.     So these

 1   companies would not be affected like I would, so it would

 2   be an unfair business advantage for them.

 3            If passed, the proposed ATCM will cost $154

 4   million for cancer case avoided.   The highest previous

 5   CARB-approved ATCM is 18.6 million, resulting in over an

 6   8-fold increase from your highest previous.

 7            The economic analysis by Environmentrics on these

 8   concerns is found in the MAFSC/STA submission.

 9            I urge you to postpone your decision and consider

10   a rule similar to 1469.

11            Thank you.

12            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you very much.

13            Mayor Loveridge.

14            BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE:   If this rule was

15   technology neutral, what impact would it have on the slide

16   that's before us?

17            MR. LUCAS:   Could you repeat that question.   I'm

18   kind of nervous.

19            BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE:   If you need some help,

20   maybe -- I mean this is a very -- I mean a very strong

21   slide.   But I was asking -- it seems to me a major issue

22   has been this notion of technology flexibility.   And if

23   there was technology flexibility, as South Coast and the

24   Bay Area districts have identified as a possible choice,

25   what impact would that have on your statement before us?

 1           MR. LUCAS:     Well, I'm in the 9 million amp-hours

 2   per year range.    So I would have no choice but to put on

 3   HEPA filtration.   If we went with the Rule 1469, it would

 4   cost me some money.    But I guaranty you that staff's

 5   estimate of $50,000 for control technology would not apply

 6   in my case.   It would be closer to 150,000 or $200,000.       I

 7   could comply with 1469 for far less than that.

 8           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:     Ms. Berg.

 9           BOARD MEMBER BERG:      Mr. Lucas, I think that was

10   the question.   If we were -- if we looked at technology

11   neutral, so you had the ability to meet the emissions by

12   proving which technology you wanted to use, do you feel

13   that that would change the economic impact?

14           MR. LUCAS:     I believe it would, yes.    I think it

15   would be far more economical for me if I was able to meet

16   the rule however I needed to.

17           BOARD MEMBER BERG:     Thank you.

18           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:     Charles Pomeroy.    And then

19   we'll Jane Williams, Paula Forbis, and Maria Brook.

20           Oh, I'm sorry.     Excuse me.   I skipped over Sam

21   Bell.

22                               --o0o--

23           MR. BELL:     Good morning, Mr. Sawyer and members

24   of the Board.   My name is Sam Bell, I'm a family owner of

25   Metal Surfaces, Incorporated, which is located in Bell

 1   Gardens, California.   We are an engineering plating job

 2   shop.   I employ about 150 people, and we support through

 3   insurance and benefits about 500 family members.

 4            I'm affiliated with the Board of Directors for

 5   the National Association of Metal Finishing, for the Metal

 6   Finishing Association of Southern California, and I'm the

 7   past President of Metal Finishing Association of Southern

 8   California.   I also am the Chair of the Industry Advisory

 9   Council with the L.A. County Sanitation Districts.

10            I was a signatory in good faith on 1469 with the

11   negotiated rule making and had counted on that being a

12   done deal.    It looks like it's gone a step further than

13   that at this point in time.

14            The industry that I serve:   The automobile

15   industry, the aerospace industry, medical, the energy

16   industry, communications, computer industry, among other

17   industries.   If I give up my black chrome operation, which

18   I can easily do, but I will lose a lot of this synergetic

19   processes that I process for these other facilities.

20   Black chrome is a minor portion of my operation.   I'm just

21   over the 200,000 limit.    But if I elect to give that up,

22   then I would lose a lot of the synergy of other processes

23   that we perform.

24            Our customer base is from all over the United

25   States, California.    And we're having to compete against

 1   other American companies that have outsourced overseas

 2   into Mexico, companies that have fewer environmental

 3   regulations and less government oversight.     So it becomes

 4   an unfair business advantage to become more strict than

 5   what we need to be to meet the new rule.

 6             As far as communications with agencies, I've

 7   invited and have given tours of our facility to regulators

 8   and politicians to demonstrate to them the necessity and

 9   ability of our industry.

10             We consider ourselves to be global

11   environmentalists.    What we treat here keeps it from being

12   treated worst somewhere else throughout the world.

13             The SCAQMD's alternative, we feel, is acceptable

14   in almost everything that they propose, and that the

15   alternative will help industry and lessen the economic

16   impact.

17                               --o0o--

18             MR. BELL:   The alternative compares favorably

19   with the SCAQMD's suggestion other than the three

20   modifications that our industry was asking for through Mr.

21   Dean High.   Before you is the chart that kind of shows

22   differences.   And if you look at the different items, on

23   the right-hand column almost everything is in concert with

24   the SCAQMD's requirement except the one that you see up

25   there in blue that has been proposed in the -- in our

 1   comments to the Board.

 2              Thank you very much.   Any questions?

 3              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you.

 4              If not, now Mr. Pomeroy.

 5              MR. POMEROY:   Thank you.

 6                                --o0o--

 7              MR. POMEROY:   Last night I was thinking about the

 8   proposed ATCM and the metal finisher associations that I

 9   represent when I opened a fortune cookie.       It says, "You

10   have the ability to nurture and work creatively with

11   others."

12              (Laughter.)

13              MR. POMEROY:   We have come really close to

14   reaching a solution that achieves CARB's objectives, but

15   at a high cost to this industry.       I think that fortune was

16   meant to convey the opportunity for the metal finishing

17   associations to further work together with CARB to reach a

18   mutually satisfactory solution.        Our multiple written

19   submissions and testimony show economic concerns

20   substantiating the extreme cost of this proposal.       And I

21   can discuss them with you.

22              The economic issues are but one powerful reason

23   to postpone a decision today so that CARB and the

24   stakeholders can reconsider more options.       Still, the

25   metal finisher associations can agree to most of today's

 1   proposal.   The metal finishers associations want to

 2   protect human health and the environment, and three

 3   changes they offer can reach that goal at a fraction of

 4   the current proposal's costs.

 5                                --o0o--

 6             MR. POMEROY:    Those three:

 7             Change No. 1:   Provide flexibility -- technology

 8   neutral, as you call it -- to achieve the 0015 milligram

 9   per amp-hour standard.    Mandatory and expensive equipment

10   installations make no economic, legal or practical sense

11   if other options are available and have been demonstrated,

12   such as we've shown today.

13             Change No. 2:    The metal finishers associations

14   want all technologies fairly and objectively considered,

15   including foam blankets.    We ask that actual testing be

16   performed on this type of technologies and others before

17   rejecting viable solutions that protect human health.

18             The third change is:   We want site risk to drive

19   the need for more control at facilities operating at less

20   than 200 milligrams per amp -- or 200,000 amp-hours per

21   year.   This means facilities at 25 meters or greater from

22   sensitive receptors that can demonstrate 1 in a million

23   risk or less should meet .01 milligrams versus the double

24   015.    The proposal uses 1 in a million risk for facilities

25   less than 200,000 amp-hours a year.      It's consistent with

 1   a the 20,000 amp-hour a year standard.

 2              The option is safe and health protective.     We'd

 3   like you to adopt these changes.       Two of our changes are

 4   in the AQMD proposal, which is a framework we could

 5   discuss and agree to.     We hope you'll consider postponing

 6   your decision so that the various proposals can be

 7   considered.

 8              Despite the cost, metal finishers associations

 9   agreed to most of today's proposal.       We are so close to

10   mutual agreement.    We want the final chance for the

11   fortune.    And like the fortune said, "To nurture and work

12   creatively with CARB to reach common ground."      The metal

13   finishers have done it before, can do so again.      We ask

14   for that chance.

15              And I'm ready to answer any and all of the

16   questions from the slides you've seen presented today.

17              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Are there any questions from

18   the Board?

19              I would like to thank you for putting together,

20   organizing the presentation which you've had over the last

21   hour or so.   I think it was very logically presented and

22   it provided us contact with a range of people who are

23   involved in your industry.

24              So thank you for putting that together.

25              MR. POMEROY:   Thank you.

 1           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:     Okay.    Next, Jane Williams.

 2           MS. WILLIAMS:     Thank you, Dr. Sawyer, members of

 3   the Board.     I'm Jane Williams.   I'm the Executive Director

 4   of California Communities Against Toxics, which is a

 5   statewide network of over 70 environmental justice

 6   organizations in the state.    Many of them represent

 7   communities or actually are communities living next to

 8   chrome plating facilities.

 9           And you've heard a lot of very interesting

10   testimony today, with industry wanting compliance

11   flexibility.    Most of my members would not support

12   compliance flexibility because they feel they've been

13   victimized by a lack of compliance with these types of

14   facilities.

15           The proposal that you have before you is a

16   protective proposal that relies upon redundant air

17   pollution control systems to help control the risk from

18   these facilities, which I know that some members of

19   industry think that there is no risk remaining from these

20   facilities.    But actually even with current controls, I

21   can tell you that we have four cancer cluster

22   investigations over the last three years next to chrome

23   plating facilities.

24           We have 18 children with leukemia next to the

25   Marquin facility.     We had a cancer cluster investigation

 1   in Upland that folks are concerned could be related to a

 2   chrome plating facility.    And back in the eighties we had

 3   basically a reproductive health cluster investigation next

 4   to a facility here in Sacramento near Calvine Florin.     And

 5   as well, there's some folks here that are going to talk

 6   about the Remco facility.    And then of course many of you

 7   are familiar with the Suva School problem that we had in

 8   Los Angeles, which was one of the impetuses for South

 9   Coast's regulation.

10              So I just want to remind you that -- there's been

11   a lot of talk here about the $14 million cost.    One child

12   cancer is about a million dollars to treat.   So Dr. Gong's

13   emphasis on the public health problems and the public

14   health costs is very real.

15              There's a bit of a wrinkle here that I need to

16   make the Board aware of, however.    The staff proposal was

17   relying upon fume suppressants that are actually based

18   upon a chemical that's being phased out.    Its PFAS

19   P-F-A-S.    It's sub-class of PFOS, which many of you may be

20   aware of is being phased out by U.S. EPA.

21              I had my toxicologist do some research this

22   morning.    And I don't -- it wasn't mentioned in the staff

23   report.    But the U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board actually

24   forwarded a report back in March of this year basically

25   saying that PFAS, which is what is in these chemical

 1   suppressants that are being used, has the same structure

 2   activity relationships of PFOS.    They're a developmental

 3   toxin, a reproductive toxin and a carcinogen.   And there's

 4   epidemiological studies linking them to bladder cancer.

 5             So this all points to, you know, a very difficult

 6   policy decision.   It's very clear that these facilities

 7   need more regulations, that with the existing current

 8   controls -- you know, it could be that there's a

 9   compliance problem that's causing really dramatic public

10   health impacts next to the facilities.    It could be that

11   even with the current controls that, you know, we're never

12   going to get the kind of reductions in risk that we

13   actually need next to these facilities.

14             And one of the things that I would like the Board

15   to think about is that the Department of Defense is

16   engaging on a very, very productive effort, spending a lot

17   of money, with a goal of phasing out the use of hexavalent

18   chromium for all Department of Defense applications.    And

19   as you're going to hear from the folks at Remco, they

20   actually used to plate the tops of carriers because --

21             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   I must ask you to conclude

22   please.

23             MS. WILLIAMS:   So if the Department of Defense

24   can get a goal of phasing out the use of chrome plating, I

25   would urge the Board to be thinking about this and

 1   basically piggybacking on that effort, since it's very

 2   clear that the risks from these facilities is very high

 3   and we're not sure what the risks are from the fume

 4   suppressants.

 5           Thank you.

 6           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:     Ms. Berg.

 7           BOARD MEMBER BERG:    Excuse me.    Could I ask a

 8   question?

 9           MS. WILLIAMS:   Sure.

10           BOARD MEMBER BERG:    Do you have any feel for the

11   number of facilities that are close to sensitive receptors

12   out of the 220 facilities we're looking at?

13           MS. WILLIAMS:   Well, from my own personal

14   experience -- I mean we have active disease cluster

15   investigations at five facilities.    And I know that

16   there's a website that L.A.U.S.D. has that actually maps

17   where schools are in the L.A.U.S.D. area and facilities of

18   concern which include chrome plating facilities.     I don't

19   have an exact number.

20           But just from my own personal experience,

21   there's -- you know, it's a very significant problem.       It

22   was one of the reasons that we put so much effort into the

23   land-use planning handbook, was to try to give land-use

24   planners and at least new schools that are being built

25   some direction on how to, you know, deal with siting

 1   chrome plating facilities.

 2           BOARD MEMBER BERG:    But do you think it would be

 3   fair to say if we really could get down and deal with

 4   facilities that are -- just for whatever reason, they're

 5   just not located at the right place, if we really dealt

 6   with those and didn't put the rest of the burden -- I mean

 7   had controls on the industry, but not to the point where

 8   we're shutting them down -- would that make sense?

 9           MS. WILLIAMS:    Well, I think my members would say

10   that it's not just co-location at schools.      It's

11   co-location with residents as well.

12           BOARD MEMBER BERG:    No, residences.    I agree.

13   No, I mean residence within that sense.

14           MS. WILLIAMS:    Well, you know, I know that your

15   staff would tell you that the -- you know, the emissions

16   drop off fairly significantly within a certain buffer zone

17   distance, and you are -- the staff is requesting a

18   300-meter buffer zone.   And the way that that proposal is

19   written, it would actually creative a disincentive for

20   planners to put sensitive receptors, to put kids and

21   residences there.   But, you know, and you're asking me a

22   question that I would have to really give some thought to.

23   You're saying that let's not burden the entire industry

24   because we've got these few --

25           BOARD MEMBER BERG:    No.   Is it possible to make

 1   them neutral and then deal with the ones that are right

 2   next door that -- I don't know.     It's just a thought I was

 3   just asking you.

 4             MS. WILLIAMS:   Yeah.   I mean I would just submit

 5   that I -- you know, $14 million for the staff's proposal

 6   to me seems like a very modest cost.       And I would also

 7   just add that we had supported creating a pot of funding

 8   at the California Pollution Control Financing Authority

 9   for grants and loans to small businesses to comply with

10   this type of rule because of the tremendous risk that it

11   poses.    And I mean I have spoken with ARB staff about

12   this.    If we would be supportive, both administration and

13   in the Legislature to move forward with a sort of the

14   second wave of what was in Nunez bill to create more

15   funding that would be available.     This is certainly a

16   very, very high risk type of industry, very problematic.

17   I am totally understanding that the small business

18   component of it needs that kind of government to support.

19   And that was what the California Pollution Control

20   Financing Authority was originally created to do, was to

21   provide low interest loans and grants exactly for this

22   thing.

23             BOARD MEMBER BERG:   Thank you very much.

24             MS. WILLIAMS:   Okay.   Thank.

25             EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:     Mrs. Berg, the

 1   answer to your question about how many facilities are

 2   located near residences.   Ninety of the 220 are within 100

 3   meters.

 4             BOARD MEMBER BERG:    Thank you very much.

 5             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Ms. D'Adamo.

 6             BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE:   Jane, could you come

 7   back.

 8             BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:   Just a couple of

 9   questions.

10             Realistically, what sort of funding opportunities

11   are there through the California Pollution -- I don't

12   recall the name of the fund.

13             EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:    The California

14   Air Pollution Control Financing Authority.     They have a

15   modest amount of money every year, I think in the 1 to $3

16   million range.

17             And what Ms. Williams was referring to is a

18   legislative proposal that would piggyback on the perk

19   funding source where dry cleaners are being levied a fee

20   to be administered in helping them comply with future

21   rules.    And the same idea was raised for chrome, and it

22   didn't pass the Legislature at the time for whatever

23   reason.

24             BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:   Okay.   And then also a

25   question on the --


 2   me.   I have more information on funding that may be

 3   available for these facilities.

 4              The Legislature did pass and the Governor signed

 5   a program that would provide for loan guarantees for small

 6   chrome plating businesses.    And if you would like more

 7   information about that program, we do have someone here

 8   from the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency that

 9   is administering the program that could give you some more

10   details of that if you're interested.

11              BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:   I think it would be

12   helpful just to have a little bit of information now on

13   the interest rate and...


15   Mr. Glenn Stober from Business, Transportation and

16   Housing.

17              MR. STOBER:   Answer to the question about the

18   loan guaranty program.    State for a number of years has

19   provided access to capital for small businesses through

20   loan guarantees.    AB 721 expands our program now to

21   provide a component for metal plating facilities.

22              And the real benefit from it is, you know, if a

23   company that has to comply with these new regulations is

24   having difficulty getting financing on their own, you

25   know, through a bank, that we can work with the bank

 1   through our financial development corporations that we've

 2   got it on the state to try to arrange that financing by

 3   guarantying a portion of the loan.

 4           It doesn't fit for everybody because with regard

 5   to interest rate, you know, we're dealing with bank

 6   interest rates basically, we're dealing with the private

 7   sector in term of lending.

 8           Normally in the past on environmental type of

 9   financing programs when the state has wanted to do a

10   low-interest-type of thing, it's always been a direct loan

11   by the state because the state can basically subsidize

12   that type of financing, dealing with, you know, bank

13   loans, we'll be dealing with the private sector.    But we

14   will be extending credit to some of these companies that

15   they otherwise wouldn't be able to get.

16           BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:   Okay.   And then also a

17   question regarding the chemical that is being phased out.


19   compounds.   Yes, this is a -- pretty much it is the active

20   ingredient in a chemical fume suppressant.   It is the

21   ingredient that allows the surface tension to be reduced.

22   I am not sure that "phaseout" is exactly the correct way

23   to characterize it.   There is a possibility that these

24   compounds could become subject to a significant new use

25   rule at the -- by U.S. EPA, is thinking about expanding.

 1   But it is our understanding in talking to U.S. EPA about

 2   this that they wouldn't necessarily be phasing out the

 3   compounds.   But anybody wanting to use them would have to

 4   go through a review process to see if that would be an

 5   acceptable use of these compounds, such that it --

 6   "phaseout" maybe isn't the exact terminology.

 7           And we obviously are aware of this.     And we do

 8   address it in the staff report and recognize that there

 9   could be some small impact.   But we're not really aware of

10   any other compound that is as effective at reducing the

11   emissions from these tanks.   They're stable compounds so

12   they stand up to the rigor of the bath environment.

13           But there are really no direct air emissions of

14   these chemicals.   They stay with the bath.   And they are

15   not present on the plated part once it's plated.   So the

16   amount of PFOS that would actually be entered into the

17   environment from their use in plating we estimate is a

18   very, very, very small amount.

19           BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:    Do you have plans to

20   follow up on the issue or, you know, contingency plans in

21   the event that it becomes more serious of an issue than

22   what you described?


24   obviously if use of these compounds would become

25   prohibited, we probably would have to come back to this

 1   Board and with amendments to the rule, because clearly we

 2   are relying on the chemical fume suppressants that contain

 3   this compound for compliance for a number of facilities.

 4              BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:   And I guess I don't really

 5   understand the nature of the suppressant.       Is the entire

 6   package hinged on that?     In other words what would happen

 7   if individuals invest in the new technology -- businesses

 8   invest in the new technology and then later on the

 9   worst-case scenario, the chemical is phased out?


11   proposal before you today, the facilities that would be

12   relying on fume suppressants as the sole control, those

13   are the very small facilities, businesses that under the

14   staff's proposal would be required to put an add-on

15   control device, they would still be able to comply with

16   our emission rates without the use of fume suppressants.

17   However, most facilities that have the option to use fume

18   suppressants will do that, because it is a mechanism to

19   save the wear on their filters and the loading on their

20   filters.

21              BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:   Thank you.

22              MS. WILLIAMS:   You know, just to clarify.   It's

23   the chemical itself that's being phased out, not the fume

24   suppressants.   In fact, U.S. EPA has a consent decree with

25   3M where they've actually already phased out 80 percent of

 1   the use of PFOS.   And by 2020 they're going to phase out

 2   another 15 percent.   So it's chemical itself, not this

 3   particular use.

 4            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Mayor Loveridge.

 5            BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE:   Chromium is obviously

 6   bad stuff.   But you -- just very quickly, you had kind of

 7   an interesting call at the end, somehow we ought to hook

 8   our efforts with the Defense Department.    You have any

 9   policy thoughts about what that possibility is?

10            MS. WILLIAMS:   You know, the Defense Department's

11   holding a large conference back in -- back east later in

12   October, where they're going to be rolling out a lot of

13   the research that they've done and alternatives.   What I'm

14   saying is is that you may want to take a look, say, two

15   years from now about what the alternatives are.    The

16   industry itself and the state can't spend -- you know,

17   they're literally spending over $10 million to come up

18   with alternatives to hexavalent chromium.   They have a

19   goal of not using any chromium at all through the entire

20   Department of Defense.   And the key thing there is that

21   it's the hardness as well as the actual protection of the

22   metal.   And, you know, when you look in the staff report,

23   you'll see the trivalent chromium.   Some people say it

24   doesn't require -- it doesn't have the hardness that's

25   required for certain uses.

 1             And so what I'm saying is is that -- you know, if

 2   it's good enough for a bomber, it's good enough for a

 3   bumper.   If the DOD can configured this out for their uses

 4   that they require for the defense industry, then we should

 5   be taking a look at that.      And we shouldn't just like let

 6   this rule go by and then sort of not look at it again for

 7   another ten years when, you know, the Department of

 8   Defense is really putting a major technological investment

 9   into this problem and this question.      And they're doing it

10   primarily because of worker health and safety issues.

11             Any more questions?

12             EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:     Ms. Williams and

13   I talked about this issue before the hearing.      And I said,

14   yes, of course we will stay apprised of those

15   developments.   We examined whether the rule could require

16   sources to go to trivalent chromium and get rid of hex

17   chromium for the kind of plating that's being regulated

18   today, and concluded it was not feasible yet for hardness

19   reasons, for color reasons.     But the industry itself --

20   and, as Jane indicated, the military wants to get away

21   from hexavalent chromium because it is so toxic.

22             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Dr. Gong.

23             BOARD MEMBER GONG:    Yes.   Quick question for

24   staff about the foam blankets.     I assume that the staff is

25   less confident about the foam blankets.

 1           Could you clarify that a little bit?


 3   First of all, we are not really prohibiting the use of the

 4   foam blankets as industry has suggested.    But what we are

 5   requiring is that if industry wants to use a foam blanket,

 6   they must also use it in combination with one of the

 7   specified chemical fume suppressants.

 8           We do have some issues with the foaming type of

 9   chemical fume suppressant because, as was alluded to

10   earlier, you do need to put current into the bath to build

11   the foam.    And this is not an instantaneous process.     It

12   will begin foaming, but it will take a little bit of time,

13   maybe a minute, maybe two minutes, to build to the correct

14   thickness.    So over that time, you potentially have

15   emissions that are not controlled to the extent that you

16   would be led to believe from the source test that we have

17   here.

18           And in point of fact, we know of some platers

19   that have a permit condition that they're supposed to use

20   a foam blanket all the time while they're plating.      And in

21   this instance, what a plater was doing was he would take a

22   junk part, put it into his bath, and begin plating to

23   build the foam.    Now, I have my foam blanket, so now I

24   will do my plating.    But we've had all of these emissions

25   because he was trying to build the foam blanket.    So we do

 1   have concerns about use of them and the way decorative

 2   plating is done.     It's not an ongoing process where you're

 3   constantly applying current.     Sometimes you won't use your

 4   bath more than several times a day.      So every time you'd

 5   have to go through the process of rebuilding the foam

 6   blanket.


 8   just like to clarify too, just to make sure there's no

 9   confusion.     There was a comment about the SCAQMD

10   certifying the foam blanket.     And they have done that in

11   combination with a fume suppressant in order to meet the

12   .01 standard.    So that is not a certification to the .0015

13   standard.    And for the reasons Carla outlined, we are not

14   accepting that certification even to meet the .01 because

15   of the concerns that we have.      You can use it, but you

16   must use it in combination with a certified fume

17   suppressant.

18              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Mrs. Riordan.

19              BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:    Yes, Mr. Chairman.

20              Just to staff.   If the chrome plater had done the

21   process correctly, not put in the old part and what have

22   you, would then everything have worked appropriately in

23   your mind?


25   in terms of actually correctly plating his part?

 1           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:     Yes.


 3   have correctly plated his part.    But the emission control

 4   would not be what we would have anticipated because he

 5   would not have the foam blanket built.

 6           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:     Right.    But if he had it

 7   built correctly --


 9           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:     -- then everything else

10   is -- from that point on is going to happen?


12           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:     Okay.    So essentially what

13   you're saying is, if it is not done appropriately, it

14   doesn't work?   I mean there are, you know, imperfections.

15   But isn't that true of almost any process that we look at?

16   I mean if you have somebody that's incorrectly, you know,

17   administering these, that you can have these variations

18   which cause then the emissions to occur?


20   wouldn't say that he was being incorrect.     He was a

21   following a permit condition to build the foam blanket

22   before he began plating.

23           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:     But could he have been

24   educated to do it in a way that was, you know, correct?

25           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:      Mrs. Riordan, I

 1   think what's going on here is that when you build the

 2   blanket, you get emissions.     And so if once it's built you

 3   plate continuously, then during the time you're plating

 4   continuously you don't get those blanket-building

 5   emissions.    And so if you have intermittent operations you

 6   have to keep rebuilding, and there's just emissions

 7   associated with rebuilding.

 8              The HEPA filter is insensitive to on, off, on,

 9   off, on, off.   So that's why the HEPA filter is more

10   protective and has more emissions control than the

11   suppressant -- than the foam blanket just, you know, side

12   by side.

13              BOARD MEMBER BERG:   I think I'm confused, because

14   I think we heard testimony that says that the blanket can

15   last for two or three days.

16              EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:   Did you hear that

17   answer?    The lower surface tension lasts two to three

18   days, but not the blanket.

19              BOARD MEMBER BERG:   Okay.


21   is Janet Brooks.    I wanted to also clarify that with the

22   foaming fume suppressant that's just used alone that South

23   Coast certified, that is to the emission rate that allows

24   more emissions.    The alternative process that we have for

25   the intermediate facilities, that is to meet a very, very

 1   low emission rate that's equivalent to what add-on

 2   controls could do.

 3           So I think what you were talking about was if the

 4   fume suppressant -- a foaming fume suppressant is used

 5   alone, once the foam has built, you know, what is it

 6   emitting to?     Well, it's emitting to that .01.   But we

 7   don't think that's enough for the really big facilities.

 8   They need to control to .0015.    And we don't think with

 9   the foaming suppressant alone they can meet that low

10   emission rate.    But you heard about a source test where

11   they had a foaming fume suppressant plus polyballs --

12   other, you know, things in the tank to help the control

13   where they got the lower emission rate that we're shooting

14   for.

15           BOARD MEMBER BERG:      I think you bring up a very

16   good point.    And, that is, that each facility operator

17   knows their business best.    And if they can put together

18   technologies that meet the rule -- that's what I'm

19   struggling -- doesn't that make sense?

20           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:     Paula Forbis.

21           MS. FORBIS:     Good morning, Chairman Sawyer and

22   members of the Board.     My name is Paula Forbis and I'm

23   here today representing Environmental Health Coalition.

24           EHC is a grass-roots organization with a 26-year

25   history of working on issues of environmental justice in

 1   communities of color in San Diego.    We submitted written

 2   comments on behalf of EHC and 13 other environmental and

 3   environmental justice organizations from around the state.

 4            EHC was pleased to work with ARB in the San Diego

 5   APCD to address problems with Master Plating in the Barrio

 6   Logan community of San Diego.   As has been mentioned here

 7   today, Master Plating was a small chrome plater, operating

 8   at less than 40,000 ampere-hours per year.    It was found

 9   through an ARB monitoring program to be causing a cancer

10   risk of 114 cancers per million to the residents located

11   next door, the Martinez family.

12            And just in point of fact to the discussion that

13   you just had, they were using the Dismist NP foam blanket

14   as their control technology and were found to be in

15   compliance with that by both APCD and ARB at the time

16   these high emissions were recorded.

