51 1 sound system. I know we were asked -- and I should have 2 made the announcement sooner -- to turn off, not just to 3 silence but actually power down all electronic 4 telecommunications equipment. So if you could please do 5 that. It affects it I think not just here at the stand 6 but in the audience as well, from all sides. So we 7 appreciate your help in that. 8 All right. We have no witnesses who filed 9 comments or indicated that they wanted to testify. But I 10 think we do need a motion to release the document. Is 11 that correct, or is it just going? 12 We don't. We don't need to take any formal 13 action. 14 Okay, fine. It's just informational then. 15 And it's a draft. It says "draft" right on it. 16 Thank you. Thank you very much. 17 It does definitely help provide some of the 18 background for our next item however, which is the 19 consideration of the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 State 20 Implementation Plan, as well as an update on the valley's 21 ozone progress. 22 Mr. Goldstene. 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: Thank you, Chairman 24 Nichols. 25 The San Joaquin Valley faces a difficult PM2.5 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234552 1 air pollution challenge. However, like all of California, 2 PM2.5 levels are steadily declining as a result of our 3 existing control programs, as Dr. Alvarado pointed out. 4 This plan builds upon these efforts to further reduce fine 5 particulate matter. As a result of significant emission 6 reductions from both adopted measures and new commitments, 7 the plan demonstrates that the valley will meet the 8 standard by 2014. 9 In addition, at our November Board meeting, the 10 Board requested a status report on the valley ozone SIP. 11 Staff will provide this update as part of the 12 presentation. 13 I'll now ask Dr. Patricia Velasco to present this 14 item. 15 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 16 presented as follows.) 17 DR. VELASCO: Thank you, Mr. Goldstene. And 18 good morning Chairman Nichols and members of the Board. 19 This morning I will present ARB staff's analysis 20 of the San Joaquin Valley's 2008 PM2.5 plan. 21 --o0o-- 22 DR. VELASCO: The plan you will consider today 23 shows how the San Joaquin Valley will comply with the 24 national ambient air quality standards adopted by the U.S. 25 EPA in 1997. The 1997 standards consist of a daily and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234553 1 annual standard. Attainment plans for these standards 2 were due to U.S. EPA in April. The San Joaquin Valley Air 3 Pollution Control District adopted its PM2.5 plan on April 4 30th and has submitted it to ARB for consideration. ARB 5 staff has reviewed the District's plan and recommends that 6 the Board approve it as a State Implementation Plan to be 7 submitted to U.S. EPA. 8 --o0o-- 9 DR. VELASCO: Like the rest of California, the 10 Valley is making good progress in reducing PM2.5 levels. 11 However, given the health effects of particulate pollution 12 the Board just discussed, there is a long way to go to 13 meet our public health goals. This plan is one important 14 step in that process. 15 Let's begin by looking at where the Valley stands 16 with respect to the PM2.5 standards addressed in this 17 plan. The entire Valley is at or near compliance with the 18 24-hour PM2.5 standard. Therefore, the SIP focuses on the 19 problem of meeting the annual standard valley-wide. The 20 annual standard is already met in the northern portion of 21 the Valley. So this plan is needed to bring the remainder 22 of the Valley into compliance. 23 This plan demonstrates the annual standard will 24 be attained valley-wide by the 2014 deadline. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234554 1 DR. VELASCO: The PM2.5 attainment demonstration 2 includes a number of elements: 3 First, a comprehensive assessment of the air 4 quality levels in the valley and analysis of the nature of 5 the PM2.5 problem. PM2.5 is a complex mixture of many 6 different species generated from a wide array of sources. 7 PM2.5 can be either emitted directly into the air in forms 8 such as soot, smoke, and the tiniest specs of dust, or it 9 can be formed in the atmosphere from reactions of 10 precursor gases. Understanding the nature of the PM2.5 11 problem is key to designing an effective control strategy 12 and bringing clean air to the Valley. 13 Second, the attainment demonstration guides the 14 selection of the most effective pollutants to control and 15 the magnitude of emission reductions needed from each of 16 the pollutants. 17 Third, the attainment demonstration also 18 identifies the earliest practicable date by when the 19 entire region will reach attainment. 20 --o0o-- 21 DR. VELASCO: Based on the severity of the PM2.5 22 problem in the Valley and the availability and feasibility 23 of control measures, the attainment demonstration 24 identifies 2014 as the earliest practicable attainment 25 date. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234555 1 U.S. EPA's modeling guidance requires the use of 2 air quality modeling to relate current PM2.5 levels to 3 emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors and meteorology in 4 a region, and to stimulate future air quality based on 5 changes in emissions. Model predictions combined with 6 observed concentration of PM2.5 and its individual 7 components provide the foundation for the 8 U.S. EPA-recommended attainment demonstration. Modeling 9 procedures for this plan followed U.S. EPA guidelines. 10 The Valley's particular pollution problem is well 11 studied as a result of the California Regional Particulate 12 Matter Study, or CRPAQS. This study provides the 13 scientific foundation for the PM2.5 SIP by identifying the 14 pollutants most important to formation of PM2.5 pollution. 15 The results indicate that the key pollutants to reduce are 16 nitrogen oxides, or NOx, sulfur oxides, or SOx, and 17 directly emitted PM2.5 particles. The plan addresses 18 these three pollutants as required by the PM2.5 19 implementation rule. 20 --o0o-- 21 DR. VELASCO: The California regional particulate 22 matter study was designed to: 23 First, develop an improved understanding of 24 particulate matter in central California; and 25 Second, provide decision makers with the tools PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234556 1 necessary to identity the most effective control methods. 2 The study reflects an investment of nearly $27 3 million, extending over a 15-year period. 4 Data was collected for 14 months, from December 5 1999 through February 2001, throughout the Valley and 6 surrounding regions. Periods with very high PM2.5 7 concentrations extending for up to several weeks and their 8 underlying meteorology were recorded during this time. 9 The extensive field monitoring program collected data at 10 the surface from hundreds of monitoring sites located 11 throughout the study domain, and aloft with appropriately 12 equipped airplanes, blimp, specialized balloons, and 13 towers. The effort resulted in millions of data records 14 which have been housed in a world class database. Focused 15 efforts have also improved the emission inventory for the 16 region. 17 Finally, state-of-the-science air quality models 18 have been tested with the extensive CRPAQS database and 19 are used in the CRPAQS and SIP modeling tasks. 20 --o0o-- 21 DR. VELASCO: The PM2.5 monitoring network in the 22 San Joaquin Valley was established following U.S. EPA 23 technical criteria. These criteria define how to ensure 24 each monitor location is representative of pollution 25 exposure. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234557 1 In addition, U.S. EPA's guidance calls for using 2 models to simulate PM2.5 concentrations in areas without 3 monitors. The modeling attainment demonstration predicts 4 concentrations in approximately two by two mile increments 5 throughout the Valley. ARB's modeling analysis showed 6 that monitoring captured the highest PM2.5 levels in the 7 Valley. 8 The combination of monitoring and modeling 9 ensures that public exposure to PM2.5 throughout the 10 Valley is well characterized. 11 --o0o-- 12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Can I interrupt you for a 13 second -- 14 DR. VELASCO: Sure. 15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: -- because I think this 16 may be a little bit misleading. 17 I know that there are many, many monitoring 18 inputs used for the model and deployment of all kinds of 19 equipment to do that. But on actual day-to-day basis for 20 monitoring there's nothing like that in any stations out 21 there that are capturing daily readings in terms of 22 demonstrating compliance; isn't that correct? It's a much 23 smaller number. 24 DR. VELASCO: It is a much smaller number. But 25 due to the expense and also the extensive resources needed PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234558 1 to run such an extensive field study, of course we only 2 have like a normal monitoring network that does collect 3 PM2.5 quantities at certain number of stations. 4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: How many actual stations 5 that are used for compliance purposes are there? 6 DR. VELASCO: Twelve. 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Twelve? 8 DR. VELASCO: Yes. 9 BOARD MEMBER BERG: But then where does the 10 hundreds come in? 11 DR. VELASCO: During the field study when the 12 California -- when CRPAQS was being conducted there was a 13 very extensive field study that was conducted from 1999 -- 14 from the end of 1999 through the beginning of 2001. And 15 that required the deployment of lots of different 16 monitoring stations. 17 Should I continue now? 18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes, please. 19 --o0o-- 20 DR. VELASCO: Okay. Trends in annual PM2.5 21 designed values show that considerable progress has 22 occurred in the San Joaquin Valley over the last five 23 years. Monitoring began in 1999. 24 This is the compliance monitoring. 25 In 2001, all monitoring sites in the Valley had PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234559 1 annual design values, which reflect the three-year 2 averages over the standard of 15 micrograms per cubic 3 meter. The Visalia site at 24.7 had the highest design 4 value. By 2006, design values decreased throughout the 5 Valley, and only those sites in the southern and central 6 portions of the Valley still have design values greater 7 than 15. Bakersfield is the current high site, with a 8 design value of 18.9. 9 --o0o-- 10 DR. VELASCO: On an annual basis, PM2.5 in the 11 Valley mostly consists of ammonium nitrate, organic 12 carbon, and ammonium sulfate. Ammonium nitrate is formed 13 from chemical reactions of NOx emitted from motor vehicles 14 and stationary combustion sources with ammonia. Burning 15 activities, such as residential wood combustion, cooking, 16 and direct tailpipe emissions from mobile sources are 17 major sources of organic carbon. Ammonium sulfate is also 18 formed in the atmosphere from the chemical reactions of 19 SOx emitted from combustion sources and ammonia. To a 20 lesser extent, elemental carbon resulting from mobile and 21 stationary combustion sources, and geological material 22 from roads and other dust-producing activities also 23 contribute to PM2.5. 24 --o0o-- 25 DR. VELASCO: In the Valley, the levels and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234560 1 nature of PM2.5 concentrations typically differ by season. 2 The figure on this slide shows the variation in the 3 monthly average PM2.5 concentrations throughout the year 4 in Bakersfield and Fresno. Higher PM2.5 concentrations 5 occur during the winter, between late November and 6 February, during extended periods of stagnant weather with 7 cold, damp, foggy conditions, which are conducive to the 8 formation of secondary ammonium nitrate particles. The 9 higher winter PM2.5 is dominated by ammonium nitrate and 10 directly emitted particles, such as wood smoke and other 11 combustion sources. These elevated winter concentrations 12 drive the annual average PM2.5 levels. 13 --o0o-- 14 DR. VELASCO: Modeling analyses have shown that 15 direct PM2.5, NOx, and SOx emission reductions are key to 16 demonstrating attainment in the Valley. Furthermore, 17 annual PM2.5 concentrations are more sensitive to 18 reductions in directly emitted PM2.5 as compared to NOx, 19 with directly emitted PM2.5 reductions approximately nine 20 times more effective than NOx reductions in the attainment 21 year. Emissions of VOCs are also being reduced in the 22 region as part of the ozone attainment strategy and are 23 included in the modeling, but are not key for PM2.5 24 attainment. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234561 1 DR. VELASCO: U.S. EPA requires a 2 weight-of-evidences analysis to supplement the 3 SIP-required photochemical modeling. The 4 weight-of-evidences approach looks at the entirety of the 5 information at hand to provide a more comprehensive 6 scientific basis for the attainment strategy. Because all 7 methods have strengths and weaknesses, examining an air 8 quality problem in a variety of ways offsets the 9 limitations and uncertainty that are inherent in 10 photochemical modeling. 11 ARB staff evaluated air quality and emission 12 trends; observational model results, including those of 13 source receptor models; and evaluated diagnosis indicator 14 species results. Along with the results from the 15 photochemical modeling, District staff conducted a 16 rollback modeling analysis to estimate the impacts of 17 future emission reductions on resulting air quality. 18 The weight-of-evidences analyses provide a 19 consistent assessment that the entire San Joaquin Valley 20 will attain the annual PM2.5 standard by 2014. However, 21 attainment is expected to phase in started in the northern 22 portion of the Valley and spreading south, with more and 23 more areas reaching attainment as we move towards 2014. 24 --o0o-- 25 DR. VELASCO: The PM2.5 plan consists of adopted PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234562 1 measures that provide increasing benefits each year, along 2 with new emission reduction commitments from both ARB and 3 the District. Overall, between 2005 and 2014, NOx 4 emissions will decrease by almost 300 tons per day, direct 5 PM2.5 emissions by over 20, and SOx by almost 3. 6 Two-thirds of the NOx and SOx reduction and one-half of 7 PM2.5 reductions come from already adopted measures. A 8 significant portion of the new emission reduction 9 commitments come from the ARB's State Strategy that was 10 adopted in September 2007. The District's new controls 11 will provide one-third of the PM2.5 reductions and the 12 remainder of the NOx reductions needed to reach attainment 13 in the Valley. 14 --o0o-- 15 DR. VELASCO: The state strategy will provide 76 16 tons per day of NOx reduction and five tons per day of 17 PM2.5 by 2014. The core of the new NOx and PM reduction 18 measures is the clean-up of the legacy diesel fleet. 19 These are aggressive, groundbreaking rules. 20 The private truck fleet rule is the single 21 largest new measure in the Valley. ARB staff is currently 22 holding public workshops and the rule will be considered 23 by the Board in October. 24 The off-road equipment of construction rule was 25 adopted by the Board in 2007. The strategy also includes PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234563 1 measures to reduce emissions from passenger vehicles 2 through improvements in the smog check program and 3 expanded vehicle retirement. 4 --o0o-- 5 DR. VELASCO: The PM2.5 plan contains the 6 District's commitment to develop and implement a suit of 7 control measures for NOx, direct PM2.5, and SOx. 8 The District's proposed control measures meet the 9 federal reasonably available control measure, or RACM, 10 requirements, which include requirements for reasonably 11 available control technologies, or RACT. All proposed 12 measures are to be developed by 2010, with implementation 13 no later than 2012. 14 The PM2.5 plan includes the six NOx control rules 15 previously adopted in the 2007 ozone plan. The District 16 has accelerated adoption and implementation of one of the 17 control measures. In addition, the District has added a 18 new NOx control measure based on equipment attrition. The 19 District has also made progress on two of the feasibility 20 measures from the ozone plan so that these are now control 21 measures in the PM2.5 plan. 22 --o0o-- 23 DR. VELASCO: Recognizing the importance of 24 directly emitted PM2.5, additional measures to address 25 this component have also been included. As noted PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234564 1 previously, air quality modeling has shown that directly 2 emitted PM2.5 emission reductions are approximately nine 3 times more effective on a ton per ton basis than NOx 4 reductions in the attainment year. 5 In 2003, the District adopted the most 6 comprehensive rule for residential wood burning in the 7 state. An essential component of the rule is the 8 mandatory curtailment program, which prohibits wood 9 burning when PM2.5 air quality is forecasted to reach 10 unhealthy levels. The rule has been pivotal in the Valley 11 attaining the federal PM10 standard and in reducing PM2.5 12 impacts of residential burning. The District is now 13 proposing to strengthen this rule by lowering the current 14 air quality threshold for the mandatory curtailment 15 program. 16 The District is also proposing to expand the 17 applicability of its commercial cooking rule. Currently, 18 this rule applies only to chain-driven charbroiler 19 equipment. The proposed rule would include emission 20 controls for under-fire charbroilers. 21 Finally, the District will adopt the fourth phase 22 of the program prohibiting open burning of agricultural 23 waste. 24 --o0o-- 25 DR. VELASCO: The Clean Air Act requires PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234565 1 nonattainment areas to make steady progress towards 2 attainment. To reach attainment in the Valley, 307 tons 3 per day of emission reductions are needed between 2005 and 4 2014. As shown on this slide's graph, the plan 5 demonstrates continuous progress in achieving the needed 6 emission reductions in NOx and direct PM2.5 through the 7 milestone years of 2009 and 2012. 8 --o0o-- 9 DR. VELASCO: As part of the reasonable further 10 progress analysis, the federal PM2.5 rule requires SIPs to 11 demonstrate that emissions will be at a level consistent 12 with generally linear progress in reducing emissions 13 between the base year and the attainment year. The blue 14 diamonds on this slide represent the downward trend in NOx 15 emission reductions achieved in the RFP milestone years. 16 The pink boxes represent the linear calculation that must 17 be included in the plan for comparative purposes. As this 18 slide illustrates, the plan is achieving generally linear 19 progress in NOx emission reductions as specified in the 20 rule. 21 --o0o-- 22 DR. VELASCO: The ARB staff's review indicates 23 that the plan meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act 24 and U.S. EPA's PM2.5 Implementation Rule. As seen in the 25 previous slide, the San Joaquin Valley's plan will result PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234566 1 in steady emission reductions ensuring good progress 2 towards attainment. 3 Reductions from adopted ARB measures will provide 4 reductions for contingency purposes. The District 5 supplement these contingency reductions with two 6 additional contingency measures. 7 The plan includes the District's reasonably 8 available control measures and technologies demonstration 9 for direct PM2.5, NOx, and SOx. The District followed 10 U.S. EPA guidance for this analysis. 11 The Valley's plan also includes county-level 12 transportation budgets, which ensure that growth on motor 13 vehicle activity and transportation projects will not 14 interfere with the progress and attainment of the PM2.5 15 standard. 16 --o0o-- 17 DR. VELASCO: Finally, the District held two sets 18 of public workshops since plan development began in 2007 19 and provided opportunity for public input during the 20 development and adoption of the Valley's PM2.5 plan. In 21 addition, last week, the Air Resources Board held a public 22 meeting on the technical foundation of this plan. 23 --o0o-- 24 DR. VELASCO: As required by U.S. EPA, the 25 District has committed to updating the PM2.5 plan in 2011. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234567 1 This PM2.5 plan is the result of a two-year effort to 2 update the emission inventories for each mobile, 3 stationary, and area source category; conduct air quality 4 modeling and data analysis; and to develop new control 5 strategies. The 2011 SIP update will provide an important 6 opportunity to once again assess air quality progress, 7 update emission inventories, and check on the progress in 8 achieving emission reductions. 