17            As you can see from the photo that I passed

18   around, the poster of the poster child, if you will, this

19   is an issue of extreme proximity.    Master Plating was

20   located about six feet from the Martinez family household.

21   And a child that moved in next door to that facility was

22   diagnosed with very severe asthma within months of moving

23   in.   His mother was diagnosed with severe asthma several

24   years later.   And since the closure of Master Plating

25   their symptoms have almost disappeared.

 1            As was mentioned, Master Plating has since ceased

 2   operation.    But we're still deeply concerned about this

 3   issue because we know that it was not an isolated incident

 4   and that plating shops are still located next to homes and

 5   schools in low income communities of color around the

 6   state.   It is in this context that I want to thank your

 7   staff for their hard work on this issue and say that while

 8   we find this proposal to be a big improvement over the

 9   current ATCM, we would request that you adopt the proposed

10   ATCM with one major amendment.   And that is simply that at

11   a minimum all existing sources within 1,000 feet or 300

12   meters of a sensitive receptor be equipped with HEPA

13   filtration or equivalent add-on controls.

14            As was noted in the staff report and repeatedly

15   mentioned today by your staff, add-on controls are the

16   most effective means of controlling hexavalent chromium.

17   With efficiency ratings of 99.97 percent, they are 85

18   percent more effective than fume suppressants alone.    And

19   fume suppressants are simply not as effective, even when

20   used in combination with mechanical suppressants such as

21   polyballs.

22            ARB's own testing program showed that by a

23   contrast add-am pollution control devices provide a

24   consistent level of control regardless of operating

25   parameters.   However, the proposed ATCM does not require

 1   add-on controls for small and intermediate facilities due

 2   to the supposedly small health risks that they pose to

 3   their neighbors.

 4           Yet there are two reasons that the actual cancer

 5   risks from these facilities is likely to be higher than is

 6   indicated in the staff report.    First, the cancer risk

 7   assessment completed for volume sources, those sources

 8   using fume suppressants as their mechanism of control,

 9   arrived at a cancer risk of 1 per million at a distance of

10   20 meters, or 60 feet, from the facility.

11           Again, facilities like Master Plating and others

12   around the state have residents that are located well

13   within that distance.    And the ARB staff report notes that

14   they cannot accurately calculate what the risk is to those

15   extreme near-source receptors.

16           Also, the staff report notes that fugitive dust

17   from these facilities may add to the risk.     And that is

18   not included in the risk assessment due to a lack of

19   information about the issue.

20           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:     I need to ask you to

21   conclude please.

22           MS. FORBIS:     Okay.   Nor is there a plan for

23   follow-up testing for the dust control measures as to

24   determine their effectiveness after the fact.

25           Requiring add-on controls for existing sources

 1   also brings a measure of internal consistency to your rule

 2   and treats new sources the same as existing sources, and

 3   is also consistent with your air quality and land-use

 4   handbook.

 5            For existing chrome platers within a thousand

 6   feet of a receptor not to be -- existing chrome platers

 7   within a thousand feet of a sensitive receptor are not

 8   being required to relocate.     What we are asking is that

 9   they be required to put on the most reliable and most

10   effective technology that's available.       That's HEPA

11   filtration or an equivalent add-on control.

12            The residence that live next door to these

13   facilities have suffered for too long and they deserve at

14   least that much from you.

15            Thank you very much.

16            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you.

17            All right.   Our final three speakers will be

18   Anita Sison, Bonnie Holmes-Gen, and Bill Magavern.

19            EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:      Marisa Brook

20   first.

21            MS. BROOK:   Maria Brook.

22            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    I'm sorry.

23            Maria Brook.

24            MS. BROOK:   Thank you for your patience.

25            My name is Maria Brook.     I am from the Town of

 1   Willits in the County of Mendocino.

 2           I have a three-minute content.     But because of my

 3   legal blindness, it may take me a little longer.    Please

 4   indulge me.

 5           I am an unwilling entrant in the worst-case

 6   scenario derby.     I come from a small town that from 1964

 7   to 1996 the one major industry was a chrome plating

 8   plant -- heavy chrome -- called Remco.     This plant ran

 9   three full shifts around the clock in service to Pentagon

10   contracts for plating aircraft carrier decks and

11   long-range missile hydraulics.

12           They illegally and wantonly dumped toxic waste

13   throughout the town and the entire surrounding valley.      We

14   are now struggling with the huge plumes of solvents and

15   heavy metals, most prevalently hex chrome.    And the

16   remediation process is still in the early stages even

17   though it has been ten years that the plant has closed.

18           We now know that it was the unrestrained air

19   emissions that posed the greatest threat to our health.

20   And the consequences of breathing hex chrome our only now

21   being manifested.    This is because the plant is located

22   directly across a very small street from the junior high

23   school and the hospital.    You are farther away from me

24   right now than the plant was.    The plant was closer to me

25   than you are if I was in the school yard.

 1            I want to say that sensitive receptors have

 2   names.   And I share with you Jeannie.   She was raised and

 3   went to school in Willits.   And after her high school

 4   graduation, she moved away to the Bay Area, as the

 5   majority of our young people do from rural areas.    She

 6   went to college, worked hard, got married and had two

 7   children, a son and a daughter.

 8            One and a half years ago she complained of

 9   persistent cough and unexplained weight loss.   She was

10   treated for emphysema and counseled on eating disorders.

11   It was only by chance that a routine x-ray located stage 4

12   cancer that had already metastasized to her brain and

13   bones.

14            None of her doctors thought to look for lung

15   cancer, despite her classic symptoms, because she was only

16   27 years old.

17            I'm sorry.   I do get emotional.   I was that

18   family's midwife.

19            Jeannie died six months ago, a tragic death.      And

20   it would be as tragic if she had been hit by a bus.      The

21   greater tragedy is she is just the first, but certainly

22   not the last, of cancer fatalities due to inhaled hex

23   chromium in people under 35.   As our school children were

24   exposed and are now leaving the latency period, the bill

25   has come due.

 1            What we need of this Board is simple:   Strong

 2   regulatory standards to keep the toxics contained

 3   effectively and even stronger consequences for

 4   noncompliance, to truly prevent emissions on every working

 5   level.

 6            I hope our towns -- and there are many of them --

 7   the lethal experience that we are undergoing serves as a

 8   warning and an example of why the new regulations are so

 9   necessary.   The cost of compliance pales in comparison to

10   the cost the state will bear assuming medical care for

11   those people, like myself, my family members and my entire

12   town, which has been designated at risk by ATSDR and the

13   California Department of Health Services.

14            We are now labeled as having a preexisting

15   condition for simply breathing.   Of course, this means

16   more people will be without health coverage and fall upon

17   the state for their medical care.

18            I urge you as a citizen to perform your duties

19   with good conscience.   I urge you as a taxpayer to place

20   the burden of prevention upon the industry that benefits.

21   And I urge you as a mother and grandmother to help protect

22   the good people in all of these impact and impact-possible

23   areas from the ongoing pain of ill health, fear and dread

24   that our children are under a death sentence waiting to be

25   randomly called to their execution.

 1             Thank you.    I welcome your questions.

 2             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you.

 3             Do we have any questions from the Board?

 4             BOARD MEMBER BERG:    No.   But thank you very much

 5   for coming.   And I know it was a lot of trouble.      And that

 6   was -- I appreciate that.

 7             MS. BROOK:    Thank you.

 8             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Anita Sison.

 9             MS. SISON:    Thank you very much for hearing this

10   public commentary.     My name is Anita Sison.   Excuse me for

11   a second.

12             I also live in Willitts.     And I've come here to

13   put a human face on hexavalent chrome and the whole

14   industry, because I have heard so many of the statistics

15   and the percentages and the amount of variabilities as to

16   how many people will be affected and what the economic

17   cost to an industry would be, which are all very valid

18   points.

19             But there's not much of the human element

20   involved in this entire hearing, in my viewpoint.      I have

21   one son who has severe neurological problems.       I have

22   property that's within the plume of this site that is now

23   no longer functioning.    My son is 22 years old.    I don't

24   know whether or not his symptoms are due to this exposure,

25   because I don't see any reports from anyone talking about

 1   how does this affect infants, children, women of

 2   child-bearing age, the elderly, the human cost, which I

 3   think is much more dramatic than any cost to an industry

 4   to put extra ventilation, extra facilities to make this

 5   heavily toxic substance -- it will never be nonexistent.

 6   The universe always has all the atoms still in the air.

 7           So whether or not you put a HEPA filter on it or

 8   not, it's still going to be around for somebody else to

 9   take care of.

10           The site has been closed for ten years.    There is

11   still very little happening in our community.   And I

12   would -- in terms of remediation.    There is lawsuits

13   involved.   There is all kinds of legalese happening.

14           But what I would like this commission to look at

15   is possibly come to our town.    We are the perfect petri

16   dish for what happens with a site.    We've been closed down

17   for ten years, and the residual effect is still coming on

18   and on and on.

19           If you want a site, we're the perfect ones.      I

20   realize that we don't have the population base that might

21   be statistically accurate, but we're a start.   And that

22   would be my request.

23           Thank you very much.

24           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:     Thank you, Ms. Sison.

25           BOARD MEMBER BERG:    I just would like to say

 1   thank you again.   I know that it's hard to come and the

 2   inconvenience of driving and coming.    And I really

 3   appreciate that you took the time.

 4           MS. SISON:    Thank you.   It's not an

 5   inconvenience.   And I wish more people were here to speak

 6   to you from the human side of this industry.

 7           BOARD MEMBER BERG:    I appreciate you putting a

 8   face to it.

 9           MS. SISON:    Thank you.

10           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Bonnie Holmes-Gen.

11           MS. HOLMES-GEN:    Good afternoon.   Bonnie

12   Holmes-Gen with the American Lung Association of

13   California.

14           And as a health organization, we are of course

15   extremely concerned with the public health toll of

16   chromium emissions and the high cancer risk and the other

17   respiratory health impacts.   You've heard a very moving

18   and human discussion of the public health toll, the human

19   toll, the emotional toll of people that are living in

20   close proximity to these facilities.    And I can't even

21   imagine having to live with my family having to breathe in

22   those emissions day after day.

23           As you've said, it's of course very difficult to

24   quantify those public health impacts, to quantify the

25   impact -- the costs of the cancers, the costs of the

 1   asthma attacks, medical expenses, hospitalizations,

 2   medications, premature death.    But we are -- we know that

 3   those costs are extremely high and we believe that the

 4   public health costs far overwhelm any cost of regulation

 5   that you're considering today.

 6             We're here basically to back up the

 7   recommendations of the Environmental Health Coalition, the

 8   California Community Against Toxics, and the community

 9   groups.   We are pleased that you are considering updating

10   the chrome regulation today.    We support the

11   technology-based approach in the regulation.     We think

12   that's important.   We appreciate the tremendous amount of

13   work that's gone into this regulation.    And what we are

14   urging you today is to build on the strong base that the

15   staff has presented to you with, adopt the regulation but

16   strengthening it, take it one step further and provide

17   that additional public health protection by requiring that

18   HEPA filters or equivalent control devices must be

19   required for all chrome platers within 1,000 feet of

20   sensitive receptors.

21             So we're urging that you again build on the

22   strong base, but just go one step forward to make sure

23   that the regulation is as protective as it can be,

24   especially for the sensitive receptors -- that term sounds

25   so clinical -- for the people, the children in the

 1   schools, for the people in the hospitals and health care

 2   facilities, people living close to these facilities.        I

 3   think you have a good definition of sensitive receptors in

 4   the reg.

 5              This specific change will make sure that you're

 6   adopting a regulation that provides the greatest level of

 7   public health protection, that will be using technologies

 8   that are reliable and effective, and will make sure that

 9   the regulation is consistent with the land-use handbook,

10   which we also fully supported.

11              Thank you for the time.

12              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you.

13              Bill Magavern.

14              MR. MAGAVERN:    Mr. Chairman and Board members.

15   I'm Bill Magavern with Sierra Club of California.     And

16   we've been concerned about chromium pollution for a number

17   of years.   We worked a few years ago with the Assembly

18   Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee and

19   worked with speaker Nunez and his staff on their proposal

20   to make some funding available through the program that

21   was described to you earlier.

22              And like the Lung Association, we support the

23   proposal, but with the strengthening amendment that was

24   proposed by the Environmental Health Coalition.     And I

25   think there are several good reasons for adopting that.

 1           And I think the industry presentation was very

 2   well organized.   And I appreciate the fact that the

 3   industry really came to this with a constructive attitude.

 4           But I think what the communities are asking for

 5   here is really very reasonable and very compelling,

 6   because what we're saying is that for those sites where

 7   the emissions are coming very close to the people in the

 8   homes, the schools, the hospitals, that we should require

 9   the add-on controls, the HEPA filters or anything

10   equivalent, if that exists.

11           And really the staff report points to that.     It

12   identifies those controls as the best available control

13   technology.   It says that they will give us an 85 percent

14   reduction in the cancer risk.   And right there you can see

15   that this is what we need to do.

16           I also think that we need to look at whether with

17   the fume suppressants we would be allowing for the

18   substitution of another toxin here.   And this is something

19   that I think we need to look at generally when we're

20   talking about how we're going to prevent pollution, is

21   let's not allow for a material that we have now identified

22   as being toxic to be introduced more widely.

23           This is a persistent biocumulative toxin.      I'm

24   talking of course about the PFOS.   And it is addressed in

25   the report, but I think there needs to be a more

 1   comprehensive evaluation.

 2           And what I don't see in the report is any

 3   indication that the experts on pollution prevention and

 4   hazardous materials at the Department of Toxic Substances

 5   Control were consulted on this.   If they were, that would

 6   be good to know about.   But I think in general, within

 7   this building, the different boards, departments and

 8   offices need so move toward more of a multimedia approach,

 9   and to be looking at, "Well, if we're substituting

10   something and saying that this is going to be good for

11   controlling pollution in one area, is there a danger that

12   we're actually increasing use of a toxin somewhere?"

13           So for all those reasons I think that at least in

14   those areas where you do have people breathing nearby, we

15   need to make sure that all the facilities have the add-on

16   control of the HEPA filtration.

17           Thank you very much.

18           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you.

19           Ms. Witherspoon.

20           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:      Yes, Dr. Sawyer.

21   I indicated earlier that we would talk again about how the

22   rule leaves this hearing room and is implemented locally.

23           And I just want to go back to that point, because

24   as you consider what rule it is you want to adopt, there

25   is a provision of state law that allows that dialogue and

 1   debate to continue in local air districts.   And it's

 2   relatively short, so I'm going to read you some key

 3   clauses in state law.

 4           And this is in the Health & Safety Code in the

 5   Toxic Air Contaminant Section.

 6           "Where an airborne toxic control measure requires

 7   the use of a specified method or methods to reduce, avoid

 8   or eliminate the emissions of a toxic air contaminant, a

 9   source may submit to the District an alternative method or

10   methods that will achieve an equal or greater amount of

11   reduction in emissions of and risks associated with that

12   toxic air contaminant.   The District shall approve the

13   proposed alternative method or methods if the operator of

14   the source demonstrates that the method is or the methods

15   are enforceable, that equal or greater amounts of

16   reduction in emissions and risks will be achieved, and it

17   will occur within the same time period as the ATCM."

18           And the paragraph at the very end goes on to say,

19   "The District shall notify the State Board of any action

20   it proposes to take pursuant to this subdivision."

21           So whether you adopt HEPA or not, whether you

22   embrace foam blankets or not, individual source operators

23   may propose to the air district they are in alternatives

24   to those controls.   And they bear the burden of proof.

25   And it's the district's call.    It doesn't come back to the

 1   executive officer of the Air Resources Board for my

 2   evaluation or to you for your evaluation except through

 3   notification.

 4           And this is true for every toxic control measure

 5   that you ever adopt, not just this one, that that process

 6   can go on locally.

 7           Did you have a question, Dr. Gong?

 8           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:      I guess this is a rather

 9   technically complex thing to deal with.   For example, if

10   we had a HEPA requirement, does that mean that each source

11   would have to demonstrate what the HEPA would have given?

12   And how do you go about doing that?

13           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:    The law simply

14   provides for this option.   How it's practically implicated

15   depends on the burden of proof that the district

16   establishes for the source to convince the district that

17   their counter-proposal is as good as the state ATCM.      So

18   that will be a judge locally.

19           Now, we aren't entirely out of the process.    Of

20   course we need to be notified.   Of course we'll have an

21   opinion, a technical opinion about what is a sufficient

22   demonstration.   But it's between the applicant and the

23   district, with our ATCM -- the state's ATCM as the

24   backstop, what alternatives can be considered.

25           So you don't have to answer every question today

 1   about alternatives.     There is this pathway to look at --

 2   to continue looking at them.

 3            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    It seems like it would be

 4   much more straightforward if there were a performance

 5   standard though to demonstrate different technologies

 6   meeting the same requirement.


 8   agree.   And I think part of what comes out is this, we

 9   say, technologically neutral.     And why is our proposal the

10   way it is?     Well, the proposal's the way it is because

11   we've got more than a decade of experience looking at a

12   technology, HEPA Filters, that we have dozens of source

13   tests.   And the source tests show that on average it

14   performs at 75 percent below the passing level for the

15   certification.    And you go out and you get a guaranty with

16   this technology.    And so we said, "That works, we're

17   convinced it works.     That should be the standard."   Now,

18   we have the prospect of other things coming along.       And in

19   reality we have one facility and one test that shows that

20   it can meet the standard level.

21            But that's a long way from showing equivalent

22   performance.    So we've elected to recommend a sure thing.

23   And I guess the issue comes down to:     What do we do if

24   other things come along and in reality, in the real world,

25   offer the same environmental protection and emission

 1   reduction?   And do we -- what kind of mechanism do we do

 2   that?   We have a mechanism in state law that allows that

 3   to happen to the district.

 4             We would clearly -- if the industry wants to go

 5   that way and we have it for the smaller sources, we need

 6   to work on that to ensure that we understand what it is.

 7   And then if it is truly equivalent in terms of health

 8   protection and emission reductions over time, that would

 9   open the door for I think a change in the ATCM in the

10   future.

11             BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:   Mr. Chairman, I -- this is

12   very helpful though.   I had not remembered that ATCM, you

13   know, sort of understanding that allows for the new

14   technology or existing technology.    And I think it is

15   right that someone who is using it then has that burden.

16   Either they using it or the provider of the technology

17   also can assist in proving that.

18             So I've derived a lot of comfort from your

19   explanation and reminding us what is in the law that

20   allows for us to then move forward.

21             ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS:   Mr. Chairman,

22   for the record, the provision Ms. Witherspoon was

23   referring to was Health & Safety Code Section 39666

24   Subsection F.

25             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Mayor Loveridge.

 1            BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE:   Just tell me.   I have no

 2   idea about this.   But I have some kind of chrome plant and

 3   I figured out another technology that works, meets all the

 4   performance standards.   Do I -- what's the timeline on it?

 5   What's the schedule?   I mean I claim I have it and I want

 6   to work with the district.    Do I have to -- I mean help me

 7   understand what an alternative technology choice really

 8   means.   I mean is that a real choice or is it just the

 9   rhetoric of choice?

10            EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:   The rule that

11   staff is proposing to you has different implementation

12   dates, between two and five years, for moving to the best

13   fume suppressants and to HEPA filters, depending on how

14   close you are to receptors.    And so districts have to

15   match.   When they either readopt our rule by reference or

16   adopt their own version of it locally, they have to be on

17   the same timetable.

18            So I would say before the rule is applicable to

19   an individual facility, if that facility wants to comply

20   by another method, it needs to bring its test results,

21   argumentation, et cetera, into the district and make their

22   case and get technical review at a district.

23            Now, is it a real option or not?   I think it's

24   very hard to prove equivalence with HEPA filtration.      The

25   package proposal that the South Coast submitted to us was

 1   a combination for that reason.     And so they had at the

 2   very, very largest facilities, like half a dozen or so,

 3   HEPA plus fume suppressants to get added control from

 4   those facilities to make up numerically for a little less

 5   control on the face of it for the smaller facilities, and

 6   then juggling the time tables around.

 7              So it might be hard for a single facility to make

 8   the case.   But if the source test you saw today is

 9   indicative of how operations can be maintained over all

10   operations of a chrome plater, then it's not impossible.

11   So it's a very promising result.    It's not definitive, and

12   there would need to be, you know, replication of those

13   data, examination of the on-again, off-again problem, or

14   anything else that should be looked at.

15              But I think it's within the realm of possibility.

16   And facing a HEPA requirement will stimulate an awful lot

17   of activity to come up with something as good and that's

18   cheaper.

19              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Ms. D'Adamo.

20              BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:   If you choose to go that

21   route, typically how long does it take to gear up and

22   install a HEPA filter?   And also, are there backlogs as

23   far as ordering and actually getting it over to the plant?


25   actually estimate that there should be about a minimum of

 1   two years to allow for the whole process of designing,

 2   purchasing, installing HEPA filtration systems.      So that's

 3   kind of why you see the timing in the proposal that we

 4   have before you today, is we think that is the amount of

 5   time that's needed.

 6             BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:   So this alternative

 7   strategy wouldn't work for someone that's at the early

 8   end?

 9             EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:    Well, the rule

10   does not take effect the moment you adopt it.     We have to

11   go through -- do we have 15-day changes on this one? -- so

12   we have 15-day changes.   We have an additional comment

13   period.   We have to file it with the Office of

14   Administrative Law.   A few more months are going to go by

15   just processing whatever your decision is today.      And so

16   that certainly is time that can be spent on examination of

17   alternatives.

18             BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:   And the two year is

19   closest -- the group that comes in at two years is closest

20   to the sensitive receptors?

21             EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:    Receptors, right.

22   And largest amp-hours.

23             BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:   Okay.

24             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Ms. Berg.

25             ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS:   Yeah.    Perhaps

 1   Mr. Jenne can correct me if I'm wrong.     But normally on

 2   ATCMs the compliance period wouldn't start -- the clock

 3   wouldn't start running for the compliance period until

 4   four months after the ATCM becomes effective as a matter

 5   of state law.

 6           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:     It might be six.

 7   I was wondering the same thing.    The districts have six

 8   months to adopt the equivalent or better.    And does that

 9   eat into the compliance period or add to it?

10           SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNE:      Well, the districts

11   have a choice.   They can adopt their own ATCM, in which

12   case they do it within that four month period.    Or they

13   can just go ahead and enforce the state ATCM.    So if they

14   chose that latter option, that wouldn't add any time to

15   the process.

16           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:     It's the

17   processing time that gives you a --

18           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Supervisor DeSaulnier.

19           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:      It's my turn.

20           I guess my concern is, and given what, Catherine,

21   you just said about the Health & Safety Code, is it --

22   maybe it's semantics or how we approach this.    But my

23   concern -- as long as the chemical fuel suppressants are

24   the equal -- I guess that's where you landed.    But then

25   how do you enforce that?   And given that there's a limited

 1   number of facilities, it gives me an added level of

 2   comfort that you're able to.   So that if the Bay Area Air

 3   District and South Coast is right and there are

 4   improvements, that's fine.   We're sort of fuel neutral on

 5   this.   But having said that, wouldn't it better for us

 6   given what the Health & Safety Code says that we put the

 7   language of the Environmental Health Coalition as an

 8   amendment?   Then, as I understand what you said,

 9   individual facilities could still come into the air

10   district and say, "We believe we can achieve equivalence

11   in terms of emissions by doing chemical fuel

12   suppressants."

13            So we're getting to this -- I just --


15   answer --

16            BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:   I'm pretty certain

17   we're getting to the same destination.     And there's a

18   certain amount -- there's certainty both from a health

19   standpoint, emissions standpoint.   And strikes me that

20   helps the operators as well from a financial standpoint,

21   although it might not be where they want to be right now.

22            EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:    Before I answer

23   Supervisor DeSaulnier's question, let me just clarify for

24   the Board.   The staff proposal is below 20,000 amp-hours,

25   fume suppressants; 20 to 200,000, HEPA or fume

 1   suppressants if you can shows equivalence; and above

 2   200,000, HEPA only, because we don't believe that it's

 3   going to be equivalent and, you know, putting the --

 4           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:    -- the larger.

 5           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:   Yeah.   And so you

 6   just asked me what if we said HEPA only for 20 to 200,000,

 7   which is the enviro proposal.

 8           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:   Well, HEPA filtration

 9   systems or equivalent add-on pollution control devices.

10           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:   Right, which --

11           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:   But that would still

12   allow under the Health & Safety Code -- pardon me for

13   interrupting -- as I understood what you said, the

14   applicants to come in to the individual air districts and

15   say, "We've got something that's the equivalent or that."

16           Am I understanding what you said?


18   understanding what I said, or -- yeah, we're understanding

19   each other.   But I need staff's help on the equivalency

20   demonstration in our rule versus the one contemplated in

21   the Health & Safety Code and why they would be different,

22   or are they the same?

23           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:   I guess it's just a

24   question of approach for me.

25           SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNE:    Well, the Health &

 1   Safety Code doesn't say anything about how the equivalency

 2   demonstration is supposed to be made.    It just says that

 3   this -- this says a source can come in with a district and

 4   they can apply and say, "We think we got some evidence

 5   that demonstrates that our alternative approach is

 6   equivalent."   And then it's really going to be up to the

 7   district and the source to have a dialogue and decide

 8   whether the evidence is sufficient or how they want to

 9   proceed at that point.

10           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:     It just seems to me we

11   got the best of both worlds under that circumstance.

12           SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNE:     And I might also add

13   that the --

14           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:     And in the amendment.

15           SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNE:     I might also add

16   that the Health & Safety Code provision is available,

17   whether or not the ATCM is amended.    The ATCM could go

18   forward exactly as proposed and sources would still have

19   this option under the Health & Safety Code to do that

20   alternative demonstration.

21           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:     Within the rule

22   we have articulated how you have to do the demonstration

23   of equivalence for 20,000 200,000.    And Carla will explain

24   that.

25           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:     And let me just finish.

 1           It strikes me that the higher standard in terms

 2   of your confidence is the HEPA standard.    So if you use

 3   that language, it strikes me it does raise the bar a

 4   little bit, but it provides more certainty that you're

 5   actually going to get the equivalent.


 7   I'm here to address how you would go about the equivalency

 8   demonstration.   And the rule would require each facility,

 9   whether it's putting on an add-on control device or

10   whether it would be one of the facilities that would have

11   the flexibility, they would be required to do what is

12   called a performance test, which really means a source

13   test, to demonstration that they do meet that emission

14   rate.

15           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:   Catherine, did the

16   sources know this prior to coming in here, that the Health

17   & Safety Code provided them this outlet?

18           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:     I don't think

19   that they did.   And, in fact, the district staff brought

20   it to our -- your district staff brought it to our

21   attention.

22           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:   Well, you know we do

23   excellent work in the Bay Area.   Of course we pay for it

24   too.

25           (Laughter.)

 1           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:     I'd forgotten

 2   this clause was in the Health & Safety Code as well.       But

 3   it did change the debate about how much you need to change

 4   versus how much can go on locally.


 6   can add just a little bit on the equivalency

 7   determination.   And in my experience in sort of doing

 8   equivalency with U.S. EPA, we have taken a broad

 9   interpretation of what that means.    But in this case I

10   think what we would want to have is not only the

11   performance standard, but a series of monitoring and

12   record keeping requirements that would assure us that it

13   would achieve equivalent compliance on an ongoing basis.

14   Of course we have no approval authority.    But we would

15   want to work with the districts to define what those MRR

16   requirements are that ensure the continuous compliance.

17   And I think that is something that the districts would

18   want as well.

19           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:     So last question to

20   Catherine perhaps or to staff.

21           If we did the amendment but we also gave

22   direction to work with the sources on the provision in the

23   Health & Safety Code, could you do those kind of

24   performance standards or clarify within the 30 days in the

25   follow-up, or at least provide an avenue to do that?


 2           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:     You want 30 days to

 3   think about it?

 4           (Laughter.)

 5           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:     Mr. Scheible and

 6   I were just discussing.     I mean this is so odd that we

 7   have set in our rule medium-sized facilities have the

 8   equivalency option and you don't have it for big, and then

 9   state law says you have it for everybody.    So the question

10   that I was just asking him is:    Would it actually be more

11   protective if for the big ones we articulated what the

12   equivalency standard had to be?    Which is what Mr.

13   Fletcher was just talking about.

14           But back to what we crafted.     It was our

15   understanding people would go to fume suppressants, that

16   they would -- in combination with polyballs, and with the

17   risk and the source test, they would reach for the best,

18   and we would essentially allow it.     And that we were

19   making a presumption about the economic burdens of this

20   rule, not requiring HEPA for all of them unless you had

21   very proximate receptors.

22           And to flip the presumption around and say it's

23   going to be HEPA unless you really convince us that you've

24   got it and you can get back out.    I mean I'm struggling

25   myself with where the burden of proof is in our rule and

 1   if we're just talking a little bit in circles here.

 2              So I'm looking both to Mr. Scheible and Mr.

 3   Fletcher to help me with this on what you have to prove to

 4   get out of HEPA in our medium-sized category and then how

 5   we carry that into the large category.     Because we don't

 6   have it.     We just said -- we've presumptively said it has

 7   to be HEPA.

 8              BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:   And my only interest is

 9   we get equivalencies is what I'm concerned with.    And I

10   want to make sure the bar's set at the appropriate rate.


12   going to mention that I don't think that 30 days would

13   allow us to do that.    I think that what is going to be

14   required is an evaluation of the technology on essentially

15   a case-by-case basis.     Each of the facilities is going to

16   have their own configurations where some technologies may

17   have more applicability because of the types of plating

18   that they do and their ability to sustain the polyball,

19   foam blanket, mist suppressant, or what is collectively

20   called the in-tank controls.    I think that is a little bit

21   difficult.

22              When we set the greater than 200,000 at HEPA

23   only, I think what we were trying to do is to set a higher

24   standard for equivalency than what would be available in

25   the 20 to 200,000 amp-hour category.     And we were hoping

 1   that the districts would take a much more strident look at

 2   those facilities to ensure that they were taking into

 3   consideration the receptors nearby and this concept of

 4   continuous compliance.

 5           I think we can work with the districts, I think

 6   we can work with the industry to define, you know, the

 7   general parameters.    And I think that can be handled under

 8   a resolution consideration.

 9           But I think under the existing structure of the

10   regulation, we were trying to set a higher standard for

11   equivalency and for public health protection, because we

12   felt that the 20 to 200,000 had a little bit more

13   flexibility.

14           And I guess the code provides the equivalency for

15   the source.    And I'm concerned that there's an equally

16   firm confidence in the communities around it that they've

17   gotten equivalency.

18           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:     I need to correct

19   what -- I just chatted with staff.    I need to correct an

20   impression I left a moment ago that we thought in the

21   medium-sized facilities that it wouldn't end up being out

22   of control.    Staff actually thinks that it will.   And so

23   even with the equivalency demonstration we have so far,

24   unless, you know, the technologies really come through,

25   the alternative technologies, we're going to see add-on

 1   controls in the very large and in the mediums.

 2            What the enviro proposal -- how it's different

 3   from that, it says everybody within a thousand feet uses

 4   HEPA.   So the less than 20,000 amp-hours go to HEPA, which

 5   means they're gone.

 6            BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:    I'm sorry, Catherine.

 7   But under the Health & Safety Code, there's still a

 8   provision for them to come in and prove equivalence.

 9            EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:    Yes.   But these

10   are very, very small businesses.    And so economically they

11   couldn't afford the HEPA economically, they probably

12   couldn't afford the lawyers, the consultants, the

13   whatever, unless their trade association did it for them,

14   to come in and say they had the alternative.

15            So I think what it means to drive HEPA all the

16   way down to under 20,000 is under 20,000's gone, those

17   living -- you know, those operating within a thousand feet

18   of a house.   So I mean it's still before you, is that the

19   right thing to do?

20            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Dr. Gong.

21            BOARD MEMBER GONG:    Quick conceptual question,

22   pursuant to what Ms. Witherspoon said minutes ago.

23            Am I understanding you correctly, is that -- in

24   my mind this is sort of like an exception to the rule

25   because this is an ATCM, that the air districts can get

 1   these appeals then from sources, and as long as they show

 2   equivalency but not less than equivalent methods that it's

 3   up to the local air district to say "yea" or "nay" and

 4   then they also need to present it to this Board?    Or how

 5   does that work?

 6           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:    They need to

 7   notify us.

 8           BOARD MEMBER GONG:   I see.   So they make the

 9   final decision in that regard.

10           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:    That's the way

11   law's structured, yes.


13   remember, the law in general says districts are primarily

14   responsible for stationary sources.   With toxics it makes

15   a difference and says the State Board shall set statewide

16   standards.    So --

17           BOARD MEMBER GONG:   I see. But they carry it out?


19   goes back and says, but even where the state has set

20   statewide standards, you still have discretion so long as

21   you are convinced that the use of the discretion is as

22   protective.

23           BOARD MEMBER GONG:   Is this --

24           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:    And you can be

25   more stringent too.

 1              BOARD MEMBER GONG:   Well, usually I think they

 2   could be more stringent, not less stringent.     So then the

 3   question I have is:     Is this going to weaken whatever

 4   decision we make here at this level if a source shows that

 5   this method, you know, is just a bit under or a bit over?


 7   doesn't weaken it under the law.    But the issue is who

 8   gets to decide.

 9              BOARD MEMBER GONG:   Yeah.

10              DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE:   And I think

11   the way the law is structured is the district gets to

12   call.   And we can overturn that, but it's a very difficult

13   process.    So the district in most cases will be the

14   deciding agency over:    Is this more effective -- as

15   effective or more effective?    And therefore I'm going to

16   allow it in my district for my residents.

17              BOARD MEMBER GONG:   So the local districts

18   determine equivalency --


20              BOARD MEMBER GONG:   -- and can get by with that,

21   more or less?

22              DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE:   Right.   And

23   maybe in this case we should go work with the -- there's

24   three districts that are primarily affected going to say,

25   how would one set this up and work it so that it doesn't

 1   have to be done on the each each time?    And we could agree

 2   up front to that.

 3           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Ms. Berg.

 4           BOARD MEMBER BERG:    I'm a little uncomfortable

 5   with the span of our conversation today and where it's

 6   kind of gone.   And so I'm not sure that my recommendation

 7   wouldn't be to return this back to staff and get with

 8   industry and get with the districts and get it worked out.

 9   I'm concerned in my vote as to what really I'm voting for.

10   And my concerns are on both sides.   I'm really concerned

11   on the near source, the extreme near source.   And I'm not

12   sure that because of the nature of this toxin that maybe

13   extreme near sources shouldn't be there any more.   And I'm

14   not opposed to looking at defining extreme near source,

15   which in my view would not be 300 meters.   But next

16   door -- plating companies probably shouldn't be next door

17   to residences anymore.   And how they got there and so

18   forth, that's unfortunate.   But maybe that is something we

19   should look at.

20           And then you have the 300 meter issue.    And then

21   we have over 300 meters, which is -- and if we put the

22   extreme HEPA filters on those and don't allow them to come

23   back and decide what is their best control performance,

24   not that we're lessening the rule.

25           And so when I look at these issues, I wonder if

 1   we haven't fleshed out some things that need to be looked

 2   at.

 3              Then I also -- my last things are the strong

 4   consequences.   I'm very in favor for that.     And we didn't

 5   hear too much about inspection.      And there was an issue

 6   brought up of record keeping.      Don't they have to record

 7   keep anyway?    And they should.   So if they have, then if

 8   they were doing the fume suppressants or the blanket or

 9   any combination of these things, we should have the

10   records anyway.

11              And so I think I'm more confused than when I

12   started.    I apologize.

13              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Mayor Loveridge.

14              BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE:   Let me -- I was going to

15   go in a different direction.     But I think it's a question

16   of would we be better served by a month of a chance for

17   the districts and the industry to come back?

18              Catherine, your reaction to that.

19              EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:   We can always

20   take time.    I don't think the --

21              BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE:   Yeah, I wasn't looking

22   for extending -- for time, but whether or not further

23   conversation with the districts so it's clear what the

24   role of the districts are, and so the industry understands

25   the choices before it, would they be better served by a

 1   delay -- or a continuance for one month?

 2              EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:   I don't believe

 3   so, no, but with the one exception of should we have an

 4   extreme near-source requirement.    Because staff came in

 5   today with strengthening proposals, to go from 300 to a

 6   thousand feet, to have fume suppressants early rather than

 7   later for when we had HEPA later.    And I consider the

 8   question that Ms. Berg just raised another strengthening

 9   at the very low end for extreme near sources.     Then we'd

10   have to pick that boundary.

11              If it was clear enough that that was the will of

12   the Board, that could be a 15-day change.      It wouldn't

13   take another month.

14              I do think on the issue of air district/ARB

15   relations, that's longer than a month.      And it always is.

16   And also it's source specific, device specific.      What's

17   the protocol going to be for proving out one method versus

18   another?    And we'd want to spend quality time with the

19   industry on what those burdens were.    They've learned

20   today -- and they're very well represented here -- that

21   this clause exists.    And I'm sure the wheels in their

22   brains are churning on how we might apply this going

23   forward and what the burdens of proof would be.

24              So a month won't change that.    If there's a split

25   on the Board on where HEPA presumption should or shouldn't

 1   apply, then, you know, maybe you need more time to come to

 2   a consensus.

 3              BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE:   Let me follow up then.

 4   Just a couple.    One, the stuff's bad.   Bad stuff, needs to

 5   go away.    I'm really kind of intrigued by trying to

 6   accelerate and connecting with the Defense Department.

 7   And I think we ought to have some attention to that role.

 8              And I think that not only it's receptors.    What

 9   bothers me is the workers, I mean when you talk about

10   jobs.   But somebody it's not simply runs into this

11   occasionally, but has to live with it day in and day out.

12   It seems to me it's a difficult thing to ask somebody to

13   do.

14              But I would like to ask Jill Whynot if she would

15   just respond from the point of view of the South Coast

16   district of whether or not the role the district has, as

17   going to frame this as clear, whether it would be -- and I

18   guess I'm particularly puzzled by whether or not what you

19   and Ed presented could in fact happen under the kind of

20   framework that's being discussed today.

21              MS. WHYNOT:   Well, thank you very much.   And I'm

22   glad you asked me up here, because I've been itching in my

23   seat to make a few comments.

24              I think what the staff at the AQMD is proposing,

25   to set the emission limit, actually achieves the

 1   alternative compliance.   And it's much better to set it in

 2   the rule than to have dozens of facilities come in and

 3   deal with the district staff, take a lot of their time and

 4   resources, our time and resources, and argue each point.

 5   Whereas, if you set in the rule it's .0015 milligrams per

 6   amp-hour with HEPA, fume suppressants, scrubbers, whatever

 7   combination, you do it with a source test, then you're

 8   there.   And you don't have to deal with individual

 9   facilities petitioning.   And it's a much better clear

10   signal of where the target is and how you're going to get

11   there.

12            EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:     ARB staff would

13   oppose doing it that way, because we believe the signal

14   should be it's HEPA unless you can prove equivalence.     And

15   to set a standard and not express our technical view that

16   HEPA's the best is the wrong signal.

17            BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE:    Okay.

18            BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:   I'm confused.

19            (Laughter.)

20            BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:   If we could take slide 26

21   from staff's presentation.

22            BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:    And now the attorney is

23   going to come in.

24            (Laughter.)

25            BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:   I'm just trying to put

 1   everything into various boxes here.   And overall I like

 2   Supervisor DeSaulnier's approach, because under that

 3   approach we're still voicing a preference for HEPA, and

 4   then we just follow existing law -- or we allow the

 5   facilities to follow existing law as far as going back to

 6   the local district.

 7           But looking at this chart, I'm just wanting to

 8   make sure that I understand what your intention was,

 9   Supervisor DeSaulnier.   Were you considering HEPA at the

10   under 20,000 or were you looking at some variation on the

11   between 20 and 200?

12           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:   No.   Dede, I was just

13   looking at the Environmental Health Coalition's actual

14   language, which says, "HEPA filtration" -- this would be

15   in the amendment -- "HEPA filtration systems or equivalent

16   add-on pollution control devices are the best control

17   technology and should be required for all chrome platers

18   in the State of California that are located within a

19   thousand feet of the sensitive receptor, with the

20   additional knowledge that individual companies could come

21   in and ask under the Health & Safety Code to demonstrate

22   equivalency."

23           And the one thing I would add since I've got the

24   microphone:   Catherine, couldn't we give direction to the

25   three air districts to work collaboratively so each

 1   individual doesn't have to come in?    Maybe there's a

 2   hybrid of what South Coast is suggesting.     So rather than

 3   have them all come in, the three districts particularly,

 4   South Coast brings them in and basically said, "This is

 5   what we think equivalency is."

 6           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:     We absolutely

 7   could and we absolutely should.    And the way that I would

 8   interpret the enviro coalition proposal on this table,

 9   sort of connecting back to Ms. D'Adamo's question, is that

10   under 20,000 would read -- did you say a thousand meters

11   or is it a thousand feet? -- thousand feet, so 300 meters.

12   And then it would have that same .0015 amp-hour, which is

13   equivalent to HEPA, and it would not have the asterisk

14   that said you don't have the equivalency option.

15           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:     Right.

16           BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:     How many facilities are we

17   talking about?   Do you have -- right now it's 48 total.

18   How many do we peel off?


20   the 48 how many --

21           BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:     Within 300 meters.


23   we don't have data that go out that far.

24           BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:     Because basically, Ms.

25   Witherspoon, you had indicated earlier that these

 1   facilities are so small we're basically recognizing that

 2   they wouldn't have an option with HEPA and that we would

 3   be making a determination as a board that there are

 4   overriding public health concerns because of the sensitive

 5   receptors.

 6              DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE:   But we're

 7   saying they're small and we're also saying they're

 8   emissions because their work is very low, their emissions

 9   are low.     Therefore, we believe that we can get very good

10   risk reduction and low levels of -- and high level of

11   health protection without going to HEPA.     And concurrently

12   I think it's also true to say, I think the vast majority

13   of these will be within a thousand feet of a resident.

14   And most of them will not have the financial resources to

15   afford a HEPA filter.

16              EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:   Or to come in --


18   consequences of adopting that approach for this class will

19   be economically quite significant.

20              BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:   And I guess my point

21   is, if we can deal with the air districts -- and,

22   Catherine, you indicated we could, that we could work with

23   them collectively so they don't have to go out -- no

24   offense to attorneys -- and have all that up front cost,

25   that we could basically ask -- and I'm sure -- I think we

 1   have seven facilities in the Bay Area.   Obviously South

 2   Coast has more.   But I assume that we would want to do

 3   that anyway.

 4           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:     Yeah, and the

 5   trade association will bear some of the burden.   It's

 6   just -- what would the timetable be too?    You'd make the

 7   effective date two years?

 8           BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:   Well, I would say we need

 9   to give these people a lot of time under that category.

10           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:   That's fine with me.

11           BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:   These are smaller

12   businesses.

13           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:     Five because the

14   risk is so low.

15           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:   My problem is you're

16   saying we're going to get equivalency.   But then in the

17   same breath we seem to be saying but we don't think they

18   can prove it.   And I --


20   these small guys we were proposing a standard of .01.       And

21   we know that fume suppressants meet that.   So if we went

22   with the other proposal, I think we would be proposing a

23   more stringent standard for these that would likely force

24   HEPA filters.

25           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:   Mr. Chairman, it seems to

 1   me in the Barrio Logan study we did learn some things

 2   about the fumes -- am I wrong in remembering that one was

 3   closed but one is still existing, but that when we did the

 4   testing, which was substantial, that that one could

 5   continue by doing certain things to suppress the

 6   emissions.

 7              EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:    The one that

 8   closed had a foam blanket.   It didn't have a fume

 9   suppressant.    So we think had they had a fume suppressant,

10   it might not have been so bad.     But it was also a bad

11   operator.    And the one that's still open is HEPA.

12              BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:   Oh, is HEPA, is that

13   right?


15              BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:   Okay.   Thank you very

16   much.

17              BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:   What size are they in

18   terms of --


20   would fall within the large category.      I believe they have

21   several million amp-hours a year.

22              BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:   I was thinking they were

23   smaller.

24              SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNE:     Ms. D'Adamo, I

25   wanted to clarify one thing.   When you see the two years

 1   and five years dates, when it says effective date, that

 2   means from the date the regulation is operative, it's been

 3   through OAL.   So really what that means most likely is

 4   about two years and nine or ten months.    Because it

 5   typically would be about nine months from now when the

 6   Regulation would go based on our previous experience with

 7   timing.

 8             BOARD MEMBER BERG:   One of the things that's

 9   important to me is when we see data like from California

10   Electroplating that has gone through the trouble of

11   setting up testing, having it observed, third party, and

12   comes with data, that's a significant commitment.   And

13   here is a company that is below what we're requiring.     And

14   I just don't feel that it is necessary to tell an operator

15   like that, no, we don't trust -- I mean I think the data

16   has to -- and you have to review the data and we want to

17   make sure.   But to tell that individual, "No, you've got

18   to put HEPA filters because we sleep better at night," I

19   just -- I'm uncomfortable with that.

20             EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:   Well, if you

21   recall, it's not just because we sleep better at night.

22   It's because there will still be some inherent

23   differences.   And you may remember another slide that said

24   even after HEPA filters, we had 17 of the very largest

25   facilities, they were in excess of 10 million per cancer

 1   risk, and we were going to require site-specific analyses

 2   to see what else could be done and if in fact all of them

 3   have proximate receptors or not.

 4           So HEPA still, you know, is going to give us that

 5   added bit of control, we think.    And we're creating the

 6   opportunity for all the way down to 20,000 amp-hours to

 7   bring in these alternative cases.     But going for HEPA in

 8   the greater than -- are you saying above 200,000 we should

 9   also consider it and say it could be as good?

10           BOARD MEMBER BERG:   You know, right now, my --

11   and I really don't know how to go on this -- but my

12   thinking is we have a problem with extreme near sources.

13   Those are people that are living next to or down the

14   street, like a block, next to plating companies.    That

15   sounds like a really poor idea to me now, given what we

16   know.

17           Then after that, so more than size it seems to me

18   that exposure to this toxic chemical next door is a very

19   bad public policy for human health.     After that, it's a

20   matter of the industry meeting performance standards.        And

21   so I think what I'm looking at is identifying an extreme

22   near-source range, which I don't think I agree is 300

23   meters, but I would certainly lean to the staff to say

24   what is an extreme near source.    When I look at this

25   picture, I don't -- you know, I'm not sure it gives me

 1   much comfort that the people on the other side use a HEPA

 2   filter and they do those millions of amp-hours.

 3              EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:   Yeah, what I'm

 4   hearing is a great deal of agreement between you,

 5   Supervisor DeSaulnier and Ms. D'Adamo about within the

 6   impact zone it should be HEPA.   That's what I think I'm

 7   hearing.    And then I would like to ask, Supervisor

 8   DeSaulnier and DeDe D'Adamo, do you feel like Ms. Berg

 9   does, is outside of a thousand feet if there should be

10   more flexibility or not?   Because we have given you rule

11   requirements driven by amp-hours, and they could be

12   reconstructed to be driven by proximity.

13              BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:   Yeah, that's fine with

14   me.

15              EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:   So the difference

16   is that proximity of course can change as land use

17   continues to change in California.     And that will be an

18   issue for us.

19              BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:   And that's in the

20   amendment -- that's in language of the amendment.

21              EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:   Yeah.   Now, that

22   that's the proposal, I would agree with the 30-day -- to

23   bring you back, one versus the other, who's affected, how

24   the costs fall out, if you go with proximity as your

25   principal driving factor on HEPA or not versus hours.        And

 1   we could bring this back to you at the November -- what is

 2   it? -- at the October hearing and talk about that.

 3             BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:   If I could just add

 4   that --

 5             EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:    Oh, October's an

 6   early Board meeting, so it's only three weeks away.

 7   November might be better.

 8             And November's a two-day hearing.     Can you all be

 9   there for two days?    It's in San Francisco.

10             BOARD MEMBER BERG:   Yes.

11             BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:   Those of us who are

12   outside of San Francisco can make it.

13             BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:    Actually I'll be in

14   Sacramento.   But I'll be there for the second day, yes.

15             BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:   Well, what I was going to

16   add -- I'm comfortable with where you're headed, but just

17   wanted to maybe throw out another idea for the small

18   operators.    Some distance that is extremely close, as Ms.

19   Berg indicates.    Maybe a hundred meters or less.   And the

20   chemical suppressant being maybe Phase 1 at six months.

21   And then Phase 2, maybe give the larger operators an

22   opportunity to find some other options and kick in Phase 2

23   for basically a HEPA standard or equivalency at five years

24   or even seven years, putting them slightly behind, because

25   the 20,000 to 200,000 above hundred meters has five years.

 1           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:       Well, give us

 2   time to chew on this.    How about it?

 3           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Well, it sounds like we're

 4   headed to a delay, which will give a chance to work out

 5   some of these things.    It seems like there are a lot of

 6   technical issues that need to be clarified on how to deal

 7   with this.    But I think you're hearing the direction from

 8   the Board, that we want it to be protective, we want it to

 9   be particularly protective for people who are close by.

10   But we also want some clarification on these equivalencies

11   and how that would really work.

12           Dr. Gong.

13           BOARD MEMBER GONG:    Just a comment.

14           Again, to remind you, the land-use handbook says

15   1,000 feet from sensitive receptor.      So I'd like to make

16   sure that we're consistent.   Or that there's an exception,

17   we should try to explain that as best we can.

18           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:      I think the staff

19   proposal is that for a new facility coming in within a

20   thousand feet you have to use HEPA -- for anybody coming

21   in.

22           BOARD MEMBER GONG:    There's some discussion about

23   shortening the distance.   And I didn't capture all of that

24   discussion.   But, again, I just wanted to remind you about

25   the handbook.


 2   there's a closer distance, we'll explain with how the risk

 3   for those facilities is small even though distance is

 4   less.   That's a generic, kind of all facilities should --

 5   want this type of buffer.      But in reality for a very small

 6   source, a somewhat smaller buffer provides for pretty good

 7   risk protection.

 8             BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:      Mr. Chairman, I'd be

 9   happy to make a motion, since it seems like we're there.

10             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Yes.

11             BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:      I'd move that we

12   continue this till the November hearing -- the second day

13   of the November hearing.    And for me, the option I would

14   like to look at is the staff recommendation.       I think you

15   all have done a really good job.     I don't think any of us

16   are suggesting with a complicated issue.       But to add the

17   language that the Environmental Health Coalition -- that's

18   what I would like to look at and other iterations.         But

19   with some language for our staff to work with the three

20   affected air districts to help the operators be able to

21   come in collectively to demonstrate equivalency.

22             BOARD MEMBER BERG:    I second.

23             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Are we ready to vote on the

24   motion?

25             All those in favor please say aye.

 1              (Ayes.)

 2              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Opposed?

 3              Okay.   We'll revisit this in November.

 4              Thank you all very much who came today to

 5   participate in this hearing.

 6              We will now take a break for lunch.    We have a

 7   long day ahead of us.     So a half hour, is that --

 8              ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS:   Mr. Sawyer, I

 9   made a mistake.      Artavia had been suggesting to me to

10   prompt you to close the record before the vote on the

11   hearing.    And I sort of thought it was good to have this

12   free-flowing discussion and you'd be able to ask the South

13   Coast.   But if it's your intent that the record be closed

14   now until a 15-day comment period opens, my recommendation

15   is to move and do that now.

16              BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:   Wouldn't it be best to

17   leave it open?     So my motion would be that we would

18   actually leave the comment period open and continue it

19   till November.

20              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   I don't see that there will

21   be any problem with having additional information during

22   this period of time.     So let's just leave it open, which

23   means we don't have to do anything.

24              Okay.   We will resume at 2 o'clock, promptly.

25              (Thereupon a lunch break was taken.)

 1                          AFTERNOON SESSION

 2             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   The Air Resources Board is

 3   now back in session.

 4             The next agenda item is 6-8-4, proposed

 5   amendments to Air Resources Board's on-board diagnostic

 6   system requirements, also known as OBD II.

 7             The OBD program is important because it insures

 8   that vehicles meet our emission standards in-use and

 9   remain clean for their useful lives.

10             When emission problems are detected, drivers are

11   alerted by a warning light.     When they go to a repair

12   station or their vehicle dealer, technicians can access

13   diagnostic information in the OBD II system to identify

14   the nature of the problem.    That helps it to be fixed

15   correctly.

16             OBD II systems have become part of California's

17   Smog Check program for 1996 and newer gasoline-powered

18   vehicles.    We need to add diesel vehicles to that program

19   as soon as we reasonably can, working with the Bureau of

20   Automotive Repair.

21             Ms. Witherspoon.

22             EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:   Thank you, Dr.

23   Sawyer.

24             Since the OBD II regulations were last amended in

25   2002, the staff has identified several changes that need

 1   to be made.   Most of the modifications we are proposing

 2   today are related to OBD requirements for light-duty

 3   diesel vehicles.   However, we are also making a few

 4   adjustments to the requirements for gasoline vehicles and

 5   aligning medium-duty diesel requirements with the

 6   heavy-duty OBD regulations you adopted last year.

 7           Finally, staff is making conforming changes to

 8   the enforcement provisions and updating the list of

 9   emission controls subject to ARB's warranty provision.

10           Before I turn to staff's presentation I would

11   like to take this opportunity to recognize Mike McCarthy,

12   Manager of the Advanced Engineering Section in the Mobile

13   Source Control Division, seated behind me today -- raise

14   your hand -- who just received the Society of Automotive

15   Engineering's 2006 Henry Souther award in recognition of

16   his outstanding contributions to the field.   This award

17   acknowledges Mike's leadership in accomplishing

18   standardization necessary to make the OBD II systems in

19   today's vehicles accessible through a single diagnostic

20   connector.    This allows the Smog Check program to

21   efficiently interrogate the OBD II systems for faulty

22   components and permits technicians to rapidly download

23   diagnostic information that assists motorists in obtaining

24   repairs for their vehicles quickly and correctly the first

25   time.

 1              The automotive companies regulated by ARB

 2   actively supported Mike's receipt of the award in

 3   recognition of his exceptional and highly respected

 4   efforts.    The award was presented to Mike two weeks ago

 5   during the SAE's OBD symposium in Toulouse, France, where

 6   Mike was an invited presenter.

 7              I'll now turn the presentation over to Mr. Tom

 8   Montes of the Mobile Source Control Division.

 9              (Applause.)

10              (Thereupon an overhead presentation was

11              Presented as follows.)

12              AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:   Thank you, Ms.

13   Witherspoon.

14              Good morning, Chairman Sawyer, members of the

15   Board.   I'm here today to present a proposal to amend the

16   OBD II regulation and the emissions warranty regulations.

17                               --o0o--

18              AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:   I will start

19   today's presentation by providing some background on the

20   OBD II program before giving you a brief overview of the

21   proposed changes applicable to gasoline and diesel

22   vehicles and a few other related items.

23                               --o0o--


25   originally adopted in 1989, and all 1996 and subsequent

 1   light- and medium-duty vehicles are equipped with this

 2   system.

 3             The OBD system is comprised of software in the

 4   vehicle's on-board computer, and it uses sensors that

 5   measure parameters such as temperature, pressure, air

 6   flow, and air/fuel ratio.    As sensors and components

 7   deteriorate, emissions may increase.   Vehicle emissions

 8   can be correlated to sensor or component deterioration

 9   through emission testing of vehicles with deteriorated

10   components installed.

11             Within OBD some emission components are monitored

12   to a threshold.   That is, a malfunction has to be detected

13   when emissions exceed a specific level, such as 1.5 times

14   the tailpipe standard.   For less critical emission

15   components, the components are monitored only for a proper

16   function -- that is, does the component work or not?

17             When a component has been determined to be

18   malfunctioning, a warning light is illuminated.