9 In addition, a new SIP for the recently revised 10 PM2.5 standard will be done in 2012. This plan is just 11 the first of many PM2.5 SIPs. Air quality standards must 12 be reviewed every five years to take into account new 13 health information. The result is that standards are 14 revised and new SIPs are developed. 15 --o0o-- 16 DR. VELASCO: In conclusion, the Valley's PM2.5 17 plan meets Clean Air Act as well as the PM2.5 18 Implementation Rule requirements. PM2.5 particles and the 19 pollutants that form PM2.5 will continue to decrease 20 beyond the demonstrated attainment date. Current air 21 quality data show the northern valley already meets the 22 annual PM2.5 standard and the plan demonstrates the entire 23 valley will reach attainment by 2014. 24 --o0o-- 25 DR. VELASCO: Therefore, ARB staff recommends PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234568 1 that the Board approve the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 2 plan as a revision to the California SIP for submittal to 3 U.S. EPA. 4 --o0o-- 5 DR. VELASCO: Now, I will take a few minutes to 6 update the Board on the status of the Valley's ozone plan 7 implementation. When the Board approved the ozone plan 8 last November, staff was directed to provide an update 9 this spring. 10 This slide shows the status of the District's 11 rulemaking commitments in its ozone plan. The emission 12 reductions from these new rules will provide benefits by 13 2014. The total reduction by these rules achieved more 14 reductions than anticipated for both NOx and ROG. 15 --o0o-- 16 DR. VELASCO: Through the 2007 ozone plan, the 17 District committed to develop and adopt a suite of 18 emission control regulations which would reduce 19 ozone-forming emissions. The District rule adoption 20 calendar would have those commitments fulfilled by 2010, 21 and the District is well on the way to that goal. This 22 slide shows the SIP commitments that have been fulfilled, 23 and the emission reduction from those rulemakings. When 24 the District begins the detailed rulemaking process, they 25 often identify additional control opportunities that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234569 1 result in stronger than anticipated rules. As you can 2 see, the District has achieved more emission reductions 3 than were expected at the time the ozone plan was 4 approved. 5 The District has also revised its cost 6 effectiveness policy to determine best available control 7 technology on large industrial sources. Their cost 8 effectiveness policy is now equivalent to the best in the 9 state. 10 --o0o-- 11 DR. VELASCO: This slide shows the status of the 12 remaining ozone plan commitments with actions expected in 13 2008, 2009, and 2010. ARB staff believes that some of 14 these rules may similarly yield greater than expected 15 emission reductions and will closely track the local 16 rulemaking process. 17 --o0o-- 18 DR. VELASCO: I will now focus briefly on ARB 19 staff's activities in the Valley. Staff has increased the 20 number of workshops in the Valley, conducting them both 21 during the day and in the evening, to provide an 22 opportunity for many voices to be heard. Since diesel 23 emissions are the largest source of NOx emissions in the 24 Valley, ARB staff gave special focus to programs which 25 will reduce those emissions. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234570 1 In addition to the workshop process, ARB staff 2 regularly attends and provides updates on significant 3 board actions and staff activities to the Valley's 4 Governing Board and advisory committees. 5 Finally, ARB staff has been working with the 6 Valley District, the South Coast AQMD, and U.S. EPA to 7 bring a national advanced technology forum to the Valley. 8 This forum will showcase emerging technologies and the 9 scientists, engineers, and businesses that are trying to 10 bring those technologies to market. Appropriately, this 11 conference will be held at the University of California at 12 Merced during the Valley's Healthy Air Living Week. 13 This concludes my presentation. And staff will 14 be glad to answer any questions. 15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much for the 16 presentation. 17 We have a number of witnesses who've signed up to 18 speak to us. And I think it would probably be useful to 19 hear from them first before we engage in more discussion. 20 I know a number of folks have been very actively involved 21 at every level of this plan preparation and are anxious to 22 make sure that the Board understands what their concerns 23 are as well. 24 I have to say that although two of them indicate 25 that they're neutral, all of the rest of them are here in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234571 1 opposition to the plan. So I want to note that, and I 2 want to make sure that we understand what your opinions 3 are and what your suggestions to us are before we get much 4 further down the road. 5 So without further ado, we'll just ask staff to 6 stay available to answer questions as we go forward. 7 I'm going to call on Kim Thompson and then Grant 8 Melocik and then Brent Newell, and ask you to come up and 9 speak from the podium. And we will be limiting public 10 comments to three minutes, although I don't know how we're 11 going to be doing the timing. 12 There is a timer here. Okay. 13 So you'll be notified when your time is up. 14 So we will start with Kim Thompson. 15 Welcome. 16 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you. Good morning. 17 My name is Kim Thompson. I'm the Director of Air 18 Quality at the Fresno-Madera Medical Society. Our society 19 is composed of about 1500 physicians in the Fresno and 20 Madera area, and we're connected to other medical 21 societies in Bakersfield, Modesto, throughout the Valley. 22 We're a part of the California Medical Association. 23 As you know, physicians of Fresno-Madera are 24 deeply concerned about the poor air quality in the region. 25 And I'm here today to request your consideration to ensure PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234572 1 the most health protective measures possible for PM2.5 2 pollution in the San Joaquin Valley. 3 The adverse health effects and premature death 4 resulting from particulate matter pollution cannot be 5 understated, and is underscored by your staff in research 6 that was reported this morning. 7 We would further like to add that in these 8 considerations of the staggering health consequence of 9 particulate matter pollution, that we have some local 10 considerations of specific challenges to the San Joaquin 11 Valley in terms of our health care infrastructure to care 12 for patients with pollution related illness. 13 You may know that all eight counties of the San 14 Joaquin Valley are designated medically underserved areas 15 and populations. Actually the entire county of Madera is 16 a medically underserved area. What does this mean? Well, 17 primarily it means that we have fewer health professionals 18 to population than we do in other regions of the state. 19 For example, if we look at Kern and Merced counties, in 20 terms of nursing staff, they have 55 percent and 41 21 percent of nurses compared to the state average. 22 This is particularly acute with physicians. We 23 have half the number of specialists practicing as is 24 practicing in southern California. We have a third of the 25 number that is practicing in the Bay Area. Difficulty to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234573 1 recruit and sustain physicians in this area is in part due 2 to our air pollution. 3 Additionally, we are challenged in the Valley 4 with a higher percentage of MediCal enrollees per 5 population than the state as a whole and most other 6 regions of the state. And, conversely, the reimbursements 7 for MediCal patients to MediCal providers are lower than 8 other regions of the state. 9 In short, this is to say that we here in the 10 Valley are struggling to care for those who are struggling 11 to breathe. And with the anticipated medical cuts that 12 are coming down the line in July, those most impacted will 13 have even less access to care. 14 So in this critical situation we must ask 15 ourselves, "What does preventative care look like?" And 16 those at the Fresno-Madera Medical Society believes that 17 it starts with a strong PM2.5 plan. 18 We understand that ways to strengthen the plan 19 include additional NOx reductions as well as VOC 20 reductions. We understand that a large part of the 21 reductions needed for attainment is anticipated to come 22 from CARB's Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Rule. And so we want 23 to underscore the need for more control measures and 24 contingency measures, so that overall our pollution 25 becomes -- so that the targeted reductions become a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234574 1 reality. 2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 3 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you for your time. 4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I appreciate very much your 5 sticking to the limit. I know that buzzer when it goes 6 off is a little disconcerting. 7 We're going to hear next from Grant Melocik, and 8 then we're going to change the order and hear next from 9 Sarah Jackson. Apparently there's been some reshuffling 10 here. 11 MR. MELOCIK: My name is Grant Melocik and I'm 12 here as a citizen of the Valley and a citizen of Fresno. 13 And I also am opposed to the measure. 14 I think, once again, based on the information I 15 have been able to read about, the Air Quality Board has 16 failed again to aggressively pursue the available measures 17 that could help us reach an attainment goal quicker. 18 I'd like to talk about some of the things that we 19 touched on already today. Three thousand nine hundred 20 deaths -- 3,900. If terrorists killed 3,900 people, this 21 country would be in an uproar. And yet we continue to 22 look at partial measures and glide past that. 23 More importantly, how many tens of thousands of 24 people have severe impairment as a result of these 25 pollutants? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234575 1 We hear a lot about expense. Every particular 2 group that has their ox gored with these programs, or 3 individuals, scream about expense. But as we all know, 4 this is a cost transfer. We're transferring their costs, 5 the costs of cleaning up their diesel engines, the costs 6 of not using their fireplace -- we're transferring that 7 cost to medical costs, and as the previous person 8 mentioned, in an area where medical care is difficult to 9 attain. So we're not saving any money with this. We're 10 just shifting it from one group to another. 11 We've talked about jobs. When I first came to 12 the Valley I came as a vice president of engineering. 13 Yes, we had trouble getting medical people. But we have 14 trouble getting the technology people as well, because 15 they do the research, they see what the air quality is. 16 And it's one reason we do not, like the rest of 17 California, have the high income, high capability jobs, 18 because we're pandering -- let's be blunt -- to a lower 19 level of job classification with our lack of being more 20 aggressive in cleaning up the Valley. 21 Technology. We talk about best available 22 technology. We hear it today that the particulate 23 emissions are nine times worse with a contribution -- the 24 actual particulate is nine times worse than NOx. Well, a 25 lot of the NOx emissions we know are being improved year PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234576 1 by year because of federal standards on vehicles. But 2 what is the difficulty and the technology to be more 3 aggressive about stopping open-field burning, stopping 4 fireplace burning. Action. 5 The initial discussion was about the voluntary 6 plans. All I can give you is my perception. And, that 7 is, that the people who care, both in business and 8 individuals, have either made improvements or are making 9 improvements. We have to have dedicated, enforceable 10 rules in order to take what I think are a large number of 11 people who are never going to change unless the changes 12 are pushed on them in order to make the improvements. 13 Again, I'm disappointed. And I think I'm wasting 14 my breath, because the Board, I fear, will vote the way it 15 always does, with those who are really concerned voting 16 against this and those who are representing other 17 interests voting for it. 18 Thank you. 19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you, Melocik. 20 Sarah Jackson. 21 MS. BOLANOS: And I apologize for the confusion. 22 Liza Bolanos. I'll be taking Brent Newell's spot, and 23 we're switching. It wasn't Sarah Jackson. Sorry about 24 that. 25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: You're Liza. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234577 1 MS. BOLANOS: Liza. 2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: All right. Thank you. 3 MS. BOLANOS: Good morning. Liza Bolanos, 4 Central Valley Air Quality Coalition. Thank you, Madam 5 Chair and Board members, for making the trip down to 6 Fresno. It's always great to not have to travel to 7 Sacramento and have you in our backyard. So we appreciate 8 that. 9 Thank you also for the opportunity to speak. 10 Today you will hear from the membership of the 11 Central Valley Air Quality Coalition. We are a 12 partnership of over 86 local and statewide public health, 13 environmental, and environmental justice organizations, 14 united in our efforts to clean the air for San Joaquin 15 Valley residence and all Californians. 16 Similarly to last year during the ozone plan, 17 International Sustainable Systems Research Center has done 18 a thorough analysis of this plan and has raised some 19 serious concerns of which we are supportive of -- I'm 20 sorry -- concerns and recommendations of which we are 21 supportive. 22 Some of those are -- in this plan there's a heavy 23 reliance on the diesel truck rule, a rule which has not 24 yet been adopted and is currently being challenged by EPA 25 in South Coast's ozone plan. This plan overlooks and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234578 1 ignores opportunities for additional VOC and NOx emission 2 reductions on stationary sources within the air district's 3 jurisdiction. The contingency plan in this plan is 4 inadequate and does not meet the requirements. 5 International Sustainable System Research Center 6 has also raised questions of whether this plan will meet 7 reasonable further progress milestones and attainment by 8 2014. And this is important because of the articles that 9 we saw today, because this is about humans, this is about 10 lives, this is about families. We're concerned about the 11 children, the grandparents, the families that will be 12 impacted by this estimated 3,000 deaths each year. 13 You will hear from Coalition members in detail 14 about each one of these issues. And we just ask that at 15 the end of today that we have a strong plan that not only 16 the community but advocates and all of the residents of 17 this Valley can be supportive of, because this is about 18 our health, about our lives. 19 Thank you. 20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 21 Can we just clarify this issue that Ms. Bolanos 22 raised about EPA challenging the ARB's heavy-duty truck 23 rule in the South Coast plan. I think I understand this 24 in the context of SIP world. But just to be clear how 25 this affects our ability and timing in adopting the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234579 1 heavy-duty truck rule, because I think it's important. 2 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Well, I presume 3 that comment refers to correspondence that we've had with 4 EPA with respect to conformity budgets, and what 5 reductions could be assumed in conformity budgets for that 6 program. 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Conformity budgets, are 8 those things that are used to decide whether 9 transportation plans conform with air quality plans and 10 whether federal transportation money can come into a 11 particular -- 12 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Right. And 13 because California's the only state that is actually 14 adopting new rulemaking commitments as part of their SIPs, 15 they really don't have a paradigm for dealing with that in 16 their system. And so, therefore, they prefer in their 17 conformity budget programs to just look at measures that 18 are already adopted. 19 So once our rule hopefully becomes adopted, that 20 issue will go away with respect to the conformity budgets. 21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: But they're not challenging 22 the rule -- 23 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: They're not 24 challenging the rule. 25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: -- saying it's too tough or PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234580 1 that we can't do it or anything? 2 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Right. 3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: All right. Thank you. 4 BOARD MEMBER HILL: Madam Chair, isn't there a 5 new interpretation of what they had been doing in the 6 past? I mean that -- 7 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: This is a new 8 interpretation, yes. 9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I think we talked about 10 this last time. 11 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: The April Board 12 meeting. 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Right. When we were 14 talking about conformity, right. I just wanted to make 15 sure that we're on the same track. 16 BOARD MEMBER HILL: The same issue. 17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yeah, same issue. 18 All right. I think this group has organized 19 itself. So rather than me trying to figure out who's 20 going next, why don't you tell me who's going next. 21 I have Brent Newell. 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: We're showing Mr. 23 Newell as the next speaker. 24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. 25 MR. NEWELL: Can someone else go so we don't hold PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234581 1 up the meeting? 2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Sure, if that's all right, 3 if that doesn't disrupt your flow. 4 Okay. Thank you. 5 Then we'll go to Daniela Simunovic, while we're 6 figuring out how to load up some visual aids here. 7 MS. SIMUNOVIC: Good morning, Chair Nichols and 8 members of the Board, and welcome to Fresno. 9 This hearing really -- well, my name is Daniela 10 Simunovic and I work with the Center on Race, Poverty, and 11 the Environment, which is an environmental justice 12 organization with over 18 years of work here in the 13 Valley, working with grass-roots communities on the ground 14 and through the legal system to try to protect those folks 15 who are most vulnerable to pollution here in the Valley. 16 We try to seek environmental justice for those folks 17 who often have to live with a lot of environmental 18 injustice. 19 Today's hearing really couldn't have come at a 20 more appropriate time. This week in the south valley 21 where our office is in Delano, the skies have been brown 22 the entire week because of the amount of PM that is in the 23 air - PM10 and PM2.5 and PM we don't know, with all of the 24 pesticides and other things in our air. So it's actually 25 been a very good visual reminder. Yesterday I was so PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234582 1 astounded by the lack of visibility, I was taking pictures 2 in my car of the road. 3 Additionally to the air, this morning valley 4 residents woke up to the astounding alarm that more than 5 3,000 of us are at risk of dying prematurely because of 6 the air we're breathing because of PM. And that is, I 7 want to the point out, actually more than double the 8 amount that we as the environmental community and public 9 health community had been advocating. And it's very 10 alarming and astounding, and I think it helps put in 11 perspective the concerns that us and our coalition members 12 as part of CVAQC are raising today. And we do have 13 serious concerns that each member will be raising in more 14 depth, going into what Liza outlined for you today. 15 One of those concerns is that while we recognize 16 that ARB does have a significant role to play in achieving 17 reductions that will get us into attainment -- and, by all 18 means, we are committed to holding you accountable to 19 those -- we're not just picking on the Air District. 20 But if you can go to the pie chart that I have 21 there. And I don't know if it's on screen. But -- 22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We can supply it, but it's 23 disappeared now. 24 MS. SIMUNOVIC: It disappeared. 25 Okay. Well, so throughout the development of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234583 1 PM2.5 SIP at the air district level we consistently heard 2 that the Air District was only responsible for 20 percent 3 of PM sources of attaining reduction and that ARB had a 4 whole responsibility of 80 percent. So when you look at 5 it -- when we looked further into those statements, yes, 6 if you're talking about solely NOx reductions, yes, that 7 picture is right. But if we look at the whole picture, if 8 we get out of the tunnel and see the landscape surrounding 9 us, like this pie chart shows, we can see that that's not 10 really a whole picture. When we start to incorporate 11 other sources, it actually comes out to be a little bit 12 more even playing field. 13 We find that CARB has more of -- 43 percent -- 14 continues to have a 43 percent of jurisdiction of the 15 sources of PM2.5, but that the Air District has a 42 16 percent jurisdiction over some of these sources. And we 17 find that that's significant. This chart was put together 18 by ISSRC, who put this together based on data from CARB 19 and the Air District. 20 So this brings us to our next point, which is a 21 point that we've continually raised both throughout this 22 process and that we raised during the ozone process, which 23 is that volatile organic compounds, or ROGs, have been 24 left out of this plan and are a significant source that 25 have been -- opportunity that has been missed. We can't PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234584 1 lose track that the same science used to say that VOCs 2 aren't as important actually does -- shows that by going 3 after reducing -- getting reductions of VOCs, that we do 4 get some reductions and it does advance us towards getting 5 reductions of PM2.5. And we feel that that is often 6 misled -- left out of the conversation. 7 And actually at the Governing Board -- at the Air 8 District's Governing Board hearing Jim Sweet, who's on 9 staff developing their plan, told us that VOCs are more 10 effective than SOx in achieving micrograms of PM 11 reductions. So we think that that's important, 12 particularly for the -- 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Your time has expired. 14 MS. SIMUNOVIC: I know. 15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: You want to just wrap up. 16 MS. SIMUNOVIC: Wrap up, yeah. 17 And that's important -- of special importance for 18 the south valley where we have a higher concentration of 19 sources of VOCs. 20 Again, our concern is that -- based on our 21 concerns, we ask that your Board take action today that 22 moves us forward towards protecting the health of Valley 23 residents. We ask that you amend this plan to include 24 control measures that we've suggested and to help protect 25 us. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234585 1 On a personal note, my sister -- I have a sister 2 who I love very much, and a niece and a brother-in-law who 3 for personal reasons are leaving the Valley for continuing 4 education. But I find myself relieved that these people 5 that I love so dearly are leaving the Valley, because I 6 know that my niece will have better lungs because of it. 7 So we just ask you that -- we've brought the -- 8 take the technical analysis that we've worked with with 9 ISSRC I'm developing and presenting to you are serious, 10 and that in the background that what motivates us is our 11 health. 12 So thank you. 13 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Madam Chair? 14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes, Mr. Loveridge. 15 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: The pie chart perhaps 16 should be circulated around. 17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I think it will be helpful, 18 because we really couldn't read the numbers or the 19 headings all that well. 20 Could we get the paper and just circulate it to 21 the Board. 22 I don't think you need to make photocopies. I 23 think we'll just pass it along and then include it in the 24 record. 25 Yes. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234586 1 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Could I ask one -- 2 there's one thing that would help me a lot in 3 understanding a lot of these concerns. It's probably Dr. 4 Balmes that can answer this. It's kind of a very mini, 5 mini tutorial. And, that is, I'm struggling with the idea 6 that, you know, the PM2.5 levels vary dramatically. You 7 know, there's a question about the -- seasonally I see 8 they varied I think like fivefold on a monthly basis; on a 9 daily basis, probably much more so. You know, there's a 10 question about the monitors. 11 And then we come to the control measures. And so 12 the issue for me is this exposure. And if you have a -- 13 you know, there was this analogy to secondhand smoke. So 14 the question I have is: If you have an exposure for a 15 short amount of time, you know, how serious is that, you 16 know, versus a persistent long-term exposure? Because the 17 answer to that is going to affect, you know, the -- 18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: -- the control strategy. 19 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: -- the control strategy. 20 BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Well, if I might. 21 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Is there a simple answer? 22 BOARD MEMBER BALMES: So short-term exposures do 23 cause effects, both lung and cardiac. So a short-term 24 exposure to a relatively high level of fine particles can 25 cause an asthma attack, for example, in children or PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234587 1 adults - that's been documented - an asthma attack severe 2 enough to cause that person to go to an emergency 3 department for care. 4 Another short-term effect is for people with 5 heart disease. They might actually have arrhythmia or a 6 chest pain or even a heart attack related to short-term 7 exposure. And again we have good analogy with secondhand 8 smoke data where both epidemiologic data showing that 9 smoking bans in public places change the rate of cardiac 10 events and in chamber studies like I do, we exposed people 11 for 30 minutes -- healthy people for 30 minutes to 12 secondhand smoke levels like you might find in a casino 13 and got acute effects on blood pressure and on vascular 14 function with that kind of exposure. 15 Then long-term exposures, there's concern about 16 growth of lungs in kids, that a children's health study in 17 southern California has clearly documented that. 18 And then there's the mortality issue, which is 19 somewhere in between an acute and chronic effect. 20 So the effects are real and the exposures -- it's 21 the exposure response relationship that drives at the need 22 for regulation. And at the level we're talking about, 23 trying to meet the 1997 federal standard of 15 micrograms 24 per meter cubed on an annual basis, there are in fact 25 health effects clearly demonstrated at that level, both PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234588 1 acute and chronic. 2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: And it's a lot more 3 difficult -- I guess that's sort of obvious -- to meet 4 that low level year-long standard than to meet a daily 5 standard. And some of the measures -- like I'm curious 6 about things like banning fireplace burning. That's going 7 to do very little for the long term, but it will help you 8 with those short-term -- 9 BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Yes. You know, like New 10 Years and Christmas Day are traditionally some of the 11 highest levels of PM in the Valley, both because of the 12 meteorologic conditions that were referred to by staff and 13 the fact that a lot of people like to burn wood in a 14 fireplace on those days. 15 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: But it would also affect 16 things like converting the diesel irrigation pumps, which 17 are not used very much, to electricity, you know. I guess 18 it depends when they're used. 19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Right. 20 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Okay. Everything 21 is difficult. 22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: It's not clear yet -- 23 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Everything is -- 24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: -- and harder. 25 All right. Mr. Newell. Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234589 1 MR. NEWELL: Good morning, Madam Chair, members 2 of the Board. I'm Brent Newell, attorney with the Center 3 on Race, Poverty, and the Environment. 4 I'm glad you brought up the truck rule issue 5 earlier, because I would like to talk about why that is 6 problematic in regulation to this plan. 7 First of all, the Board should take the 8 opportunity today to amend the truck rule commitment first 9 adopted in the 2007 state strategy for the California SIP 10 back in September 2007. The problem with the truck rule 11 is that it delivers or promises to deliver a significant 12 amount of NOx reductions, on which this plan relies. 13 Thus, the truck rule is much like the cornerstone of the 14 plan in being able to deliver the reductions necessary to 15 demonstrate attainment. The problem with the truck rule 16 is that it doesn't commit to a specific tonnage reduction. 17 It commits to nothing really. It says it will achieve 18 more or less than the number that has been presented to 19 you in your Board packet. 20 The state strategy assumes that this is okay 21 because the state strategy also says, you know, "We're 22 going to achieve the total number of reductions. We 23 promise to achieve all the reductions that we need anyway. 24 So it's okay if this truck rule is not specific in what 25 it's supposed to achieve." PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234590 1 The problem is is that the Clean Air Act says 2 that the rules that are necessary to attain the standard 3 must be enforceable rules. So the truck rule as promised 4 in the state strategy is not an enforceable control 5 measure because it doesn't commit to achieve anything. 6 EPA has confirmed that this truck rule commitment 7 is problematic. I've submitted three documents to the 8 Board along with my hearing card: 9 The first is a May 6th, 2008, letter from EPA to 10 Mr. Goldstene. 11 The second, which I'd like to put up on the 12 viewer now, is a May 15, 2008, federal register notice 13 which was just published. 14 And the third is something from 1997. 15 Now, first, Ms. Terry described that the truck 16 rule dialog between EPA and ARB as being, you know, an 17 exchange of letters. Just a few days ago EPA disapproved 18 the SIP-based motor vehicle emission budgets for the South 19 Coast Air Basin because specifically those control 20 measures that were in the 2007 state strategy were not 21 specific or enforceable. EPA is saying right now, it took 22 final action and published it in the Federal Register, 23 that truck rule is not sufficient to meet Clean Air Act 24 standards. You each have a copy and it's on the viewer 25 there. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234591 1 I'd like to show you another document here. This 2 is from 1997. And it is a statement of EPA's position 3 that rebuts staff's claims that it's okay -- if you have 4 an aggregate tonnage commitment, it's okay that the truck 5 rule is not specific. Well, in 1997 when EPA approved the 6 1994 ozone plan, California tried to say, "Look, it's 7 okay. We can move around our individual commitments as 8 long as we meet our overall tonnages." EPA said, "No, 9 that's not okay. If you want to move around your 10 individual commitments, you have to come to us and seek 11 approval under Section 110(o). 12 So it's very clear through EPA prior rulemakings, 13 in fact one just a few days ago, that this truck rule 14 needs to be amended to provide a specific tonnage 15 commitment, or else this entire plan is based on an 16 unenforceable promise, an illusory contract. 17 And I'll take any questions. 18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We'll also review the 19 written materials that you've submitted. 20 Are there any other questions at this point? 21 Thanks. But I know they'll be available. 22 MR. NEWELL: Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 24 Okay. Tim Carmichael and then Sarah Jackson. 25 MR. CARMICHAEL: Good morning, members of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234592 1 Board. Tim Carmichael with the Coalition for Clean Air. 2 It's good to be in Fresno. 3 I want to focus on one piece of our concerns, 4 which has been highlighted in our comments and in various 5 conversations with Board members. 6 I think it's clear from just the people that have 7 testified already that the environmental community doesn't 8 think that the plan before you is adequate. We think that 9 the main measure, as Brent just elaborated on or 10 identified, is not sufficiently defined to be enforceable. 11 And so we got a problem with the pillar of the plan. 12 But we've also got a concern that whether we're 13 right about that or not, whether the Board adopts the 14 truck rule as proposed or something weaker, the 15 contingency measures that have been proposed aren't 16 sufficient and can be strengthened without a lot of effort 17 from our perspective. Frankly, we get -- as a community I 18 think we get a bad rap for being unreasonable. I think 19 we're being exceptionally reasonable in our advocacy on 20 this plan and on the specific request to the ARB to 21 strengthen that portion of this plan. It is common sense 22 that if you really want whatever your plan is, whether 23 it's a business plan or an air quality plan or a military 24 strategy plan, you're going to have contingencies, and 25 you're going to plan for those. And you absolutely want PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234593 1 those contingencies to work. 2 And we feel that what has been developed by the 3 District, there are definitely some good components. But 4 it doesn't go far enough soon enough. And that is I think 5 the most reasonable request that we're making to this 6 Board today as part of improving this plan immediately, is 7 to strengthen the contingency measures. We actually think 8 they should just be measures in the plan, because we are 9 pretty confident. But we are not very confident that the 10 overall plan will attain the reductions by 2014 without 11 them. But call them contingency measures if that's what 12 the Board's comfortable with. But let's accelerate the 13 implementation dates and let's make sure that we really do 14 have as many contingency measures in there that we can to 15 back up the truck rule and to ensure that we get to 16 attainment in 2014. 17 Thanks very much. 18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 19 I'm going to ask staff to clarify or explain 20 exactly what a contingency measure is from the Clean Air 21 Act's perspective. I will turn to our guru of SIPs. 22 Lynn Terry, can you do this? 23 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Sure, I'll give 24 it a first cut. And then if our -- Bob Jenne in our Legal 25 staff wants to add anything. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234594 1 There are two contingency provisions in the Clean 2 Air Act with respect to SIPs. One is contingency for the 3 rate of progress requirements and then the second is for 4 attainment itself. 5 So we're required under the EPA PM2.5 6 Implementation Rule to demonstrate we have contingency for 7 rate of progress in milestone years; in this case would be 8 2009 and 2012. And we have done -- the District has 9 calculated that. We've reviewed it. And those 10 contingency tons are from adopted measures. And that is 11 also a key requirement for contingency measures, is they 12 must be already adopted and no further action on the part 13 of the state or locals would be needed to trigger them 14 should the progress or attainment not be met. 15 So fortunately in California because we have a 16 strong program, and each year emissions are decreasing, we 17 do have tons from adopted measures that are calculated for 18 2009 and 2012 for progress. And then again in 2014 19 because of our strong program and fleet turnover and the 20 adopted rules, each year thereafter we have substantial 21 new reductions in NOx and diesel particulates that will 22 provide contingency for attainment. And those tons are 23 calculated as well. 24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: So, again, just to put a 25 point on this, if there's a rule that's submitted as a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234595 1 contingency rule, it has to already be adopted and be 2 ready to go. So then what causes the switch to be 3 triggered if it -- I mean the rule could just be going 4 into effect anyway and you just call it a contingency rule 5 versus a regular rule? And what is actually the 6 difference? 7 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Well, I guess 8 the difference, it depends on the circumstance. If you 9 have adopted rules on the books already, then obviously 10 the reductions will be happening and there's no need for a 11 trigger. Now, if -- for example, it's possible to have an 12 adopted rule that has a set of requirements that are in 13 place on an ongoing basis, and then it could also have a 14 trigger imbedded in the rule that says, for example, in 15 2014 if the District were not to attain, then 16 automatically this additional provision of an adopted rule 17 could come into place without further action. 18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: It could be a rule that 19 wouldn't actually take effect unless air quality levels 20 reached a certain number? 21 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: That's right. 22 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Could you give us some 23 specific examples which ones of these are contingent 24 measures and -- 25 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Do you want to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234596 1 take that one? 2 BOARD MEMBER HILL: And, also, this reliance on 3 the on-road diesel rule, how do we get there without that 4 through the contingency plans that are already adopted -- 5 the measures that are adopted? 6 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Which one do you 7 want to do first? 8 (Laughter.) 9 BOARD MEMBER HILL: I was just going to add that 10 in. Sorry. 11 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: We'll do Dr. 12 Sperling's first. 13 And I'll ask Karen Magliano, staff who worked on 14 the plan document, to talk a little bit about the 15 measures. 16 AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH CHIEF MAGLIANO: Sure. 17 I'm Karen Magliano and I'm Chief of the Air Quality Data 18 Branch at the Air Resources Board. 19 For contingency measures in the RFP years of 2009 20 and 2012, as Lynn mentioned, we held back specific 21 tonnage. So not specific rules per se but a certain 22 amount of tons of already adopted measures that could 23 serve as contingency. And then when we look at the 24 attainment year, again as Lynn mentioned, there are 25 ongoing reductions from our overall control program that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234597 1 continue to provide contingency reductions 2015, 2016, 2 2017 and beyond. 3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, it's really a margin 4 of safety than it is a contin -- I mean as I would think 5 of it, right? 6 AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH CHIEF MAGLIANO: The 7 District also identified additional emission reductions 8 that they could get from incentive programs and fee 9 programs, that are not included as part of the attainment 10 demonstration, but also serve as additional contingency 11 reductions. 12 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: So why are there these 13 criticisms that this contingency cushion is so small? Is 14 it smaller than unusual or is it not real or -- 15 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Well, no. I 16 mean the measures are in place and the rules will be 17 implemented, and so they're very real. There is no 18 absolute requirement in terms of how much contingency must 19 be provided. So we've provided a lot of tons that are 20 resulting from our ongoing program on the progress side. 21 And we're in a different -- we have such a strong 22 program and we have a very sharp -- a decline in emissions 23 going forward. So since the adopted measures are 24 providing very substantial reductions each year, you know, 25 we would argue there's not a need for contingency from a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234598 1 progress standpoint. 