19   Additionally, information about the malfunction can be

20   downloaded from the vehicle using a standardized hand-held

21   scan tool.

22             The Board requires staff to report on the status

23   of proposed changes in the OBD program on a regular basis.

24   The last update of these requirements took place in 2002.

25                               --o0o--

 1            AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:   Implementation

 2   and improvements are needed for the OBD regulation to keep

 3   up with new vehicle technologies, to incorporate

 4   technician input, and to close the loop from lessons

 5   learned during the time of certification.

 6            These changes ensure that the OBD regulation is

 7   relevant to current vehicle technology and that the OBD

 8   systems are robustly detecting malfunctions in use.

 9                             --o0o--

10            AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:   Today there are

11   over 120 million cars on U.S. roads with OBD systems.

12   This makes up more than 50 percent of the in-use vehicle

13   fleet.   Over 6 trillion on-road miles have been

14   accumulated by vehicles with OBD systems.   And there are

15   25 states in the U.S. currently using OBD as part of their

16   vehicle inspection and maintenance programs.   There are

17   nearly 13,000 smog check OBD inspections per day in

18   California alone.

19                             --o0o--

20            AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:   I'll now provide

21   a brief overview of the gasoline OBD requirements and some

22   of the amendments being proposed.

23                             --o0o--

24            AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:   OBD requirements

25   for gasoline vehicles have been in place since the 1996

 1   model year.   Staff and industry both have learned much

 2   over the last ten years.   And staff believes that the

 3   gasoline OBD program is performing well.

 4           Today staff is proposing few changes for light-

 5   and medium-duty gasoline vehicles.    The changes are mostly

 6   the result of in-use testing in which some malfunctions

 7   have been observed to go undetected under unique

 8   circumstances.

 9                               --o0o--

10           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:     The first area

11   where the need for improvements has been identified is the

12   diagnostic requirements for rear oxygen sensors.      The rear

13   sensor is primarily used for monitoring the performance of

14   the catalyst.    In-use testing has discovered some

15   deteriorated catalysts not being detected as well as

16   expected.   Analysis has found that the rear oxygen sensor

17   can be the cause.    As these sensors deteriorate, they may

18   allow a catalyst malfunction to go undetected.

19           And although the current regulation does contain

20   language to address this type of deterioration in the rear

21   oxygen sensor, staff is now proposing more clearly defined

22   monitoring strategies that will applicable beginning in

23   the 2009 model year to ensure deteriorated catalysts are

24   robustly detected.

25                               --o0o--

 1              AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:   A second issue

 2   that has been discovered through in-use testing is

 3   cylinder imbalance.    When the air/fuel ratio across the

 4   cylinder deviates significantly, catalyst efficiency

 5   decreases, resulting in increased tailpipe emissions.        In

 6   most cases current OBD II systems do not detect such a

 7   failure.

 8              Therefore, staff is proposing that cylinder

 9   air/fuel ratio imbalance be monitored.      Possible

10   monitoring strategies involve a closer examination of

11   detailed data from both the front and rear oxygen sensors

12   in the exhaust to determine if significant air/fuel

13   deviations exist.

14                               --o0o--

15              AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:   A third monitor

16   with proposed changes is for cold-start strategies.      Since

17   most emissions occur during the first minute of a drive

18   cycle, when the engine and catalyst are cold,

19   manufacturers have developed cold start emission reduction

20   strategies.

21              These cold-start strategies are used to

22   accelerate catalyst warm-up and often include briefly

23   retarding the ignition timing and increasing engine idle

24   speed.

25              The current regulation requires detection of a

 1   malfunction when emissions exceed 1.5 times the emission

 2   standard.

 3                              --o0o--

 4           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:   As manufacturers

 5   have introduced monitors in the last few years, staff has

 6   noticed significant differences in how they are

 7   calibrated.   In some cases manufacturers have implemented

 8   system monitors that look at the overall impact of the

 9   cold-start strategy.   While this can be very good at

10   detecting substantial emission problems, this approach can

11   result in a diagnostic that requires several components to

12   fail before an overall system fault is detected, even

13   though each individual component failure also causes

14   increased emissions.

15           To address this, staff is proposing to further

16   require monitoring of each individual cold start element

17   and detection of a malfunction when any one of them

18   completely fails.

19           As industry has argued, this will result in

20   faults being detected with a smaller emission impact.

21   However, this change is consistent with existing OBD

22   requirements in which individual components that increase

23   emissions must at a minimum be diagnosed for proper

24   function.   Any emission-related component that completely

25   fails to function is clearly broken and should be

 1   repaired.

 2             To address manufacturers' concerns that

 3   monitoring to the stringency proposed by staff may not be

 4   feasible across their product line, staff has added

 5   language expressly limiting monitoring to the extent

 6   technically feasible.

 7                              --o0o--

 8             AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:   Now I will cover

 9   the proposed OBD requirements for diesel vehicles.

10                              --o0o--

11             AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:   Staff is

12   proposing significant changes and additions for diesel

13   monitoring.   The approach staff has taken is twofold.    For

14   medium-duty vehicles diesels have always had a significant

15   presence in California, primarily in full-size pickup

16   trucks.   And these vehicles typically use engines that are

17   also used in heavy-duty applications and, accordingly,

18   staff is proposing to align the OBD II requirements with

19   the recently adopted heavy-duty OBD requirements.

20             For passenger cars and light-duty trucks,

21   gasoline is the dominant technology in the fleet.     And the

22   past and future OBD requirements have been focused as

23   such.

24             However, improvements in diesel emission controls

25   are rapidly emerging, making their ability to compete with

 1   gasoline a reality.    Accordingly, staff is proposing to

 2   provide a phase-in with interim flexibility for light-duty

 3   diesels else to allow the technology to evolve and the OBD

 4   technology to catch up with the gasoline vehicles by the

 5   2013 model year.

 6                               --o0o--

 7           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:     Consistent with

 8   gasoline, diesel OBD will require manufacturers to monitor

 9   the most important emission control systems to an emission

10   threshold.    Specifically, when deterioration of a

11   component causes emissions to exceed a defined level

12   relative to the emission standard, a malfunction must be

13   detected.    As mentioned on the previous slide, the

14   thresholds for medium-duty vehicles are aligned with those

15   previously adopted for heavy-duty vehicles.

16           The thresholds are an interim level in 2010 and

17   drop down to the final thresholds in 2013.    However,

18   unlike heavy duty, which begins OBD in 2010, medium duty

19   has had OBD since 1997.    And the proposal includes revised

20   thresholds for the 2007 through 2009 model year that

21   reflect the levels of currently available technology.

22                               --o0o--

23           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:     For light-duty

24   vehicles, the ultimate goal is to achieve parity with

25   gasoline OBD capability by monitoring the components to an

 1   equivalent level of stringency.   However, diesel

 2   monitoring technology needs some time to catch up.

 3   Staff's proposal allows diesels to enter the market as

 4   early as 2007 to test consumer response and achieve

 5   potential greenhouse gas benefits.   Over time the

 6   thresholds move closer to gasoline thresholds, with drops

 7   in 2010 and 2013.

 8                             --o0o--

 9            AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:   To help

10   illustrate, this table summarizes the equivalent gasoline

11   thresholds in the blue numbers in the first column, while

12   the red numbers in right-hand columns reflect the first

13   level of interim thresholds applicable to diesel in 2007.

14            In general, the emission levels where a

15   malfunction must be detected on a diesel range from 2.5 to

16   5 times the emission standard, while gasoline is typically

17   1.75 or 1.5 times the standard.

18                             --o0o--

19            AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:   The yellow

20   numbers in the right-hand columns show the second

21   intermediate levels that must be met in the 2010 model

22   year.   These thresholds reflect increased stringency and

23   range from 2 to 4 times the standard.

24                             --o0o--

25            AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:   And by the 2013

 1   model year these interim levels would be phased-out and

 2   diesels would need to meet essentially the same levels as

 3   gasoline vehicles.

 4                              --o0o--

 5           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:    Obviously, there

 6   is some risk involved in allowing the introduction of

 7   diesels that have less rigorous monitoring than their

 8   gasoline counterparts.   During this interim period,

 9   components will have to deteriorate further before a

10   malfunction will be detected.   As one measure to help

11   minimize that risk, staff is proposing to require

12   additional testing for light-duty diesel vehicles.

13   Specifically, manufacturers will have to run additional

14   in-use testing at both low and high mileage points to

15   ensure in-use vehicles are meeting the tailpipe emission

16   standards.

17           In addition to being subject to recall if the

18   vehicles are found to be non-compliant, the proposed

19   language requires manufacturers to fund programs to offset

20   any excess emissions as a result of the non-compliance.

21   Staff has also committed to pursuing incorporation of

22   diesels into the Smog Check program and the proposed Board

23   resolution includes language to memorialize staff's

24   commitment.   Inclusion in Smog Check will ensure that

25   vehicles with detected malfunctions will be repaired.

 1                             --o0o--

 2           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:     With today's

 3   proposal, there are a few items that are of particular

 4   concern to industry regarding diesels.

 5           The first of these issues is the emission levels

 6   of the thresholds themselves.    Industry has expressed

 7   concern that the levels are too stringent given the

 8   timeframe and technologies that exist, and that the

 9   workload is too great to accomplish the task.

10           However, staff has developed the thresholds after

11   meeting with manufacturers and suppliers, and believes

12   that the proposed levels should be achievable by

13   manufacturers in the proposed timeframe.    The thresholds

14   continue to be technology forcing in many cases,

15   especially for the final thresholds in future years.      But

16   staff has provided the necessary lead time and interim

17   relief to allow industry to successfully get there.

18                             --o0o--

19           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:     The next issue

20   involves adjustment factors.    And I would like to provide

21   some background and context before discussing the issue

22   regarding the factors.

23           A unique requirement of some diesel emission

24   controls is that they must periodically be controlled

25   differently to essentially purge stored emissions.    A good

 1   example is a PM filter that traps and accumulates

 2   particulate matter, or soot.   Periodically, such as once

 3   every 300 to 500 miles, the PM filter must be regenerated

 4   to burn off or purge this accumulated PM so it can resume

 5   proper filtering.

 6           When this regeneration occurs, emission levels

 7   can be very high, well above the emission standards.

 8   These regeneration events are triggered by the on-board

 9   computer and are generally completely transparent to the

10   vehicle operator.

11           To account for these occasional excursions of

12   high emissions, the certification procedures require

13   manufacturers to test and measure how often such events

14   occur and how high the emissions are during the event and

15   essentially average those emissions in with their baseline

16   emission measurements.

17           Manufacturers develop so-called adjustment

18   factors that include the appropriate fraction of emissions

19   from these regeneration events and are applied to their

20   emission results before comparing them to the tailpipe

21   standards.   Adjusted emissions represent the true average

22   in-use emission levels.

23                              --o0o--

24           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:   As a simple

25   example to help illustrate, this graph shows the emission

 1   levels that may occur from a diesel vehicle.   For the most

 2   part, the vehicle emits below the emission standards shown

 3   as 1.0 on this graph.   However, when a regeneration event

 4   occurs, emissions substantially increase and may exceed

 5   the emission standard by factors as large as 10 or more.

 6   Adjustment factors are used to measure this spike and

 7   spread it out over the entire time, giving a true average

 8   emission level from the vehicle.

 9                              --o0o--

10           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:   With that

11   background on regeneration emissions and their role in

12   adjustment factors, I'd like to discuss the issue

13   regarding adjustment factors.

14           As is required for tailpipe certification,

15   staff's proposal requires manufacturers to develop and use

16   adjustment factors when calibrating OBD threshold

17   monitors.   However, this does require additional work and

18   testing by the manufacturer to comprehend the impact that

19   malfunctioning components will have on regeneration events

20   and emissions.   In some cases it may have no impact.    In

21   others it could change how often the events occur or the

22   magnitude of the emission spike when they do occur.

23           Industry has argued that the impact of adjustment

24   factors was not considered in developing already stringent

25   technology-forcing thresholds, and requiring their use

 1   only reduces their chance for success.    Further, the

 2   workload to develop baseline adjustment factors is

 3   substantial and to do it iteratively for all monitors is a

 4   huge task.    Given this, industry has argued that a delay

 5   until at least 2010 has to happen before use of adjustment

 6   factors is required.

 7              Staff has modified the original proposal to

 8   provides additional relief prior to 2010.   Specifically,

 9   manufacturers would be allowed to apply the baseline

10   adjustment factors instead of developing specific ones for

11   each OBD monitor.    This would eliminate the need for any

12   additional workload to calculate the new adjustment

13   factors.

14              For one specific monitor, namely, the oxidation

15   catalyst, manufacturers would be required to develop a

16   specific adjustment factor starting in 2008.    For all

17   other monitors, manufacturers would still have until 2010

18   before they would have to develop unique adjustment

19   factors.

20              Further, regarding the workload, to develop

21   unique factors for each monitor, staff expects

22   manufacturers will make qualitative comparisons to the

23   baseline adjustment factors to determine what, if any,

24   change is merited.    In some cases such an evaluation would

25   require nothing more than engineering calculations and

 1   analysis; while in other cases additional testing may be

 2   required.

 3           Failure to include the adjustment factor in some

 4   form or another would mean that the emission spike during

 5   regeneration is ignored and manufacturers would not be

 6   held accountable for their actual in-use emission levels

 7   when a malfunction occurs.

 8                               --o0o--

 9           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:    For diesels there

10   is one more issue that I would like to provide some

11   background information on before discussing the details of

12   the issue itself.

13           Under some operating conditions manufacturers

14   legally invoke engine protection strategies that bypass

15   one or more emission controls and increase emissions.

16   These strategies are defined in the proposal as

17   emission-increasing auxiliary emission control devices, or

18   EI-AECDs.   Such bypass strategies are reviewed and

19   approved by ARB during the certification process.

20   Manufacturers submit data to justify the need for the

21   strategies and quantify the emission impact.   ARB approval

22   is based solely on manufacturers' data obtained from a few

23   in-use vehicles.    Staff has no practical way of validating

24   these date and is concerned that such strategies can be

25   used to compensate for inadequate engine and emission

 1   control system designs that cannot meet the rigors of

 2   normal vehicle usage.

 3           ARB needs to know how often manufacturers

 4   actually derate or shut off emission controls in use to

 5   ensure these strategies are not being abused.    Without

 6   such knowledge, emissions from vehicles in use could be

 7   much higher than expected.

 8                              --o0o--

 9           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:   With that as the

10   background, staff has proposed a simple requirement for

11   the OBD system to track cumulative vehicle operation while

12   these bypass strategies are invoked.

13           Manufacturers would implement this requirement by

14   adding software in the on-board computer to do the

15   tracking.   And it would not require additional emission

16   testing by the manufacturer.

17           The on-board computer would store bypass

18   operation time, and the data could then be downloaded from

19   the vehicle computer and compared to the data provided by

20   the manufacturer at the time of certification.    It is also

21   worth noting that many of these vehicles already track

22   some engine operating conditions, such as total engine run

23   time or idle time.   So the concept of using the on-board

24   computer to track a specific operating condition is not a

25   new concept.

 1           This proposal has been an issue of controversy

 2   with the manufacturers.   Manufacturers argue that the OBD

 3   regulation is not the proper place for such a requirement,

 4   because they believe how often they bypass emission

 5   controls has nothing to do with OBD or detecting

 6   malfunctions.

 7           Staff believes it is the proper place because OBD

 8   is the only regulation that specifies standardized data

 9   that must be available from the on-board computer

10   including data to help technicians repair vehicles, data

11   to help facilitate smog check or other inspections of

12   vehicles, and data to help ARB staff confirm compliance

13   with the regulatory requirements.

14           Manufacturers also argue that these strategies

15   are highly confidential and this requirement would

16   facilitate reverse engineering.    However, this tracking

17   would not provide any realtime indication of when a

18   strategy is active.

19                              --o0o--

20           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:     Lastly, I would

21   like to cover two other items included in the proposal

22   before you today.

23           The first includes necessary changes to align the

24   OBD enforcement regulation with the revised thresholds and

25   phase-ins already discussing.     Additional specification

 1   was also added regarding enforcement actions that prevent

 2   the vehicle from getting a proper smog check inspection.

 3           Switching gears away from OBD for a moment, the

 4   second item includes a minor change in the emission

 5   warranty regulation.    Currently a portion of the

 6   emission-related components that have high repair costs

 7   are covered for 7 years or 70,000 miles.    However,

 8   coverage of those parts is contingent on an outdated

 9   warranty parts list that does not include all of the

10   technology on today's cars.

11           The proposed changes address that very list by

12   removing the reference to it to ensure all parts that are

13   emission related and exceed the repair cost would be

14   covered by the high cost warranty.

15                               --o0o--

16           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:     To wrap up

17   today's presentation I would like to summarize, that

18   effective OBD systems are essential to assuring emissions

19   remain low throughout the life of the vehicle.   Robust OBD

20   systems are as important as the tailpipe emission

21   standards themselves.

22           As a whole, gasoline OBD systems are doing the

23   job they were designed to do and doing it very well.    Ten

24   years of experience has led to very mature gasoline

25   diagnostics, with only minor modifications being proposed

 1   today.

 2            Diesel OBD, on the other hand, is largely new and

 3   the diagnostics, along with the technology, need time to

 4   develop to become as effective by 2013.

 5                              --o0o--

 6            AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES:    Staff's

 7   recommendation is to adopt the proposed regulations with

 8   15 day changes and to direct staff to conduct a biennial

 9   review, as has been done in the past.

10            And this concludes the staff presentation.    And I

11   thank you for your attention.

12            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you very much.

13            Ms. Ferreira, would you present the Ombudsman's

14   report and any concerns that you may have to the Board.

15            ACTING OMBUDSMAN FERREIRA:    Yes.   Dr. Sawyer and

16   members of the Board.   This regulation has been developed

17   with input from individual manufacturers of passenger

18   cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty vehicles and

19   engines, as well as their associations including the

20   Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Association of

21   International Automobile Manufactures, and the Engine

22   Manufacturers Association and their legal counsel.

23            Staff began the regulatory efforts in 2005.    In

24   November 2005 they held a workshop in El Monte.

25   Approximately 45 stakeholders attended the workshop,

 1   representing the vehicle manufacturers, suppliers,

 2   associations, and aftermarket repair industry.    Also staff

 3   held numerous meetings with individual manufacturers as

 4   well as their associations.

 5           The staff report was published on August 11th,

 6   2006, and posted to the ARB's website that same date.

 7           Hard copy and list serve notifications were sent

 8   to the stakeholders.   More than 650 stakeholders received

 9   the report via hard copy and nearly 400 received it

10   through the mail.

11           This concludes my comments.

12           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you.

13           Are there any questions from the Board members?

14           I really had expected all of the Board members to

15   read the 172 pages of Title 13, Section 1968.2.   But

16   perhaps only an engineer could find that exciting.

17           (Laughter.)

18           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   I would like to call now the

19   first three witnesses who have signed up.   And this will

20   be Steve Douglas, John Cabaniss, And Lisa Stegink.

21           MR. DOUGLAS:    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of

22   the Board.   I'm Steven Douglas with the Alliance of

23   Automobile Manufacturers.   The Alliance is a trade

24   association of nine car and light truck manufacturers.

25           And before I get on with my substantive comments,

 1   I'd like to just commend ARB staff and the automobile

 2   manufacturers on the hard work and the diligence over the

 3   last 18 months of putting this together.

 4           The regulations before you represent literally

 5   thousands of meetings, phone calls, conference calls,

 6   e-mails and workshops between ARB staff, the automobile

 7   manufacturers, the Tier 1 suppliers, the associations and

 8   other interest parties.   So it's a lot of work.   And of

 9   the many, many issues that we've started with, we're down

10   to just a few.   So I think that's a -- it's just a

11   tremendous amount of work.

12           The issues that we have are nonetheless

13   important.

14           And we should also say up front that we believe

15   in the on-board diagnostic system.   We believe that the

16   systems accurately monitor the vehicle emission system.

17   We believe the systems effectively alert the operator when

18   a malfunction occurs, and that they effectively direct the

19   repair technician to the problem when a problem occurs.

20           So with that background, I'd like to turn to our

21   suggested changes.

22           First, we support the comments and the

23   recommendation of the Engine Manufacturers Association and

24   of our member companies who will testify later.    The

25   intent of our suggestions is to provide a robust OBD

 1   system, while focusing very scarce engineering resources

 2   on those changes which provide the most benefit.      I've

 3   provided written comments which provide more detail, and

 4   they also add some additional recommendations.

 5           So just in the interests of time I'd like to

 6   focus my comments on only four areas.   And those are

 7   additional testing for light-duty diesel vehicles, cold

 8   start emission reduction strategies, infrequent

 9   regeneration adjustment factors, and the CVN CAL-ID

10   database.

11           First, additional testing for light-duty diesels.

12   Vehicles sold in California willfully comply with the

13   emission requirements, the durability requirements, and

14   the OBD requirements for the full useful life of the

15   vehicles.   Nonetheless we understand that some are still

16   concerned that light-duty diesel vehicles will fail to

17   meet the emission standards and the higher thresholds will

18   allow those emissions to go undetected.

19           Although we believe this concern is misplaced and

20   that the additional testing is unnecessary, we're willing

21   to accept some additional testing to confirm the emissions

22   of light-duty diesel vehicles.

23           However, the proposed testing is difficult.      It's

24   involved.   It dramatically increases the burden on

25   manufacturers and strains already limited resources that

 1   should be devoted to developing and testing more robust

 2   emission control systems.

 3            We simply ask the Board to adopt reasonable

 4   testing requirements that provide flexibility to

 5   manufacturers and not to add further testing beyond those

 6   already proposed.

 7            The second issue is cold start emission reduction

 8   strategy that the staff has mentioned.    The majority of

 9   vehicle emissions occur when the vehicle is started and

10   the catalyst is cold.    This is known as cold start

11   emissions.    Manufacturers have developed a number of

12   strategies to reduce these emissions including, among

13   others, increasing the engine RPM on start-up or retarding

14   spark.   Recognizing the impact that these strategies have,

15   the ARB adopted standards in 2002 to turn on the "check

16   engine" light if emissions exceeded 50 percent of the

17   standard, or 1.5 times the standard.

18            The proposed changes add an additional

19   requirement:   To turn on the "check engine" light if any

20   commanded element doesn't perform properly, regardless of

21   the emissions impact.    We've discussed this with the staff

22   on a number of occasions.    They view the cold start

23   requirement as similar to comprehensive component

24   monitoring.

25            ARB established comprehensive component

 1   monitoring to assist the repair technicians by requiring

 2   manufacturers to turn on the "check engine" light for any

 3   component that cause emissions to increase by 15 percent

 4   or more.

 5              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    I must ask you to conclude

 6   in light of our three-minute rule.

 7              MR. DOUGLAS:   Okay.   For cold start we'd ask you

 8   adopt a requirement to put in an emission threshold on

 9   there of 15 percent, the exact same criteria you had for

10   comprehensive component monitoring.

11              The only other issue is the infrequent

12   regeneration adjustment.    That is a big issue for the

13   automobile manufacturers.    It does increase the stringency

14   of the standards.    And there is virtually no time to meet

15   a 2008 requirement for the oxidation catalyst.

16              Thank you.

17              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you.

18              Does staff have any comments on the request?


20              On the first item for in-use diesel testing, we

21   had indeed added language to require the manufacturers to

22   test these diesels in the exact same manner that we test

23   them at ARB if we were to do investigation for in-use

24   compliance testing.     That is, we seek out ten vehicles and

25   bring them into our lab and test them.

 1              That said, I know our staff internally have been

 2   working on ways to speed up that process and expedite that

 3   process and look at samples of vehicles that gives --

 4   smaller samples that give equally confident -- equal

 5   confidence that they will be meeting the standards.

 6              And so we have included some language in the

 7   provision for testing that allows them to sort of follow

 8   along with any improvements we make in our own testing, so

 9   that they again can mimic our testing.    And if that heads

10   down a path of testing fewer vehicles to get the same

11   amount of confidence, I think that would -- it would

12   automatically apply for them as well.    It does provide

13   some room for improvements to come along and then to pick

14   up -- still do the testing, still give us equivalent

15   assurance that they're meeting the standards.   And I think

16   that will help address their concern on the in-use

17   testing.

18              On the second item, on cold start emission

19   reductions, we do believe that cold start emission

20   reduction strategies are specifically added just to reduce

21   emissions.    They're not a component that's put on the car

22   that has a -- for another purpose and has a subsequent

23   reaction that impacts emissions.   These are strategies

24   they've specifically designed to help meet the emission

25   standards.    And as cars get cleaner, we find more and more

 1   manufacturers that have strategies of components that

 2   collectively bring the car down to the low levels, but

 3   individually have a small impact.     And in keeping with the

 4   tradition of trying to know everything about the car and

 5   how it's doing, we have kept the requirement that if any

 6   individual element completely fails, that is, they command

 7   an increase in idle speed and get no increase in idle

 8   speed, or they command retarded spark and get no

 9   additional spark retarded, then they would have to detect

10   a malfunction, and making sure each of these individual

11   elements we think is key in OBD, to make sure that the

12   overall car is performing as well as it can be without

13   having several things wrong at the same time.

14           And the third item was the CVN --

15           MR. DOUGLAS:    Yeah, CVN CAL-ID.


17   The CVN CAL-ID database, it's actually a test -- a data

18   that's spit out of the car that we use during smog check

19   or will use at smog check.   And we actually are providing

20   a separate mail-out to help manufacturers with a template

21   for that.   And I think in principle we don't have a

22   problem with their agreement that we put this in place to

23   start that standardized data template in 2008 model year,

24   as they've suggested.   So I don't think that will be a

25   problem for us to make that change.    That gives us and

 1   them time to put the data into that format.

 2           And the last one, the infrequent regeneration

 3   adjustment factor, I think we'll hear more about it.      And

 4   I think I'll wait and comment on it after we've heard from

 5   EMA and the others about the same.     I think we'll get some

 6   more information about it.

 7           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Fine.   Thank you very much.

 8           MR. DOUGLAS:    Thank you.

 9           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    John Cabaniss.

10           MR. CABANISS:     Good afternoon.    My name's John

11   Cabaniss and I'm Director of Environment and Energy for

12   the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers.

13           I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments

14   today on the proposed changes to the OBD rules.       We too

15   would like to thank ARB staff for the hard work and the

16   accommodations they've made to us over the past 18 months

17   in working on our issues and comments.      And as Steve said,

18   that was a very worthwhile effort in terms of addressing

19   most of our issues.

20           As you know, the OBD rules are complicated.

21   That's evidenced by the 172 page draft.     The OBD

22   thresholds and standards being proposed today are truly

23   technology forcing.    Technical challenges remain.    And

24   this is especially true for diesels, where OBD technology

25   is in its infancy compared to gasoline monitoring.

 1              It's essential that the dialogue between auto

 2   makers and ARB staff continues.     That's true both for the

 3   biennial process that we -- in reviewing the rules, but

 4   also in the interim to have a routine dialogue to discuss

 5   progress and any issues that arise.

 6              We believe it's also important for the

 7   regulations to contain flexibility to allow staff to

 8   adjust requirements as they deem appropriate.

 9              While IAM is neutral on the proposed regulations,

10   we fully agree with ARB that OBD systems are an important

11   and necessary tool for ensuring in-use compliance for

12   vehicles throughout their useful lives.       We do not object

13   to further developing and implementing more robust

14   systems.    However, we believe it is critical that OBD

15   requirements do not become obstacles for the development

16   and deployment of advanced vehicle technologies needed to

17   address overall environmental goals.

18              Finally, I would note that IAM also supports the

19   comments being presented today by the Alliance and the

20   Engine Manufacturers Association.

21              Thank you.

22              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you.

23              Lisa Stegink.   And then we'll have Mark Stepper,

24   John Trajnowski and Timothy Gundrum.

25              MS. STEGINK:    Good afternoon.   I'm Lisa Stegink,

 1   here today on behalf of the Engine Manufacturers

 2   Association.    EMA supports the comments of the Alliance

 3   and the IAM, so I will not repeat those.