2 But it is very true that the truck rule is a 3 large piece of that very last increment. So we're going 4 to get on the order of 300 tons per day of NOx reductions 5 between now and 2014. The truck rule is about 70 of those 6 tons in that last increment. And again because of the 7 timing of the new diesel engines not being available with 8 full NOx control until 2010 and 2012 time frames, the 9 reality is we're going to have to rely on that measure 10 sort of as the last increment. And that all of the other 11 adopted measures are going to get us very close, so that 12 at the end of the day in that last couple of years the 13 truck rule is what's going to deliver the last increment. 14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Right. And now to jump in, 15 because I -- I think this is really important. The truck 16 rule is a rule that we haven't yet adopted, right? It's a 17 proposal. And so the distinction between the world of 18 SIPs and the Clean Air Act and the world of our authority 19 under the Clean Air Act to adopt motor vehicle regulations 20 is that if we were to put a binding commitment in the SIP 21 to get a certain number of tons from the truck rule, which 22 is what Mr. Newell would have us do, we would be in a 23 position of prejudging the outcome of a rulemaking that we 24 haven't yet done. And arguably -- not only do I think 25 that's not really very good policy even though, you know, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234599 1 we can come as close as we can to making a commitment that 2 we're going to get those tons. But to say we are going to 3 get them from this particular rule by this particular time 4 would completely eliminate the whole rulemaking process 5 that we have to go through on the truck rule. 6 It would mean we were not listening to the 7 public, we weren't going through the whole Administrative 8 Procedure Act that state law requires of us. It puts us 9 in a position where we're either violating our own state 10 law and administrative procedures or we're at least coming 11 close to being in trouble with the Clean Air Act. 12 And that's where we're being put into this 13 difficult position, because understandably the community 14 wants a guarantee, they want a commitment that they can 15 hold us to and sue us if we don't do it on time. I 16 completely understand why they'd want that in their 17 position. I would want it too. But at the same time we 18 at the Air Board have this obligation to go through a 19 deliberative process and come up with a rule. 20 So I think it's a good thing to have this 21 discussion now. 22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: If I could just interject 23 here. 24 From a policy perspective -- I think this is sort 25 of a quandary in the world of SIPs, right, in the plan PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345100 1 here. But from a policy perspective, we are -- well, 2 first of all, we're obligated under the SIP. Perhaps if 3 we don't reach the tonnage reduction on the truck rule, we 4 have to go someplace else. So we are obligated on an 5 overall assignment for tonnage reduction. Then from a 6 policy perspective, I think we need to meet as stringent 7 of a rule as possible. And I would just suggest to the 8 advocates that are here today, we're going to need help on 9 that rule. They'll be putting pressure so that we adopt 10 as stringent of a rule as possible. Because if we don't 11 meet the tonnage reduction under the on-road rule, we're 12 going to have to find it someplace else. 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That's very true. 14 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Tim's been listening to 15 this discussion. Are you more happy at the end of the 16 discussion or do you still have -- 17 (Laughter.) 18 MR. CARMICHAEL: Well, I noticed that I had 28 19 seconds left on the clock. And I was wondering if I might 20 use a fraction of those just to add a couple quick points. 21 Chairman Nichols' point the way she framed it 22 sounds very reasonable. But I also want to remind the 23 Board that the Clean Air Act actually envisions SIPs 24 including only all adopted measures. So the fact that EPA 25 over the years has let states like California slide and, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345101 1 quote-unquote, submit and approve committal SIPs as 2 opposed to what the Clean Air Act calls for is a plan that 3 includes only adopted measures. It is important context 4 when you're thinking about the challenge that Chairman 5 Nichols identified for the Board this year. 6 Two other quick points. I don't want the Board 7 to get hung up on this language of contingency measures. 8 What we're talking about is a real contingency. We don't 9 want to rely so heavily -- we don't want the Valley to 10 have to rely so heavily on one measure to achieve so many 11 tons in 2014. So given that, we're advocating for trying 12 to get more reductions from other measures sooner so we're 13 less dependent, if you will, on that one measure. 14 And, finally, I assure you, Board Member D'Adamo, 15 that many advocates will be with the Board this year 16 pushing at every turn for the strongest truck rule 17 possible. I can guaranty that. 18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 19 DR. BALMES. 20 BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Well, you know, maybe I'm 21 just a simple city doctor here lost in the country. But 22 can somebody actually list the contingency measures that 23 are there, so I have some sense of, you know, what our 24 commitment is already and whether we should have more. 25 Because throwing around contingency measures doesn't help PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345102 1 me. I need sort of specifics. 2 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And, Madam Chair, I mean to 3 your point, Dr. Balmes, it's my understanding that we have 4 a cushion, if you will, which I think is a much better 5 terminology, of about 1 percent on the PM and about 3 6 percent on the NOx. That is kind of the cushion we're 7 working on -- 8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: In terms of -- 9 BOARD MEMBER BERG: -- that they are calling a 10 contingency. But what I'm hearing from Mr. Carmichael is 11 we would like additional true contingencies, that if we 12 can't get X, we can then count on Y, so that it tightens 13 up. That's what I'm hearing. 14 I just want to make sure that we're talking 15 apples to apples. 16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I think the staff has 17 reviewed some of the suggestions that were coming from 18 community groups at earlier hearings, and has looked at 19 what other measures might be included on that list that 20 are things that are already basically in front of the 21 District. I mean they're not measures that we would be 22 inventing here but are measures that have already been at 23 least discussed and maybe even in the works. And we could 24 do that now. Or, again, we could probably just let the 25 witnesses speak and then kind of bring it back to that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345103 1 Thank you very much. 2 Okay. Sarah Jackson and then Catherine Garoupa. 3 MS. JACKSON: Good morning. My name is Sarah 4 Jackson. And it's actually kind of fortuitous. I was 5 going to speak about contingency measures too. 6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Perfect timing. 7 MS. JACKSON: I'll try not to add anything that's 8 already been said. 9 And actually before we start, I did want to 10 address, Chair Nichols, the concerns you had about kind of 11 the pull between the policy and the reality based on the 12 truck rule. And I think that I'd like to throw out this 13 third option, which is that the Board could commit to a 14 certain number of tons, and the plan in the future can be 15 amended in case ultimately the truck rule doesn't come 16 through. Which we really hope it will come through and 17 we're going to be there to fight. But I think that the 18 concern that if it doesn't, you'll be held to a number 19 that isn't possible could be alleviated through amendments 20 that find the same number of reductions elsewhere. That's 21 just a third option for you. 22 And I was going to speak about contingency 23 measures because I think we do feel a strong concern that 24 this plan might not be getting us where we need to be. 25 I've given you a chart, I think. Did it go around? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345104 1 But I don't like to dwell on the past too much. 2 But this chart kind of gives us some background as to why 3 we as advocates are so concerned about what we feel is a 4 lack of real contingency measures in this plan. And that 5 is that there is a long history of things not working out 6 in the Valley and air not getting clean as quickly as it 7 should. And Dr. John Telles, who couldn't be with us 8 today, expressed very serious concerns over the lack of 9 what he felt were good backstop measures to protect the 10 people of the Valley in the case of a failure to make the 11 RFP milestones or the failure to ultimately make 12 attainment in 2014. And I think that that was one of the 13 things that led him to vote no on this plan. 14 And I think that we have and will present a 15 number of options for strengthening this plan. We feel 16 they're all very reasonable options and that they should 17 be made, as Tim Carmichael said, parts of this plan that 18 will help us have a real cushion in case things don't work 19 out. 20 But because we feel that this plan does lack 21 actual backstop measures and doesn't have that safety net 22 that we all really want for the Valley, we hope that we 23 can get real contingency measures put into this plan that 24 will help protect from the shortfalls that we're all, all 25 of us, working so hard to avoid. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345105 1 One example of a contingency measure that I think 2 that we'd all like to see is something that the South 3 Coast has also proposed and, that is, potentially having 4 restricted construction activities during bad air days. 5 And this is of course only if it is ultimately needed 6 because failures have occurred and progress from the 7 reasonable measures that we hope will be in the plan and 8 that if the progress that the plan achieves just doesn't 9 get us where we need to go. 10 So we encourage you to take a look at the 11 potential and the opportunity that contingency measures 12 provide to give the Valley and the people who live here 13 and breathe here the protection they need. 14 Thank you very much. 15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I have a question -- 17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes. 18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: -- of Sarah. 19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Sarah, question. 20 MS. JACKSON: Yes, I'm sorry. 21 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I was just hoping we'd get 22 a list so -- maybe there are other -- 23 MS. JACKSON: A list of -- 24 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: -- a list of contingency 25 measures that you recommend. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345106 1 MS. JACKSON: Okay. I think we can put that 2 together. I'm not sure I have it on me right now. 3 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: I also have a 4 question. Because we do have the comments provided by 5 basically ISSRC report which walks through boilers, 6 dryers, glass furnaces, et cetera. And so my question -- 7 if that list hasn't changed, we do have that list. 8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Do you support that list, 9 the ISSR -- 10 MS. JACKSON: Well, I think that -- that list is 11 the list that we believe are measures that should be in 12 the plan as committal measures. And that's sort of where 13 we stand based on our fear that RFP isn't where it should 14 be and that attainment may not be where it should be. I 15 think that if all of those issues were to be resolved, if 16 we felt that attainment is demonstrated and we're not 17 going to be worrying about getting there with the rules 18 that are already in there right now, that having answered 19 all those questions, those would be great contingency 20 measures. 21 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Could we get a copy of 22 that report? I don't think we have it. 23 MS. JACKSON: It was submitted yesterday, I 24 believe. 25 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: If the comments PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345107 1 are not in your package -- I'm not sure that they were 2 formerly submitted, but we have them, so we'll have them 3 so you can get them. 4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, they are signed up to 5 testify later. So maybe they can provide it when they 6 come to testify. 7 It's a little frustrating for our staff, and I 8 really would appreciate if people would not keep coming 9 forward and trying to readjust their place in the queue. 10 But, you know, we do have now one person who's saying that 11 he has to leave. And so I'm going to ask Ms. Garoupa if 12 she is willing to have Jim Quan go ahead of her. Are you. 13 All right. Jim Quan. 14 But please try to keep this down. It's just too 15 confusing. 16 BOARD MEMBER HILL: Madam Chair? 17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes. 18 BOARD MEMBER HILL: At the end when we have our 19 discussions, perhaps Ms. Terry could put together those 20 contingency items and then we could discuss them and see 21 how -- 22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes. I think it's clear 23 the Board wants to have a list to look at here. 24 BOARD MEMBER HILL: That would be great. Thank 25 you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345108 1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 2 MR. QUAN: I apologize for cutting in line. 3 But I want to welcome the Board to Fresno. 4 I'm really here to talk about not so much policy 5 but some potential solutions. A lot of times the 6 discussion of policy is all consuming and it puts blinders 7 on the folks that are developing that policy. 8 So my company is in the energy development 9 business, and we've been developing projects since 1984. 10 We permit and operate emission sources that operate 24/7. 11 We have Ford compliance consulting group and we study and 12 research how to provide lower emissions resources so that 13 they can continue to operate and meet new rules and new 14 reductions in the future. 15 We have a group of engines -- I can't see the -- 16 oh, there. 17 We have a group of engines that produce very low 18 levels of emissions. They're available now. They run on 19 natural gas and propane. There's a wide range of horse 20 power available. They're cost competitive with Tier 3 21 engines. 22 The emissions reductions are dramatic based on 23 the existing Rule 4702. And their emissions capabilities 24 on a per engine basis, we're talking about more than three 25 tons of NOx annually, more than three tons of PM10 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345109 1 annually on a per engine basis. 2 I think that just some key things I'd like to 3 say. It would be nice if we could feel verify engines. 4 It would enable us to bring more solutions to the table 5 quicker. That if incentives were tied to actual emissions 6 reductions, the greater the reduction, the greater the 7 incentive. 8 The RCs help to privately fund these types of 9 projects and continues with the momentum in sort of real 10 world emission reductions. 11 Third party ownership of these engine resources 12 would help people who are facing new rules and 13 regulations, to manage them through a third party, where a 14 third party would come in and own and operate the engines, 15 manage all the permit conditions. It's something like a 16 brake horsepower per hour agreement, where the farm or 17 ranch would pay for the engine on a take or pay -- say 18 they need a thousand horsepower a year. We would come in 19 and supply the engines. 20 A pilot program. It would be nice to put 21 something in place that could actually verify these actual 22 emissions, place three or four of these engines and keep 23 track of them for a year and verify that they do in fact 24 provide these kinds of reductions. 25 And last but not least, that it would be nice to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345110 1 be able to create some sort of regulatory bridge that 2 everybody who's faced these rules has a chance to cross, 3 to get everybody moving in the right direction. 4 Thank you very much for your time. 5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. 6 Now Catherine Garoupa, followed by Ed Bruno. 7 MS. GAROUPA: Good morning. Catherine Garoupa 8 with the Madera Coalition for Community Justice. 9 For those of you unfamiliar with the Valley 10 geography, Madera county is located just to our north. 11 And development there has clustered along our major 12 transportation corridors, which is typical. But this 13 raises serious concerns about our population's continual 14 exposure to concentrated emissions of particulate matter 15 that occur in a near-highway environment. 16 Even if the current plan brings our region into 17 attainment, pricing questions remain about those 18 populations situated near freeways, a concern shared by 19 our representative, Dr. Telles. Your staff's report 20 earlier heightens these concerns as we better understand 21 the severity of these impacts. 22 I personally can speak to the health impacts 23 because I grew up within eyesight of Highway 99, one of 24 the thousands of needless additional cases of chronic 25 bronchitis that occur each year. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345111 1 Then there are environmental justice communities 2 like Fairmead, an unincorporated area caught between the 3 burgeoning cities of Madera and Chowchilla, which is 4 situated directly next to Highway 99 and the Highway 152 5 interchange, which is currently being expanded. Not to 6 mention numerous other sources nearby such as the railroad 7 that runs parallel to the freeway. 8 There's growing evidence of elevated levels of 9 ultrafine particles, black carbon, oxides of nitrogen, and 10 carbon monoxide near freeways. Taken as a whole, health 11 studies show elevated risk for development of asthma and 12 reduced lung function in children who live near major 13 highways. And CARB's staff report earlier again found 14 that Californians exposed to high levels of fine 15 particulates had their lives cut short on average by 16 ten years, which is incredibly shocking. 17 Furthermore, there is a lack of adequate monitors 18 in the Valley, and Madera is a perfect example. Our 19 monitor lies on the border with Fresno County, very far 20 from where our population actually lives and breathes. 21 Without accurate data on the types and levels of emissions 22 that residents are breathing, there is considerable 23 concern over the PM2.5 SIP as it currently is and it's 24 contingency measures. 25 This plan must be as strong and health protective PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345112 1 as possible to ensure that communities bearing the brunt 2 of deadly soot emissions will also reach attainment of 3 health standards by 2014 in addition to the region. 4 We are encouraged by improvements in air quality. 5 And yet since 2002, of 174 tons of pollution per day 6 removed from the Valley air basin, 111 of those tons is 7 due to lawsuits and legislation. This fact does not boost 8 confidence in this cleanup plan and its back-up measures. 9 I urge you on behalf of thousands of Madera 10 County residents and hundreds of thousands of Valley 11 residents living near freeways, who couldn't be here today 12 for various reasons, to strengthen the plan by adding 13 concrete commitments and control measures that will get us 14 to clean air faster. 15 Thank you. 16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Thank you. 17 Next we'll call Ed Bruno. 18 Ed Bruno. 19 Okay. Laura Fultz. 20 MS. FULTZ: Good morning, Board and staff. My 21 name's Laura Fultz. I represent as a breather here in the 22 Valley and I work for Coalition for Clean Air, a statewide 23 organization advocating for clean air all throughout 24 California and today specifically here in the San Joaquin 25 Valley. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345113 1 Considering the severity of the air pollution 2 crisis in this valley, we strongly believe the region 3 deserves an aggressive cleanup plan. 4 We're not alone. Of course you've heard over and 5 over again three out of the eleven voting Air District 6 members voted against this plan, and specifically are 7 newly appointed doctor. And I for one trust these three 8 to help protect us in this Valley. 9 And just this -- the actual quote that Dr. Telles 10 gave is: "Is there a possibility this plan may fail?" 11 And then if -- and he was told yes. And so he said, "We 12 need more contingency measures in case that happens." 13 So, additionally, firm emission reductions are 14 needed in this plan. This will assist community and 15 industry to plan for the future, to prepare for those 16 reductions, with change in behavior with our wood burning, 17 and also shift to cleaner technologies in our industry. 18 And they need to prepare just like us community members. 19 And we need to highlight and affirm and copy those clean 20 businesses and individuals. 21 Thank you. 22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: All right. Thank you. 23 Ingrid Carmean. And after Ingrid we have Melissa 24 Kelly-Ortega. 25 MS. CARMEAN: Hi. My name's Ingrid Carmean. I'm PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345114 1 the owner-operator of a pest control company. 2 Less pesticides means less VOCs, which contribute 3 to PM2.5s. This is why I use a method of pest control 4 called Integrated Pest Management, a long-term 5 preventative approach to managing pests that can combine 6 four methods of control: 7 Biological. Glibly, one creature eating another. 8 Cultural. Like sanitation, cleaning up a 9 chocolate, or throwing out their trash. 10 Physical. Stepping on the bugs, using snap 11 traps, or sealing up cracks that the bugs can enter your 12 house through. 13 And chemical. IPM involves a decision-making 14 process based on pest identification and population 15 monitoring, action thresholds, and knowledge of pest 16 biology. Pesticides are used judiciously and only as the 17 last resort. 18 There are many advantages of IPM, from having 19 more tools to leaving an environment which is less toxic 20 for the occupants. But what we are concerned with here is 21 using less pesticides, which means less VOCs and less 22 PM2.5s. 23 When I control ants, I usually use baits in bait 24 stations. When baits are in bait stations, the amount of 25 pesticide that actually is released into the environment PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345115 1 is only the amount that the ant can consume, which is a 2 big contrast to somebody else who's just spraying the 3 perimeter of the house, the eaves of the house, around the 4 windows, and up and down the walkways. 5 And so this is one example of how I perform my 6 work to improve the air pollution problems in the Valley. 7 Also, when I purchased a small truck a couple of 8 years ago, I purposely purchased the truck that produced 9 the lowest amount of pollutants. I'm doing what I can to 10 make this Valley a better place to live and I hope you 11 will too. 12 Thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 14 Melissa Kelly-Ortega, followed by Mary-Michael 15 Rawling. 16 MS. KELLY-ORTEGA: Good morning, Madam Chair and 17 members of the Board. My name is Melissa Kelly-Ortega. 18 I'm the program associate with the Merced/Mariposa County 19 Asthma Coalition; and a mother of three children, two of 20 which, my daughters, have asthma. 21 Both of my daughters have their asthma under 22 control now. But there are many asthmatics who cannot 23 control their asthma, and breathing polluted air, as you 24 know, not only exacerbates asthma attacks but actually 25 kills. So any delay in PM2.5 attainment means another PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345116 1 death. We see many people suffering due to asthma in our 2 personal and professional lives. I've told stories about 3 young people dying from asthma. 4 This morning I learned that Ms. Lupe Ordunez, my 5 daughter's preschool teacher, who struggled a lot this 6 last winter, has for the past three days awakened at 4 7 a.m. unable to breathe. She does not have insurance. She 8 cannot afford the $120 every month to purchase her Advair, 9 which is her controller medication. We've made a few 10 calls, and she will be taking tomorrow off to see if she 11 will be able to get into a program that will help pay for 12 that cost. 13 We're working very hard to find solutions and to 14 educate people on how to control their asthma. 15 We all agree it is a fundamental human and moral 16 right to breathe clean air. I want to keep the pressure 17 on the heavy-duty diesel truck rule and keeping it as 18 stringent as possible, because we do need a very strong 19 diesel rule to meet the PM2.5 attainment in the Valley. 20 Family and friends of those with respiratory 21 illnesses are asking you to make some changes in this SIP. 22 Either send the plan back to the District with the 23 specific guidelines that will make it more substantial or 24 amend it yourselves. You will be saving lives, and that 25 is an awesome and amazing responsibility. And we thank PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345117 1 you because we think you will be doing that. 2 Many of us were here on December 18th asking the 3 District to do more with this plan. We were here on April 4 30th, and throughout the process, while there were some 5 minimal changes, it's still disappointing that we're not 6 seeing more commitments in the District's own backyard. I 7 wish we had as many decision makers, local and state 8 legislators, as we saw in Sacramento not long ago when the 9 topic was on money. If we had as many passionate and 10 political -- if we had as much passion and political will 11 when it comes to rulemaking and regulations, my youngest 12 daughter may not have had her first full blown asthma 13 attack on Christmas morning - the Christmas fireplaces. 14 While we are not all air quality scientists, we 15 know firsthand the effects of breathing polluted air. 16 Many of us are parents, friends, and family members of 17 those who have asthma. We're here to remind you that 18 people are dying. You know that all too well. We're here 19 to show our commitment to breathing clean air; to thank 20 CARB and the District for the steps that have been taken 21 that will actually clean the air; but, more importantly, 22 to let you know that we will continue to expect much more 23 from all agencies that protect public health. 24 Thank you very much. 25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345118 1 Ms. Rawling, followed by Bonnie Holmes-Gen. 2 MS. RAWLING: Good morning, Madam Chair and Board 3 members. My name is Mary-Michael Rawling. I'm the 4 Program Manager of the Merced/Mariposa County Asthma 5 Coalition, also the wife of an asthmatic. So I have a 6 professional and personal stake in this, as so many people 7 in the room here today. 8 Welcome to a windy San Joaquin Valley this 9 morning, where you can see firsthand the tremendous 10 challenge we face when it comes to cleaning up particulate 11 matter. Despite a haze that's blanketing us this morning, 12 I saw at least a couple of tractors plowing fields and one 13 burning site just in the one hour coming down from Merced. 14 We certainly have a lot of work to do and we need a plan 15 robust enough to do it. 16 There's nothing I can really tell you this 17 morning about the urgency of our health crisis in the 18 valley that you didn't already hear today from your own 19 staff's research project and others that have testified 20 this morning. 21 I hope you all know as well that May has World 22 Asthma Day. It's Asthma Awareness Month. Billboards and 23 newspapers throughout Sacramento have been running this ad 24 today -- or throughout the month to remind people about 25 how prevalent asthma is in the State of California. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345119 1 Also, asthma coalitions throughout the state have 2 been busy putting together report cards of asthma in their 3 communities. These are the people that are on the ground 4 that see the daily suffering; the asthma attacks; the 5 chronic coughs; and, unfortunately, the deaths, including 6 moms leaving children behind, as we saw in Merced County, 7 and at least two of them last year. These reports span 8 California from San Diego to Sonoma and everywhere in 9 between, including in the San Joaquin Valley. And they 10 say the same thing - that strong air quality measures need 11 to be put in place and adhered to in order to prevent 12 asthma morbidity and mortality. 13 They also say that certain communities suffer 14 disproportionately. For example, some counties in the 15 Valley suffer one in six, like the state average, they 16 suffer one in four children, they suffer one in three 17 children that have asthma. 18 So I encourage you today to take a step back and 19 reevaluate the plan that's in front of you and ask if it's 20 the best we can do to meet an already outdated standard. 21 We're going to have to go and push much further in the 22 future. And we need to take a good strong step in the 23 plan before you today. 24 Thank you very much for taking the time to listen 25 to our requests. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345120 1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 2 Bonnie Holmes-Gen, followed by Nichole Davis. 3 MS. HOLMES-GEN: Good morning, Chairman Nichols 4 and Board members. I'm Bonnie Holmes-Gen with the 5 American Lung Association of California. I'm pleased to 6 join you. 7 And we want to certainly indicate that we 8 appreciate the amount of work that the Board and the San 9 Joaquin Valley staff have put into developing the plan and 10 the public outreach and involvement. But we do want to 11 express that the Lung Association is concerned about the 12 serious public health problems of particulate matter and 13 the fact that we can possibly do more to strengthen this 14 plan. 15 We are concerned that -- we think the Board needs 16 to take a very cautious approach here, given the serious 17 pollution problems and the asthma problems especially in 18 the Valley. We've talked about the high rate of asthma 19 among children in the Valley. And not only do one in five 20 children have asthma, but one in three families have a 21 member with a respiratory ailment, and we're extremely 22 concerned about the implications of this. 23 And I think the importance of the Board taking a 24 cautious us here is especially important in light of the 25 information that's been presented today about the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345121 1 premature deaths that are occurring well below the state's 2 even more health protective standard of 12 micrograms per 3 cubic meter. So while this plan that we're talking about 4 today is to reached the federal standard of 15 micrograms, 5 we already have a state standard that's more health 6 protective. And our researchers today are saying that 7 even at the state's more protective standard, we're still 8 having a major concern about premature deaths from 9 particulate pollution. 10 So we believe that -- there have been some 11 additional measures that have been presented to the Board 12 from some of the Valley groups, and you've been talking 13 about those today, some of the contingency measures and 14 measures to strengthen the plan. And we think these 15 measures deserve some careful consideration for inclusion 16 in the plan or at least as contingency measures. 17 And, you know, I know that all of you are 18 concerned about acting in the best interests of air 19 quality and public health here. And we believe that in 20 this case that means taking more time here to review some 21 additional tons that we can get to provide a more adequate 22 margin of safety and to look at where we can strengthen 23 especially the contingency component of the plan. I mean 24 it's clear that there are measures that are currently 25 under the San Joaquin Valley's jurisdiction that could be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345122 1 strengthened. And your staff report indicates that there 2 are measures in the plan that could be strengthened to 3 achieve additional emission reductions if they are 4 strengthened to meet the standards that have been adopted 5 in some air districts around the state, namely the South 6 Coast Air District. 7 So I think that there are some specific examples. 8 I know other colleagues are going to be presenting some of 9 those specific examples of measures that could be adopted. 10 And we think that would be a reasonable approach in light 11 of the public health crisis in the Valley. 12 Thank you for your attention. 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 14 Nichole Davis. And then we're going to go to 15 some people who are at the location in Bakersfield. 16 Nichole Davis. 17 MS. DAVIS: Hi. My name's Nichole Davis. I am 18 with ISSRC. ISSRC was hired on behalf of the public to 19 conducted an independent technical analysis of this plan 20 as well as identity any opportunities that may exist to 21 strengthen the plan. 22 We are happy to come here today reporting that we 23 have received help from ARB staff on the technical 24 analysis of the plan. And the data we will present today 25 has been verified as accurate by the ARB staff. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345123 1 We have concluded that there are three areas of 2 the plan that could be improved: 3 First, the maintenance of reasonable further 4 progress, or RFP. 5 Second, the demonstration of attainment of the 6 standard. 7 And, third, the inclusion of additional 8 contingency measures. 9 I will focus on the reasonable further progress, 10 as I believe that it's one of the most compelling reasons 11 for including additional measures in the 2009 to 2012 time 12 frame. 13 RFP is required to show progress is being made 14 throughout the entire period of the plan, to both realize 15 improved public health early on as well as identify 16 situations where plan reductions are not being achieved 17 and contingency measures need to be kicked in to ensure we 18 stay on track towards attainment. The EPA rule states 19 that you can calculate general linear progress by ensuring 20 the plan meets milestones. These milestones are at 2009 21 and 2012. 22 I had a graph to show. 23 Oh, great. 24 The green triangles are the milestones, as 25 defined by EPA. The blue line is the current plan that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345124 1 you're looking at today. The red X's are the base-line 2 case. And this represents what happened if no plan was 3 adopted. 4 You can see the new plan looks very similar to 5 the base-line case, until it drops steeply in 2013 where 6 90 percent, or approximately, of the new reductions are 7 achieved. 8 The main takeaway point of this graph shows that 9 RFP milestones are failing to be met in 2009 and 2012 - 10 specifically by 47 tons per day in 2009 and 60 tons per 11 day in 2012. To put this into context, 60 tons per day is 12 equivalent to more than 20 percent of the overall 13 reductions needed in NOx from 2005 to 2014. It's also 14 equivalent to approximately two years of linear progress 15 of the plan. 16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Your time is up. 17 Is that okay? I mean can you finish your point 18 here? You have a graph. 19 MS. DAVIS: Well, I guess I'm finished enough. 20 Although to say that we think we have identified 21 additional opportunities that could be included as control 22 measures, mostly from the stationary source sector, that 23 would address these specific milestones in 2009 and 2012. 24 Okay. Thank you. 25 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Madam Chair, could I ask PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345125 1 what ISSRC is? 2 MS. DAVIS: It's called International Sustainable 3 Systems Research. Jim Lintz is the founder. We're 4 located in Diamond Bar. 5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 6 This may be a good time -- I don't want to, you 7 know, get into back and forthing on too much of this 8 stuff. But on the issue of reasonable further progress 9 and what the line is supposed to look like for reasonable 10 further progress, it might be a good opportunity to at 11 least again have some basic explanation here of what the 12 requirement is for demonstrating reasonable further 13 progress in a plan, especially a PM2.5 plan, because this 14 is an area where EPA gives very specific technical 15 guidance as to what we're supposed to show. 16 Any normal human being would think they 17 understood the term "reasonable further progress." But, 18 no, we have to have an actual definition. 19 So, again, let's turn to Lynn Terry for an expert 20 explanation here. 21 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: I love to try to 22 explain what EPA is requiring. 23 (Laughter.) 24 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Such a pleasure. 25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, they're not here to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345126 1 explain it for themselves. 2 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: That's right. 3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: So you have to do it for 4 them. 5 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: EPA adopted an 6 implementation rule that lays out a calculation process 7 that must be done as part of the demonstration of 8 reasonable further progress. And that is the line that 9 Nichole indicated as RFP requirement. 10 In terms of the calculation, we did sit down, our 11 technical staff, with ISSRC. And so we are in agreement 12 about how to calculate that line that's required to be 13 included in the plan for comparative purposes. Now, 14 that's step one. 15 Step two is then to look at the progress that 16 will be achieved between the start year of the plan and 17 then the ultimate attainment year. And as long as the 18 progress is consistent with a generally linear progress, 19 then that meets the federal requirement. It is not 20 required to exactly match that sort of benchmark line that 21 is calculated. That is required to be there for 22 comparative purposes. And so in our staff's presentation, 23 we had the RFP line indicated both the benchmark, sort of 24 the dots, the regression analysis approach. And we could 25 certainly pull that slide up to look at the two of them PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345127 1 side by side and see how that process works. 2 But it's essentially a two-step process. Here's 3 the line you must, you know, be generally consistent with. 4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I guess the concern here, 5 and this gets back really to Dr. Sperling's question, has 6 to do with the impact of shorter term, you know, one-year 7 excursions, if you will, above the line as opposed to, you 8 know, sort of trying to maintain steady progress from 9 point A to point B, from where we are now to the point of 10 attainment, and how worried one should be about any 11 individual year in which, you know, the two lines are not 12 exactly matching up with each other. And, again, I guess 13 we don't really have a health-based answer to that, 14 because we're concerned about both, right? 15 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Could I just add 16 one -- 17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Just identifying the 18 problem here. 19 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Yeah. And one 20 clarification is that on the progress issue, the progress 21 under the Clean Air Act for the milestone years prior to 22 attainment is defined in terms of emission reductions. 23 When you get to attainment, it's defined by the actual 24 measured air quality. So I think that's something that's 25 important -- an important distinction to make. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345128 1 So that calculated line is the rate of emission 2 reductions. And certainly it's very true with variability 3 and meteorology that even with the same emission level you 4 could have different ambient levels. 5 But the interesting thing about 2.5, it is the 6 pollutant we are seeing the most consistent downward trend 7 in measured levels. And that is very positive. And the 8 secondary formation of ammonium nitrate in our strong NOx 9 control program we believe is really paying off statewide 10 very uniformly, unlike any other pollutant. So that's a 11 piece of information that we talked about in the staff 12 report as well. 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 14 All right. We're now going to turn to people who 15 have signed up to testify from the Bakersfield location. 16 This is a new thing for me. So I hope it will work. 17 But the names that I have from Bakersfield are 18 Linda Mackay, Arthur Unger, and John Digges. I hope I'm 19 pronouncing your names correctly. And if you'll just come 20 forward. And I guess the timer will work there also. 21 MS. MACKAY: Good morning. 22 Should I begin? 