 4           My comments address the medium-duty aspects of

 5   this rule, all of which will be difficult and challenging

 6   for engine manufacturers to meet.   As you figured out, the

 7   OBD rule is pretty technical and very complex.

 8           Today we're specifically asking the Board for

 9   relief on one narrow issue that -- which should not be

10   implemented, the requirement to develop the unique

11   infrequent regeneration adjustment factors for the NMHC or

12   diesel oxidation catalyst, or DOC, in 2008.

13           EMA asks the Board to postpone that requirement

14   until 2010 for several reasons.   The first two are timing

15   and workload.   Manufacturers have finished their engine

16   and OBD systems designs for 2007 and are in the process of

17   certifying those engine products.   Those 2007 engines will

18   be carried over into 2008 and 2009 until the next change

19   of emission standards in 2010.

20           Manufacturers already are deeply engaged in

21   developing the engine and OBD technology necessary to meet

22   the 2010 standards and in meeting in-use program

23   requirements, which will come up after this item.    Adding

24   unique IRAFs, as we call them, adjustment factors adds one

25   more burden that would further strain manufacturers'

 1   already limited resources.    Even without any other work to

 2   do, 2008 is right around the corner in design terms, and

 3   there's not enough time to develop and validate new

 4   monitoring strategies for 2008.

 5             We agree that it is appropriate to look at and

 6   consider applying adjustment factors to account for the

 7   potential emission effects of infrequent regeneration

 8   events.   But it's simply too late to require unique

 9   adjustment factors for 2008.

10             The first two were timing and workload.     The

11   third reason is need.   Manufacturers have other systems in

12   place that will help control emissions and turn on the MIL

13   if a partially failed DOC does not properly regenerate.

14             Those systems developed as back-ups and to ensure

15   performance will help control emissions by turning on the

16   MIL and making sure the engines get repaired.

17             The fourth reason is stringency.   Adding

18   adjustment factors to the calculations makes the OBD

19   thresholds tougher to meet.    These thresholds already have

20   been set at the very limits of what ARB thinks

21   manufacturers can achieve.    At this late date ARB should

22   not impose this very narrow unique requirement for DOC

23   adjustment factors in 2008.    We're asking for the

24   additional modest time until 2010.    And we'd ask that you

25   direct the staff to postpone that requirement.

 1           One other issue that we think was an oversight.

 2   We see in the 15-day language that ARB is proposing to

 3   give light duty additional time in the switch over from

 4   lower to higher ratios for rate-based monitoring.    This is

 5   again a separate issue.    We believe it's also appropriate

 6   to give medium duty the same relief for the 2013 and 2014

 7   model years, and we ask you to direct staff to make that

 8   change as well.

 9           Thank you.

10           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you.

11           Would staff respond on those two requests.


13           Sure.     The second one on the in-use ratios, we

14   actually -- I think we concur with EMA in that the -- we

15   afforded light duty some allowance for a couple years to

16   transition.   And it's appropriate to provide that same

17   transition time for medium-duty diesels.    So we would put

18   that change in with our 15-day changes to allow two more

19   years of transition time for them on the ratios that

20   affect how optimum monitors run in use.

21           On the first issue, the bigger item is the

22   infrequent regeneration.   As we explained in our

23   presentation, the adjustment factors are there solely to

24   account for regeneration emissions and that spike that

25   occurs and spread that out.

 1            The oxidation catalyst was singled out by us

 2   because its primary role is to help regeneration.     And so

 3   it's emission benefit is primarily during the regeneration

 4   event.   And when it's deteriorated or malfunctioning, the

 5   already substantial emissions during regen can get even

 6   higher, substantially higher.    And so we had focused on

 7   that -- on the catalyst so that when they achieved -- try

 8   to achieve a regeneration, they tend to add extra

 9   hydrocarbons into the exhaust.   If the catalyst has

10   deteriorated and not converted them, those hydrocarbons

11   can pass straight through that catalyst and out the

12   tailpipe.    So it feeds itself as something that can be a

13   substantial emission impact during regen.

14            And if we do not have an account for the

15   adjustment factor starting to designate specifically for a

16   malfunction in DOC, we have a little bit of an unchecked

17   situation.

18            As Lisa mentioned, they do have bounds in there

19   on how much fuel they'll add.    They have other safety

20   measures in there to try to protect the equipment and

21   place some limits on it.   But we don't have a very

22   objective bound that we can hold all manufacturers to and

23   emissions can be very, very high during that.   So that's

24   why we had singled that catalyst out for 2008 to start

25   them on the track of thinking about the effect on regen

 1   when that component malfunctions and making sure we've got

 2   safeguards in place to limit how bad hydrocarbon emissions

 3   can get during that event.

 4             That said, we have added a little bit of language

 5   to help try to ease their workload burden.     And we have

 6   provided an alternative to -- establishing a full

 7   adjustment factor in 2008, we provided an alternative that

 8   would make them bound the condition up a little bit better

 9   by performing a couple emission tests with regen and with

10   a deteriorated catalyst that would help us have some idea

11   that the situation is bound without doing the extensive

12   work that would be needed to get the exact adjustment

13   factor.   And we think that helps define the workload,

14   provide a meaningful amount of limitation on a workload,

15   while also still getting us some objective standard that

16   we can hold them accountable to, as well as all

17   manufacturers, to the same level.

18             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you.

19             Ms. Berg.

20             BOARD MEMBER BERG:    And then with that adjustment

21   when would the full regulation be in effect?


23             In 2010 the manufacturers would be responsible to

24   properly do the adjustment factor for all the

25   malfunctions.

 1              BOARD MEMBER BERG:     So would that work for you?

 2              MS. STEGINK:   Are you asking me if the 15-day

 3   change?

 4              BOARD MEMBER BERG:     Yes.

 5              MS. STEGINK:   Okay.   Well, we still have the

 6   issue of the timing, which is really -- I mean I just want

 7   to emphasize that 2008 for engine manufacturers is really

 8   upon them now.    So it's very difficult.      It's really very

 9   late in the process for us.

10              As to the 15 day language, we did see that this

11   morning.    We've had a lot of discussions over the last

12   couple of days on this issue.      We haven't yet been able to

13   evaluate whether that does address it.         We have to really

14   take some time and get all the manufacturers involved in

15   looking at it.    It may address some of the testing issues,

16   at first glance, and some of the workload issues.        But it

17   still doesn't address as far as we think right now -- and,

18   again, as I said, we haven't had much time to look at it

19   and to really consider it -- it really doesn't address the

20   need to change and develop new technology really for just

21   one year away.

22              BOARD MEMBER BERG:     Thank you.


24   add one thing, Mr. Chairman?

25              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Yes, Tom.


 2   clearly a short period of time and it's clearly to some

 3   degree forcing.    They're not quite sure whether they can

 4   comply or not.    And we recognize that.   But we think this

 5   is a pretty important issue, because if that catalyst was

 6   gone, we've seen data that said the emissions go up by 60

 7   times the standard -- 6-0 -- which is a big impact when

 8   you spread it out even over a 300 mile trip.

 9           There's another offramp here though to address

10   the short timeframe.    And, that is, in all of our OBD when

11   the changes are relatively new, we provide for

12   deficiencies.    And what a deficiency is is if you try and

13   fail, you can claim a deficiency and not have to fully

14   meet the requirements.    If you fail to try, you can't.

15   But in this case they're already trying.    And the question

16   I think the various manufacturers have is, "Am I close

17   enough or am I not close enough?"   They're not quite sure.

18   And so if they try and fail, they can use a deficiency.

19   They get three free deficiencies in 2008.    So that means

20   three things on the OBD system could be less than in

21   compliance, or not in compliance, as long as they tried.

22   And so we think that's a pretty good offramp.

23           Even if they used up all three and they needed a

24   fourth, they're able to do that and they simply pay in

25   this case I think a $50 an engine penalty for it.    So

 1   there's no chance that it will cause, "Oh, my goodness, I

 2   can't produce this vehicle in 2008 model year."

 3           BOARD MEMBER BERG:      Well, and what I'm hearing on

 4   the 15-day change is that you're going to require

 5   additional data but not the full regulation in effect

 6   until 2010.   Am I understanding that correctly?


 8   think what the change does is provide a mechanism to

 9   reduce the workload and the amount of testing that would

10   be required to make the demonstration that they're in

11   compliance for 2008.   So it's trying to address their

12   second point, which is the workload that's needed in this

13   relatively short period of time.

14           BOARD MEMBER BERG:    So they would need to come up

15   with the programing and whatever needs to be done to the

16   on-board diagnostic to determine this infrequent

17   regeneration factors by 2008?


19           BOARD MEMBER BERG:    But what you're saying is

20   that you're going to lighten the load for the testing

21   purposes and so forth and delay that -- I mean you'll ramp

22   it up until it's in full effect in 2010?


24   So that for 2008 there's a lower cost way, less timely

25   testing burden to make the demonstration.    And then if

 1   they make it and if they find out they're in trouble,

 2   they're not able to have a system that works, then they've

 3   got these deficiencies that they can use to basically say

 4   "oops," and it will be okay.   And we do that because we

 5   know that these are challenging and that some mistakes or

 6   some, you know, developments just won't come quite as far

 7   as one had hoped.    And that's what the provision's there

 8   for.   It's been there on gasoline side since 1996 as well.

 9            BOARD MEMBER BERG:    Thank you.

10            MS. STEGINK:    May I comment briefly on the

11   deficiencies?

12            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Okay.

13            MS. STEGINK:    We do support having deficiencies,

14   because they're absolutely needed.     So we appreciate the

15   fact that they're in there, and manufacturers do need them

16   and will use them.   My only caution is to be sure -- to

17   make sure or to be aware of not using deficiencies as a

18   replacement for doing a thorough upfront technological

19   feasibility analysis.

20            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you.

21            Mark Stepper.

22            MR. STEPPER:    Good afternoon, chairman and

23   members of the Board.    My name is Mark Stepper and I work

24   for Cummins, Incorporated.    I'm a director in the Product

25   Environmental Management area there.    And I'm responsible

 1   for the OBD certification of our diesel engines.    I'm here

 2   today to provide Cummins' input on the proposed changes to

 3   the OBD II regulation.

 4           I'd like to start off by saying Cummins is a

 5   member of the EMA and fully supports the comments that

 6   have been -- the written comments that have been submitted

 7   by the Engine Manufacturers Association.

 8           Over the course of the past year, culminating in

 9   a number of meetings that we've had in the past months and

10   a flurry of calls and discussions this past week and last

11   few days, we've been able to work with staff and industry

12   to make some needed changes in the OBD rule.   The staff

13   themselves have made theirselves available for these

14   meetings and calls.   And there's been a lot of spirited

15   discussions, as you might think there would be.

16           And OBD II is not a simple diagnostic add-on.

17   It's a very stringent -- add-on to stringent emission

18   standards.   The required OBD systems demand much

19   engineering resources and technical ingenuity, as does the

20   development of the compliant emissions control systems.

21   So the OBD workload is nearly or maybe more so than the

22   emissions workload.

23           When very demanding OBD requirements are made

24   coincident with a stringency change in the emission

25   standards, which is the case for the 2007 model year,

 1   Cummins is finding it difficult to complete the

 2   development of the basic emission control systems in time

 3   and to finalize the development of the systems that are

 4   required to satisfy these OBD II requirements.

 5              As I mentioned above, the staff has met with us

 6   both in person and on the phone numerous times in an

 7   attempt to address our issues without compromising the

 8   needed diagnostic systems for these new emission

 9   technologies.

10              The changes included in the 15-day package that

11   we've seen just this morning here represent what we

12   believe to be the outcome of the discussions.    And we'll

13   need to spend more time studying that, but we think it

14   gives us a workable rule.    Still sets the bar plenty high,

15   but a workable rule.    And we recommend that you adopt the

16   15-day notice changes that are proposed.

17              But there is still another issue I would like to

18   address.    And, that is, the timing of these changes.

19   Today, September 28th, 2006, is a pretty late time to be

20   making changes for the 2007 model year product that is --

21   has been delivered already for some and is getting ready

22   to be delivered by others.    Now, as I mentioned, these

23   changes are needed and we couldn't live without some of

24   the changes getting folded in to the rule, so those are

25   the ones we want for sure.   But I'd like to say that this

 1   topic should have been addressed at a hearing months or

 2   even a year ago.    Cummins and other manufacturers have EO

 3   approvals that have provisions contingent on the outcome

 4   of this hearing.    We think this is an unreasonable

 5   jeopardy.

 6              In addition, we've held off on submitting other

 7   applications pending the outcome of this hearing.      It is

 8   unreasonable that we should be put in this kind of a

 9   position.   These issues are complex and take a lot of time

10   to address.   We just encourage the process to get started

11   earlier.

12              This issue was to have been heard by the Board

13   earlier but was delayed, not once but twice.     And even the

14   original hearing was late in the development cycle for the

15   2007 model year products.

16              I request that the Board and the staff commit

17   themselves to address OBD biennial review changes in an

18   earlier development cycle.

19              I thank you for the opportunity to provide input

20   into the process here.    And at this time I'd be glad to

21   answer any questions you might have.

22              BOARD MEMBER BERG:   So does 2008 work better?

23              MR. STEPPER:   Well, there's some of the changes

24   that are proposed for a 2008 model year with the 2008

25   requirement for the DOC and factoring in this new

 1   requirement of IRAFs.   The number of changes for '07 were

 2   really to adjust the thresholds for the monitors that are

 3   required for the 2007 model year product.

 4            So I think, in short, probably moving that out to

 5   '08 probably wouldn't make too much of a difference

 6   because those products are petty well developed as well.

 7            BOARD MEMBER BERG:    I see.   Thank you.

 8            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Does staff want to comment

 9   on the timing?


11            There are requirements.   As we've said in the

12   presentation, medium-duty, including diesel, have had to

13   meet OBD since 1996 and 1997 model year.    So even at the

14   2002, the last time we visited this item in 2002, there

15   were requirements in place and adopted on the books for

16   2007 and subsequent diesels.

17            Part of what Mark was talking about is today we

18   are changing some of those, revising those -- actually

19   revising the thresholds higher to give them a chance to

20   comply based on what the technology is capable of doing

21   today.

22            And so that's why we are making changes.    They do

23   need them to apply in the 2007 model year because we're

24   making it easier for them to comply in many situations.

25   The adjustment factors is one that's become a newer item

 1   of discussion.   Prior to 2007 model year, diesel

 2   manufacturers did not have these infrequent regeneration

 3   events, and so they -- it was all new for them for

 4   certification in 2007 as well as for OBD.   There hasn't

 5   been any -- much discussion about it prior to then because

 6   it was never used or required.   And that's why it's -- the

 7   adjustment factors is one item that's come up more

 8   recently.

 9           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:    Dr. Sawyer, we

10   also had a significant amount of work on the light-duty

11   elements of the rule -- light-duty diesel, which were

12   principally responsible for the delay.   Had we broken it

13   into two parts, we might have been able to get medium-duty

14   here sooner, but we were trying to be efficient with staff

15   resources as well.

16           So it's not our preferred way of operating, but

17   we wanted to get it all done in one go so we have

18   gasoline, light-duty and medium-duty.    And light-duty

19   diesel took the most time.

20           BOARD MEMBER BERG:    Is the regeneration the big

21   issue here for 2007?

22           MR. STEPPER:    I would say it's just one.   The

23   2007 model year products will come out with a new diesel

24   particulate filters to be able to comply with new emission

25   standards.   So that new technology requires this

 1   regeneration process, which is a new requirement.     And the

 2   infrequent regeneration adjustment factors that you're

 3   hearing about today is something that came along new when

 4   that type of emission device was required to be able to

 5   satisfy emission standards.

 6           So the dealing with those adjustment factors is

 7   something that both EPA and ARB are even having difficulty

 8   finalizing how they should be treated just for the

 9   emission standards certification itself, let alone the

10   add-on work for the OBD monitoring.   So it's just the new

11   technology, these adjustment factors are new and how to

12   deal with them.    So I think another year or two down the

13   road it won't be nearly as problematic because we'll all

14   be more familiar with them.


16           Well, we were struggling with the fact that we

17   needed to adjust virtually all of the factors that applied

18   to OBD for diesel compared to what we're used to for

19   gasoline.   So it was a larger task than just what's

20   disputed here.    It was a very -- you know, a huge

21   technical task to assess each one of these monitoring

22   requirements and figure out what to do with it.   And I

23   think what we've ended up with is good, but it took a

24   while to fight through all of the issues.

25           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you very much.

 1           MR. STEPPER:   Thank you.

 2           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   John Trajnowski.

 3           MR. TRAJNOWSKI:    Good afternoon.   My name is John

 4   Trajnowski and I'm a regulatory engineer with Ford Motor

 5   Company's Vehicle Environmental Engineering staff.    I'm

 6   here today to present Ford's position on the proposed

 7   changes to the OBD II requirements.

 8           As a preliminary matter, Ford supports -- fully

 9   supports the comments submitted by the Alliance of

10   Automobile Manufacturers and the Engine Manufacturers

11   Association, and we participated in the development of

12   those comments.   So, therefore, for the sake of time I

13   will confine my statement to two significant issues and

14   that readdress all the issues raised by EMA and the

15   Alliance.

16           The first issue regards the requirement to apply

17   unique infrequent regeneration adjustment factors to the

18   diesel oxidation catalyst malfunction threshold.

19           The proposed changes would require us to develop

20   an entirely new monitoring strategy on our medium-duty

21   diesel vehicles in 2008.   And this simply does not provide

22   enough -- us with enough lead time to fully develop and

23   validate an entirely new monitoring strategy and implement

24   it into production in just a little over a year's time.

25           If we are forced to do so, we would have to

 1   significantly cut short our validation process and, in

 2   turn, run a much higher risk of false malfunction

 3   indicator lights illuminating in the field, which could

 4   result in the replacement of a perfectly good catalyst at

 5   a very large expense to industry, to the vehicle owner,

 6   with no air quality benefit.

 7           Therefore, we urge the Board to delay the

 8   requirement until 2010 so that we will have sufficient

 9   lead time to properly validate and implement a new

10   monitoring strategy.   And implement it in a timeframe that

11   is consistent with other changes that will be required for

12   the OBD II system.

13           The second issue involves the proposal to enhance

14   the existing monitoring requirements for the cold start

15   emission reduction strategies for both the gasoline and

16   the diesel vehicles.

17           These are strategies that we use to heat up the

18   catalyst faster during a cold start, such as retarding the

19   spark timing or increasing idle speed.

20           Ford's current monitoring strategy determines the

21   catalyst temperature during the warm-up to ensure that it

22   reaches a minimum temperature by a sufficient time period.

23   So if we don't achieve the minimum temperature because of

24   a malfunction, we'll light the MIL.

25           The ARB proposal would add requirements for us to

 1   also directly monitor all of the individual components

 2   that could affect catalyst warm-up, such as spark timing

 3   or engine idle speed, no matter how little we may try to

 4   modulate them during the start, and with no consideration

 5   on how much or how little they may affect emissions.

 6            This could result in a false MIL if, for example,

 7   the vehicle was filled with bad fuel and the engine

 8   control strategy increased the spark timing during the

 9   cold start to keep the engine from stalling.

10            Therefore, Ford does not support adoption of the

11   new -- additional monitoring of individual components of

12   the cold start strategy, because it is repetitive and

13   prone to false results.

14            At a minimum, the Board should direct the ARB

15   staff to revise the requirement to include a minimum

16   emissions threshold for individual components, similar to

17   the comprehensive component monitoring requirements and

18   criteria, such that the component would not require

19   monitoring unless it can affect emissions by more than 15

20   percent of the standard on an FTP test.

21            So in closing I'd just like to thank you for this

22   time.   And I'll be happy to take any questions you may

23   have.

24            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you.

25            Are there any questions from the Board?

 1           If not, thank you very much.

 2           Timothy Gundrum.

 3           MR. GUNDRUM:      Good afternoon and thank you.

 4           My name is Tim Gundrum and I'm responsible for

 5   OBD certification and compliance for International Truck

 6   and Engine Corporation.

 7           First of all, I would like to say that

 8   International supports the comments of the Engine

 9   Manufacturers Association.

10           But I wish to speak to you today specifically

11   about the proposed requirement to establish a unique

12   infrequent regeneration adjustment factor for the NMHC

13   catalyst monitor beginning in the 2008 model year.    This

14   means developing and demonstrating thresholds that

15   incorporate the effect of NMHC catalyst deterioration on

16   infrequent regenerations.

17           While there are several reasons why we believe

18   this provision should not be included in the rule, I wish

19   to concentrate on one, namely, that it is unnecessary,

20   since it would provide little incremental benefit over

21   containment measures that manufacturers already have in

22   their control strategies.

23           There are many reasons why manufacturers place

24   boundaries on the control of infrequent regeneration:

25   Fuel economy, performance, reliability, and durability.

 1   These affect the manufacturer's bottom line through

 2   customer dissatisfaction and warranty costs.

 3              During the regeneration of the PM filter, the

 4   NMHC catalyst, also known as the DOC, is used to raise the

 5   exhaust temperature by burning fuel introduced into the

 6   exhaust.    Some of the limitations placed on this process

 7   include determining whether the amount of heat at the

 8   outlet of the DOC is comparable to what is expected,

 9   placing a time limit on the length of regeneration

10   attempts, and monitoring regeneration for minimum

11   effectiveness.

12              Regenerations are aborted or avoided and errors

13   are flagged when it becomes obvious that there is a

14   problem.    Thus, the emissions impact of a DOC malfunction

15   will be limited.    Engine manufacturers do not

16   indiscriminately increase fuel levels in order to achieve

17   regeneration when a DOC has deteriorated.   Upper

18   boundaries are placed on these levels and they are based

19   on extensive laboratory and field test data.

20              In summary, we feel that the containment measures

21   that manufacturers already have in their control

22   strategies ensure that the concerns of ARB will not be

23   realized.   We believe that there will be little or no

24   benefit of going through the exercise of creating

25   malfunction thresholds, incorporating special infrequent

 1   regeneration adjustment factors for the case of a

 2   deteriorated DOC, and it would also be a monumental task.

 3           We urge the Board to at least delay this

 4   requirement until 2010 so that in the interim we can work

 5   together to determine the most effective way to eliminate

 6   ARB's concerns.

 7           Thank you.

 8           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:     Thank you.

 9           Staff have a comment on what we've heard?


11   make a couple comments on it.

12           We understand that the manufacturers don't want

13   to squirt unlimited amount of fuel into the filter because

14   it could -- you know, ultimately you could have so much

15   fuel in there, you could cause a fire.   So there's some

16   limits on the amount of fuel that would be put in to help

17   with regeneration.   And with a defective catalyst there's

18   some limit on how much hydrocarbons might result from that

19   and be emitted into the atmosphere.   But as I indicated

20   before, you know, some of the data we've seen recently

21   shows that if the oxidation catalyst, or we call it the

22   DOC catalyst, is completely failed, this could result in

23   things -- our charts show 10 times -- as much as 60 times

24   increase in emissions, which doesn't sound to me like

25   limited control.

 1           Second of all, just as of yesterday we had

 2   discussions with several manufacturers who described what

 3   the limits were, the mechanical or electronic limits on

 4   how much fuel could be injected and other limits they've

 5   put on the system.   But the problem was that none of them

 6   could show us what the emission impact is.   And given the

 7   other data showing very high emission increase, that

 8   worries us.

 9           So what it boils down to one more time is that if

10   the emission impact is not very large because they have

11   constrained -- put limits on how much extra fuel could be

12   injected for regeneration and other types of limits, then,

13   you know, they don't have a problem.    And to find that out

14   is -- we've provided some mechanisms to try to do it in a

15   relatively efficient manner so that it could be done

16   before 2008.    If in fact they find out that the impact is

17   big, even with these limits, on emissions -- the impact on

18   emissions and they go over the threshold, then that does

19   require them to design an entire new type of monitor, one

20   that can actually be calibrated to emissions instead of

21   more of a functional type.   And when that happens, they

22   would be in trouble, except we have this offramp with

23   deficiencies.

24           So that again fits into the -- in my view, into

25   something we want them to try.   But if they fail, there's

 1   an offramp.   The reason to make them try is because we

 2   think this is an important issue that could result in lots

 3   of emissions.    And they couldn't show us even as of

 4   yesterday whether or not that will occur.

 5           So we have some data, some engineering judgment

 6   that this could be a serious enough issue to bother to

 7   pull this forward two years, just this one monitor.     If

 8   we're wrong and they can constrain it, it's going to be a

 9   little bit of testing and that's all that's going to be

10   required.    If it's a big impact, they're going to have to

11   try to mitigate it.    If they can't mitigate it, they get

12   to use a deficiency.    Something they don't want to do, but

13   at least they tried, and we might end up with constrained

14   emissions.    And we don't know, there's other models that,

15   you know, we -- could be introduced in '08 that we haven't

16   even seen yet.    And we would like to send the signal on

17   those, "Please design it the right way from a low

18   emissions standpoint as you're doing the designs that

19   you're finishing up right now."

20           So, you know, it is a bit of -- you know, there's

21   arguments both ways, we will concede.   But this was one

22   that we thought was worthy of your consideration to be

23   pulled out and made a little bit more stringent, but with

24   enough insurance policy that it won't stop anybody from

25   selling a truck in '08.

 1           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you.

 2           Our final three speakers are Don Anair, Luke

 3   Tonachel, and Bonnie Holmes-Gen.

 4           Don Anair.

 5           MR. ANAIR:   Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer, members

 6   of the Board.

 7           I'd just like to voice some concerns about the

 8   changes being proposed to the OBD requirements for the

 9   light-duty diesel vehicles.

10           The current emission standards for light-duty

11   vehicles broke the mold by setting equivalent emission

12   standards for both diesel and gasoline vehicles.    And

13   diesel emission controls have evolved and are poised to

14   meet the standards in the coming years.    However, by

15   relaxing the OBD requirements for diesel, we are afraid

16   that diesel vehicles and their gasoline vehicle

17   counterparts will no longer be on a level playing field.

18   As a result, diesel vehicles operating in California may

19   emit more tailpipe pollution than their gasoline

20   counterparts.

21           The measures outlined by staff are absolutely

22   necessary to provide a minimum level of assurance that the

23   emission control systems on these light-duty diesel

24   vehicles are performing throughout their useful life.     So

25   I'd just like to point out the requirements that staff has

 1   proposed and our support for them.

 2           The in-use testing requirements are critical,

 3   because in the absence of the Smog Check program for

 4   light-duty diesel vehicles there is no assurance that

 5   light-duty diesel vehicles will be meeting the

 6   requirements of the full useful life.

 7           Staff's proposal calls for two testing points,

 8   one at 30,000 and one at 90,000 miles.   We would like to

 9   see that strengthened by adding an additional testing

10   point at 60,000 miles.   And essentially there's a 60,000

11   mile gap in the testing.   And that's equivalent to about

12   four years of driving.   So we feel that having an

13   additional testing point would give us some assurance that

14   failures are not occurring for four years without being

15   detected.

16           The in-use testing alone does not provide

17   sufficient protection against increased emissions since

18   only a handful of vehicles will be tested, while

19   potentially thousands of others will be operating

20   throughout California with no regular emissions testing

21   requirements.

22           As a backstop measure, ARB should adopt the

23   language that has been proposed by staff in order to

24   mitigate any emissions -- excess emissions from these

25   vehicles.

 1           Finally, I encourage ARB to adopt resolution

 2   language to commit to establishing smog check for

 3   light-duty diesel vehicles.   I think this is a very

 4   important -- in the future will be a very important

 5   component to ensuring that all light-duty diesel --

 6   gasoline and diesel vehicles are meeting air quality

 7   emission standards throughout their useful life.

 8           And I just want to thank ARB staff for

 9   recognizing the need for these additional requirements

10   along with the proposed changes, and want to thank you for

11   your time and the opportunity to comment.

12           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you very much.

13           What is our commitment to smog check for

14   diesels -- light-duty diesels?   And when do we expect to

15   have that in place?


17   unfortunate you asked the second part of that question.

18           Yeah, we are committed -- as soon as this Board

19   meeting's over we intend to write a letter to the

20   Department of Consumer Affairs and explain what the Board

21   decided, show them the resolution, and then hopefully get

22   strongly engaged in the technical details of how this

23   would happen.   There are a bunch of technical details

24   unfortunately on the administration side that the people

25   that administer this will have to deal with.

 1            I cannot tell you, you know, how long that will

 2   take, because ultimately it will not be our decision, but

 3   it will be the decision of Consumer Affairs.

 4            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Well, it seems like this

 5   should be a pretty high priority.

 6            Would we anticipate there'd be a six-year amnesty

 7   period for new diesels just as there is for gasoline?


 9   certainly would not argue for that.    That amnesty period

10   was earned by those vehicles demonstrating that they have

11   extremely low emissions at least during the first five or

12   six years of their life.   The question here is we don't

13   know.   So I would argue that they should be in smog check

14   at year two and until they can created a record that says

15   that they don't deteriorate.

16            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Okay.   Thank you.

17            Luke Tonachel.

18            MR. TONACHEL:    Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer and

19   members of the Board.    My name is Luke Tonachel.   I'm with

20   the Natural Resources Defense Council.

21            My comments are going to be brief and focused on

22   light-duty diesel.   And in general I support the comments

23   that Mr. Anair made before me.

24            I had the opportunity the last three days to

25   attend the zero emission vehicle technology symposium

 1   right here, which was an excellent discussion on the

 2   various technologies available.   And Dr. Sawyer before

 3   that -- the opening of that meeting, as he did today, was

 4   helpful in reminding all of us that ARB's charge is not

 5   just criteria pollutants, but it also includes global

 6   warming pollution.

 7            And while light-duty diesels have the potential

 8   to provide us some advantages in terms of reducing global

 9   warming pollution, we can't ignore the other pollution as

10   well.   And during the ZEV technology symposium, members of

11   the South Coast Air Quality Management District were keen

12   to remind us about how that program is essential for

13   helping them fight the PM and ozone and other problems

14   that they have today.

15            So that's why we support the idea that light-duty

16   diesels have the same requirements as gasoline vehicles,

17   that we've held those gasoline vehicles to.

18            Now, NRDC does understand that there is some

19   technology that still needs to be developed.   So if

20   light-duty diesels are going to be allowed in California

21   before that development is completed, then I just want to

22   support the idea that it's essential we have additional

23   in-use testing with a stringent ramp-in of the regulations

24   that's being proposed.   We also mitigate any emissions

25   that are found on vehicles that are not compliant with the

 1   emission standards as we go forward.

 2            And I'd like -- I appreciate, Dr. Sawyer, your

 3   priority on including light-duty diesels within the smog

 4   check.   And we would agree that there should not be the

 5   six-year exemption until those vehicles earn the right to

 6   have that capability.

 7            Thank you very much.

 8            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you.

 9            Bonnie Holmes-Gen.

10            MS. HOLMES-GEN:    Dr. Sawyer and members of the

11   Board.   Bonnie Holmes-Gen, American Lung Association of

12   California.

13            I want to comment on this item because the

14   American Lung Association has been very concerned of

15   course about light- and heavy-duty emission levels and

16   impacts on public health.   And we have believed for some

17   time that light-duty diesel vehicles should comply with

18   the same CARB tailpipe standards and OBD requirements that

19   are applied to gasoline vehicles.   So we were concerned

20   when we saw the proposal come out about any changes that

21   might place weaker standards, and concerned that there

22   might be some backsliding on emissions -- vehicle

23   emissions.

24            And of course, you know, our concern comes from a

25   public health perspective, that we don't want to see any

 1   backsliding that would impact the public health impacts of

 2   air pollution, the lung illnesses and deaths that we

 3   already have from our extremely high smog levels.

 4           We are very appreciative of staff work on this

 5   proposal and very appreciative of the new provision that

 6   would require manufacturers to remedy any increased

 7   emissions from light-duty diesel vehicles that are

 8   demonstrating through the in-use testing.   And that is an

 9   important component of this proposal which does help to

10   ensure that we're going to capture and mitigate any excess

11   light-duty diesel emissions or any excess emissions that

12   are demonstrated through the in-use testing on those

13   vehicles.

14           And while of course the in-use testing -- well,

15   we still think that in-use testing requirements could be

16   strengthened further.   As has been stated by Mr. Anair and

17   Mr. Tonachel, we do agree that -- we do agree with them

18   that we should put in an additional testing point and that

19   a testing point should be at the 60 to 70,000 mile

20   interval.   So we do think there should be at least those

21   three testing points to do sufficient testing to look for

22   those design defects and systematic failures.

23           And has been stated, we absolutely have to have a

24   Smog Check program for these light-duty diesel vehicles.

25   I mean we can look for those design defects and systematic

 1   failures, but we need to be able to have a system to look

 2   at individual vehicles and find those individual vehicles

 3   in need of repair.

 4             And I just wanted to comment that I appreciate

 5   you have this in the resolution.   This is going to be I

 6   think a sustained campaign to get these vehicles into a

 7   Smog Check program.    I appreciate that you're poised to

 8   send a letter.    But we need to kind of gear up for a

 9   sustained program -- sustained campaign to work with the

10   administration, to work with BAR, to work with public

11   health and environmental groups to really make this

12   happen.   And we think you should set a goal to make this

13   happen within the next two to three years at the most,

14   because we need to get this going.

15             So those are our basic comments.   We appreciate

16   the staff work.    We absolutely have to make sure that

17   we're not backsliding in any way on our air quality

18   commitments as we look at the prospect of introducing

19   light-duty diesel vehicles into California.

20             Thanks for time to comment.

21             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you.

22             Does staff have a comment on the proposal to add

23   a 60,000 mile test for in-use?


25   we don't really think that it's necessary.    There is

 1   another program that's run out of the sort of

 2   certification effort.    It's a uniform program with EPA and

 3   ourselves, where there's some limited testing done at

 4   various mileage points.    And there happens to be a 50,000

 5   mile limited test requirement on the engine -- on the

 6   vehicle manufacturers.    I think it's four to five cars

 7   instead of ten.   And so we think, you know, you put that

 8   one in between the two groups of ten cars tested at 30 and

 9   90,000, that that gives you another check, at least a

10   crude check that there's not something really bad going

11   on.   We think that's probably sufficient.

12            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   I will now close the record

13   on this agenda item.    However, the record will be opened

14   when the 15-day notice of public availability is issued.

15            Written or oral comments received after this

16   hearing date but before the 15-day notice is issued will

17   not be accepted as part of the official record on this

18   agenda item.   When the record is reopened for a 15-day

19   comment period, the public may submit written comments on

20   the proposed changes which will be considered and

21   responded to in the final statement of reasons for the

22   regulation.

23            I will now take our ex parte statements -- no?

24            No.

25            If we've had a chance to review the resolution,

 1   do I have a motion to accept?

 2           BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:    So moved.

 3           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:     And a second?

 4           BOARD MEMBER BERG:     Second.

 5           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:     Is there any further

 6   discussion at this time?

 7           BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE:     I wondered if the Chair

 8   would make any comments on it?

 9           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:     Well, as you know, I've been

10   a supporter in moving ahead to open up light-duty diesels

11   in California.   That's because I'm convinced that they can

12   be as clean as gasoline engines and must be as clean as

13   gasoline engines.   The technology is there.

14           The OBD development does indeed lag a bit.         But I

15   think the staff has come up with a plan to bring it about

16   over the next several years.    And I'm confident that the

17   industry will be successful in providing fully compliant

18   vehicles over this period of time.       And if not, the

19   consequences are pretty clear.   Then they will not be

20   selling diesels in California.

21           All those in favor signify by saying aye.

22           (Ayes.)

23           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:     Opposed?

24           Motion is adopted.

25           The next item on the agenda is 6-8-5, a proposal

 1   to adopt California's Heavy-Duty Diesel In-Use Compliance

 2   Regulation.

 3           (Thereupon an overhead presentation was

 4           Presented as follows.)

 5           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:     Health and Safety Code

 6   Section 43104 directs the Air Resources Board to adopt

 7   test procedures to ensure compliance with emission

 8   standards for engines used in new heavy-duty motor

 9   vehicles.

10           Existing procedures require these engines to be

11   removed from the vehicle and then installed on an engine

12   dynamometer.   This is a very time consuming and costly

13   procedure, making in-use compliance testing of heavy-duty

14   engines impractical.

15           Since 2001, Air Resources Board staff has worked

16   collaboratively with the U.S. EPA and the engine

17   manufacturers to develop a practical in-use testing and

18   compliance program based upon performing what is referred

19   to as a "not to exceed" test procedure using portable

20   emission measurement systems.

21           In May 2003, the general structure of such a

22   program was developed and agreed upon by all parties.

23   Based on this collaborative work, in June 2005 the U.S.

24   EPA adopted a manufacturer-run in-use compliance program

25   that all heavy-duty engine manufacturers must comply with

 1   federally.

 2             Staff's proposal would establish California

 3   requirements that are consistent with the federal

 4   requirements.   The proposed compliance program would start

 5   in 2007 for gaseous emissions and 2008 for particulate

 6   matter emissions.

 7             Ms. Witherspoon, would you introduce this item.

 8             EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:   Thank you, Dr.

 9   Sawyer.   I think you did a great job introducing it

10   yourself, so I'm going to go straight to the staff

11   presentation, which will be given by Dipak Bishnu of the

12   Mobile Source Control Division.

13             (Thereupon an overhead presentation was

14             Presented as follows.)

15             AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:   Thank you, Ms.

16   Witherspoon.

17             Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer and members of the

18   Board.

19             Today's presentation will summarize staff's

20   proposal for California's heavy-duty diesel in-use

21   compliance regulation.

22                              --o0o--

23             AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:   Today's

24   presentation will first provide background information on

25   heavy-duty diesel engines and the emission requirements

 1   for those engines.   This will be followed by a discussion

 2   on staff's proposed in-use compliance regulation, the

 3   impact this regulation will have on the manufacturers of

 4   diesel engines, the benefits associated with the proposed

 5   regulation, and the remaining issues.   I'll conclude with

 6   a summary and staff recommendation.

 7                              --o0o--

 8             AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:   Heavy-duty diesel

 9   engines play an important economic role, both in

10   California and nationally.   They play a vital role in the

11   transportation of goods and material throughout the United

12   States.   It is well known, especially in heavy-duty truck

13   applications, that diesel engines perform better, are more

14   fuel efficient, and are more durable than their gasoline

15   counterparts.   Unfortunately, diesel engines are also

16   significant contributors of NOx and toxic particulate

17   matter emissions.    In 2010, on-road heavy-duty diesel

18   engines will contribute 30 percent of statewide mobile

19   source NOx emissions and 20 percent of statewide diesel PM

20   emissions.

21             In order to reduce heavy-duty diesel emissions,

22   stringent new emission standards were adopted in

23   California and nationally for 2007 and newer engines.

24   Specifically, compared to the existing 2004 emission

25   standards, PM and NOx will be reduced by 90 percent in

 1   2007 and 2010, respectively.

 2            In order to meet these lower emission standards,

 3   it will require improvements in engine design and the use

 4   of exhaust after-treatment system for both NOx and PM

 5   emissions control.

 6                               --o0o--

 7            AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:   Since exhaust

 8   after-treatment technologies will be needed to meet the

 9   2007 emission standards, it is important to make sure that

10   both the engine and the after-treatment systems are

11   working properly to achieve the emission reduction goals.

12   The development of an effective heavy-duty diesel in-use

13   compliance program is vital to ensure that the emission

14   standards are met in use for the useful life of the

15   engine, as well as provide the incentive for the

16   manufacturers to properly design their engines and

17   emission control systems.

18                               --o0o--

19            AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:   The importance of

20   an effective in-use compliance program is demonstrated by

21   ARB's past experience with our in-use compliance program

22   for light-duty vehicles, which began in the early 1980s.

23            As you can see, the early years of the compliance

24   program uncovered high engine family failure or defect

25   rates.   After about ten years of routine compliance

 1   testing, the failure rate decreased to less than 10

 2   percent of the total engine families tested.     In fact, in

 3   the last three years none of the engine families tested

 4   has failed in-use compliance testing.

 5              In 2001, vehicle manufacturers began to routinely

 6   test some of their in-use vehicles under a federal and

 7   California adopted program called the In-Use Verification

 8   Program as part of the CAP 2000 program.     The testing is

 9   in addition to in-use testing that ARB or U.S. EPA would

10   conduct.    The CAP 2000 in-use compliance program for

11   light-duty vehicles is similar in concept to staff's

12   proposal before you today.

13                               --o0o--

14              AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:   The Health and

15   Safety Code directs ARB to adopt test procedures to ensure

16   compliance with emission standards for new motor vehicles

17   and engines.    The test procedures developed were intended

18   to determine compliance of all motor vehicles and engines.

19   But in reality, they are more applicable for testing cars

20   and light-duty trucks.    According to these procedures,

21   compliance determination requires a minimum of ten

22   vehicles or engines to be tested in the same configuration

23   as they were certified.

24                               --o0o--

25              AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:   The compliance

 1   testing procedures are problematic for testing heavy-duty

 2   diesel engines because heavy-duty diesel engines are

 3   certified on an engine dynamometer.   Currently, to conduct

 4   in-use compliance testing of heavy-duty diesel engines,

 5   ten trucks would need to be removed from the revenue

 6   service, the engines would be removed from the trucks and

 7   installed on an engine dynamometer, and then each engine

 8   would be tested.   The engines would then be reinstalled in

 9   the trucks and given back to the owner.

10           This is a very time consuming and costly

11   procedure.   Current estimates indicate that the cost to

12   conduct such testing for one engine family is $250,000.

13           Therefore, a more practical and efficient way of

14   testing heavy-duty diesel vehicles is needed.   This is now

15   possible with the adoption of the "not to exceed" or NTE

16   requirements and the development of portable emission

17   measurement systems, or PEMS, which I will discuss in more

18   detail in the next few slides.

19                              --o0o--

20           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:    In the 1990s

21   seven of the largest engine manufacturers were alleged to

22   have violated state and federal emission laws by disabling

23   emission control devices on heavy-duty diesel engines

24   during in-use, on-highway driving, resulting in high NOx

25   emissions when operating outside of the standard emission

 1   test cycle called the Federal Test Procedure or FTP.

 2              To ensure that exhaust emissions were controlled

 3   under virtually all driving conditions, settlement

 4   agreements were made with most of the settling

 5   manufacturers establishing "not to exceed" limits.      The

 6   NTE requirements have been in effect beginning with the

 7   1998 model year.

 8              The NTE requirements are not based on a

 9   prescribed test cycle, but rather on a region of engine

10   operation.    In general, NTE compliance is based on meeting

11   emission limits over several 30-second-or-more periods of

12   operation in the NTE area.

13              NTE requirements allow for a broad range of test

14   conditions allowing for testing under real-world

15   conditions.   This concept is explained further in the next

16   few slides.

17                               --o0o--

18              AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:    Shown on this

19   slide is a typical range of engine operation that is

20   covered by the NTE requirements.      The NTE requirements

21   were designed to help ensure that heavy-duty diesel engine

22   emissions are properly controlled over a wide range of

23   speed and load combinations and typical environmental

24   conditions commonly experienced during everyday use of the

25   vehicle.

 1              NTE establishes an area under the engine's torque

 2   versus speed curve where emissions must not exceed a

 3   specified value for any of the regulated pollutants.        It

 4   also broadens the applicable ambient conditions in which

 5   the emission limits must be met including a temperature

 6   range of 55 to 95 degrees Fahrenheit and an altitude range

 7   up to 5500 feet above sea level.

 8              As previously mentioned, the test itself does not

 9   involve a prescribed driving cycle of any given distance

10   or time.    Rather it involves any drive cycle that could

11   occur within the bounds of the NTE control area.

12                               --o0o--

13              AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:   Shown on this

14   slide is the entire engine operating area of a typical

15   heavy-duty diesel engine, with the NTE area shaded gray.

16   For comparison, we plotted in red engine operation that is

17   typically observed under the existing federal test

18   procedure or FTP.

19              As shown, the FTP covers a large portion of

20   engine operation.    The FTP test cycle currently used for

21   heavy-duty diesel engine certification was developed with

22   real world test data collected on heavy-duty trucks and

23   buses, representing real world driving conditions in an

24   urban environment simulating stop-and-go traffic, idling,

25   and limited freeway driving.

 1              But it does not cover much of the mid speed, high

 2   load operation experienced by most heavy-duty trucks

 3   during normal highway driving, as shown within the green

 4   circle of the slide.    Operation of heavy-duty diesel

 5   trucks in this region can be tracked very well with NTE

 6   testing.    Thus, with both FTP and NTE testing protocols,

 7   virtually all operations of heavy-duty diesel engines will

 8   be covered at low, mid and high speed and loads.

 9              The NTE procedure allows testing on an Engine

10   dynamometer, a chassis dynamometer, or with on-board PEMS

11   during over-the-road operation.    A more detailed

12   description of PEMS is provided in the following slides.

13                               --o0o--

14              AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:   The emission

15   standards for heavy-duty diesel engines are expressed as

16   mass of pollutant per unit amount of work per unit time.

17   Therefore, at a minimum, the PEMS must be capable of

18   measuring exhaust concentrations of oxides of nitrogen,

19   Carbon monoxide, non-methane hydrocarbon and particulate

20   matter, exhaust flow rate, engine work output, and ambient

21   conditions such as temperature, humidity and altitude.

22              The PEMS is a self-contained unit, about 70 to

23   100 pounds in weight, measures exhaust flow and other

24   information such as vehicle location and altitude from a

25   global positioning system, and atmospheric temperature and

 1   pressure.   Engine information from the vehicle's on-board

 2   computer, such as engine operating conditions and work

 3   output, is provided to the PEMS computer, along with

 4   emissions data, to calculate the NTE emission results on a

 5   second-by-second basis.   Shown in this slide, in the upper

 6   right, is a typical installation of a PEMS unit.

 7                              --o0o--

 8           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:   The proposed

 9   program would require engine manufacturers to use PEMS to

10   conduct in-use testing of heavy-duty diesel vehicles over

11   the road.   The use of PEMS for over-the-road realtime

12   emission measurement has been under development for the

13   past decade.   Testing conducted in the past few years has

14   shown that PEMS technologies have performed well and

15   accurately in measuring gaseous emissions from heavy-duty

16   diesel vehicles under different driving conditions.    PEMS

17   emission analyzers used for measuring gaseous pollutants

18   use the same technologies used in larger laboratory

19   instruments for the same measurements.

20           One of the advantages of using PEMS is that the

21   system can be mounted and taken down off a truck very

22   easily without interrupting vehicle operation.   Once a

23   PEMS is mounted on a vehicle properly, it can collect and

24   analyze data for many hours on its own without requiring

25   any human intervention.

 1           The most important advantage of PEMS is the

 2   ability to perform in-use compliance testing without the

 3   need to remove the engine from the vehicle.

 4                              --o0o--

 5           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:    The proposed

 6   program is a cooperative effort between ARB, U.S. EPA, and

 7   the engine manufacturers that began in 2001.   The program

 8   is similar to the previously mentioned light-duty CAP 2000

 9   program in that the manufacturers will be performing

10   routine testing of their engine families annually.   In

11   June 2005, the U.S. EPA adopted its heavy-duty in-use

12   testing program.   Staff's proposed program is essentially

13   identical to the U.S. EPA's program.

14                              --o0o--

15           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:    The proposed

16   regulation would require manufacturers to implement an

17   in-use compliance program for heavy-duty diesel engines

18   based on an agreement among ARB, U.S. EPA, and the engine

19   manufacturers in May 2003.   In the proposed program, the

20   engine manufacturers would be responsible for procuring

21   and testing heavy-duty diesel vehicles for compliance

22   determination.   As mentioned, portable emission

23   measurement systems would be utilized to conduct the

24   over-the-road testing to assess NTE compliance of 2007 and

25   newer heavy-duty diesel engines in use.

 1                             --o0o--

 2           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:   The proposed

 3   program is unique in that it would be the first of its

 4   kind to require compliance with emission requirements

 5   outside of a test laboratory environment.   Because it is

 6   unique, the ARB, U.S. EPA, and the engine manufacturers

 7   have launched a non-enforceable pilot program in calendar

 8   years 2005 and 2006 to gain experience with in-use testing

 9   utilizing PEMS.   The pilot program will measure gaseous

10   emissions, namely, non-methane hydrocarbon, carbon

11   monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen, and will prepare the

12   manufacturers as well as U.S. EPA and ARB for the fully

13   enforceable program starting in 2007.   Similarly, a pilot

14   program for PM emissions will take place in 2006 and 2007,

15   preceding a fully enforceable program for PM starting in

16   2008.

17           The success of the proposed program depends on

18   ensuring that the PEMS can correctly measure the exhaust

19   emissions from heavy-duty diesel vehicles in the field

20   rather than in a controlled laboratory environment.

21   Because of this, ARB, U.S. EPA, and the engine

22   manufacturers have agreed to determine a measurement

23   accuracy margin for each pollutant to account for any

24   potential difference in measurement accuracy.    The

25   accuracy margins are currently being determined by an

 1   independent contractor, Southwest Research Institute.

 2           In addition, the proposed program helps fulfill

 3   one of the measures in the 2003 State Implementation Plan.

 4                               --o0o--

 5           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:   Each year, ARB

 6   and U.S. EPA would designate for testing up to 25 percent

 7   of a manufacturer's total number of heavy-duty diesel

 8   engine families.   Testing would be conducted under

 9   real-world driving conditions within the engine's useful

10   life.

11           Emissions that would be measured for NTE

12   compliance are oxides of nitrogen, non-methane

13   hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter.

14   Measuring carbon dioxide and oxygen would also be required

15   as a means of verifying fuel consumption and work output

16   of the engine.

17           These data will be compared to the NTE threshold

18   limit for each pollutant.

19           The proposed compliance program would be

20   conducted in two phases.

21                               --o0o--

22           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:   The first phase

23   of testing, Phase 1, is intended to screen a designated

24   engine family for conformity with the applicable NTE

25   emission limits.   The vehicle will be tested in its normal

 1   daily operation on its scheduled route with the regular

 2   driver operating the vehicle.

 3           Under Phase 1, the manufacturer would test a

 4   minimum of five and a maximum of ten vehicles per engine

 5   family during normal over-the-road vehicle operation.

 6   Test results of the vehicles will be evaluated against

 7   vehicle pass criteria.   If a specified number of vehicles

 8   failed the vehicle pass criteria, the manufacturers may be

 9   asked to initiate Phase 2 testing.

10                              --o0o--

11           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:   The primary

12   purpose of Phase 2 testing is to gain further information

13   regarding the extent to which, and under what conditions,

14   the vehicles from the designated engine family failed to

15   pass the vehicle pass criteria during Phase 1 testing.

16   ARB could specify certain driving routes or other driving

17   conditions, namely, temperatures, altitude, geographic

18   location, or time of the year, if it is suspected that

19   these conditions are associated with non-compliance.

20           If the manufacturer is required to conduct Phase

21   2 testing, ten additional vehicles would be selected from

22   that engine family.   ARB could require a subclass of

23   engines within the engine family, if the data generated

24   under Phase 1 or other test data indicate possible

25   non-compliance with the emission standards from that

 1   subclass of engines.

 2           Data from both Phase 1 and Phase 2 will be used

 3   to determine engine family compliance, and possible

 4   remedial action, along with other test data or information

 5   provided by the manufacturer or obtained by ARB or U.S.

 6   EPA testing.

 7                               --o0o--

 8           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:    The proposed

 9   regulation would affect about 13 medium- and heavy-duty

10   engine manufacturers who certify their engines for sale in

11   California.    None of the engine manufacturers is located

12   in California and none is considered to be a small

13   business.   The total cost to conduct the proposed program

14   nationwide is estimated to range from 1.6 to $2.1 million

15   per year for the 13 manufacturers combined.   These costs

16   consist of fixed and variable cost components and may vary

17   from manufacturer to manufacturer.    The actual cost to a

18   specific manufacturer will vary depending on how many

19   engine families are certified each year, how many vehicles

20   are tested in Phase 1 for a given engine family, and

21   whether Phase 2 testing occurs for a given engine family.

22           The proposed regulation poses no additional costs

23   to engine manufacturers since the manufacturers are

24   already subjected to an identical rule adopted by U.S. EPA

25   in June, 2005.

 1                             --o0o--

 2           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:     By enforcing

 3   emission requirements adopted for 2007 and newer

 4   heavy-duty diesel engines, the proposed regulation would

 5   ensure that the original emission benefits claimed through

 6   the adoption of the lower emission standards are obtained.

 7   The proposed regulation would ensure that violations of

 8   the emission requirements within the regulatory useful

 9   life of the engine would be detected and fixed.    The

10   proposed program would potentially cover all engine models

11   within a four year period.

12                             --o0o--

13           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:     The proposed

14   program would encourage manufacturers to design more

15   robust and durable engines and emission control systems in

16   order to avoid failing in-use compliance testing and

17   conducting potentially costly recalls or extending

18   emission parts warranties.   The large amount of in-use

19   test data that would be generated by the proposed program

20   may help the manufacturers to develop better deterioration

21   factors for their engines in the future.

22           Also, ARB will likely use these data in the

23   future to develop better emission factors that can be used

24   for both emissions inventory development and air quality

25   modeling work.

 1                               --o0o--

 2           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:    There are

 3   fundamental differences when the exhaust emission

 4   measurements are made with stationary analyzers in a

 5   controlled laboratory environment compared to emission

 6   measurements done with the portable emission analyzers in

 7   an uncontrolled open environment, subjected to variable

 8   temperatures and humidity, road vibration and other

 9   conditions.

10           To account for these factors, as previously

11   mentioned, in May 2005, ARB, U.S. EPA, and the engine

12   manufacturers agreed to jointly fund and develop a

13   research, development, and demonstration project to

14   determine emission measurement accuracy margin for gaseous

15   and PM emissions.    Currently the development of the

16   gaseous emission measurement accuracy margin determination

17   is underway.   The final report is expected to be completed

18   by January 2007.    The gaseous enforcement program is

19   expected to begin in December of 2007.    The development of

20   the particulate matter measurement accuracy margin is

21   expected to start in late 2006, with a final report

22   expected to be completed by early 2008.   The particulate

23   matter enforcement program is expected to begin in

24   December 2008.

25                               --o0o--

 1              AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:     In summary,

 2   staff's proposed compliance program would require the use

 3   of commercially available PEMS, significantly reducing

 4   testing time and cost of testing heavy-duty diesel

 5   engines.

 6              The proposed requirements would result in a cost

 7   savings to the engine manufacturers by aligning California

 8   and the federal compliance programs, resulting in testing

 9   fewer engines than would otherwise be required if two

10   separate compliance programs were in place.

11              The proposed testing program would generate a

12   vast amount of in-use test data that could be used

13   effectively by both the manufacturers and ARB.       The

14   manufacturers would be able to evaluate the performance of

15   their engines and emission control systems under

16   real-world operating conditions and use.       The test data

17   could be used to create cleaner and more durable engine

18   designs.

19              ARB also would be able to use the in-use test

20   data to develop emission factors for emissions inventory

21   and air quality modeling.

22              Staff therefore that the Board adopt the proposed

23   manufacturer-run in-use compliance regulation.

24              Thank you.   This concludes my presentation.

25              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you.


 2   BRANCH CHIEF CARTER:    And if I could, Dr. Sawyer, one

 3   comment.

 4              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Yes.


 6   BRANCH CHIEF CARTER:    Tom Jennings would like to make a

 7   brief statement about a recent 15-day -- Michael Carter --

 8   sorry -- about a 15-day change we have.

 9              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Mr. Jennings.