23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes, please do. 24 MS. MACKAY: Okay. Good morning. My name is 25 Linda Mackay and I live in the very south end of the San PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345129 1 Joaquin Valley in an air district in Lebec. It's along 2 Interstate 5, part of the grapevine communities. I sit on 3 the mountain communities' town council and I'm part of a 4 local environmental organization called the Tri-County 5 Watchdogs. 6 Our mountain communities often feel ignored by 7 the San Joaquin Valley Air District because we're not in 8 the Valley. But we're being impacted by the pollution of 9 the Valley, and we are part of the District. 10 If I come across angry today, you'll have to 11 forgive me. It's because I'm just an ordinary person 12 who's on the ground, living on the front lines, and I've 13 had to teach myself about air pollution. And the more I 14 learn, the more frustrated I get about who has the 15 authority to protect me and my family from the pollution 16 we breathe. 17 I'm frustrated because I pointed out at the Air 18 District hearing on this plan that I didn't see how the 19 District could come up with a good plan when they don't 20 have an accurate picture of PM2.5 within the entire 21 District, because they don't have PM2.5 monitors south of 22 Bakersfield. Again, we don't count. 23 District Board Member Judy Case made a comment, 24 assuming I was wrong, in mentioning she knew there was a 25 monitor in Arvin. District staff didn't correct her and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345130 1 explained that the monitor that the District has in Arvin 2 is measuring Arvin's infamous ozone. But the District is 3 not measuring PM2.5 in Arvin or anywhere else south of 4 Bakersfield. 5 The mountain communities have asked for a 6 monitor, but the District doesn't see the justification. 7 They talk a lot about models and projections though. 8 You, CARB, placed a mobile air monitor for one 9 year, from 2006 to 2007, in Lebec. We do thank you for 10 that. That monitor definitely showed the ozone for that 11 time period was worse than downtown L.A. or parts of San 12 Fernando Valley. But your agency said for PM2.5 we didn't 13 have a problem because that gave -- what gave us high 14 numbers were the wildfires in our region. Well, after 15 teaching myself how to interpret and convert the data we 16 got from the monitor into something understandable, I know 17 there were at least two time periods during that year when 18 the PM2.5 measured unhealthy and there weren't wildfires. 19 But that was ignored. 20 I'm not a scientist, but I know that the high PM 21 numbers associated with wildfires should be thrown out, 22 not used to say we don't have a problem. One year is not 23 enough time to give an accurate picture of what is really 24 happening in our region. 25 This plan we're discussing today is too dependent PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345131 1 on your agency's upcoming diesel rule to cut PM2.5. There 2 again, that frustrates me because I'm familiar again 3 firsthand with the regulation your agency came up with at 4 the first of the year, the five-minute idling law, that I 5 know isn't being enforced. We have a major truck stop in 6 Lebec that has many, many diesel trucks idling every night 7 for hours, because there is no electric plug-ins at the 8 truck stop. 9 But you don't have the people to enforce the 10 idling law. And the CHP has flat out told me they're not 11 going to enforce it. 12 But I wonder if CARB is counting the reductions 13 from this new idling law. That's a good question for me. 14 Does it make everything look better on paper, is that what 15 it's all about? This PM2.5 plan does not have the 16 District controlling VOCs enough, and the District's staff 17 mutter something about not having to have reductions in 18 VOCs in this plan because they sort of regulate VOCs in 19 the ozone SIP. And even though ammonia contributes to -- 20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Excuse me. I'm sorry. I 21 need to interrupt you. Because you can't see the monitor 22 that I can see. And your time is expired. So if you 23 could just please summarize the remainder of your 24 testimony, I'd appreciate it. 25 MS. MACKAY: Okay. I think the Air District is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345132 1 hesitant to clean up -- clamp down on industry and the Big 2 Ag to make sure that they are doing everything they can to 3 reduce fine particulate matter, because industry and Big 4 Ag are pressuring the District not to hurt them 5 financially. Well, lung and heart disease and premature 6 deaths hurt all of us financially. And of course in the 7 bigger picture, bigger ways that are more tragic that 8 can't be measured. 9 There's more that the Air District can do within 10 this plan to protect me and my family and my community. 11 Please require them to do it. Let's not shovel papers and 12 pretend we're doing something. Let's actually do 13 something. 14 Thank you. 15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much. 16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Madam Chair? 17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes. 18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I would just like to thank 19 the witness for the testimony. And also ask if staff 20 could follow up on the enforcement issue regarding that 21 truck stop. 22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes. We'd like to hear 23 back on that particular issue as to what's going on. 24 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I'll 25 give you just a real quick summary. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345133 1 We are out enforcing at the truck stops now. 2 Obviously we don't have resources to be at all of them. 3 But we are entering into an agreement with the San Joaquin 4 Valley District for them to help us expand and do more. 5 And so I think Lebec will be on the list here pretty soon. 6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes, thank you for bringing 7 that one to your attention. I really appreciate it. And 8 we will also think about and talk about the other points 9 you made as well. 10 Okay. Arthur Unger and then John Digges. 11 And, again, as soon as you begin speaking the 12 three minute clock will start ticking. 13 MR. UNGER: Author Unger, Sierra Club. I have 14 additional attainment measures. 15 Firstly, the young lady who gave the first 16 presentation, and you, the members of the Board, you come 17 in here and you hear about density. You hear about solar. 18 Usually I attend meetings of the Bakersfield City Council, 19 the Kern County Board of Supervisors, and the Air 20 District. But they don't seem to know those words, at 21 least the people on the Board doesn't. The staff may. 22 So as the lobbyists, I think you're the biggest 23 additional attainment measure I can think of. Come and 24 meet these people who okay developments with dark roofs on 25 every house, with air conditioners on the roof, never a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345134 1 trace of required photovoltaic panels. 2 The truck drivers are a big part of this problem. 3 They bought more trucks late in 2006 than they usually 4 did. And now they wonder why they -- you know, they cry 5 that they need subsidies to replace their trucks to get 6 their trucks to comply. 7 Push lawn mowers seem to go out of existence in 8 Bakersfield. Lawns ought to go out of existence if you 9 really want to save water and, thus, save pumping costs 10 and save the emissions that come from our diesel pumps. 11 The Semi-Tropic Water District down in the 12 southern Kern County has solar panels to run their pumps. 13 But that doesn't seem to be growing. 14 We don't need to burn anymore, I think. We could 15 put our cut down orchards in the trucks that are built 16 after 12-31-06. And I think we would make less 17 pollutants, and then hope staff can study this, less 18 pollutants than if we burn in the fields. 19 And crop residues is another thing we burn. But 20 with organic farming you leave those residues on the field 21 or low tillage of farming where you incorporate those 22 residues into the field rather than having to remove them 23 and burn them. We wonder how much pollution we could 24 save -- one last point -- how much pollution we could save 25 if we made less tractor passes so that we wouldn't have to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345135 1 pick up all the wastes from the fields. 2 Thank you. 3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you, Mr. Unger. 4 John Digges. 5 MR. DIGGES: Good morning, Madam Chairperson and 6 members of the Council. I'm John Digges. I'm a 7 pediatrician and a member of the Advisory Council of the 8 Kern County Chapter of the American Lung Association and 9 currently the President of the Kern County Medical 10 Society. 11 We paid a lot of attention to the costs of 12 reaching attainment of clean air standards. But as a 13 physician, I wonder about the costs of nonattainment, 14 particularly in terms of health care. 15 There was a study done in 2006 by Jane Hawe and 16 Associates, which you're certainly familiar with, which 17 came up with an estimate of about $3.2 billion per year. 18 And they were looking at exacerbations of pulmonary and 19 cardiac conditions and circulatory conditions and 20 premature deaths. So that's a lot of money. 21 But as a pediatrician, it concerns me that it may 22 be even worse. What if some of the people whose cardiac 23 and pulmonary conditions are adversely affected by 24 pollution happen to be pregnant? What if that causes the 25 circulation of oxygen to their developing fetuses and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345136 1 their brains to be damaged? What if even in pregnant 2 women who are not having pulmonary or cardiac conditions 3 but are breathing either 2.5 or even ultrafine particles, 4 which can act as neurotoxins directly into the blood and 5 brain tissue, what if those neurotoxins are causing brain 6 tissue to become injured and to develop less than it 7 otherwise would have? We may be raising entire 8 generations of children whose brains will not be able to 9 perform as well as they might have had we recognized this 10 and acted sooner. 11 So my concern is that if it -- obviously more 12 research is needed. But if it turns out that particulate 13 matter is indeed a significant neurotoxin for a developing 14 brain, and not just for fetuses but also for developing 15 brain in infants and toddlers, then we may actually dwarf 16 the $3.2 billion cost in terms of the costs that society 17 would incur. 18 Thank you. 19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Thanks for 20 taking the time to come and testify also. 21 I believe that concludes the witnesses in the 22 Bakersfield location. And if there are no others, we're 23 going to resume hearing from people who are here in 24 Fresno. 25 Then we'll move back here. And our next witness PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345137 1 is Alvin Valeriano, followed by Nancy Ellis. 2 MR. VALERIANO: Thank you very much for this 3 opportunity to participate in a democratic process that 4 we're having right now. 5 I have only three minutes and I have a lot to 6 cover, so please stay with me. 7 The first document is this. It lists the 8 requirements of the federal Clean Air Act vis-a-vis the 9 PM2.5 1997 standard. The ones that are underlined are 10 those that we believe where this plan falls terribly 11 short, terribly bad in terms of meeting these 12 requirements. 13 In a nutshell, the way I've seen the plan made is 14 that these requirements are being treated like 15 suggestions. It's kind of like in the Philippines where 16 some people consider a traffic light a suggestion -- 17 (Laughter.) 18 MR. VALERIANO: -- you know, rather than a 19 requirement to stop. But that's an issue that will be 20 dealt with in a more detailed manner I think in another 21 body. 22 Now, the second one is this. And Nichole Davis, 23 my colleague -- I'm with ISSRC also -- presented this. As 24 you can tell, there are three lines here. The top line, 25 which is the straightest, is the base-line inventory. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345138 1 That is, without doing this plan, that will happen. 2 The second line below that is what this plan will 3 do. As you can see, up to 2014 the two lines are 4 practically similar. This is being interpreted now by ARB 5 staff following the example of the District as reasonable 6 further progress. 7 The line below that, which has the big gap, is 8 what the federal implementation rule says how RFP should 9 be demonstrated. ARB staff does not dispute how this line 10 should be constructed. But they are saying that they are 11 interpreting progress in a different way than what the 12 implementation rule requires. To me, this is a very 13 strong evidence that there are very serious grounds as far 14 as the approvability of this plan. 15 I have 59 seconds, so please put on the next 16 slide. 17 Okay. The next question is: Do we actually 18 attain the standard by December 5, 2015? My conclusion is 19 no. Line 1, 2014 the carrying capacity is 291.2. That's 20 what will take us to a little bit below the standard. 21 That number's 14.7 there. Look back in 2013, there's a 22 big shortfall of 93 tons per day. In 2012 there's a big 23 shortfall of 124 tons per day. Folks, 124 tons per day is 24 twice what you will get out of the truck rule. 25 Are we supposed to believe that the three-year PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345139 1 average of '12, '13, and '14 will be 15 and below? The 2 shortfalls are too huge to believe the assertion of the 3 modelers. 4 Thank you very much. I made it on time. 5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Very good. Good work. 6 Thank you. 7 Nancy Ellis, followed by Roger Isom. And then we 8 will have two more witnesses before we're done. 9 Nancy Ellis, are you here? 10 Then we'll hear from Roger Isom. 11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: You didn't actually bring a 12 statement with you -- 13 MR. ISOM: Well, there's really not a card for 14 what position we're in. 15 (Laughter.) 16 MR. ISOM: For the record, my name is Roger Isom. 17 I'm with the California Cotton Ginners and Growers 18 Associations. 19 We support the plan to the sense that we don't 20 support doing anything above and beyond the plan the way 21 it's currently written. We don't like the plan. We 22 understand why we have to go forward with the plan. And 23 we have concerns with how it is. But we've had assurances 24 from the District that they'll work with us on those 25 concerns. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345140 1 Our primary concern is with the inclusion of 2 fugitive dust. Chairman Nichols, you recalled in 1997 3 when you were at EPA. And I recall a House Ag Committee 4 hearing that I was called to testify at with Administrator 5 Browner. And at that hearing the whole issue was on 6 fugitive dust and PM2.5. And Administrator Browner made 7 the comment that EPA was not going to regulate fugitive 8 dust because with PM2.5 fugitive dust is not a concern. 9 I further that with the PM study that Dr. Velasco 10 mentioned, the California Regional Particulate Matter 11 Quality Study here in the valley that studied PM10 and 12 PM2.5. And it was obvious from those results that PM2.5 13 was from combustion and secondary particulate, ammonium 14 nitrate, ammonium sulfate. And in fact ARB made comments 15 during the workshop process that the fugitive dust portion 16 of this was about a microgram. So we're talking very 17 little impact, yet a big portion of this plan includes 18 fugitive dust. 19 The reason we're okay with it at this point is 20 the District has committed to working with us to do 21 research. Yesterday I actually met with the ARB research 22 staff on a particular proposal we're looking at measuring 23 PM2.5 from cotton gins. And so that's something we hope 24 will further that information and to make a decision down 25 the road. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345141 1 I do want to take the time though to address a 2 couple of issues that have been mentioned, and those are 3 these additional measures. You've heard from some 4 salesmen, you've heard some of the activists with regards 5 to irrigation pump engines. And I think that Dr. Sperling 6 made a comment earlier, with PM2.5 it really is seasonal. 7 So we could do all we want with irrigation pump engines, 8 but they operate during the summer. Our PM2.5 problem is 9 during the winter. So what are we going to do to get 10 that -- we're not going to do anything under this part. 11 That's not to say that we're not going to be 12 doing it, because under the ozone plan and Rule 472 -- or 13 4702, we are replacing all of our engines. And, in fact, 14 January 1st of '09 here in the valley all natural gas 15 engines, propane engines, and gasoline-fired pump engines 16 will have to be replaced or have controls put on them. In 17 January 1st, 2010, all diesel pump engines will have to be 18 replaced. So we are going down that road. 19 Above and beyond that, and not even counted in 20 the emission reductions right now, is the ag ice program 21 to convert diesel pump engines to electric. Over a 22 thousand have already been installed under that program. 23 There's over 2,000 applications that are still going 24 through the process. So a lot has been done to move down 25 that road. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345142 1 There are physical constraints, substations that 2 can't meet the load or demand. We're more than two miles 3 from poles and lines. So there are some engines that can 4 not be replaced. But we are doing that. 5 My last comment is with the truck rule that keeps 6 being brought up. We met with ARB staff last week and 7 found out that, you know, everybody wants to speed it up, 8 do it earlier. They're put there because the engines 9 won't be developed until 2010. We just found out that 10 there are some manufacturers including Cummins that aren't 11 even going to meet that mandate, they're not going to be 12 available till 2012. So it's hard to move it up when 13 we're not even going to be able to meet the deadlines that 14 are put forth already. 15 So thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I have a comment and a 18 question. 19 Just don't want it to be misconstrued on the 20 issue of fugitive dust that agriculture did not 21 participate in it in any way. It may be -- and I know 22 this is really a PM10 control strategy with the 23 conservation management plans. Could you just mention 24 that for those that are on the Board that are familiar. 25 MR. ISOM: Sure, absolutely. The District did PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345143 1 put forth a PM10 control strategy. It does conservation 2 management practices. I think the good news is on that 3 that we actually got more reductions than what the 4 District was hoping for. And despite what everybody is 5 seeing today or yesterday, those measures have been very 6 effective. And we continue to do research, in fact have a 7 current ongoing research project with the District and EPA 8 right now studying multiple practices and conservation 9 tillage on the west side. So we're still going on with 10 that. 11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Good. Thank you for adding 12 that. 13 Manuel Cunha, followed by Nidia Bautista. And 14 that concludes my list of witnesses. 15 Oh, one more card coming up. This is it though. 16 MR. CUNHA: Good morning, Madam Chair. Manuel 17 Cunha, President, Nisei Farmers League. 18 Yes, Dede, thank you very much for bringing up 19 the conservation management practices, because that was 20 just discussed here a second ago by another person from 21 Bakersfield about doing more. And we are doing a lot with 22 our conservation practices and even going beyond of what 23 is happening. 24 But first I want to acknowledge that, yes, I 25 support the plan, but I don't like it at all. Only PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345144 1 because, as you know, that agriculture in the San Joaquin 2 Valley and across the state is losing its farmland to 3 development. We know that. And we know what happened in 4 2000 to 2005 when we probably lost in a total number of 5 close to 500,000 acres went out of production and went 6 into houses and buildings and those type of things for 7 people. So that's a great concern. 8 But I do want to acknowledge the most important 9 thing that has to be brought forward with this is the 10 incentives to help our business community, including even 11 if it's the truck rule. But in agriculture, as we all 12 know, you hear it continuously, we cannot pass the cost 13 on. But we also cannot compete against foreign countries 14 that don't have any standards or anything. And when we're 15 trying to survive as an industry -- and I think we all in 16 this room agree that we need to feed the country and we 17 need to be self-supporting of our own food and not allow 18 other countries to feed us as a country. Other countries 19 rely on this country to feed others so they're not held 20 hostage to food. So we must be very careful how we deal 21 with our agriculture industry in this country. 22 But I do want to say that incentives are 23 important. And I want to acknowledge Congressman Dennis 24 Cardoza for his efforts working with the agriculture 25 community, but definitely with the U.S.D.A. Air Quality PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345145 1 Task Force that's appointed by the Congress to deal with 2 air quality across the U.S. -- his efforts in working with 3 those folks were able to secure this year in the farm 4 bill, and we hope today the Senate will approve to overrun 5 our President, who's made some booboos in trying to veto 6 it. He's not doing too good on that issue. So the Senate 7 today will win that and we will override. But in that is 8 150 million for the first time that we have it that it's 9 identified for air quality for farm machinery, 10 agricultural practices, stationary engines and those 11 things to help our farmers, as well as the incentives 12 farmer do pay under the equip program. Farmers kick in 13 50 percent of the cost. So it's not a hundred percent of 14 asking, just like Carl Moyer is not a hundred percent 15 give. Our business community does contribute. 16 So agriculture is there to continually move 17 forward in working with you as an ARB staff. I want to 18 acknowledge real fast John DaMassa and Karen Magliano with 19 your staff have done the greatest PM10 study in the world 20 and ozone study. 21 And, by the way, I want to make a correction. 22 This was always the contention. Twenty-seven million five 23 hundred for the PM ended up being 32,200,000. And we 24 approved those extra few millions because the staffs 25 needed that information to make a complete report and the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345146 1 ozone study. So without that information we wouldn't even 2 be able today to make the recommendations that your staff 3 is making has been done on solid science versus a bunch of 4 hearsay. 5 And thank you very much. And I did make the time 6 limit. Thank you. 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: You did. You get an extra 8 star for that. 9 All right. We've had two more cards come up 10 since I said that we were about to close the record. But 11 this is it, folks. I'm giving you one more minute and 12 then no more cards are coming forward. 13 So we'll hear from Nidia, followed by Carolena 14 Simunovic and Evan Ship. 15 Thank you. 16 MS. BAUTISTA: Good morning, Madam Chair, members 17 of the Board. Nidia Bautista with the Coalition for Clean 18 Air. 19 I just want to highlight a couple of things that 20 some folks have shared, and just to reiterate some of the 21 conversations that we have had both with ARB staff and 22 District staff and some of the Board members ahead of this 23 hearing. 24 You know, we want to be clear that there are some 25 points of this plan that we are, you know, pleased with. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345147 1 And rest assured, that where the District is pushing hard 2 and ARB's pushing hard, we're going to be right there with 3 you, including with the truck rule. So I just want to 4 make sure that that's out there. 5 However, let's be clear. You know, we're all 6 playing catch-up here, right? I mean based on the new 7 study that came out with the new findings and the fact 8 that there is a new federal PM2.5 measurement that's 9 coming out soon, and then also the fact that, you know, 10 even based on lower limits where a lot of people are 11 impacted by this. So that's very clear. And I think that 12 we all recognize that we are playing catch-up. And the 13 sooner we all get on the same page and move forward, I 14 think the better. 15 And clearly we feel that, you know, there is some 16 progress being made there. 17 With that said, you know, our concerns with the 18 plan again on the contingency measures, we strongly feel 19 that it's going to help ARB and the District with existing 20 control measures in its current plan if those contingency 21 measures are outlines at the beginning of the plan, but 22 they are specific, that they're clear, and that they're 23 measurable. And this is also not just going to help -- 24 it's going to help the agencies because the industry and 25 the community is going to be very aware of what's at PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345148 1 stake, not just in terms of the health impacts but also in 2 terms of what industries would then have to -- and what 3 residents will have to do were we to fall short. 4 And it's really important that we mention that 5 it's not just about the attainment, because our concern is 6 that we're not waiting till 2014, 2015 to then realize 7 that we've fallen short and then look back and think we 8 should have done this and should have done that and try to 9 scramble to come up with some rules to reduce -- to get to 10 the emission reductions. But rather that we're doing 11 those during the milestone days, the 2009-2012 dates. 12 And in terms of measures, our comment letter did 13 speak specifically to some of those measures. And that 14 included things like the IC engines. Again, and we 15 recognize that some of this may not be easy. You know, 16 we're really clear about that. But it's also not easy to 17 look at the data from this morning and know that a lot of 18 people are being impacted. So we're all going to have to 19 do our share. And I think with the current plan, you 20 know, residents are being asked to curtail some of the use 21 of their chimneys and stuff to burn wood. 22 So we're all going to have to do something here, 23 and it's not going to be easy. 24 So IC engines was definitely another control 25 where we can get additional reduction. The boilers were PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345149 1 another area where we felt like there might be additional 2 reduction. And the dryers were another area. 3 Now, last year with the ozone plans we talked 4 about the ag equipment rule, in which we know that ARB's 5 going to be looking at next year. And so there there's 6 possibly another opportunity to get some more reductions. 7 And we just want to say that when we outline some of these 8 measures, we also -- we're clear with ARB and with the 9 District that we're open to other measures taking this 10 place. Because ultimately what we want to get to is to 11 cleaner air. And so the outcome really is about the 12 reductions in a timely fashion, again making sure that 13 they're clear, that they're specific, and that they're 14 measurable commitments done at the beginning of the plan. 15 Thank you very much. 16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 17 Ms. Simunovic and Mr. Ship. 18 MS. SIMUNOVIC: Hello. My name is Carolena 19 Simunovic with the Fresno Metro Ministry. 20 Thank you for that extra minute, because 21 basically I just wanted to tell you thank you. Thank you 22 for being here today, for coming to the Valley, holding 23 your meeting here in Fresno, for engaging with groups in 24 conversations before the meeting today in a little bit 25 more detail, and for being here to vet and think about and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345150 1 discuss the merits of this plan and hopefully ways that it 2 can be improved. 3 I think you've heard probably enough testimony 4 and have had the discussions that will help you through 5 this. You probably also reviewed what took place at the 6 Board meeting for the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 7 Control District and have had a chance to speak to those 8 who had comments or objections about the plan. 9 So thank you. Thank you for being here, as 10 Daniela mentioned earlier. 11 I will be leaving to pursue my medical education 12 to become an MD. My commitment is strong to the Valley. 13 I'm hoping to do some research there in particulate matter 14 and the effects on health so that I can come back and be 15 an informed and active physician and participant in this 16 role. Thank you. 17 I guess my last comment is that we have the 18 opportunity today to make my job and your job easier in 19 the years to come. So with keeping in mind those 3,000 20 plus people that are affected by particulate matter 21 pollution and die early as a result of it here in the San 22 Joaquin Valley, I urge you to work to strengthen this plan 23 today in your deliberations. 24 Thank you very much. 25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345151 1 Before you leave, if I may, are you going to 2 medical school within the state or are you leaving 3 California too? 4 MS. SIMUNOVIC: I'm leaving California. I'm 5 going to the University of Washington. 6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Oh. Well, congratulations. 7 MS. SIMUNOVIC: They have a program there that is 8 special for rural issues and even they have a particulate 9 matter center or had I think there and interested in 10 looking at that. 11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, you're one of the 12 first people that I met when I came back to the Air 13 Resources Board almost a year ago. So I kind of think of 14 you as one of the milestones of my own time. 15 MS. SIMUNOVIC: Oh, well, thank you. Well, you 16 won't be rid of me. And I'm hoping to watch all of your 17 meetings on webcast. I'll be an air junkie. 18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: You could be a little too 19 busy studying. 20 That's all right. We appreciate all that you've 21 contributed. 22 MS. SIMUNOVIC: Well, thank you very, very much. 23 Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Finally, Evan Ship. 25 MR. SHIP: Hello. I'm Evan Ship. I'm going to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345152 1 try and make this very brief since I know we all want to 2 get to lunch. I've got about 30 years of experience 3 developing SIPs in the State of California for local 4 agencies. 5 I want to thank the ARB staff, the technical 6 staff, especially Karen Magliano, John Demossa, Vernon 7 Hughes, for their world-renowned expertise in developing 8 the technical aspects of this plan. 9 I've commented extensively on many of the 10 technical issues, written comments that I've now pushed to 11 the ARB list serve. There's still -- a lot of those have 12 been resolved by the staff report. So I'm very happy that 13 I've seen the documentation that is in there. There's 14 just still a few of those issues remaining. 15 One is that I'm very interested in getting 16 alternate look at the design value. And the design value 17 is the concentration of which you start with to do the 18 reduction for the plan. And there are different ways of 19 doing that. And I've looked at some of the data and it 20 looks like it would be good if we looked at some alternate 21 methods that EPA has assigned, for instance, looking at 22 five years worth of data. That's also in my comments. 23 Also, there are some missing data that affects 24 the base line that I'm interested in having addressed. 25 I've looked at data -- very recent data for 2007 and also PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345153 1 2005, 2006, and it looks to me like during meteorology 2 that has a high potential for PM formation, but there's a 3 lot of missing data. And if you look at the real-time 4 data, you see it's there with high levels. But you don't 5 see it there with this reference method data. And this 6 reference method data is the data that the plan is based 7 on. 8 I've taken an extensive look now at 2007 data, 9 and that reference data is now available. And I think 10 that should really be looked at in the plan. It wasn't 11 available when the plan was recently put out. 12 And those are basically the issues that I would 13 like addressed. Thank you. 14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 15 It's my hope that we can turn to discussion and 16 Board action and get that done before we take a break for 17 lunch. 18 We are going to be holding a closed session over 19 lunch. And I will have a statement formally to read when 20 we adjourn for that. But the staff is getting that typed 21 up now. We're going to have an opportunity to meet our 22 new chief counsel, who's actually sitting here in the 23 audience today for the first time. And we should probably 24 identity her even before we go. 25 Ellen, would you stand up. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345154 1 Ellen Peter, who's consented to come to the Air 2 Resources Board from a nice job at the Department of 3 Justice, where she's been defending us and representing us 4 for a few years now. She comes from a community activist 5 background as well. And we're going to be formally 6 meeting her over lunch and having a briefing on some of 7 our litigation matters. 8 So thank you very much for being here. 9 We're now I think going to close the public 10 testimony portion of the record and move on to a 11 discussion of the plan and what options we have for 12 responding to the concerns that we've heard. And I think 13 it's probably fair to say on behalf of all of us that we 14 recognize that tremendous progress has occurred here and 15 that the District has really stepped up in many ways. I 16 saw that list of, you know, all of the history of time and 17 the failures to do this, that, and the other thing. But 18 at the same time, if you match that up against the actual 19 progress in reducing emissions, cleaning up the air, doing 20 the job of getting the rules adopted, et cetera, I think 21 you have to say in fairness that the District has been 22 doing a good job. 23 However, that doesn't mean that any of us can't 24 do better. And we certainly are concerned, not only based 25 on the new information about health, but just on the fact PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345155 1 that under any way you look at it this plan cuts it close. 2 We're not talking about a large cushion here of safety in 3 terms of being able to demonstrate attainment of the 4 standards, not to mention the need to go further. So I 5 think that's where we want to focus our discussion. 6 In case anybody thinks that we've been channeling 7 Dr. Telles in some of the questions, I do want to say 8 that, you know, we knew before we got here but certainly 9 after the meeting was scheduled that John Telles, who 10 represents the San Joaquin Valley Board on our Board, was 11 not going to be able to be here because of graduation of a 12 family member. He did send a note by e-mail, which a 13 number of us received. And I think it would be a good 14 thing to just read it into the record so it would be 15 officially part of the record. And this is it. 16 It says, "Dear fellow Air Board members: 17 Unfortunately I will not be at the Fresno meeting to 18 welcome you to my home town. I'm on the East Coast 19 attending a college graduation of a family member. 20 "You may know that I voted against the San 21 Joaquin Valley PM2.5 plan. I voted against this plan for 22 two reasons: 23 First of all, I thought the contingencies were 24 not adequate because for primary PM2.5 the contingency 25 amounted to only 1 percent of the total 2.5 and the NOx PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345156 1 was only 3 percent of the total NOx inventory. In my 2 opinion, these contingencies are inadequate. 3 "Second of all, I'm concerned about the modeling 4 used in the plan. The plan is based on data from existing 5 PM2.5 monitors. In the whole San Joaquin Valley there are 6 less than twelve of these monitors. It seems to me that 7 this is not an adequate sampling to assure that if we do 8 reach attainment that all residents of the valley will 9 actually be breathing healthy air. 10 "I regret that I am unable to join you for the 11 meeting. I look forward to seeing you all in June." 12 Now, obviously Dr. Telles was one of the three 13 members who did not vote for the plan. The majority of 14 the Board did vote for the plan, which is why we're here 15 today. And I don't think there's any -- I don't think 16 there's any sentiment not to approve the plan as the basis 17 for moving forward because it's a step ahead of where we 18 are now. I mean to just not do anything would be to in 19 effect to take a step backward. But I think we certainly 20 can talk about what we could do in terms of strengthening. 21 And I'm going to turn to you first. 22 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: This is a process 23 question. 24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes. 25 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: The decision choices PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345157 1 before us today are -- and I apologize, I wasn't here at 2 the beginning -- one is to approve the plan as submitted; 3 second, to approve with the following changes; or, three, 4 to send it back to the District and say, "We want you to 5 meet certain additional standards and requirements." Are 6 those the three choices that we have? 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Technically, I think the 8 official action would only be to approve or disapprove, 9 because we haven't noticed any specific changes to the 10 plan. And there's a process that we would have to go 11 through as the Air Board, which was put in place by law to 12 protect districts from the arbitrary ARB coming in and 13 meddling with their plans. 14 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: So we have a choice 15 either to approve or not approve today? 16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Right. But what we could 17 do, which is perhaps essentially the middle ground, would 18 be to approve but in our resolution direct certain 19 measures to be taken; basically put everybody on notice 20 that if they don't take place by a time certain, the ARB 21 would step in and take it. So we start the clock, so to 22 speak, on an ARB official action. But because back in the 23 old days when the ARB used to run roughshod over local 24 districts, back when I was on the Board before, we used to 25 take over district powers and adopt rules for them that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345158 1 were stronger than the rules that they had adopted 2 themselves. And districts didn't take kindly to that. 3 And so they got the law amended, so that the ARB has to go 4 through a formal process to actually take over the power 5 of the district and adopt a stronger rule. 6 We couldn't do that today because we haven't gone 7 through the proper process. And, you know, frankly, I'm 8 not saying that's how we would want to proceed. We'd 9 rather obviously have the District take action themselves. 10 So if I have explained that accurately -- I got a 11 nod from our lawyers over there -- is there anything else 12 you want to add in terms of how we would proceed here, 13 what the options are? 14 Okay. So the process, basically the choices 15 are -- we always act through a resolution. We'd have to 16 actually look at the resolution. And if we wanted to add 17 language to it specifically saying, "District, we want you 18 to do X," then that's how we would do it, would be through 19 our Board resolution. 20 So I think Supervisor Hill asked the question 21 earlier, and probably others did too, "Okay, what are 22 measures that we could say to the District 'We want you to 23 put these in the plan and we want to see that as soon as 24 possible'?" 25 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Well, we have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345159 1 two slides that we would show. And I'm going to have 2 Karen explain them to you. 3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. 4 AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH CHIEF MAGLIANO: This 5 hopefully will help frame the Board's discussion on what 6 potential actions you could take. 7 On the first slide that we have here shows the 8 trend in our base line emission inventory going out 9 through 2020. And as you can see and as we've mentioned 10 before, there's a significant downward decreasing 11 emissions as we go through 2020 just from the aggressive 12 actions that the Board has already taken. So certainly 13 those already adopted measures serve as contingencies to 14 the extent that they're not included in our RFP 15 calculations. And it's also important to note that we 16 have shown this line going out through 2020. So even 17 beyond the 2014, 15 attainment deadline of the Valley 18 there will continue to be significant additional emission 19 reductions that would serve as additional contingencies 20 into those ongoing years. 21 And then the next slide walks through some of the 22 potential measures that we have looked at. 23 And I apologize. I'm trying to read this with my 24 glasses. 25 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Yeah, I can see PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345160 1 them. I can't see them close up. 2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Can the audience see this 3 from... 4 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: What we've done 5 is -- and this was also in the staff report as well. In 6 the staff report there's two bins essentially, all of the 7 measures the District will be adopting that are included 8 in the attainment demonstration. Then there's an 9 additional group of measures that are not in the 10 attainment demonstration and therefore could serve as 11 contingencies. So based on the Board's discussion, we put 12 this slide together to identity some opportunities for 13 additional contingencies. 14 So there are essentially three boiler rules in 15 the District plan. Two of them are in the attainment 16 demonstration but one is not. And they have scheduled 17 adoption of that additional measure by the end of this 18 year. So that could serve as a contingency measure to be 19 submitted as a rule, a federally enforceable rule once 20 approved by EPA that could strengthen the SIP. 21 The second one is an IC engine rule. Again, this 22 rule is not in the attainment demonstration. It could be 23 submitted. Once adopted it would meet the full legal 24 definition of a contingency measure. And that is 25 scheduled for adoption by the end of 2010. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345161 1 Gas furnaces. This is actually in the attainment 2 demonstration. But it's on here because there has been a 3 lot of concern about that rule. And it is in the 4 rulemaking process, just so the Board knows. And the tons 5 that are being discussed in the rulemaking process are 6 even greater than were estimated. So we think that one is 7 on track for adoption. 8 The other one that we've heard comment on are 9 dryers. And the District does have a rule in place for 10 large dryers. But they have committed in their plan to go 11 out and look and see how many small dryers might be in 12 operation in the Valley that are not subject to the 13 existing rule. And if they're significant, then to look 14 at the potential for control. 15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: You don't mean dryers like 16 laundry -- 17 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Oh, I'm sorry. 18 I should say -- not your clothes dryer. 19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Or hair dryer. 20 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Or hair dryer. 21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: No, no, no. We're talking 22 about something else. 23 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: We're talking 24 about food processing and those kinds of dehydrator 25 dryers. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345162 1 Sorry. We get stuck in the jargon. 2 The next category is biomass boilers. And this 3 was also brought up by ISSRC as potential. And so we 4 checked with our technical staff. And Chris Gallenstein 5 is our expert here on all of these stationary source 6 measures. 7 The comments we received were suggesting SCR 8 retrofits. We've done the research. They have not yet 9 been demonstrated. But the good news is there is a pilot 10 study underway. So this is something that our technical 11 staff will be watching closely. And so that could be 12 something folded in down the road. 13 And then, lastly -- and this is very 14 significant -- is adding a potential contingency provision 15 in the existing wood burning rule commitment. In the 16 attainment demonstration the District has taken credit for 17 a small additional benefit from an enhanced wood burning 18 rule. But if you recall the slide that talks about the 19 much higher levels in the winter season, the four months 20 between November and February, when you look at the 21 monitoring, the relative amount of wood smoke in the air 22 compared to ammonium nitrate, which is NOx driven, is very 23 significant. And so ratcheting down that wood smoke rule 24 would actually very significantly affect the annual 25 average. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345163 1 And so we are recommending that a very strong 2 contingency measure would be to have a much tighter 3 trigger on curtailing the number of days. 4 And so, for example, if -- currently those days 5 are triggered at a level of 65 micrograms in the 6 atmosphere. If it were ratcheted down to 20 micrograms, 7 that would basically double the number of curtailment 8 days. And that could potentially reduce the atmospheric 9 levels by a microgram, which is very significant. 10 So those are potential considerations for the 11 Board. 12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I have a concern about this 13 wood burning rule, twofold I guess. One is this issue 14 about intermittent versus permanent type controls. I 15 don't know how the rule works, if it's just a ban on using 16 your fireplace. I guess it's the equivalent for an 17 individual person of an intermittent ban, say, the kind of 18 measure that I think some of the community groups proposed 19 for banning people from doing agricultural operations on 20 certain days. And although we do ban burning on days when 21 the atmosphere doesn't call for it, I don't think this 22 Board has shown any inclination to going in the direction 23 of banning either farming or construction work because 24 those are basically economically vital activities that are 25 hard to readjust or they're scheduled for on an interim PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345164 1 kind of basis. It just seems like the disruption factor 2 is very high. It may be that at some point we have to 3 look at those things. But we've tried to look at things 4 that are more permanent, technological, enforceable, et 5 cetera, because we think there's more reductions to be 6 gained. 7 So my question about the fireplace rule is -- 8 although for most people using their fireplace is a luxury 9 and nothing you do just because, you know, it's a pleasant 10 evening at home or you have guests over, there are people 11 who burn wood for heating purposes, and they do it in the 12 wintertime, not in the summertime. So what are we doing 13 about that situation? Is there a solution for -- I mean 14 is there a low smoke furnace that those people can get? 15 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Well, actually 16 the existing programs do take into account and provide 17 exemptions for people who rely on it for heating. So 18 we're really talking about recreational fireplace use. 19 AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH CHIEF MAGLIANO: As with 20 Sacramento just adopted a program to have a mandatory 21 curtailment of wood burning. 22 BOARD MEMBER BALMES: And I will say, because I 23 participated in a study in Fresno that ARB initially 24 funded, and now it's NIH, that the Fresno Children's 25 Environment study phases, I do note what Ms. Terry said to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345165 1 be correct, that the PM2.5 levels in the winter months 2 there's a big component from residential wood burning. So 3 it's -- 4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: It's important. Well, I 5 mean I don't use my fireplace much any more because I find 6 the smoke in the house is enough. 7 (Laughter.) 8 BOARD MEMBER HILL: I didn't think you were home 9 enough. 10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, there's that too on 11 those rare occasions. 12 BOARD MEMBER BALMES: My wife has asthma and she 13 won't let us use the fireplace. 14 BOARD MEMBER HILL: I would love to move the 15 resolution. 16 MR. VALERIANO: Excuse me. I know the public 17 process is over. But can we challenge what they just 18 said? Because it's so horridly wrong. 19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: What? 20 MR. VALERIANO: The interpretation of what 21 contingency measures are. As far as the federal law is 22 concerned, these are measures -- you go through RACM 23 first. You determine which ones are reasonable and which 24 ones are not. The ones that are reasonable should be part 25 of the plan. Those that are not should be contingency PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345166 1 measures. We are contending that our additional 2 reductions are so reasonable. Why? The South Coast is 3 doing it already or will do it. Why are we now putting 4 these reasonable measures as contingency measures? 5 There's a big legal argument to be made here. 6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I understand you're making 7 a legal argument. And I guess it's incumbent on us, we 8 just have to take -- in effect, we take action, that we 9 say that we are supporting the view that what's in the 10 plan is reasonable but that we want to see additional 11 measures for contingency purposes. That doesn't mean 12 they're not going to be done. Because, as we understand 13 it, if they're adopted rules, they will in fact be adopted 14 and they will be enforcing them. So this is a kind of a 15 distinction without a difference as far as I'm concerned. 16 But we'll let your comment stand. 17 I think we interrupted -- Supervisor Hill was 18 about to make a motion. 19 BOARD MEMBER HILL: Well, I was planning to make 20 a motion to adopt the resolution, including the 21 contingency measures that were outlined in the 22 presentation as contingencies that we can go forward with 23 that are not in the already adopted plan. 24 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNE: I wanted to make this a 25 procedural move about how the Board could do this. And I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345167 1 was told I have to stand up here because the microphone 2 doesn't work back there. 3 So, Lynn, have we given the resolution to the 4 Board members yet? Do they have it? 5 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Yes. 6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We were given a draft this 7 morning. 8 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNE: The resolution you have in 9 front of you simply adopts the plan as is with no 10 additional changes to the plan. And we would propose to 11 have it -- if the Board wishes to do the suggestions that 12 Lynn just provided, we have an attachment to the 13 resolution that we prepared that you could take a look at, 14 and we'd also distribute it to the members of the public. 15 And it would essentially -- it has language indicating 16 what additional measures you would direct the District to 17 do. And as part of that, the resolution you have in front 18 of you would have a couple of additional provisions in it 19 which we could then do after the Board meeting. 20 One provision would simply say the Board directs 21 the District to do the actions described in Attachment A, 22 which you're getting right now. 23 And the second provision would clarify that while 24 the contingency measures in the 2008 plan in front of you, 25 we believe they're adequate to meet the legal requirements PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345168

3 additional District rules that Lynn identified that will 1 of the Clean Air Act and the rule, but that it's 2 appropriate to include in the California SIP these

4 further strengthen the SIP and will serve as additional 5 contingency provisions for PM2.5 attainment. 6 Now, as a legal matter these would not meet the 7 definition of contingency measures in the Clean Air Act 8 because those measures have to be already adopted, and 9 these rules are not adopted yet. But once they are 10 adopted, as a practical matter they would serve as 11 additional contingencies to make sure there are emission 12 reductions -- 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: So the difference there is 14 that -- let me just see if I can explain this. That the 15 District is going to do its thing, but they wouldn't 16 necessarily submit these things to us on a fixed time 17 frame, and we wouldn't necessarily be submitting them to 18 EPA and putting them into this enforceable SIP. So the 19 difference here is that we're taking a strengthening 20 action by putting these things actually into the SIP. 21 That's the key element here. 22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I have a question and 23 maybe a suggestion. 24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I think one way to go just PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345169 1 a slight step further would be to have a report back to 2 the Board on the progress, since these measures wouldn't 3 necessarily come before us. 4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I think that's a good 5 addition to the resolution. 6 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNE: What Attachment A does say 7 before you is that you're directing the District to adopt 8 these additional rules. And then after they've adopted 9 them, they would submit them to us for transmittal to U.S. 10 EPA, and the rules themselves would be part of the SIP. 11 But we wouldn't be amending the plan that's in front of 12 you today because, as Chairman Nichols pointed out, that's 13 not something we notice. So you'd be approving the plan 14 as is and then directing the districts to take these 15 additional actions that would further strengthen the SIP; 16 and once they've done that, to submit the rules to us for 17 transmittal to U.S. EPA. 18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'm just assuming though, 19 you know, there might be an interim step, maybe if 20 staff -- 21 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: We'd be happy to 22 come back to the Board and report generally on SIP 23 progress in the Valley at the Board's pleasure. 24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, I think we should. 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I do so too. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345170 1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: And it sounds like 2 December -- I know December's a big month for us because 3 of the scoping plan. But it seems to me we could at least 4 get a progress report. 5 Mayor Loveridge. 6 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Would it be 7 inappropriate to ask or as a matter courtesy for District 8 comment on this -- 9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: You anticipated what I was 10 just about to do. That's a good thing. 11 Yes, please. We should ask the executive officer 12 to speak here. 13 MR. SADREDIN: Thank you for this opportunity. 14 I think the recommendation that is before you 15 makes perfect sense. Most of what we're talking about 16 here is the semantics in terms of what is contingency, 17 what is creditable towards contingency. 18 Just one thing for you to consider. Not that I'm 19 suggesting any changes. I think what you're about to act 20 on makes perfect sense. And the whole contingency concept 21 of what's put in place for areas that don't need as much 22 reduction such as we do and also South Coast does, as you 23 know we just adopted plans -- the ozone plans that we 24 adopted which have the same NOx measures and are both in 25 South Coast and in San Joaquin Valley. And we found that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345171 1 even if money were no object, we've already thrown in the 2 kitchen sink, but technology does not yet exist. So it is 3 difficult in areas such as ours and South Coast when 4 you've done everything that you can think of to say, well, 5 there is this reserve list that we could, you know, rely 6 on if we need them. We need everything. And most of 7 these measures were things that the District was planning 8 on doing anyway, and now with this commitment it makes it 9 enforceable that we have to do. 10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. I appreciate 11 that very much. And I think it's a good response to -- 12 you know, it really is impressive that we've seen the 13 level of involvement here on the part of community 14 organizations even in South Coast where I'm from. I don't 15 think we'd have as many people who would be taking the 16 time, you know, to come here and who've participated 17 throughout. And, frankly, the level of technical 18 sophistication that they bring and the level of comments 19 that they've made have been very high. And I think 20 they've had an influence on all of us and all of our 21 thinking. So it's a good thing that we've expanded the 22 universe of people who are really actively working on and 23 focusing on clean air here in the Valley. I think it's 24 going to make a big difference in the future. 25 And I've seen time and time again that every time PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345172 1 we think we've done everything that was possible, we 2 discover that there are new ideas and new technologies out 3 there. And I hope that that's going to continue to be the 4 case here as well. 5 So are you satisfied with that as a resolution? 6 BOARD MEMBER HILL: My question, I guess -- on 7 the attachment I noticed that you have the wood smoke -- 8 the residential wood smoke rule on the bottom. The other 9 items that were listed there, are they listed here, that 10 were on the contingency? 11 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Yes, I know 12 it's -- we use the terminology of their measures, S-CON2 13 and S-CON. 14 BOARD MEMBER HILL: The rule commitments that you 15 have there? 16 Okay. That's covering all of the items, the 17 dryer, et cetera, et cetera? 18 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Right. Now, 19 those are study measures. So -- 20 BOARD MEMBER HILL: The dryers are study 21 measures? 22 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: The dryers. 23 BOARD MEMBER HILL: Right. But they will study 24 them, that's part of this -- 25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: And the biomass -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345173 1 AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH CHIEF MAGLIANO: And the 2 biomass boilers are also a feasibility study measure. 3 BOARD MEMBER HILL: All right. Very good. 4 Yes, that would be the rest of the motion. 5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: All right. That's the 6 motion. 7 Do we have a second? 8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Second. 9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: A second from Ms. D'Adamo. 10 All right. I guess we need to do a roll call 11 vote here as well. 12 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Dr. Balmes? 13 BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Aye. 14 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Berg? 15 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Aye. 16 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. D'Adamo? 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Aye. 18 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Hill? 19 BOARD MEMBER HILL: Aye. 20 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Mayor Loveridge? 21 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Aye. 22 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Professor Sperling? 23 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Aye. 24 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Chairman Nichols? 25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Aye. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345174 1 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ayes pass. Motion passes 2 seven to zero. 3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Unanimously. It was 4 unanimous. 5 All right. Thank you everybody very much. 6 We are going to take a break at this time. And 7 we're going to go into closed session to discuss items 8 that were listed on the Board agenda. And at the 9 conclusion of the closed session we'll reconvene back here 10 in open session. And we'll reconvene at 1:30. 11 (Thereupon a lunch recess was taken.) 12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We do have a quorum. One 13 of our Board members is in the back room, but she can 14 listen back there. Two of them. 15 And I think we should get started, because we 16 have people who are hoping to catch earlier flights to 17 various places they have to get to around the state. 18 So I just need to reconvene us and to report that 19 the Board met in closed session to discuss the litigation 20 that was listed on today's agenda. No action was taken by 21 the Board. 22 So we will now turn the program back over to the 23 Executive Officer. 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: Thank you, Chairman 25 Nichols. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING (916) 362-2345