10              ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS:    Yes.   A very

11   minor and tangential element of this rule making as

12   described in the staff report gives flexibility to

13   manufacturers in designing their emission labels with

14   executive officer approval.      This tracks -- under

15   heavy-duty auto cycle test procedures, this tracks

16   language the EPA adopted.    Staff had intended but

17   neglected to include that in the heavy-duty diesel cycle

18   test procedures.    So the 15-day modification would simply

19   do that.    And we'd ask that the resolution be treated as

20   modified to reflect this modification.

21              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you.

22              Ms. Ferreira, would you provide the Ombudsman's

23   statement please.

24              ACTING OMBUDSMAN FERREIRA:   Yes.   Dr. Sawyer and

25   members of the Board.    ARB staff, U.S. EPA, and the Engine

 1   Manufacturers Association began a collaborative effort

 2   more than five years ago to develop this rule.   Since that

 3   time staff has had more than 100 meetings.   While they did

 4   not conduct any workshops, U.S. EPA held a workshop in

 5   2004, where they adopted a similar regulation in 2005.

 6           The staff report was released for public comment

 7   on August 11, 2006.    It was noticed by hard copy to nearly

 8   500 stakeholders and through the website to more than 1800

 9   stakeholders.

10           This concludes my comments.

11           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you very much.

12           Do any of the Board members have comments?

13           I do.

14           I'm delighted to see the progress that's been

15   made in this area.    The bringing together of real in-use

16   emissions with regulation and compliance is exactly what

17   we need to ensure that the emissions which we think we're

18   getting from our regulations are really occurring in the

19   vehicles over their lifetimes.

20           And it's because the people at the EPA and at the

21   Air Resources Board have worked hard with the industry to

22   get this technology available.   And the fact that it's

23   ready for prime time use now brings joy to the heart of an

24   engineer.

25           (Laughter.)

 1            Couldn't resist saying that.

 2            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   We have two witnesses who

 3   would like to make statements:   Chung Liu and Lisa

 4   Stregink.

 5            Dr. Liu.

 6            DR. LIU:   Professor Sawyer, members of the Board.

 7   My name is Chung Liu.   I'm with the South Coast Air

 8   Quality Management District.   We share the same feeling

 9   about this is an essential piece.

10            As many of you know, that the South Coast

11   District doesn't feel that the past practice of using

12   certification -- engine certification tests is adequate to

13   really ensure the emission reduction is actually there.

14   As a matter of fact, the reason the few studies conducted

15   by Coordinated Research Council, co-sponsored by ARB and

16   South Coast District, actually indicate there are some

17   problems just relying only on emission certification

18   tests.   The in-use emission data is really important to

19   ensure that actual emission benefits will be realized.

20            Say all those and realize this is a joint efforts

21   among EPA, ARB, and EMA.   And what kind of bother us a bit

22   is this program also has a terms manufacturer run in-use

23   emission compliance test program.

24            The track record of this industry on emission

25   compliance is questionable, especially looking at the

 1   situation for engine between '94 and '98.   They really

 2   have cheated.

 3            But we think this program is going to really

 4   help.   We're coming here to support this program, but we

 5   want to provide some suggestions.

 6            First, the engine family will be joint selected

 7   by EPA and ARB.   But exact trucks going to be

 8   selected -- to be used for this testing will be selected

 9   by engine manufacturers.   So we just want to really

10   encourage ARB using your authority oversight to make sure

11   representative sample of trucks will be used for testing.

12            Second point.   The South Coast have a very

13   positive -- towards using remote sensing technology to

14   really detect high meters.   That's the reason the EPA

15   study in Nogales, Arizona, detecting trucks crossing the

16   borders and showed very good correlation between the

17   remote sensing devices and also the PEMS using these

18   programs.   So I want to encourage the ARB to consider that

19   on the long run that remote sensing technology been

20   improving and use in compliance and test.

21            Lastly, that we really want to recommend to ARB

22   to test vehicles that incorporate some of the engines that

23   we know have some defect, that we know some

24   software/hardware problems; that in your "not to exceed"

25   zone, that you really have things of experiences that you

 1   can really identify if there's major defect in functions,

 2   so we can further avoid anything like the change in

 3   software that happened last decades.    I'm pretty sure ARB

 4   staff, and which I share also, OBD devices really helped

 5   greatly eliminate the possibility for that repeat again.

 6   But I just want to say that when you're doing testing,

 7   maybe you should really run some of the tests on some

 8   defunct engines and gain some experiences so we can easily

 9   identify any defects in the future.

10           Thanks.

11           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you very much.

12           Does staff have any comments?


14   BRANCH CHIEF CARTER:   I'll comment on the first point

15   about -- Dr. Liu was concerned about the vehicles that the

16   manufacturers get in and he's concerned that the engine

17   manufacturers may choose and pick or cherry-pick which

18   engines or which trucks to test.

19           Perhaps Dr. Liu is concerned because in the staff

20   report it talks about how the manufacturers will screen

21   and procure a test.    Well, the screening part may be a

22   little misleading, because they can't just cherry-pick the

23   vehicles.   There's a very specific guidance document that

24   EPA and we and the engine manufacturers agree to that

25   clearly specifies and spells out exactly how the vehicles

 1   can be selected, how they can be screened, how they can or

 2   cannot reject vehicles from the program.    And so there's a

 3   lot of checks in place to make sure nothing funny happens.

 4              On top of that, if we do suspect there are some

 5   funny things happening, the ARB has the right to do our

 6   own confirmatory testing and make sure everything is going

 7   as it should go.

 8              Plus we can even go out to where the

 9   manufacturers are doing the testing and inspect it as

10   well.

11              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Do we have a program of

12   doing similar work on older heavy-duty vehicles -- PEMS

13   testing?


15   LEMIEUX:    This program is designed for 2007 and newer

16   engines.

17              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Yes.


19   LEMIEUX:    And a big part of the problem with that is the

20   range of the analyzers and things with the technology that

21   if you put it on older vehicles, it may foul up the

22   technology and -- however, we could use other instruments

23   similar to that to look at overall compliance.    But for

24   the older technologies we would have to revert back to the

25   current procedures, which is what Dipak was mentioning

 1   earlier, was to rip an engine out of a vehicle and put it

 2   on an engine dynamometer and test it, and which is pretty

 3   costly and expensive.   So we pretty much have to be sure

 4   that if the older engine family is failing, for us to go

 5   and spend that kind of money and do that type of testing.


 7   done -- I'm not sure if we've done a PEMS emission

 8   measurement on a truck.    But we have been collecting data

 9   on truck usage using on-truck instrumentation.    So, you

10   know, when this gets proven out, if it works well enough

11   and -- which I think it will -- and the measurement

12   capability fits the higher emitting older trucks, we could

13   do that kind of testing.


15   guess we all had a nickel here.

16           I guess I would add that I share Chung's concerns

17   about making sure that all of this is done properly and

18   that we make sure that the heavy-duty manufacturers are in

19   fact complying.   And I think that one of the neat things

20   about the PEMS is it does give us the power to do our own

21   double checking without having to pull engines out.   So

22   there's a way that we can on our own make sure that all

23   this is going all right, and we plan on doing it.

24           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you.


 1   defects that he was suggesting we put in there, I think if

 2   we do that it will be in conjunction with the heavy-duty

 3   OBD program, because we're doing that on light-duty

 4   vehicles now.   We put defects in there and we see whether

 5   the lights come on.       So there will be some of that kind of

 6   testing going on with heavy duty, although probably more

 7   limited because of the higher cost of, you know, trying to

 8   procure heavy-duty trucks.

 9              And on RSD, just his other point, that may be

10   possible, but the NTE requirement is a 30-second time

11   average.    And so it would be a little hard to have a

12   traditional RSD that's beside the road that would be able

13   to measure emissions for a truck for 30 seconds.       The

14   truck would be long gone, I think, by that time.

15              And as we've seen for compliance purposes at

16   least, we have -- there's a lot of issues, like the

17   accuracy measurements, that we'd end up spending over a

18   million dollars just to determine how accurate they are.

19              So if new technology comes along, that's great.

20   But I think It'd have to show a substantial advantage over

21   the ones that we're pursuing right now.

22              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you.

23              Lisa Stegink please.

24              MS. STEGINK:    Good afternoon again.   I'm Lisa

25   Stegink here on behalf of the Engine Manufacturers

 1   Association.

 2           Due to the significant and unprecedented

 3   challenges that engine manufacturers will face in

 4   implementing the proposed in-use program, it is vital that

 5   the program be administered on a uniform and nationwide

 6   basis without any unique or special provisions for

 7   particular jurisdictions, including California.

 8           To that end, the engine manufacturers, EPA, and

 9   ARB jointly developed the blueprint for implementing a

10   manufacturer-run in-use test program and a formal

11   agreement which, together, specifically include a

12   commitment by the parties to a single coordinated program.

13   ARB has honored the letter and spirit of the agreements in

14   submitting the proposed heavy-duty in-use testing rule for

15   Board approval.

16           Because the ARB's proposed rule is essentially

17   identical to the EPA rule, EMA and its members support the

18   adoption of the proposed rule.   Adopting the rule will

19   complete the implementation of the agreements and will

20   establish a viable, groundbreaking, manufacturer-run

21   in-use NTE testing program that will ensure the real-world

22   emission benefits of advanced diesel engines and exhaust

23   after-treatment systems.   All of this in turn will

24   continue to facilitate the deployment, validation and

25   expansion of clean diesel technologies.

 1           EMA appreciates the opportunity to present

 2   testimony on the proposed rule.   The in-use NTE testing

 3   program represents a fundamental and groundbreaking

 4   paradigm shift in the regulation and control of emissions

 5   from heavy-duty vehicles and engines.   Accordingly,

 6   continuing cooperation among ARB, EPA, and engine

 7   manufacturers will be necessary to accomplish that change

 8   in paradigm.

 9           For its part, and recognizing that many

10   significant challenges still lie ahead, EMA looks forward

11   to an ongoing collaborative effort with ARB and EPA to

12   ensure that the negotiated in-use NTE testing program is

13   implemented in a feasible, cost effective, and highly

14   successful manner.

15           Thank you.

16           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you.

17           Will the manufacturers constrain the fuels that

18   are used in the vehicles as part of the test?

19           MS. STEGINK:    Maybe Mike should answer that.


21   BRANCH CHIEF CARTER:   Yeah, I'll get that one.

22           That also was discussed at great length in our

23   negotiations over the past several years.

24           The manufacturers do have the option.     They can

25   actually drain the tank and refill it, but only with

 1   commercially available diesel fuel.    They can't put

 2   additives in if the manufacturer didn't from the beginning

 3   authorize those additives.    Basically whatever's

 4   commercially available they can use.

 5            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Okay.   Thank you.

 6            Do any of the Board members have questions on

 7   this topic?

 8            BOARD MEMBER BERG:    Congratulations.

 9            BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:   You want to continue it

10   for a month?

11            (Laughter.)

12            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   I will now close the record

13   on this agenda item.   However, the record will be reopened

14   when the 15-day notice of public availability is issued.

15   Written or oral comments received after this hearing date

16   but before the 15-day notice is issued will not be

17   accepted as part of the official record on this agenda

18   item.   When the record is reopened for a 15-day comment

19   period, the public may submit written comments on the

20   proposed changes, which will be considered and responded

21   to in the final statement of reasons for the regulation.

22            Our ex parte statements.

23            Mark?

24            No.

25            No.

 1           No.

 2           We feel neglected, I think.

 3           (Laughter.)

 4           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:    Not really.

 5           (Laughter.)

 6           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:    Mr. Chairman, I just might

 7   say that staff had briefed me, and I'm just so pleased

 8   with the report.   Unlike you, the engineer, I'm just

 9   excited that we've harmonized with EPA.    Because I think

10   it makes it so much easier for those who have to comply

11   with these standards, so that the same tests are

12   applicable for the different jurisdictions.    And I just

13   think that's an incredible achievement.

14           And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to move

15   the staff recommendations and acknowledge the amendment

16   that was made.

17           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    A second?

18           BOARD MEMBER BERG:     Second.

19           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    All in favor, aye.

20           (Ayes.)

21           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Opposed?

22           The motion is carried.

23           We now move to another item on our agenda which

24   we don't always have and, that is, comments from Board

25   members and from the public.   And we're going to have both

 1   of those today.

 2           Before we do that, I would like to acknowledge a

 3   very special person, that is, Holly Edwards.     She is -- I

 4   don't -- when I first arrived here I wasn't quite certain

 5   why things worked so smoothly.   But then I realized that

 6   she's a combination of stage manager and master sergeant

 7   when it comes to running this operation.

 8           And we're going to be losing her for two years.

 9   And the good news is that it's only two years.     But we

10   will certainly miss you during that period of time.    Her

11   national guard unit has been called up, and she will be

12   serving her country.   And we're proud of you.    And we look

13   forward to seeing you back.

14           (Applause.)

15           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:    Mr. Chairman, if I might.

16   As an interim chairman for almost a year, I can tell you

17   she is superb at organizing and keeping us all kind of

18   focused in the same direction, trying to keep us on time,

19   which is very difficult sometimes with this group.    And I

20   just have to say that the U.S. Government's very fortunate

21   to have you.   And hopefully you can keep them all

22   organized over there and come back and teach us all about

23   what you learned in two years.   We'll miss you.

24           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   All right.   We will now take

25   a comment from Board Member Mayor Loveridge.

 1            I would remind you that this is an opportunity

 2   for a Board member to bring items of interest to the

 3   Board.   We will not be taking action on these items at

 4   this time.

 5            Mayor Loveridge.

 6            BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE:    Thank you.

 7            This is an item I'd like to raise for, as the

 8   language of the agenda says, for notice for future

 9   consideration at a Board meeting.    And this is really a

10   concept of a plug-in California initiative.

11            And let me, if I can, read the context.   But it

12   really comes out of at least a year or more sort of

13   reading articles, talking to different experts, and

14   thinking it is time that this particular technology bridge

15   receive state attention.

16            Plug-in hybrid electrical vehicles are an

17   exciting emerging technology because they offer the

18   potential for zero emission miles, reduced greenhouse gas

19   emissions and improved energy diversity.

20            There has been a tremendous support for plug-in

21   hybrids recently:

22            The three major auto manufacturers, GM, Toyota,

23   DaimlerChrysler are actively pursuing the

24   commercialization of plug-in hybrid technology.

25            President Bush has directed specific activities

 1   to speed up plug-in hybrid research.

 2           The City of Austin has what they call Plug-In

 3   Partners, a national campaign which has investor utilities

 4   and municipal utilities signed up across the country.

 5           The State of New York has announced a $10 million

 6   program to convert all state vehicles to plug-ins.

 7           And the South Coast District has hosted two

 8   meetings to examine the plug-in technology.

 9           All of these activities have drawn the interest

10   and attention of the media.    It's clear there is popular

11   interest in these vehicles.    But to drive this technology,

12   battery improvements that are required, we need to give a

13   concerted effort rather than what I think has been sort of

14   small pockets of activity.    And I would suggest this

15   effort be at the state level so we can put the weight of

16   all state agencies behind it.

17           Let me give at least examples of direction, is

18   request that the CARB staff work with appropriate

19   stakeholders, including the Governor's office, State

20   Legislature, auto manufacturers, battery technology

21   entities, state agencies such as the CPUC, CEC and DGS,

22   Plug-In Partners, electric utilities, environmental

23   groups, and the CAPCOA members to establish a Plug-In

24   California initiative that may do the following:

25           1.   Establish a state commitment to purchase

 1   plug-in hybrid electrical vehicles when they are

 2   commercially available for all the state agency fleets.

 3           2.   Establish reduced electric rates to charge

 4   these vehicles.

 5           3.   Establish incentive mechanisms for the auto

 6   manufacturers by providing either additional ZEV credits

 7   or reduced greenhouse gas credits for the number of

 8   plug-in hybrids they produce.

 9           4.   Provide customer incentives to buy-down the

10   vehicle's initial higher cost as well as giving HOV lane

11   access to high fuel economy and higher electric range

12   plug-ins.

13           5.   Establish a favorable environment for plug-in

14   hybrid associated businesses here in California.    And

15           6.   Dedicate at least $5 million of the 25

16   million CARB received through the AB 1811 toward the

17   research, development and demonstration of plug-in

18   hybrids, and leverage these funds to the extent possible

19   with other activities being conducted by the U.S.

20   Department of Energy, auto manufacturers, battery

21   technology firms, Plug-In Partners, and the South Coast

22   Air Quality Management District.

23           I would offer this as an idea for future Board

24   consideration.

25           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:   Mr. Chairman, I'd like

 1   to --

 2           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Yes, Mrs. Riordan.

 3           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:     -- just respond, because I

 4   had the good fortune to attend the ZEV technology

 5   symposium, as our Chairman did.   And first let me

 6   compliment the staff, some of whom are probably here now

 7   and hopefully some who -- you'll convey my appreciation.

 8   This room, Mayor Loveridge, was almost filled for three

 9   days.

10           And a lot of the discussion -- there were

11   sessions and there was a plug-in session.   And I think

12   staff is going to bring back to us a report on that

13   symposium.   And so maybe this could follow along after the

14   Board has heard about what we discovered.   We basically

15   were listening to private enterprise speaking at the

16   symposium.   And it's pretty incredible what I was able to

17   discern about the technology and the advancements and the

18   real interest in making this a part of a bigger program

19   towards zero emission vehicles.   And so I think this could

20   fold in to that discussion.

21           And I just wish, Mayor Loveridge, you'd been

22   there, because you would have been very excited and would

23   understand that a lot of great things are happening,

24   thanks to the private sector, supported of course by all

25   of us who are concerned about air pollution in California.

 1   But the private sector is really moving forward.      I don't

 2   know, Mr. Chairman, if you'd like to comment.    You

 3   attended probably more than I did of the sessions.      But I

 4   was very impressed.     And I was particularly impressed with

 5   the plug-in effort, because I did sit through that.

 6            Thank you.

 7            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Ms. D'Adamo.

 8            BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:    Well, I'd like to

 9   compliment Mayor Loveridge in putting this together and

10   say that we could have used you a few years ago, because

11   we were really pushing for when ZEV review was before us

12   last.   Which is almost a bad word, ZEV review, to even

13   have to think about that.    But many of us were pushing for

14   some additional incentives for plug-in hybrids.       I think

15   that we've got them in there.     But I think that more can

16   be done, and I look forward to working with you on this,

17   and just really want to compliment you for putting this

18   together.

19            Thank you.

20            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    I would add that it's pretty

21   clear from the ZEV symposium that the battery technology

22   is advancing -- has advanced and it is advancing and makes

23   all of these technologies, pure battery electrics, the

24   plug-in hybrids, the ordinary hybrids, all much closer to

25   reality in a big way.

 1           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:     Mr. Chairman, I'd just

 2   like to congratulate Ron too.    And for those who make

 3   documentary films, maybe it's -- as Mark Twain said about

 4   his death -- supposed death, maybe the death of the

 5   electric car is vastly exaggerated.

 6           (Laughter.)

 7           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:     Okay.   Our next item are --

 8   there's a comment period --

 9           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:     Dr. Sawyer, I

10   just wanted to thank Mayor Loveridge as well.    We think

11   it's an exciting technology.    And to bring to the Board's

12   attention several events going on that will bring the

13   issue of plug-in hybrids back before you.

14           As Ms. Riordan indicated, we will report to you

15   on the outcome of the symposium in short order.    We also

16   will have a report from our independent technical review

17   panel early next year on their conclusions about how all

18   the technologies are developing, which will frame the

19   policy discussion on what, if anything, should change in

20   the LEV/ZEV reg.   And we expect you to give us directions

21   at that time about whether to work on real changes or not.

22           Next month we will be before you with the $25

23   million that was given to us in this year's budget to

24   facilitate the development of alternative fuels.    And we

25   have tentatively proposed that at least 5 million of that

 1   go to plug-in hybrids.    We have to work with the Energy

 2   Commission and have their buy-off on the general spending

 3   proposal.    And the climate action team has expressed

 4   interest also in reviewing what it is we're talking about.

 5   But plug-ins I expect to survive.

 6           And then, lastly, the ARB and the Energy

 7   Commission are working on a major report about alternative

 8   fuels, within which we include electricity.   And that

 9   report will be done by next June and cover the waterfront

10   on all the possibilities for, you know, moving away from

11   near complete reliance on petroleum.    So that will be back

12   before, you know, late summer -- early summer, I mean,

13   next year.

14           BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:    Just would like to see if

15   staff can -- there are some good suggestions in here.       And

16   it sounds like with these various opportunities, the

17   suggestions might fit in here and there, although not in

18   all of the opportunities that are coming before us.      So if

19   staff could get back to us as to -- there might be

20   something in here that doesn't quite pigeonhole just right

21   but still might be a good suggestion.


23           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Okay.   We will now move to

24   the open comment period from the public.

25           I would comment that it's a bit unusual for us to

 1   have so many public comments at one time.    I thank you for

 2   your patience, waiting until the end of the day to bring

 3   to us your concerns.

 4            I have met with at least one of the individuals

 5   who will be talking today.   Basically the problem has to

 6   do with auxiliary engines on concrete pumpers, a rather

 7   specialized issue but one which is very important to the

 8   people who have come to talk to us.

 9            I have 13 people who would like to talk.     I think

10   that we will just continue our usual policy of a

11   three-minute presentation.   And for those of you who have

12   brought written testimony as well, I thank you for that.

13            So we will start with William Davis, Amber

14   Parsons, and Hank de Carbonel.

15            Would William Davis please begin.

16            MR. DAVIS:    A long walk from back there.

17            CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Why don't you all move up.

18   This is the last item of the day.   You might as well come

19   up front.   It's my school teacher background which tells

20   me that sitting in the front row is a good idea.

21            MR. DAVIS:    Well, we're all either sinners or

22   contractors back there, or maybe both.

23            Dr. Sawyer and members of the Board, Ms.

24   Witherspoon and all the staff people.    My name's Bill

25   Davis.   I work with a pretty wide variety of construction

 1   industry organizations:   The Southern California

 2   Contractors Association, the Engineering and Utility

 3   Contractors Association, the Mobile Crane Operators Group,

 4   the Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition, and the

 5   American Concrete Pumping Association.

 6           And I have two items actually.      And I don't want

 7   to take up any time unnecessarily, but I also have a

 8   letter from the folks at the Construction Industry Air

 9   Quality Coalition addressed to you.   I can read it if you

10   want it entered in the record, or simply hand it up.

11           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    We'll put it in the record

12   in written form.

13           MR. DAVIS:    All right.   Great.

14           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you.

15           MR. DAVIS:    The reason that I think almost

16   everyone is here -- oh, and I wanted to acknowledge -- I

17   see my friend, J.T., is here from Nabor in Bakersfield.

18   And J.T. is a company -- his company has done a superior

19   job, a vastly superior job to almost the entire

20   construction industry in complying with the requirements

21   of the Portable Engine Registration Program.     And his

22   company's to be commended for that and used as an example

23   for the rest of us.

24           It is our position that the Air Resources Board

25   should and must open to all owners of existing

 1   construction -- or existing portable equipment the

 2   opportunity to register that equipment, not as an amnesty

 3   but as a regular and permanent part of the program for the

 4   following reasons:

 5           First, ARB has failed in its duty to properly

 6   notify the affected industry.   The Air Resource Board

 7   staff has by its own admission attempted to reach less

 8   than 10 percent of the California construction industry in

 9   its effort on the PERP.    This is no mere claim, but it is

10   backed up by the following facts:

11           Every five years the U.S. Census Bureau conducts

12   an economic census of the construction industry.    In the

13   last such count, taken in 2002, the Bureau found 69,023

14   California establishments with employees.     They employed

15   870,334 people.    And, in addition, there were 167,000

16   non-employer establishments in construction:     Mom and

17   pops, owner/operators, small businesses.    Call them what

18   you want.   They're a part of our business.

19           That means there were at least 237,788

20   construction companies operating in California in 2002.

21           ARB staff has said that they mailed 25,000

22   contractors from a list obtained by the Contractors State

23   License Board.    The CSLB mailing list are notoriously

24   inaccurate.   Large numbers, perhaps thousands of those

25   mailings were returned due to address issues.

 1           In addition to the mailers staff held a bunch of

 2   meetings, sent out e-mail notices via your list serve, and

 3   had some stuff on your website.   The Construction Industry

 4   Air Quality Coalition contributed 1200 names to your

 5   database and 3,000 people expressed interest in receiving

 6   information on the program directly from ARB, perhaps,

 7   hopefully, as a result of the mailer.

 8           In addition to contractors there are many

 9   construction service companies who are not required to

10   possess a contractors license and, thus, would never be

11   contacted by ARB in their mailed outreach.   This group

12   includes people like Amber Parsons, who you'll hear from

13   soon, as well as thousands of other small companies.      You

14   guys do the math:   237,788 construction companies, 1916

15   companies in the PERP as of January 27th of this year.

16           How would you characterize the outreach effort?

17           Second reason:    ARB fails to follow the

18   legislative intent of the PERP program.   Closing the door

19   to registration on existing portable equipment is not in

20   line with the intent of the Legislature, as clearly stated

21   in the preamble to the PERP statute from the Health and

22   Safety Code.   Specifically, Item C, as follows:    A uniform

23   voluntary system of statewide registration and regulation

24   of portable equipment consistent with current state and

25   federal air quality law is necessary to ensure consistent

 1   and reasonable regulation of that equipment without undue

 2   burden on their owners, operators and manufacturers.

 3              Third, ARB failed to seek or receive a waiver --

 4   has failed to receive a waiver from the Environmental

 5   Protection Agency to regulate most of the engines in this

 6   category.

 7              We can find no evidence that ARB has received a

 8   waiver from the EPA to replace any regulatory controls on

 9   most of the engines that power this equipment.   It's a

10   violation of the federal preemption on these engine

11   classes.    Until ARB receives a waiver to regulate these

12   engines, we believe that the agency must reopen the

13   registration and hold in abeyance any enforcement action

14   other than to warning equipment owners of the registration

15   requirements.

16              And, finally -- and aren't those your favorite

17   words -- finally, ARB failed to certify any low cost

18   alternative for this equipment in an attempt, we believe,

19   to subvert the economic impact requirements of the Tanner

20   Act.   Once a regulation was originally adopted our

21   industry was promised that there would be an ample supply

22   of low cost alternatives to meet the requirements,

23   verified diesel emission control systems, VDECS, which

24   would substantially reduce the financial burden of

25   replacing otherwise serviceable equipment to meet the

 1   standards set forth in the regulation.   The reality

 2   clearly expressed by ARB staff at the Board's meeting on

 3   June 22nd is that there are no such devices and that the

 4   only alternative is engine repower or equipment

 5   replacement.

 6           In most cases involving portable equipment,

 7   repowers are impossible, which leaves equipment

 8   replacement as the only alternative.

 9           This also means that most small businesses will

10   be forced to severely limit their operations or go out of

11   business altogether.   It's an incredible expense that was

12   not included in the economic impact report on any version

13   of this regulation.

14           We believe ARB did nothing to encourage the

15   development of VDECS, that this always was a program

16   designed to force equipment turnover regardless of cost to

17   the industry, and thus ARB is engaged in willful

18   misstatement of the economic impact.

19           We are seeing the same approach being used in the

20   off-road diesel rule, and believe that this willful

21   disregard of the economic impact to the affected industry

22   is a standard and practice of the Air Resources Board.

23           Be happy to answer any questions.

24           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Do Board members have

25   questions?

 1             I suggest that, since it's a little bit unusual

 2   and we have so many people, that we listen.      And then we

 3   will ask the Board to respond to us later as -- can we do

 4   that? -- in writing addressing the issues which are

 5   raised.

 6             MR. DAVIS:     Thank you very much.   And our

 7   condolences on being saddled with the greenhouse gas bill.

 8   I can suggest one immediate improvement in reducing CO2.

 9   Keep these meetings shorter.

10             (Laughter.)

11             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Okay.   Amber Parsons.

12             MS. PARSONS:    Hi there.   I'm a bit nervous.

13             In 2004 my husband and I sold our house and

14   poured all of our equity into a small business.      We did

15   not want to half do any anything with this business.       We

16   incorporated, got liability insurance, commercial auto

17   insurance, workmen's comp insurance, and various licenses

18   and permits from the CHP and DMV.

19             We decided that we would only purchase new pumps,

20   as they were less likely to break down, were cleaner

21   machines and had the latest technology.

22             We purchased our first pump, a Transcrete, in

23   2004 and went on to purchase a Putzmeister in 2005 and

24   another new puts Putzmeister in 2006.

25             After being in business for almost two years we

 1   first heard about pollution districts on May 25th, 2006,

 2   when we were given a notice of violation for not having a

 3   permit to operate our portable equipment.

 4              After spending more than a week wading through

 5   the information, I discovered that it was more economical

 6   to register with the state.     I sent my application off

 7   less than two weeks later.

 8              Much to my dismay I learned in August of this

 9   year from the ARB that two of our brand new pumps could

10   not be registered.    Both the 2004 and 2005 pumps contained

11   2003 Tier 1 engines.    As such, they were not eligible for

12   registration in the Portable Equipment Registration

13   Program.

14              Some claim that the solution to my problem is to

15   enter into a stipulated agreement with the individual

16   pollution districts.    However, this would require me to

17   pay $600 per pump per county.    We pump regularly in three

18   counties and periodically in six.    Registration would cost

19   me $3600 per pump.    Furthermore, if I enter into the

20   stipulated agreement, I promise to bring my engines into

21   compliance by 2009.    If registration is not reopened,

22   bringing it into compliance will mean replacing the

23   engine.    A $20,000 loan, which would cover the cost of two

24   engines in two of our pumps, will cost my company $465

25   dollars per month for five years.    Just when we were

 1   expecting our business to be loan free and become

 2   profitable, we will be forced further into debt.

 3           On the other hand, if registration at the ARB is

 4   reopened, we will be able to pay one-tenth of that cost

 5   for registration and not be forced to make a decision

 6   about replacing the engine for many years.

 7           On multiple occasions I have heard the term

 8   "scoff laws" being thrown around in relation to people

 9   like me in my situation.    I am greatly offended at the

10   thought that some think that I have intentionally avoided

11   complying with the law.    If it were my company's position

12   to regularly disobey the laws of this state, we would not

13   pay almost $20,000 a year in various insurance, permits

14   and license fees.

15           Furthermore, I take great offense at the idea

16   that I am a scoff law for one simple fact:   Both the Air

17   Resources Board and the pollution districts have failed

18   miserably in their efforts to notify my industry about the

19   permit requirements.   I feel that the pollution districts

20   have openly scoffed at their responsibility to inform the

21   people who will be most affected by this legislation.

22           Why would manufacturers of the equipment not be

23   notified?   Why would dealers selling the equipment,

24   especially used equipment with older tier engines, not be

25   notified?   What responsibility does the Board hold for not

 1   getting the word out to the most logical group, the people

 2   who make and sell the machines?    And if we agree that

 3   communication broke down along the line somewhere, are

 4   small business owners like myself going to be the ones to

 5   pay the price?    Or will the ARB and pollution districts

 6   realize their error and, no matter whose fault it is,

 7   allow registration to be reopened?

 8           I can understand why some cutthroat competitors

 9   would like for registration to be permanently closed to

10   older tier engines.    I understand the selfish reasons they

11   possess and the huge competitive advantage it gives their

12   companies.    However, I don't understand why the ARB is

13   allowing themselves to be dictated to by these few

14   companies.    If the true intention of the ARB is to

15   encourage compliance, then what benefit is derived from

16   closing the registration?    The equipment will still be

17   required to meet all averaging laws in 2013.    It will

18   still be subject to any later requirements for engine

19   replacements and emissions testing.

20           All I am asking is that the Board be reasonable

21   in its decisions.    Is it reasonable to outlaw machines

22   with less than one year of use on them?   Is it reasonable

23   to refuse registration to business owners moving to this

24   state from another state with one or two year old

25   machines?    Is it reasonable to expect that start-up

 1   businesses --

 2           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:      I need to ask you to

 3   conclude please.

 4           MS. PARSONS:     Okay.   Does the ARB want to send a

 5   message that only the richest can afford to be contractors

 6   in this state?    Or is the message much closer to the

 7   legislative intent for which the ARB was created, to

 8   reduce costs and make the registration requirements

 9   reasonable for California contractors?

10           Thank you.

11           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:      Thank you very much.

12           Hank de Carbonel.    Then we'll have Chris

13   McDonald, Christi Collins, and Mike Cusach.

14           MR. de CARBONEL:     Yeah, my name is Hank de

15   Carbonel.    I've been selling construction equipment in

16   California for over 30 years:     Cranes, drag lines,

17   excavators, but primarily concrete pumps.

18           It seems to me if the purpose of this

19   registration program is to clean the environment, then

20   there should be no reason to not keep registration open at

21   all times.    Because if we're trying to track down engines

22   that may not be documented in compliance with the current

23   rules, we need to know where they are.

24           If you sent out a letter to 25,000 people based

25   on the contractors list -- and, as Bill said, you've got

 1   2,000 companies approximately enrolled in this program

 2   now, representing 28,000 pieces of equipment -- I'm not a

 3   real bright guy, but two into -- that seems to me each

 4   contractor that is in compliance has a number of pieces.

 5   Now, you take the number -- you take that number times

 6   over 200,000 contractors, I think we have a pretty bleak

 7   record of outreach to the industry for the requirements

 8   that you're looking for.

 9           Lead times for these engines, by the way, are six

10   months to a number of years.   And there's no guaranty that

11   the replacement engines will fit inside the engine

12   enclosures or footprints of the existing equipment.

13           So you have reduced -- by this current idea, you

14   have reduced the value of everybody's piece of equipment

15   by at least 15 or 20 percent because it can only now be

16   sold outside the State of California.   And many

17   contractors in other parts of the country are very much

18   aware of this fire sale of equipment that's being forced

19   upon industry in California.

20           In addition to which you have a number of

21   contractors -- CalTrans, cities and counties are having a

22   difficult time getting a number of bids on their projects

23   that they want to move forward with.    And when they do get

24   the bids, the prices are considerably higher.   And that is

25   to cover the cost of these regulations as they come in

 1   place.    And as the pieces are not registered and can no

 2   longer be documented, those pieces are set aside.     And so

 3   now we have people that would -- operating engineers,

 4   people that would run that equipment are now deprived of a

 5   livelihood because an engine didn't happen to get

 6   documented because people weren't informed in a proper

 7   manner.

 8             So I think that when you have a record of

 9   compliance of less than 8 percent of the equipment -- it's

10   rather a bleak record -- and I don't see why in the world

11   you wouldn't keep the thing open all the time.   You're

12   talking about a minimum of $270 per unit for registration

13   as it is currently.    By anybody's standards, $270 times

14   200,000 starts to be real money.   So it's funded.    If the

15   goal is clean air, then let's go get some clean air.

16   Let's go after the process.   But this is not a process.

17   This is a penalty.    This is just going out bounty hunting.

18   I think it's completely unfair and I think that this rule

19   is nothing but a penalty for the economic health of the

20   State of California and the taxpayers who, after all, are

21   going to have to pay for the increased costs of hospitals,

22   churches, schools, freeways and every other structure

23   because this law has not been thoroughly researched, nor

24   has there been a proper outreach to the industry that it

25   purports to want to regulate.

 1           Thank you.

 2           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you very much.

 3           Chris McDonald.

 4           MR. McDONALD:     Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer and the

 5   members of the Board.    I just want to thank you for

 6   letting me speak today.

 7           I own a small pump company in the Bay Area.     And

 8   we had a lady named Heidi Kroll come to our yard maybe a

 9   year ago or a couple of years ago.    And she's a member of

10   the ARB Resources Board, California Environmental

11   Protection Agency.   And she came to our yard, pointed out

12   what we need to do to comply to the ARB.   So we did what

13   she pointed out to comply.

14           But she failed to tell us about our portable

15   engines and anything to do there to register or comply.

16   And when we asked her about it, she says it's not her

17   department.

18           Most of us here aren't here to say that we are

19   disobeying what you guys are doing, we don't want to do

20   what you guys want to say.   I mean we want to do it and

21   we're trying to do it.    Most of us are trying to do what

22   we need to do to get these emissions into compliance.

23           And for them to say we're not doing it, whatever,

24   is not right.   And how do we -- we just want to open up

25   the registration to get them so we can be in compliance.

 1             And that's all.

 2             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you very much.

 3             Christi Collins.

 4             MS. COLLINS:   Good afternoon.   My name is Christi

 5   Collins and I'm the Executive Director of the American

 6   Concrete Pumping Association.     Our association consists of

 7   concrete pumping companies, manufacturers, distributors,

 8   and affiliates of the industry.

 9             Approximately one-third of our total membership

10   are companies located in the State of California.      They

11   own and operate over 15 percent of the total number of

12   concrete pumps in the United States, Canada and Mexico.

13             Through data supplied by our concrete pumping

14   manufacturers we estimate that there are over 1,000

15   companies which own a total of 5,000 trailer pumps and

16   skid-mounted pumps currently operating in the state of

17   everyday.   These companies are typically small

18   family-owned businesses an employ approximately 7,500

19   people.

20             As you just heard a few minutes ago, Amber

21   Parsons, she would be our poster child for the concrete

22   pumping industry.   This is typical of what type of

23   businesses we're talking about.

24             One week ago the ACPA along with several concrete

25   pump manufacturers and distributors sent out a notice to

 1   every known owner of a trailer or skid-mounted concrete

 2   pump informing them of the Board's portable engine

 3   registration program and requesting information regarding

 4   their pump's engine registration.

 5              To date -- and this is only from a week -- less

 6   than 1 percent of the 100-plus companies responding knew

 7   of your registration program and had registered their

 8   pumps.     And I have all their information.   They are still

 9   coming in.     I'm still getting e-mails.    And on some of the

10   replies that are coming in, most people are saying, "We

11   just didn't know.     Thank you for informing us.   We had no

12   idea."   And they're also saying, "Now what?     What are we

13   going to do?"

14              I have no answers at this time.

15              The following facts are an eventuality under the

16   current circumstances.    The ARB's current registration

17   stance sets up an unnecessary game of hide and seek with

18   these companies, who under this misguided policy have no

19   incentive to come forward.    Many of them supplied

20   information and asked that their names not be released for

21   fear of being turned in by a competitor or by someone from

22   the ARB.

23              As things stand now, they cannot legally operate

24   their pumps.    If they can't work, they can't pay their

25   employees, which would create a substantial loss of jobs

 1   in the state.   They can't make their payments on the

 2   equipment and will default on their loans, causing

 3   millions of dollars in loss to their bankers and other;

 4   lenders.

 5              They will not be able to sell their concrete

 6   pumps in the State of California.    In most, if not all,

 7   cases they cannot upgrade the engines in their pumps.       But

 8   if they can upgrade, they will have substantial costs in

 9   doing so, and ultimately they will lose their business.

10              We would respectfully submit that the portable

11   engine registration program must be reopened to prevent

12   the loss of over 1,000 California businesses.   By doing so

13   on a permanent and regular basis, ARB would meet the

14   intent of Legislature in establishing the registration

15   program.

16              When in the course of time this equipment is

17   replaced under the other requirements of the portable

18   engine regulation, the Air Resources Board would be able

19   to know that the air quality of the state is being

20   improved.

21              ACPA stands ready to assist the ARB in getting

22   the news about the permanently open registration program

23   to all our members and as many other companies in the

24   industry as we can as part of a cooperative effort to

25   improve California's air.

 1           Thank you.

 2           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:     Thank you very much.

 3           Mike Cusach.     And then we'll have Jim Nolan,

 4   David Rudin and Jim Bury.

 5           MR. CUSACH:    Thank you very much for the

 6   opportunity to talk to you today.    My name is Mike Cusach.

 7   I'm Vice President of Operations for Conco Pumping,

 8   located in Concord, California.    We have pumps all over

 9   the State of California.    We're probably the largest pump

10   company in California.   And I'm here today to ask you to

11   reopen the Air Resources portable engine registration.

12           I was fortunate that I was alerted by the Air

13   Resources Board in San Francisco, the Bay Area Resources

14   Board, in December of this year -- of last year, and

15   worked diligently on the 29th and 30th to get the portable

16   equipment that I had registered.    I stayed at work until 7

17   o'clock every night, and virtually mailed the check in on

18   the last day of registration.    And I was not able to

19   contact my colleagues and the concrete pumping industry.

20   Many of them, my competitors, if I would have had the

21   chance, I would have contacted them and let them know this

22   was coming about.   We just didn't know.

23           I'm a former President of the ACPA.     I read a lot

24   of articles.   I think I stay up on what's going on in the

25   industries, and I knew nothing about it.

 1           If the idea is to register the vehicles, closing

 2   registration is not the way to do it.   If you drive a

 3   vehicle, a car down the road, and you didn't register your

 4   vehicle, you get a fine and a ticket, but you're allowed

 5   to register the vehicle.   You don't lose the right to use

 6   it forever.   And that's what's happening if you have a

 7   Tier 1 engine or below.    It's just not fair.

 8           These people, the 700 companies that we're

 9   talking about, or more, they didn't want to break the law.

10   They're not scoffing at the law.   They just didn't know.

11   And they pay their -- they pay DMV taxes every year, they

12   pay personal property taxes every year on their pumps,

13   they pay income tax, employment tax.    Why wouldn't they

14   pay one more tax just to stay in business?    They would do

15   that.

16           I implore you to reopen it and leave it open.

17   And, you know, like I said, these people are not

18   criminals.    They're people that work very hard everyday,

19   very hard.    They drag hoses that weigh 3, 400 pounds up

20   and down hills and just work till they cannot stand up

21   anymore, then take the truck home and work on it at night.

22   So these people work very, very hard.   And to put them out

23   of business is just a shame.

24           Thank you.

25           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you.

 1           Jim Nolan.

 2           MR. NOLAN:     Thank you for letting us speak.      I'm

 3   President of Interstate Concrete Pumping.

 4           I purchased a company down in Merced about four

 5   years ago, and took all the portable trailer pumps down to

 6   have them all registered at DMV.    When I went down there,

 7   nobody ever advised us to -- that the ARB is -- the

 8   regulations is coming up the first of '06.

 9           And I got caught over in San Francisco and had to

10   fill out a lot of paperwork and I registered everything

11   and sent it into ARB and with a check.     They sent the

12   check back.   And I went to the districts -- the districts

13   over in San Francisco and they says, "We can't do anything

14   until you get the blessings of the state."     And the state

15   says, well -- I'm kind of a little in limbo.     So right now

16   I've got seven machines just parked against a fence.       It

17   looks like Richey Brothers Auction.

18           So I just want to see if you guys would

19   reconsider and open the registration up for people.

20           Thank you.

21           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you very much.

22           David Rudin.

23           MR. BURY:     I'm sorry.   Due to lateness, David

24   Rudin had to leave.    I'm Jim Bury.

25           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Oh, okay.

 1             MR. BURY:   Do you want his statement read for the

 2   record?   Or he already turned in a hard copy.

 3             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Yeah, if you could hand it

 4   in, then it will become part of our record.

 5             MR. BURY:   I believe you already have a copy of

 6   it for Dave Rudin.    We'll leave it at that.

 7             Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the Board.

 8   My name is Jim bury.    I'm the engineering manager of

 9   Putzmeister America.    We are one of the manufacturers of

10   concrete pump trucks and trailer units.   I am the only

11   manufacturer here at this point because of the hour that

12   we're running.

13             Well, I'd like to briefly address four points on

14   this issue, if I may.

15             First of all, Putzmeister, along with a lot of

16   the people you've heard here, was not aware of any attempt

17   by the ARB or to staff to contact us with regards to

18   spreading of the word among our customers in California

19   that they need to register any equipment over 50

20   horsepower.

21             Once we became aware of this need, within the

22   last few weeks, we've done so by sending out approximately

23   600 letters to known customers that we serve.    Of those,

24   we are only aware of a couple of them that are aware of

25   the registration requirements and were able to do so

 1   before the deadline.

 2              Number 2, I would like to emphasize the comments

 3   of the others appearing here before you today, that

 4   Putzmeister's unaware of any means for compliance to the

 5   regulations now required for registration that would not

 6   involve complete overhaul or total replacement of the

 7   machine.    The engines are just too big.   They will not fit

 8   in the equipment.    The equipment is purposely designed

 9   around the engine.    And if you change it, you need to

10   change everything else.    You're talking about a complete

11   unit.

12              Number 3, Putzmeister supports the assertion that

13   the refusal of the ARB staff to open up the registration

14   program to all machine owners will cause great financial

15   hardship to our customers, as you've heard, which for some

16   may mean the end of their business, which helps -- and

17   their businesses help build your houses, they build your

18   infrastructure.     It's needed.

19              Finally, I would like to clarify our opposal on

20   behalf of Putzmeister and our customers.     Putzmeister's

21   definitely not opposed to the ARB's exhaustive efforts to

22   improve the environment and the air we breathe.    We salute

23   your efforts.   However, we feel the intent and spirit of

24   the efforts are being hampered at this point in time by

25   the restriction of admission to the registration program

 1   to only those machines that contain certified BACT

 2   engines.    It is this restriction that we are opposed to

 3   today, and ask that the Board direct staff to lift the

 4   registration program barriers currently in place so that

 5   those who are fully willing to register but did not know

 6   of the registration be able to do so.

 7              Thank you.

 8              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you.

 9              Next we will have Mark Rubick, Bryan McLelland,

10   and Jolynn Hoxie.

11              MR. RUBICK:   Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,

12   members of the Board and staff.     My name is Mark Rubick

13   and I'm a sales representative for a local concrete

14   ready-mix company and line pumping service company.

15   Currently we only do have one pump in our fleet.    But we

16   work closely with many of these other fellow pumpers

17   around here.    We're kind of a close-knit group, yet we're

18   competitors.    Kind of a unique arrangement, if you will.

19              What I wanted to -- also I wanted to endorse the

20   comments of those before me and also extend a little bit

21   of insight into the possible ramifications of things that

22   you may not have considered of the people working in this

23   industry.

24              With our pump we employ two people who go out to

25   the job sites and work their tails off, as many do here

 1   when they go out to the sites.

 2              By not allowing the registration process to be

 3   opened, those people cannot put food on their table for

 4   their families.    They simply cannot act in compliance with

 5   the law which the way it is.

 6              So I respectfully submit to you to reopen the

 7   registration process and allow these employees to continue

 8   their livelihood, to provide for their families, and so

 9   ultimately you're not driving the businesses out of state.

10   If they can't work here, then they're going to have to, if

11   they're going to remain in their industry, go to another

12   state.

13              Thank you.

14              CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:     Thank you.

15              Bryan McLelland.

16              MR. McLelland:    Hi.   Good afternoon.   I

17   appreciate your time.

18              I'm one of those small business owners.       I don't

19   have six pumps.    I don't have six employees.       I don't -- I

20   have me.    I have my pump.    I've been in business for about

21   a year and a half.      Never received any information on

22   anything here.    More than happy to comply.

23              We go to great lengths every day not to pollute.

24   We put down tarps, sandbags.       Shopvac-up cementitious

25   materials so it doesn't go down the drain.      I mean you

 1   would be -- you'd be in awe if you saw how far we go not

 2   to pollute.   And in no way, shape or form was anybody here

 3   trying to, you know, subvert that and try and get around

 4   it.

 5             I'd be happy to write a check today, I mean

 6   whatever it would take.    You know, I pay all my

 7   insurances, I pay all my -- I go to great lengths to

 8   do -- to run my business properly.     And I just want the

 9   chance to be able to register my pump and make sure I can

10   keep putting food on my table.    Because if I have to redo

11   my pump, I won't be able to fix it.    I'll have to -- it

12   will be a total loss.     There's no way I could sell it in

13   California.   I have to park it, try and sell it out of

14   state come up with another hundred thousand -- come up

15   with hundred thousand dollars, you know, or right about

16   there, which will put me out of business.    I mean the

17   final loan would put me out of business.    I mean I'm just

18   me.   It's not -- you know, I don't have a big giant

19   bankroll or, you know, anything like that.

20             So I just -- we just want to do it right.     And

21   I'd appreciate it if we got the chance to do that.     So

22   that's really all I have to say.

23             I appreciate your time.   Thank you.

24             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you very much for

25   coming.

 1             Jolynn Hoxie.

 2             MS. HOXIE:    Hi.   Thank you for hearing us.    I'm

 3   sure I don't look like a criminal to you guys.       But I feel

 4   like one.

 5             I have a small business.      We've been in business

 6   now for four years.     We bought a brand new pump because we

 7   wanted to make sure that we were doing everything right

 8   when we started our business; and now we find out that I

 9   cannot run everyday or I'm breaking the law.       We have had

10   no notice.    And that is so hurtful.

11             I have a mortgage.     I have a business loan.   I

12   have four children.     What do I do?    Do I go to work

13   tomorrow?    Do I send my husband, who -- we don't have any

14   employees.    Do I send him to work and have a $10,000 fine?

15   I don't know.    We didn't give our real names, some of us.

16   We're afraid.    I don't think it's fair.

17             Thank you.

18             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    Thank you very much for

19   coming.

20             James Thomas.

21             MR. THOMAS:   Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and

22   Board members.    I appreciate you letting me come in and

23   speak this afternoon.

24             I'm James Thomas with Nabors Well Services out of

25   Bakersfield, California.      My company operates throughout

 1   all of California.   We use portable equipment.   We use

 2   off-road engines as well.   And we operate throughout the

 3   state.

 4             I would like to go on record to say that I

 5   participated in the development of the Statewide Portable

 6   Equipment Program for the past 14 years.   This is not a

 7   surprise.   It didn't happen last week.   It happened over

 8   14 years.

 9             So we're going to talk about amnesty.   We

10   discussed amnesty 90 days ago.   I'd like to make a point

11   that the last amnesty period was nine months ago.      That's

12   when it ended.

13             So I'd like to ask the Board members the same

14   question that I've asked the staff members -- they're here

15   and they understand exactly what I'll ask -- is:       If you

16   do grant another amnesty period, what will you do with the

17   companies that do not participate in the amnesty period?

18   There is people that's out there working today.     There

19   will be another industry come after your next amnesty

20   period.   So will you have Amnesty 4, Amnesty 5, Amnesty 6.

21             People made statements that they did not know

22   about the regulations.   I have mentioned this in my past

23   testimonies and I'll mention it again.    You had to have a

24   PERP -- you had to have a registration or a permit in

25   South Coast 25 years ago to operate.   In Ventura you had

 1   to have one 14 years ago.    San Joaquin Unified Air

 2   District you had to have 12.   And the Statewide Portable

 3   Equipment Program has been in effect for 10 years.       People

 4   have had the opportunity to read the regs.    They are

 5   there.

 6            So only -- I know a lot of Board members may ask

 7   the question, Well, what's the benefits for a company to

 8   go into the amnesty program?    Well, I'll tell you this.    A

 9   small company or any company that has a portable engine

10   that did not permit, they saved themselves $1500 a year --

11   per engine per year.   On what?   Registration, inspections,

12   record keeping, installing hour clocks, replacing hour

13   clocks, replacing registrations and stickers, and filing

14   annual reports.

15            If you have a small operator who has only five

16   engines, he saved $75,000.   And by saving $75,000, he

17   can -- he has a reduction in operating costs.   So

18   therefore he can bid the program -- or the project at a

19   lower cost, and he can get it.    And this has happened to

20   my company and to a lot of other companies.

21            Number 2 -- I want to make a point.    Why don't

22   you leave the amnesty period open forever?    Okay, I call

23   the dollars that you just heard from me as the small

24   dollar savings that a person would have.    There is a

25   provision in the Statewide Portable Equipment Program that

 1   states that if a engine goes down after July the 1st of

 2   2001, the engine has to be replaced with the most

 3   stringent standards.   That mean if you have an engine that

 4   goes down, you have to replace it.    If you have a 12V71

 5   and it goes down, you cannot put another 12V71 on.   You

 6   have to go to a certified engine.    So my company has done

 7   that.

 8           If you have a 450 horsepower engine to replace

 9   one of them, it costs you 45,000; it costs you 11,000 to

10   install it.   If you're lucky, the transmission that you

11   currently have in the unit will work.    If not, you spend

12   another 42,000 for a transmission; 4,000 to install it.

13   That's a range from 55,000 to 102.

14           Just want to tell you that my company, and not

15   just my company, but all of the people that have taken

16   part in the PERP program are pouring out dollars every

17   single day and spending money.

18           I would just like to say, you ask:     What will a

19   company get if you extend an amnesty period?    They will be

20   able to work in the State of California for 1,190 days.

21   Why do you say that?   Because in 2010 --

22           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:    I'm sorry, but I must ask

23   you to conclude, Mr. Thomas.

24           MR. THOMAS:    Okay.   So it's going to expire.     So

25   all I've got to ask you, in the year 2010, January the

 1   1st, 2010, when every engine has to be a certified engine,

 2   what will you do then?   Will you have an amnesty period

 3   there?

 4             I will ask one last question.    What are you going

 5   to do for the companies that have paid hard dollars to

 6   comply with the regulations?    What can you do for us?

 7   Because we've spent millions.

 8             Thank you.

 9             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Thank you very much for

10   coming.

11             That concludes the public comment period.

12             I would say that Kathleen Quetin, our ombudsman,

13   is ill today.   I'm sure that she regrets that she couldn't

14   be here, because I know she's met with a number of you

15   earlier in the month.

16             As I indicated, we will receive a written report

17   back from the staff, which I'm sure they'll be glad to

18   share with you and explain --

19             EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:   Yes.   And we very

20   much appreciate that opportunity because, as you could

21   tell, there's a lengthy regulatory history here and an

22   interplay between state registration and district permit

23   requirements that we would want you to be aware of as you

24   weigh the testimony that you heard today.

25             CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Right.   I realize that some

 1   of the Board members have lived through this from its

 2   beginning or near its beginning, and others of us are

 3   quite new to it.

 4           I thank you very much.

 5           Yes.

 6           BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:    Well, I wouldn't want to

 7   take a position one way or the other because we haven't

 8   heard from staff yet, but do appreciate you all taking the

 9   time out to be here.   And I just think that since they're

10   looking for answers, it might be helpful if we just gave

11   them a timeline on when you expect to have a written

12   report and next steps, since, you know, they're all here

13   right now anyway.

14           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:     Certainly by your

15   next Board meeting.    And we've already talked to many of

16   the people you've heard today about possible next steps

17   and what course of action they have.    We've been working

18   with air districts.    Because although you can't register,

19   you can obtain a permit.   And that doesn't satisfy many of

20   the people because it's more expensive, the conditions for

21   a permit, or having new equipment.     But districts are

22   trying to work with industry so that they have sufficient

23   time to sell the equipment they have, purchase new

24   equipment, obtain financing, et cetera, and still allow

25   them to operate.

 1           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Fine.

 2           I would like to a adjourn.    Do I have a motion

 3   for adjournment?

 4           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:   So moved, Mr. Chairman.

 5           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Second?

 6           BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:   Second.

 7           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   All in favor of adjourning,

 8   aye?

 9           (Ayes.)

10           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:   Opposed?

11           Okay.   We stand adjourned.

12           (Thereupon the Air Resources Board meeting

13           adjourned at 5:05 p.m.)













 1                    CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

 2           I, JAMES F. PETERS, a Certified Shorthand

 3   Reporter of the State of California, and Registered

 4   Professional Reporter, do hereby certify:

 5           That I am a disinterested person herein; that the

 6   foregoing California Air Resources Board meeting Item

 7   06-8-3 was reported in shorthand by me, James F. Peters, a

 8   Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of California,

 9   and thereafter transcribed into typewriting.

10           I further certify that I am not of counsel or

11   attorney for any of the parties to said meeting nor in any

12   way interested in the outcome of said meeting.

13           IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand

14   this 6th day of September, 2006.








22                              JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR

23                             Certified Shorthand Reporter

24                             License No. 10063


Shared By: