4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, Mr.

5 McKinnon.

6 What I'd like to do at this stage is have board 7 discussion to consider this in two parts as the staff 8 presentation was. The first part on majority owned,

9 small/ intermediate volume manufacturers. Any comments 10 from the Board on this or deliberations.

11 Supervisor DeSaulnier.

12 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Mr. Chairman, going 13 back to our brief discussion hours ago, I would be 14 inclined to think that I'd like to see this rule modified 15 just so that we either do it prospectively or we extend 16 the period out, in order to really ensure that those 17 companies that are making the investment are doing some 18 positive things, don't become disincentivized.

19 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I would agree with that,

20 Mr. Chairman. I would like to encourage staff to work 21 through this issue and try to be helpful.

22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Board members, do you have a 23 suggested date here at all if we extend it out?

24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: If I might make a 25 suggestion.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 193 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. Kenny.

2 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: Yes. One thing that 3 might be worth considering would be essentially to extend 4 out the date to 2010, but at the same time to also then 5 reflect in the regulation that any future acquisitions 6 that are made by one of the big companies which is subject 7 to the ZEV requirement, it would be subject to a 8 specified  essentially would be  any future 9 acquisitions that would be made would essentially be 10 subject to the 50 percent level that we had proposed to 11 you today. And that that would be in place essentially 12 no  any company that did that would get a set amount of 13 time, except in fact they would have the ability to sort 14 of make plans and to then adjust before they had to 15 actually comply.

16 And since we would be talking about moving this 17 out to 2010 to address the Board issue that has been 18 raised today, we should look at the same level of equity 19 regarding any future acquisitions that might occur with 20 other companies, but then we would try to identify a 21 specified period of time, for example, four years of lead 22 time, but not less than maybe six years in the event that 23 someone didn't today, something like that. We would put 24 that out for a 15 day comment.

25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That would be good.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 194 1 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yes, I think that sounds 2 very helpful. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Any comments from my 4 colleagues on the right?

5 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I think that would 6 work.

7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon.

8 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Sounds like a great 9 solution to me.

10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think you heard the 11 sympathy from the Board to this particular case, but we 12 also recognize that it should be looked at as a specific 13 case here.

14 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: All right.

15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So when we come to the 16 resolution then we can reflect that. Now, the next part 17 of it in terms of the infrastructure standardization, I'm 18 hoping for suggestions from my colleagues here.

19 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Do you want to

20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Don't all speak at once.

21 ( Laughter.)

22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, I have one issue 23 that I think that  and I may come back to it. I wanted 24 to hear from some of the other board members as well on 25 this and other issues. But on the transition period, I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 195 1 know Mr. Kenny made some suggestions earlier. I would 2 feel most comfortable if we could include a provision in 3 the resolution that would address the transition area 4 period in terms of public infrastructure and individual 5 owners.

6 I think probably all of us here today have a 7 concern that we don't want to see anyone stuck, in 8 particular with cars that aren't even purchased or leased 9 yet. It would be very harmful to the overall cause, if 10 individuals do feel that we could somehow address this 11 issue and just left them out there on their own.

12 And I would encourage that staff come back with 13 recommendations on the subsidy program. I really would be 14 willing to consider quite a high subsidy in the event that 15 we need to  we were just talking about relatively few of 16 the individuals, so I think we need more information on 17 that.

18 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: We'd be happy to do 19 all those things. I think the issue with regard to the 20 transition is a very legitimate one. And I do think we 21 want to approach this with the idea of being that we do 22 not strand investments or owners and that we continue to 23 incentivize purchases and not disincentivize anyone.

24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yeah. Again, where I'm 25 coming down here, it's a tough item. The issue of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 196 1 standardization, I think, is very important, because as we 2 heard at both the September and the January hearing,

3 consumer acceptance is going to be very important, and I 4 think we were asked by the auto manufacturers to help 5 actually get vehicles into the marketplace.

6 So I think standardization of the charging system 7 is important. Other choices, you know, what do we do,

8 what do we utilize there? I've gone round and round on 9 this depending on the presentations and whatnot and so it 10 is a tough issue. 11 But today, I think I heard some additional 12 information I haven't heard before, particularly on the 13 Codes and Standards issue of how much has gone on in that 14 arena. I heard some additional work in terms of the pros 15 and the cons. And I think, on balance, I feel that the 16 staff recommendation here is the one to move ahead on,

17 particularly if we look at the flexibility of the program 18 as we look ahead.

19 So that's where I feel that  I would also agree 20 with Didi, there is a concern about future vehicles

21 well, current vehicles, what do we do there, so that we 22 don't discourage them. You've heard some of the testimony 23 from the drivers. We heard testimony from the drivers 24 both ways, go with inductive, go with conductive, which 25 means that, again, there's not a real bias there.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 197 1 I'm pleased to see some of the material 2 improvement in the conductive system as well.

3 Professor Friedman.

4 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Well, I gather that 5 even before I joined the Board efforts were under way to 6 get the industry to develop, by consensus, a single 7 standard. I'm sure there were efforts in that direction.

8 I know the staff provided great impetus. But unlike

9 and I also was hoping the market would take care of it and 10 some day it might, although I don't know.

11 But unlike the Beta and the VHS where everybody 12 wanted to get a piece of this equipment, that it was going 13 to be so great in the house and in the den, and that the 14 cost is even then relatively small, and the market did 15 eventually decide that.

16 But here we've been told all along that the big 17 impediment to the EV is market acceptance, public 18 acceptance. And it seems clearly to me that as long as 19 there's a duel standard and people are uncertain as to 20 what's going to shake out and whether they will be 21 stranded, that's an influencing factor, along with the 22 other potential advantages or disadvantages of one method 23 of charging over the other, particularly cost, and I've 24 heard information about that today.

25 So it falls on us, I think, to try and make a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 198 1 solemn choice. Unfortunately, we can't split a vote,

2 unless we want to leave things as they are.

3 I think that if we do whatever we can 4 legitimately and reasonably to protect those who have 5 already made the investment, who have the vehicles and 6 those who are the big and small manufacturers who have 7 made the investment and are making the inductive system,

8 then we will have done as much as we can do, and I do 9 think that we need to make the choice and we need to do it 10 soon.

11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The other part I would add 12 there, I would like staff to try to work with 13 AeroVironment. They've been one of the pioneers,

14 obviously, in the electric vehicle business, and I think 15 that Dr. MacCready has been one of the real pioneers in 16 advancing technologies to see what we can do, how we can 17 work with the system here or how we can look forward and 18 that's an important part in this small business there, how 19 we can move ahead.

20 Small business, of course, maybe they're still 21 partly owned by General Motors, but they're still, I 22 think, the type of company we don't want to penalize for 23 all their efforts here.

24 Any comments?

25 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I certainly PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 199 1 agree with many of the thoughts that have been advanced.

2 We've got to deal with the transition period and I'm very 3 comfortable with the staff recommendations that have been 4 made. We really did want this to be resolved and not 5 necessarily have to come back to this Board, but clearly 6 it wasn't resolved and so we do have to take a step today,

7 which resolves it, and I'm comfortable with the staff 8 recommendation and then the earlier recommendation for how 9 to deal with the acquisitions of some of the larger 10 automobile companies. And I think Mr. Kenny came up with 11 probably a very good compromise, that makes it all work 12 for everybody.

13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Supervisor DeSaulnier.

14 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I'll just add that 15 although I didn't have any ex parte communications to 16 report, I did have discussions outside the timeframe,

17 because the chairman knows that I was in Japan. And I'm 18 not without sympathy because of those discussions of the 19 testimony here, and it's a difficult decision as my 20 colleagues have said, but I think staff has done a good 21 job at presenting a recommendation that ultimately will 22 lead to greater success for the whole program. 23 So I'd be supportive for a motion at the 24 appropriate time to support staff's recommendations with 25 Didi's comments in terms of the transition.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 200 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think we'd all agree given 2 what we went through in September and January, if in fact 3 the free market had taken it out of our hands, but it 4 doesn't seem to wait. It's moving in that direction.

5 So, again, we're called upon to exercise some 6 judgment here. And I'm also comfortable by the fact that 7 it doesn't apply to 2006, so if anything catastrophic 8 occurs in the next year or so we still have time to change 9 or do whatever.

10 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I'm sorry. I want 11 to add a couple more comments. I have fought hard and 12 long about the alternative recommendation that we wait a 13 year and/ or try and identify some independent experts to 14 whom we could throw this question and ask them to make a 15 recommendation.

16 I don't know. I just can't see that waiting a 17 year is going to do anything other than make it worse, or 18 at least I don't see that it will improve anything other 19 than to find another group of so called independents to 20 come up and make the hard choice, or at least help us make 21 the hard choice.

22 But on reflection, I think our staff has done an 23 excellent job. As far as I can tell, they've been 24 unbiased. They've been thorough, thoughtful. We've taken 25 all the input. They've had all the hearings and the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 201 1 workshops. And I think they're as independent as we're 2 likely to get, if we could identify those independents out 3 there.

4 So while I thought long and hard about it, I just 5 don't feel that that is particularly viable.

6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I concur on that. I think 7 the big problem that I have is how do you get an 8 independent, impartial group and how long will it take to 9 do that? I've been reminded by recent actions by the 10 President asking the National Academy for their views on 11 global climate change. Well, it came back with what 12 everybody was saying.

13 So I think that from the objective perspective we 14 are not sure we can do anything about that with staff.

15 And again, I think we've scoured the world in those areas.

16 Again, I appreciate the sentiments of all the people 17 testifying on the industry side both ways. I think there 18 was genuine concession about the relative merits of each 19 system.

20 Although, I must say on the standard's side, I 21 thought that when we had that testimony about what's 22 happening internationally, that gave me some comfort that 23 maybe things were further along than I thought.

24 Mr. McKinnon.

25 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I think it's really too PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 202 1 bad that we had to be the ones to make this decision. 2 That's kind of my starting point. Although I've been 3 watching the development of this data for ten years now,

4 and certainly the discussion about standardization has 5 been going at least four years. And I have a recollection 6 of it being brought up even before that. I haven't been 7 on this Board that long, but I've certainly been 8 interested in this issue for a decade.

9 I wish folks had gotten together and figured this 10 out together. And maybe we'll do better at the next 11 pieces of it. I mean, there's communication standards,

12 you know, there's things that are going to happen as third 13 parties begin to develop charging stations at the 14 Starbucks or whatever the infrastructure form takes now.

15 There's going to be conversations about how the 16 communications are done, how you sell back the energy, how 17 it's accounted for, all sorts of things. And hopefully 18 folks will get together and try to figure out how to 19 standardize those things.

20 I think we're not the best to do that, but I 21 think we've been given little choice. I think if we wait 22 around, we force a situation where we delay the ZEV 23 Program, which may be some people's intention in this. I 24 wouldn't put that out of the realm of possibility, maybe 25 delays it, or maybe sets up the situation where we have a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 203 1 lot more people with cars that lose their value because 2 they don't have a way to charge them.

3 So I don't see that we have a lot of choice. I 4 think we need to make this decision, and I think that what 5 would be best from here on for this kind of thing is for 6 the industry to try to figure out how to move forward 7 without putting us in this spot to make this decision.

8 And I would think that folks ought to be working 9 on the international standards, and, you know, moving 10 forward. And the SAE Committee, you know, reporting that 11 we've been meeting. And it's voluntary and certainly 12 shouldn't wait on us. If the industry can put it 13 together, the industry ought to put it together.

14 Thanks. I'm going to support.

15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So do we have a motion?

16 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I'll move it.

17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Second.

18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay, so we're including both 19 of those items there as reflected in our discussion up 20 here.

21 All in favor say aye?

22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Opposed?

23 Thank you. And thank you very much staff and 24 thank you participants.

25 We're going to take a 15 minute break, before we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 204 1 address the next item, which would be the particulate 2 matter and health effects.

3 Some of the Board members haven't had lunch yet,

4 some of the people haven't had it, and the court reporter 5 really needs a break.

6 So we'll commence at 2: 15.

7 ( Thereupon a brief recess was taken.)

8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Where is our legal staff, do 9 we need a court reporter? 10 Or can somebody take it in longhand?

11 We're going to take up the item here on item 12 01 5 6, three research proposals. Thank you staff for not 13 saying anything. We'll move ahead to the Board discussion 14 here, I think.

15 The Board members have had an opportunity to 16 review these proposals?

17 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Yes.

18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Are there any additional 19 concerns or comments by the Board?

20 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I move approval of 21 the proposals as presented.

22 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I will second the motion.

23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: All in favor say aye?

24 ( Ayes.)

25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Approved unanimously.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 205 1 Thank you.

2 We've been briefed on these research proposals,

3 so with that we will now take a 15 minute break and then 4 come back, so we can eat. And the court reporter must 5 come back there.

6 So at least this doesn't hold you up, Bart, now 7 for contracts. It would have been a problem, I realize.

8 So next time we'll put the research proposals at 9 the front then.

10 Dan, this isn't the way we typically approve 11 research by the way. This is showing complete faith in 12 Bart here.

13 ( Thereupon a lunch recess was taken.) 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I'd like to reconvene the 15 Board meeting.

16 The next item on the agenda today is 01 5 2,

17 Public Meeting to Consider an Informational Item on the 18 Health Effects of Particulate Matter and the Status of Air 19 Quality Standards for Particulate Matter.

20 The Children's Environmental Health Protection 21 Act, SB 25 offered by Senator Martha Escutia in 1999,

22 requires the Board in consultation with the Office of 23 Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to reduce 24 California's current ambient air quality standards for the 25 adequacy of health protection, especially for infants and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 206 1 children.

2 The outcome of that evaluation discussed at the 3 December 7th, 2000 board meeting was that particulate 4 matter was identified as being one of the three standards 5 that may be inadequate to protect public health. The 6 particulate matter standard was assigned the highest 7 priority for review and revision.

8 We also determined that the health effects of 9 particulate matter are significant enough for us to 10 accelerate this review. Today, staff from the Board and 11 the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment will 12 update the Board on issues involved in the standard 13 review.

14 At this point I would like to ask Mr. Kenny to 15 introduce the item and begin the staff presentation.

16 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: Thank you Dr. Lloyd 17 and Members of the Board. As you stated, Dr. Lloyd, the 18 first standard to be reviewed under the Children's Health 19 Protection Act is particulate matter.

20 As a result of our preliminary evaluation of the 21 health based standards under this Act, we will be 22 reviewing a number of standards over the next several 23 years. Since it has been some time since the Board 24 adopted ambient air quality standards, I asked staff to 25 provide you with an overview of the standard setting PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 207 1 process and the issues involved with the particulate 2 matter standard.

3 A standard is adopted in consideration of the 4 public health, safety and welfare. Thus, the philosophy 5 behind this standard is that it represents the definition 6 of clean air for particular pollutants. The 7 standard setting process does not address issues beyond 8 health and welfare, such as control measures and the costs 9 and feasibility or their environmental and economic 10 impacts.

11 Currently, we have three standards to protect 12 Californians from the health impacts of exposure to 13 particulate matter. These are a 24 hour standard for PM 14 10 and the annual average PM 10 standard and a sulfate 15 standard measured as total suspended particulates.

16 Dr. Deborah Drechsler from the Health and 17 Exposure Assessment Branch and Dr. Michael Lipsett from 18 the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment will 19 make the staff presentation. Dr. Daniel Greenbaum from 20 the Health Effects Institute will discuss important 21 results from the recent national studies. 22 Dr. Drechsler.

23 ( Thereupon an overhead presentation was 24 presented as follows.)

25 DR. DRECHSLER: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. Good PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 208 1 afternoon, Dr. Lloyd and members of the Board.

2 The ARB in consultation with the Office of 3 Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is currently 4 reviewing the California Ambient Air Quality Standards for 5 Particulate Matter and Sulfates.

6 Since many of you have joined the Board since it 7 last considered the ambient air quality standard, our 8 presentation today is designed to inform you of the many 9 complex issues staff will be considering during the 10 review.

11 Although the issues relating to particulate 12 matter exposure and health effects can be fairly complex,

13 let me emphasize that the health effects due to exposure 14 to particulate matter are significant. The body of 15 evidence associating exposure to particulate matter were 16 premature death and cardio respiratory diseases, including 17 asthma, bronchitis and cardiac problems is substantial.

18 Elevated concentrations of particulate matter also reduce 19 visibility.

20  o0o

21 DR. DRECHSLER: Our presentation today will cover 22 the following topics: I will present an overview of the 23 standard setting process and review schedule. I will also 24 discuss the nature of particulate matter exposure and what 25 makes it more complex than all other air pollutants. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 209 1 Following my presentation today we'll be having 2 Dr. Bart Ostro rather than Dr. Michael Lipsett from the 3 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment give you 4 an overview of the latest scientific information on the 5 adverse health effects of particulate matter and sulfates.

6 Finally, Daniel Greenbaum, President of the 7 Health Effects Institute, will discuss several Health 8 Effects Institute funded epidemiology studies that are 9 relevant to the particulate matter standards reviewed. We 10 will also discuss emerging research and particulate matter 11 size composition and effects.

12 So what is an ambient air quality standard?

13  o0o

14 DR. DRECHSLER: An ambient air quality standard 15 is the legal definition of clean air. Under California 16 law standards are based solely on health and welfare 17 considerations. Costs and feasibility are not factors in 18 setting ambient air quality standards. They play a role 19 only when specific control and implementation measures are 20 proposed for adoption.

21  o0o

22 DR. DRECHSLER: The Board's efforts, including 23 particular pollutant monitoring, emissions inventory 24 development, air quality modeling, and control strategies 25 development are directed toward achieving clean air in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 210 1 California. Ambient air quality standards form the 2 foundation of the ARB's programs to achieve clean air for 3 all Californians.

4  o0o

5 DR. DRECHSLER: The Federal Clean Air Act, which 6 authorizes the US EPA to set national ambient air quality 7 standards, also permits states to adopt additional or more 8 protective State standards. California has exercised this 9 right by authorizing the Air Resources Board to set 10 California specific ambient air quality standards for a 11 variety of air pollutants, including particulate matter 12 and sulfates.

13 The Board has been concerned about the health 14 effects of particulate matter for many years. The 15 original particulate matter standard was based on total 16 suspended particulates. In 1982 the Board set current 17 California ambient air quality standards for particulate 18 matter, based on the mass of particulate matter ten 19 microns or less in aerodynamic diameter for PM 10 at a 20 level that is more protective of public health than the 21 national ambient air quality standard for PM 10, which is 22 currently in effect.

23 The US EPA has never set a separate standard for 24 sulfates, although California did so in 1977. The 25 California Health and Safety Code specifies that an PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 211 1 ambient air quality standard has four elements, definition 2 of the pollutant, in this case particulate matter and 3 sulfates. It also includes an averaging time, for 4 example, 24 hours concentration to be achieved and 5 specification for monitoring to determine attainment. 6  o0o

7 DR. DRECHSLER: The current California ambient 8 air quality standard for particulate matter, as I 9 mentioned, is based on the mass of ambient particles ten 10 microns or less in aerodynamic diameter for PM 10. The 11 standard was based on PM 10 because particulate matter ten 12 microns or less in diameter is inhalable and can penetrate 13 deep into the lungs.

14 California has two standards for PM 10, an annual 15 average of 30 micrograms per cubic meter, which protects 16 against long term health effects, and a 24 hour average of 17 50 micrograms per cubic meter, which protects against 18 short term health effects.

19 The current sulfates standard is a 24 hour 20 average of 25 micrograms per cubic meter. You've probably 21 heard that US EPA is also in the process of reviewing 22 their ambient air quality standards for particulate 23 matter. They expect to promulgate new particulate matter 24 standards in 2003.

25 Next, we will be looking at several questions,

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 212 1 including what particulate matter is, how small it is and 2 where it comes from.

3  o0o

4 DR. DRECHSLER: So what is particulate matter?

5 It is a complex mixture composed of small droplets of 6 liquid, dry solid granules and solid cores with liquid 7 coatings. Particles vary widely in size, shape and 8 chemical composition, and arise from many sources. As you 9 can see from the slide, particulate matter is not a single 10 chemical entity like, for example, ozone.

11 It includes many chemical species that arise from 12 a wide variety of sources. A few examples are metals,

13 nitrates, soil and carbon. Also known dead sulfates are a 14 subtraction of particulate matter. PM 10 can also be 15 divided into several size fractions.

16  o0o

17 DR. DRECHSLER: The first particles are between 18 2.5 and 10 microns in diameter and arise primarily from 19 natural processes. Particles less than 2.5 microns in 20 diameter arise primarily from combustion processes.

21 Several examples of substances found in each 22 category are shown on the slide. Particles less than 0.1 23 micron in diameter are referred to as ultra fine 24 particles. These are freshly omitted from combustion 25 sources. They have almost no mass, but the absolute PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 213 1 number of particles in this size category is very large.

2 This represents a new and growing area of 3 research. Adverse health effects have been associated 4 with all inhalable particles, PM 10, as well as PM 2.5,

5 and ultrafine subfractions of PM 10.

6 The potential for particulate matter to induce 7 health effects is related to particle size. Particles ten 8 microns or less in aerodynamic diameter can be inhaled 9 deep into the lungs where they can induce tissue damage 10 and various adverse health effects. Particles larger than 11 ten microns in diameter are generally filtered out in the 12 nasal passages and do not enter the lungs to any great 13 extent. To give you a perspective on how small these 14 particles are, the left side of the slide shows an 15 electron micrograph of a human hair.

16 On the right is a representation of the cross 17 section of the hair compared with 2 partials, one a ten 18 micron particle and the other a 2.5 micron particle.

19 As I mentioned earlier, the current California 20 ambient air quality standard for particulate matter is 21 based on measurement of the mass of the particles that are 22 ten microns or less in aerodynamic diameter. So you can 23 see that PM 10 includes the 2.5 micron particle.

24  o0o

25 DR. DRECHSLER: We often also hear reference to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 214 1 PM 2.5. This is particulate matter with an aerodynamic 2 diameter of 2.5 microns or less. If we measure the 3 concentration of PM 2.5 in the air, we measure only the 4 particles that are 2.5 microns or less in diameter and 5 omit all those larger than 2.5 microns in diameter. Thus 6 PM 2.5 is a subset of PM 10.

7  o0o

8 DR. DRECHSLER: Particulate matter comes from 9 many sources, some of which are illustrated on this slide.

10 Some particles are directly emitted from sources such as 11 road dust and combustion related processes like motor 12 vehicles or fireplaces.

13 Still other particles, such as nitrates and 14 sulfates form in the atmosphere from chemical reactions 15 resulting in gas to particle conversion.

16  o0o

17 DR. DRECHSLER: You may be wondering how much 18 particulate matter we are exposed to in California.

19 Exposure to concentrations of particulate air pollution 20 greater than the State standard is ubiquitous throughout 21 California.

22 This map shows the current area designations with 23 reference to the 24 hour California ambient air quality 24 standard for PM 10. As you can see, with the exception of 25 a few sparsely populated mountain areas that are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 215 1 unclassified due to inadequate air quality monitoring 2 data, only Lake County is in attainment with the current 3 standard.

4 The frequency of the 24 hour standard exceedances 5 in 1998 range from 0 to 264 days, and in 1999 from 0 to 6 306 days depending on the air basin. This means that most 7 Californian citizens are exposed to PM 10 polluted air on 8 a few to many days per year. On the other hand, the 9 entire state is attainment for the sulfate standard.

10 Ultimately, the particulate matter standards 11 review process necessitates making a number of decisions.

12 ARB and OEHHA staff are studying the scientific literature 13 to determine what particulate matter size, averaging times 14 and concentrations are the most appropriate to ensure 15 protection of the health of all of California's citizens.

16 We are also reviewing and evaluating the 17 scientific literature to determine whether the separate 18 sulfate standard is still needed.

19 The monitoring method is also required with the 20 standard. Currently, particulate matter and sulfates are 21 monitored with 24 hour filter based particle sampling 22 methods that are typically operated every 6th day. These 23 methods are not readily amenable to short term averaging 24 for example for times less than 24 hours. Also, the 25 one out of six day monitoring schedule does not adequately PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 216 1 characterize exposure.

2 The monitoring and laboratory division is 3 currently evaluating several new continuous methods to 4 determine what monitoring strategy will be most useful.

5 Use of these new methods will allow multiple averaging 6 times, both long and short term from the output of a 7 single analyzer.

8  o0o

9 DR. DRECHSLER: As you have seen, promulgation of 10 an ambient air quality standard involves several steps 11 with contributions from staff, from ARB and OEHHA, the 12 public, the Board and others.

13 The standards promulgation process begins with 14 the draft report prepared by staff from OEHHA and ARB that 15 is released for public review and comment. We are 16 anticipating the release of the first public review draft 17 of the staff report in late September of this year. This 18 will be followed by a public comment period and several 19 public workshops.

20 The report will also undergo peer review by the 21 Air Quality Advisory Committee, which is OEHHA's outside 22 peer review panel, at a public meeting in November.

23 ARB and OEHHA staff will then revise the draft 24 report to incorporate the comments of the public and the 25 Air Quality Advisory Committee and re release it for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 217 1 further public comment in early March 2002.

2 We expect to bring you our recommendations for 3 the particulate matter and sulfate standards at the April 4 2002 Board hearing. Our recommendations will include all 5 of the elements of the standards along with the evaluation 6 of the supporting science.

7 The recommendations will be summarized in a 8 document that contains staff's best advice to you. At the 9 hearing, you will consider our recommendations and make a 10 decision on the new particulate matter standards.

11 Thank you.

12 Are there any questions?

13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Question, what plans are 14 there in the workshops to hold those in some of the 15 economically depressed communities, minority communities.

16 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE:

17 Richard Bode. We haven't actually set up our workshops 18 yet, but we've been speaking with the Ombudsman Office 19 about identifying which communities. Definitely, we're 20 probably looking at those areas that are most impacted 21 right now. Definitely those areas in the south coast 22 where there is some of the highest particulate matter,

23 especially PM 10 concentrations.

24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I presume in the Senator's 25 district is one of those?

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 218 1 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE:

2 Yes.

3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much for your 4 presentation.

5 Welcome Dr. Ostro.

6 DR. OSTRO: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 7 members of the Board. I'm Dr. Bart Ostro from the Office 8 of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. I'm going to 9 briefly summarize some of the health effects of 10 particulate matter.

11 Basically, there are dozens of epidemiologic 12 studies from around the United States and the world that 13 record associations between particulate matter and both 14 mortality and morbidity or illness.

15 In these studies, particles have been measured as 16 PM 10, as PM two and a half or fine particles, as coarse 17 particles, which are the difference between fine and PM 18 10, that is particles between two and half and 10 microns.

19 Also, some studies have found some effects from sulfates,

20 and a few recent studies have found effects from ultrafine 21 particles.

22 These effects have been observed at current 23 ambient concentrations, which includes levels below the 24 current State standard, and also studies that have looked 25 at it have failed to detect a threshold level for some of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 219 1 these effects that is a level of which no effects would 2 occur.

3 The effects have been related to both short and 4 long term exposure. In this case by short term exposure 5 we mean the 24 hour average, maybe lag by a day or two,

6 and by long term exposure we mean particle averages over 7 several years.

8  o0o

9 DR. OSTRO: So I want to just provide a brief 10 overview as to how we derived these conclusions. So I 11 want to talk a little bit about some of the epidemiologic 12 studies that were used to generate these conclusions,

13 specifically studies that relate acute exposure to 14 mortality, those that relate long term exposure to 15 mortality, morbidity studies, and then a summary of our 16 findings.

17  o0o

18 DR. OSTRO: Basically, there are several types of 19 studies that look at the health effects of air pollution.

20 We have toxicologic studies, which look at animals exposed 21 in a laboratory setting. There's controlled human 22 exposure studies where humans are basically exposed in 23 controlled settings, and epidemiologic studies where 24 health outcomes are observed among the free living 25 population and exposure is based usually on fixed site PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 220 1 monitors located throughout the community.

2 As Deborah described, particulate matter is a 3 very heterogeneous mix of different chemicals and sizes.

4 Therefore, most of the health effects literature relies on 5 the epidemiologic studies as opposed to the toxicologic or 6 human control studies.

7 So basically, we're looking at data on humans 8 under real world conditions and there have been recent 9 animal studies supporting some of these epidemiologic 10 findings.

11  o0o

12 DR. OSTRO: There's several different types of 13 epidemiologic studies and I'm going to just discuss really 14 the first two that are listed there, time series study and 15 prospective cohort studies.

16 So by Time series studies, in this case on 17 mortality, although there are some Times series studies on 18 morbidity and sickness outcomes as well. We look at 19 associations, really statistical association, between 20 daily changes in air pollution and daily counts of 21 mortality in a specified city or region.

22 We also look at cause specific mortality, looking 23 at cardiovascular mortality, and maybe respiratory related 24 mortality. So these studies have to control for other 25 factors that change on a daily basis, such as weather PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 221 1 changes and day of the week.

2 And the factors that we typically are concerned 3 about like smoking or alcohol use or occupational 4 exposure, obesity, are not risk factors in these types of 5 studies, because we're looking at daily changes. And we 6 really don't expect daily exposures for these things to 7 change. And these things are not really related to daily 8 changes in air pollution, so they don't really affect the 9 results of these studies.

10 One limitation of these studies is that they 11 examine relatively short material exposure, so they look 12 only at the effects of say yesterday's air pollution or 13 the air pollution over the last few days, so they're 14 looking only at very acute or short term exposures.

15  o0o

16 DR. OSTRO: Nevertheless, these studies have 17 found consistent associations with daily mortality, and as 18 I mentioned, this is including all cause mortality, as 19 well as disease specific mortality, like mortality from 20 cardiovascular outcomes, or respiratory outcomes. And in 21 the last couple of years, there's actually been some 22 studies relating changes in particles to infant mortality,

23 as well.

24 The studies have been conducted throughout the 25 United States, in many parts of California and throughout PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 222 1 the world. I think among these studies are the Health 2 Effects Institute's studies that Dan Greenbaum from the 3 Health Effects Institute will be discussing. They're a 4 multi city study.

5 But it's important to note that besides their 6 study there's probably several dozen studies that have 7 also been conducted on mortality. As I indicated in the 8 introduction, the associations are found even at very low 9 concentrations of particulate matter with no apparent 10 threshold. Some studies have specifically looked at 11 studies with very low air pollution levels or they've 12 statistically tried to model to see if threshold levels 13 exist. And so far a threshold level has been  they've 14 been unable to detect the threshold level.

15 The sensitive group that appears from these 16 studies are elderly people, those with chronic heart or 17 lung disease, and infants. These groups appear to be most 18 susceptible to these mortality effects.

19 The other type of epidemiologic study that has 20 been used in the literature and has been reported in the 21 literature are so called prospective cohort studies.

22 These are a very different type of study than the 23 Time series studies.

24 These studies actually use individual level data.

25 They follow a specific group of people over time, maybe PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 223 1 seven to ten to 20 years, and they examine the impacts of 2 longer term exposure that is exposures over several years.

3 These studies allow us to actually calculate the 4 number of life years lost in the individuals. And these 5 studies are expensive but tend to be very informative.

6 Now one example of the prospective cohort study is the 7 American Cancer Society Cohort.

8 This was a cohort of around 500,000 people from 9 151 cities in the United States that were followed for 10 about seven years, and actually now they've been followed 11 for a lot more years, but the paper that was published had 12 been followed for seven years. The study controls for 13 other effects on other factors that can affect mortality 14 like age, sex, smoking, socioeconomic status, obesity,

15 occupational exposure, and alcohol use. Those things are 16 all controlled for.

17 And then differences in the air pollution levels 18 in the cities are looked at to see if mortality is 19 associated with those pollution levels. And basically,

20 this study found that both all caused mortality and 21 cardiopulmonary mortality were associated with fine 22 particles that is PM 2.5 and sulfates.

23 And among the findings were that the exposure to 24 particles over a long period of time, and we're not sure 25 exactly how long the period is needed, but somewhere PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 224 1 between probably a year and several years, these exposures 2 were associated with significant loss in life expectancy.

3 When you compare the most polluted with the least polluted 4 city in the sample, it's roughly a two year difference in 5 life expectancy in the cities after other factors are 6 controlled for. So it's quite a significant effect.

7  o0o

8 DR. OSTRO: And there's also been several other 9 cohort studies that have been published, generally 10 supporting those results. A study out of Harvard looking 11 at six cities, and a Seventh Day Adventist Cohort study 12 centered in Southern California have also found effects 13 related to particulate matter. And, again, the Health 14 Effects Institute has funded an independent reanalysis of 15 these data sets, and I think that will be reported on the 16 following.

17  o0o

18 DR. OSTRO: Another example of a prospective 19 cohort study using morbidity is the Children's Health 20 Study which has been funded by the Air Resources Board.

21 Now, besides the mortality effects, there's a 22 whole suite of morbidity outcomes associated with 23 particulate matter. Among the more severe particulate 24 matter has been associated with hospitalization for 25 cardiovascular disease, as well as respiratory disease,

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 225 1 emergency room visits, urgent care visits, doctor visits.

2 Also there's a whole range of cardiovascular outcomes now,

3 that are shown to be related to particulate matter.

4 You probably heard last week there was a study 5 announced relating particles to heart attacks, one of the 6 first studies of its kind. We've also found studies that 7 relate particulate matter to heart rate, to heart rate 8 variability, which is a measure of how well the heart can 9 adapt to stresses, to see reactive protein, which is a 10 measure of inflammation in the blood, which is a predictor 11 of subsequent mortality, and to other blood parameters.

12 Air pollution has also  particles have also 13 been associated with exacerbation signs of asthma, with 14 acute and chronic bronchitis, with respiratory systems,

15 including cough, shortness of breath and wheeze, with 16 decrements in lung function and with work loss and 17 restricted activity days.

18 Some of these outcomes were included in some 19 recent studies, like the Children's Health Study, which 20 includes 12 cities in southern California. And they're 21 finding that longer term exposure to particles appear to 22 be related to losses in lung function and increased 23 symptoms among asthmatics.

24  o0o

25 DR. OSTRO: So to summarize the general findings,

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 226 1 right now, it's that particles are related to mortality 2 and morbidity and the results do not appear likely to be 3 due to confounding or to chance alone. The exposures 4 seems to be associated with significant shortening of 5 life. There's no apparent threshold for these effects,

6 that is no apparent safe level, and the effects have been 7 associated with all the different measures of particles,

8 PM 10, fine and coarse particles, sulfates and as I 9 mentioned even some findings now with ultrafines.

10 So I think I'll stop here.

11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank very much. Any 12 questions by the Board?

13 I found it most intriguing thinking about what 14 you didn't say and that was a plea for more time. So I 15 was very pleased to hear that.

16 ( Laughter.)

17 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE:

18 Any more questions, Dr. Lloyd?

19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: No, I don't think so.

20 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE:

21 Okay, with that, I'd like to

22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We may have some after we've 23 heard all the presentations.

24 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE:

25 I'd like to introduce our invited speaker, which is Daniel PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 227 1 Greenbaum, who's the President of the Health Effects 2 Institute and he's going to talk about the latest PM 3 research.

4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We really appreciate your 5 coming down. I know how busy you are. We appreciate it 6 very much, sorry to keep you waiting as well.

7 ( Thereupon an overhead presentation 8 was presented as well.)

9 DR. GREENBAUM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's 10 our pleasure to be here. Actually, I'm here with Bob 11 O'Keefe who's the vice president of the Health Effects 12 Institute. And for the record, as I was introduced, I'm 13 Dan Greenbaum, the president.

14 I actually felt this morning was hearkening back 15 to my own days running a State regulatory agency for Air 16 Quality, so it was interesting to see how you know how to 17 diet better on this side Of the country.

18 If you can give me the next slide, please.

19  o0o

20 DR. GREENBAUM: Just very briefly, I'll tell you 21 a little bit about who the Health Effects Institute is.

22 And you can flip through these. First, that we're an 23 independent research institute that has joined Equal Core 24 Funding from government and the US EPA and the industry,

25 but that we have an independent board and expert science PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 228 1 committees who have no affiliation with either of those 2 sets of sponsors, who oversee and review all of our 3 scientific research.

4 And finally, we've done over 200 studies on the 5 health effects of a range of pollutants, particulate 6 matter being the center of that.

7  o0o

8 DR. GREENBAUM: I'm going to briefly review, and 9 not dwell on some, if you flip that, some of the data that 10 we had in 1997, if you could push the next button there,

11 which, as Bart said, these are the Time series studies 12 which compare day to day relationship between air 13 pollution and health. There are some  in 1997, there 14 were some 40 studies, both in the US and Europe. This 15 actual chart shows studies in Europe in a number of cities 16 with similar results in the United States, showing that 17 there was, to the right side of that line, an increase in 18 risk of about .5 to one percent per ten micrograms of 19 exposure to PM 10, an increase in risk of mortality. And 20 some similar or sometimes even greater increase in risk 21 for hospitalization.

22 Next slide, please.

23  o0o

24 DR. GREENBAUM: There also are several studies on 25 long term epidemiology. Again, I'm not going to go over PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 229 1 the details, as Bart just very nicely summarized. The two 2 most often cited in 1997 were the Harvard Six Cities study 3 and the Hope American Cancer Society study. And those 4 showed a larger effect, somewhat larger effect of four to 5 five percent per ten micrograms.

6 And in the next graphic that's on this page, this 7 represents the Harvard Six Cities and Stubenville, Ohio,

8 the S on the graph had about a 26 percent higher risk as 9 the highest polluted city, compared to Ported, Wisconsin,

10 the P on the graph, which was the least polluted city.

11 Next slide, please.

12  o0o 13 DR. GREENBAUM: These studies were the basis of 14 the action by EPA in 1997 to set a PM 2.5 as well as the 15 PM 10 standard, as well as supporting some other types of 16 studies. But there were questions that they and others 17 had at the time about the strength of this epidemiology.

18 There were questions about the importance of different 19 components of the PM mixture, which if you go to the next 20 bullet, please, which this is a very complex mixture, as 21 Deborah Drechsler said. And there are questions about 22 whether all particles are created equally or are some 23 sources more or less toxic?

24 There were also questions about what mechanism,

25 biological mechanisms, next bullet please, effect might be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 230 1 causing these effects.

2 Next slide.

3  o0o

4 DR. GREENBAUM: There's been a lot of work done,

5 and you can go through these, you can keep going on the 6 bullets until you finish the slide, please. A lot of work 7 done under way on research funded by you at the Air 8 Resources Board, by EPA, by us at HEI, by many other 9 groups. There are over 500 projects described on line.

10 At a quick inventory that we at HEI have created, at 11 www. pmra. org and if you'll hit the next button you'll see 12 what the home page looks like when you open it.

13 The next slide, please.

14  o0o

15 DR. GREENBAUM: So what could we do to answer 16 some of these questions? 17 Well, one of the first things that HEI did was 18 funded competitively something called the National 19 Morbidity, Mortality and Air Pollution Study or NMMAPS.

20 This was funded by HEI, but by a team led by the Johns 21 Hopkins University, and also including investigators from 22 Harvard University. And rather than going city by city,

23 this study attempted to do a systematic analysis in the 90 24 largest US cities of air pollution, mortality and weather 25 using the same techniques in every city, so that you could PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 231 1 not only know that the results were similar in those 2 different cities, but could combine them.

3 There was a similar, although somewhat more 4 limited, analysis of elderly hospitalization in 14 US 5 cities that took part in this study.

6 Next slide.

7  o0o

8 DR. GREENBAUM: And as you can see these cities 9 span the continent. These regions are broken up based on 10 EPA's assessment of different general pollution mixtures.

11 And as you can see, there were a number of the cities,

12 obviously in California included, although given that this 13 map wasn't drawn on this side of the country, California 14 was divided into at least two parts, and maybe a third if 15 you count the small corner over towards the Arizona and 16 Mexico borer.

17 Next slide, please.

18  o0o

19 DR. GREENBAUM: I'm sorry I had not expected the 20 bullets to be here, but this study was very systematic. 21 An extensive analysis was done, and it found when you 22 looked at these 90 cities a relatively consistent increase 23 in mortality, about .45 percent per 10 micrograms per 24 cubic meter of PM 10, which was actually about half the 25 magnitude of previous US analyses, but still a consistent PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 232 1 effect.

2 Perhaps, most importantly from this study, there 3 did not appear to be an effect of other pollutants that 4 could make this particle effect go away. And this chart 5 illustrates that the solid line represents the effective 6 particles compared to mortality and PM 10. The other 7 lines represent particles with other pollutants considered 8 at the same time. You see there's some change, but the 9 effect is still there.

10 It also looked at the question of harvesting.

11 These are day to day studies. Does that mean this is just 12 extremely ill people who are dying a few days earlier or 13 are there some longer term advancements of death. And 14 they found evidence that there are longer term 15 advancements in death.

16 Next bullet.

17 They looked at whether exposure was measured 18 properly and found that it was not likely to change the 19 results in these kinds of studies.

20 And finally, overall, they found greater 21 confidence in the results of these Time series studies 22 that we have been using to identify PM as a problematic 23 air pollutant.

24 Next slide. 25  o0o

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 233 1 DR. GREENBAUM: They did find when they looked 2 across regions there were some differences in different 3 parts of the country. And in southern California and the 4 northeast, they saw the largest effects, smaller effects 5 in some other regions. They attempted to try and 6 understand why that is and are continuing under our 7 sponsorship to do that, looking at things like whether 8 there may be different pollutant mixtures, other 9 pollutants that may be present in these that other 10 cities  in these other regions, along with particles 11 either enhance or detract from the effect.

12 There may be other differences in the regions 13 that we're investigating now.

14 Next slide.

15  o0o

16 DR. GREENBAUM: We have extracted from that for 17 you the results in California of the 12 cities or at least 18 really the counties in California that they looked at,

19 county level data. And I will start by cautioning you 20 about this slide not to too quickly say oh, we now know 21 that there's no affected particles in Sacramento, but 22 there is an effect in San Diego or Oakland.

23 These studies were designed to say what is the 24 relative risk across all these cities, but knowing that 25 some cities are smaller and larger doing them in a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 234 1 systematic way so that you can combine them very 2 carefully, because no one city other than perhaps Los 3 Angeles is probably large enough to be assured that you 4 would get a positive effect.

5 Having said that, these are consistently positive 6 with the exception of a few of the smaller locations.

7 Sacramento is not. And clearly the conclusion of both the 8 investigators and our review committee of these studies 9 was that there was evidence of a consistent increase in 10 mortality per 10 micrograms per cubic meter.

11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: How do you explain Modesto.

12 DR. GREENBAUM: Oh, well

13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Didi, should be here I guess.

14 DR. GREENBAUM: Well, that's why I started by 15 cautioning you about jumping to individual cities.

16 Modesto is obviously one of the smaller counties that was 17 included in the study. And we did have some percentage of 18 the cities that showed up as not showing an effect, but 19 they were so small that it was not clear that that would 20 be necessarily the effect if you had more deaths in that 21 city.

22 We are looking at other factors as we go forward 23 to see whether perhaps there was something else going on 24 in those cities, some other pollutants or other things 25 that got in the way of that.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 235 1 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Dr. Greenbaum, I thought 2 that I heard you say something about counties. And then 3 you backed sort of into cities, is this a county or a 4 city?

5 DR. GREENBAUM: The death rates were based on the 6 counties around which each of these cities were based, so 7 this is county level death rates.

8 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: County level death rates,

9 but you took out the city and compared the City to the 10 County?

11 DR. GREENBAUM: No. What this was is basically 12 comparing the daily air pollution levels in a particular 13 county to the daily mortality levels in that same county 14 to see whether there was a relationship, and also 15 including daily weather patterns to see, because weather 16 itself might be causing it.

17 The only reason we put the city names up here is 18 for some people, particularly non Californians, Orange 19 County is not as well located as Santa Ana or Anaheim 20 would be for example. So those are there more for 21 identification. These are county level analyses. So it's 22 Los Angeles county for example.

23 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you.

24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Again, it's surprising that 25 you got all down in LA.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 236 1 DR. GREENBAUM: Right. And I think it's fair to 2 say that we  I mean, we are using exactly the same 3 techniques in every city, so there may be some 4 peculiarities of the analysis, but there also may be some 5 differences and we're still continuing to probe that.

6 That may help us understand in the future maybe there's 7 some part of the particle mixture that's higher than in 8 these other places and maybe that's why you're seeing a 9 greater effect as well.

10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Smoking is taken out of this.

11 DR. GREENBAUM: These are Time series studies.

12 These are daily studies, so the smoking behavior doesn't 13 change much from day to day, so that one assumes that 14 that's not here.

15 Next slide, please.

16  o0o

17 DR. GREENBAUM: Now, the other thing that I'll 18 say here is that these investigators did try to test 19 whether as pollution went up, you saw an increase in 20 effect. That's an important question relating to the 21 causality of pollution causing these effects. And also as 22 you went down to the lowest levels of pollution, did you 23 still see an effect?

24 Overall for total mortality, they did see 25 generally a linear response, but when you broke that down PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 237 1 what you saw is that for the bottom part of this slide,

2 cardiovascular deaths and respiratory deaths, there was a 3 quite straightforward linear relationship with no matter 4 how low you went with pollution you still have some 5 effects, this is for PM 10.

6 On the other hand, other types of deaths other 7 types of cancer, for example, did seem to show some 8 indication that effects didn't really start up until you 9 got out to about 55 or 60 particles per  PM 10 per cubic 10 meter.

11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: What was the averaging time 12 on these?

13 DR. GREENBAUM: These are daily.

14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Twenty four hour average.

15 DR. GREENBAUM: Twenty four hour average.

16 Next slide.

17  o0o

18 DR. GREENBAUM: I'm going to ask you to cut me 19 off if I'm going too long. I obviously want to answer 20 your questions along the way and we can

21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We didn't invite you all this 22 way

23 DR. GREENBAUM: I'm sorry what?

24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We can't invite you all this 25 way and cut you off, and it's interesting stuff too, very PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 238 1 very relevant.

2 DR. GREENBAUM: The second set of studies that 3 Bart described were the so called long term studies,

4 studies that looked at populations of people over a period 5 of time in their cities, knowing much more about the 6 individuals, how much they smoked, how much did they 7 drink, what was their weight which is a big indicator of 8 health.

9 And at the time in 1997, pretty much the Harvard 10 Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study 11 were the two premier examples of this. There were some 12 others of this sort in existence, but these were the 13 largest at the time.

14 These studies have been the ones upon which 15 people have usually estimated the numbers of possible 16 deaths resulting from particulate matter exposure. And as 17 you can see, there's been a range of estimates made. This 18 is two examples of US EPA in 1997, then a more recent 19 estimate by the World Health Organization.

20 We were asked in 1997 to conduct an in depth 21 reanalysis of these studies. And we had an expert panel 22 pick a team from the University of Ottawa, who had had 23 nothing to do with the original studies, to conduct that.

24 Next slide.

25  o0o

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 239 1 DR. GREENBAUM: And if you could go through the 2 bullets here. This was a very extensive study. It was a 3 study which looked at  our reanalysis looked at auditing 4 the original data. It looked at different analytic 5 approaches. It looked at different variables that were in 6 the database about the individuals, how much pack years of 7 smoking, which wasn't used in the original study.

8 It also looked at could there be  these are 9 studies  remember the Steubenville, Ohio had a higher 10 death rate than Wisconsin. Well, could there be some 11 other difference between those two cities other than air 12 pollution that might explain the difference in death. And 13 we needed to look at a number of things that the original 14 investigators didn't look at.

15 Next slide.

16  o0o

17 DR. GREENBAUM: Having done that, I think it's 18 fair to say that overall the reanalysis assured the 19 quality of the data, it replicated the original results, 20 and it was able to test those results against a wide 21 variety of alternative models and analytic approaches 22 without changing the results very substantially.

23 And let me, in this slide just briefly point out 24 that this again is a study. This was PM 2.5 and sulfates.

25 This is the American Cancer Society. And they found in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 240 1 the original analysis a 17 percent  1.17 increase in 2 risk between the most and the least polluted cities.

3 When our analysts went in, they've got every 4 other piece of individual data we put out of there that 5 might explain away those deaths. You see the results 6 under the full and the extended model and they, in fact,

7 if anything, the effects of PM 2.5 went up slightly.

8 So our conclusion was that, in general, these 9 results were very durable and didn't go way. Even though 10 we only had two of these studies at the time, they seem to 11 be very well done.

12 Next slide, please.

13  o0o

14 DR. GREENBAUM: There were some very interesting 15 results. One of those had to do with the risks relating 16 to education. When we broke up these populations into 17 people without a high school education, people with a high 18 school education and people with greater than a high 19 school education, we saw a marked difference in effect,

20 with the highest estimated effect on mortality being in 21 those without a high school education.

22 We do know education is a reasonably good 23 surrogate for social class for socioeconomic status. And 24 we don't know exactly what might be causing this or 25 explaining this, but some of the things that have been PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 241 1 explored were, first of all, it may be that people who are 2 lower socioeconomic status, in general, have a difference 3 in their exposure. And we have seen some data that 4 suggests that given occupational differences, given less 5 access to air conditioning and other things, that actual 6 exposure may be higher.

7 There also maybe a  we know that socioeconomic 8 status results in generally  well, worse health status 9 for a variety of reasons. And it may be that therefore 10 those people are more frail and more sensitive to the 11 effects of air pollution. So these are some of the 12 possibilities that are being explored as a result of the 13 study.

14 But it is needless to say an important finding 15 that needs to be looked at more closely, particularly for 16 some of the least protected members of our population.

17 Next slide.

18  o0o

19 DR. GREENBAUM: Actually, why don't you just skip 20 by this. I'm just going to say we also did some 21 additional analyses. And one of the most interesting 22 things about that was we did find some relationship 23 between sulfur dioxide and mortality as well as particles.

24 And it's interesting that that would be the case.

25 Most of the toxicology data does not suggest that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 242 1 sulfur dioxide would cause mortality, and so there may be 2 other examples of why that may be  other pollutants that 3 follow along with sulfur dioxide that could be a cause.

4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I notice you also mentioned 5 sulfate as well. So any efforts to remove sulfur from 6 fuels is going really in the right direction.

7 DR. GREENBAUM: That's correct. Well, of course,

8 sulfur dioxide when it comes out it is transformed into 9 sulfate particles. And although fuel sulfur is not the 10 largest source in most cases  actually in California, it 11 probably is a larger source, but in other parts of the 12 country it's not the largest, but it is able to be a 13 noticeable reduction.

14  o0o

15 DR. GREENBAUM: So to conclude first of all, the 16 reanalysis was able to identify relatively robust 17 associations with fine particle sulfate and sulfur 18 dioxide.

19 We tested those associations in nearly every 20 possible manner within the limitations of the data set,

21 and found that mortality was associated with the 22 particles, but also maybe attributable to more than one 23 component. Some of these gas pollutants we shouldn't lose 24 site of those. And I know you haven't lined up to look at 25 those as well in future reviews.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 243 1 Next slide.

2  o0o

3 DR. GREENBAUM: I'm just going to just very 4 briefly just say that the other element here is that as we 5 go down the path of trying to control any kind of 6 effectiveness, we are going to be faced with the issue 7 that PM is a mixture. And we do not know whether all 8 particles are created equal in the sense of toxicity.

9 Are some types of particles, are some sizes of 10 particles, are some sources of particles of more concern 11 and what will be the best method for regulation. This is 12 the discussion that led EPA to move towards a 2.5 13 standards as well as a PM 10 standard. There are many 14 studies underway that test different components and 15 different characteristics. And the initial results are 16 beginning to come in.

17 Next slide.

18  o0o

19 DR. GREENBAUM: There are many possible culprits,

20 and I doubt we'll ever say that anyone of these is the 21 serious problem. Many of them have been associated with 22 effects not in and of themselves, though, we may be 23 looking at certain metals on particles that have more 24 effects than others. There may be certain organic 25 compounds, for example, the kinds of things that we found PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 244 1 on diesel particles that may have that effect.

2 Next slide, please.

3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: How do you define biogenic 4 particles?

5 DR. GREENBAUM: We have actually not done  I 6 mean biogenic particles obviously could have health 7 effects and do have health effects. Some of them have 8 health effects in asthma exacerbation we know on a very 9 regular basis, although those tend to be larger biogenic 10 particles.

11 We have not done studies along the biogenics. We 12 have those underway currently, so we don't have results on 13 that.

14 Could you keep going with the

15  o0o

16 DR. GREENBAUM: We have done a series of studies 17 trying to tease out this question of PM 10 versus PM 2.5 18 versus ultrafine versus PM 10 minus 2.5 of a particle.

19 And I think interestingly we have seen the effects 20 associated with each of those size cuts, with ultrafine in 21 PM 2.5 and the coarse fraction.

22 As this slide from the recent criteria document 23 shows, it's not clear that one of those size cuts is 24 jumping out ahead of the other one as the most 25 consistently problematic. That doesn't mean that there PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 245 1 isn't an effect associated with one or another of those 2 size effects the PM 10 or the PM 2.5. But it's not clear 3 that we're seeing a similar kind of levels of effect for 4 all of these size cuts. I think one of the considerations 5 and certainly it was one of the EPA decisions to go to PM 6 2.5 has to do as much with if you know you need to control 7 both the coarse fraction and the fine fraction, what's the 8 best set of standards to ensure that you get at that, and 9 is the standard only for PM 10 going to be adequate to do 10 that? I think that has been part of the consideration.

11 There are also a number of studies  we have 12 studies underway, for example, some just down the road in 13 Davis, at UC Davis and others, looking at the effects of 14 metals, of PAH's, which come on diesel and many other 15 particles and of other components.

16  o0o

17 DR. GREENBAUM: I'm going to actually stop there.

18 I've been going on for some period of time but just to say 19 that we do have  in my package there is some discussion 20 about the question about mechanism, about what we're 21 beginning to learn about that, and just to say  and also 22 the say that we have had a sizable increase in our 23 knowledge since 1997.

24 In general, it has tended to say that the 25 epidemiology studies we had then have held up under quite PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 246 1 a bit of examination. There continue to be some questions 2 we're trying to address, particularly in two areas. One 3 is this question of portions of the particle making sure 4 of what their relative effects might be.

5 And the second is in the area of better 6 understanding the biological mechanism underlying these 7 effects, although we have started to see some of those.

8 I'll stop there.

9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much.

10 Any questions from the Board?

11 Mr. McKinnon.

12 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: We had a workshop awhile 13 back, and a very interesting discussion around 14 environmental justice. And I was looking at kind of your 15 using education for socioeconomic, which I'm real 16 interested in not only looking at environmental justice in 17 terms of kind of an ethnic national origin questions, but 18 to some extent socioeconomic and class questions.

19 In other words, there are some neighborhoods that 20 are the hardest impacted and how do you get to evaluating 21 that. And I'm kind of interested in whether or not you've 22 done any work with kind of that combination of thinking 23 about that.

24 DR. GREENBAUM: Well, I know the issues well. I 25 actually sit on the Air and Water Subcommittee of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 247 1 National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee. I 2 think you're right to focus this issue beyond just any one 3 ethnic group or racial group, because I think it is a 4 broader questions, which these data raise about 5 socioeconomic status.

6 Certain groups are obviously going to be more 7 affected, if you look at the socioeconomic status and we 8 have to look at that.

9 We actually have just started down the path of 10 some very specific studies, for example, looking at the 11 question of diesel exhaust and other particles and their 12 ability to exacerbate asthma. We do know actually we've 13 had an increase in asthma in the country. That increase 14 has been disproportionate in certain ethnic groups in 15 certain socioeconomic groups. It's been higher than in 16 others.

17 And we actually are looking at possible studies 18 where we might look at those effects specifically in some 19 of the lower socioeconomic status populations to see 20 whether the effects were high in those settings that they 21 would be in others. We're trying to get at that question.

22 This finding just pushes this even more in that direction.

23 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Just a follow up. Part 24 of the reason I'm real interested in that is that I think 25 we may get confronted with fairly complex sets of facts,

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 248 1 such as neighborhoods where, in fact, there are 2 neighborhoods in Los Angeles that are largely African 3 American, where the folks in that neighborhood went to 4 work in aerospace plants and ended up with fairly high 5 levels of health care.

6 And my guess is that in studying those 7 neighborhoods we may not  what we may see is better 8 health, but the better health is because of better health 9 care rather than the toxic exposures in that neighborhood.

10 So I think there's some variables that we're 11 going to have to really think through as we begin to look 12 at the economic justice.

13 DR. GREENBAUM: Right. And this is the kind of 14 area where you have to look at the different type of set 15 of studies. These panel studies that Dr. Ostro referred 16 to where you actually go out and you find panels of people 17 and you find out things about them, you get them to agree 18 to participate and you actually get different populations 19 and different settings of exposure and so you can actually 20 see whether or not they have better health care and 21 various other things, where they're employed.

22 The other issue you run into is occupational 23 exposure sometimes and you have to control for those as 24 well.

25 But those sorts of studies may tell us better,

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 249 1 you know, is this a function of socioeconomic status, is 2 it a function of ethnicity, is it a function of  or are 3 we all subject to similar risks from this exposure?

4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, also your point there 5 tying what you're saying in terms of health effects and 6 education, I think you take into account the USC study,

7 which is showing that pollution affects the education and 8 the school absenteeism. And it's a little bit of a Catch 9 22 situation.

10 Are you looking at anything directly on 11 children's health work? I realize that you did an 12 extensive study. Is there anything that you could shed 13 some light to help us in what we're trying to do here?

14 DR. GREENBAUM: I don't know that I could sort of 15 quickly give you specific results today. We do have 16 underway several very key studies actually in this arena.

17 One of them is probably the most interesting. It's 18 looking at a birth cohort a population that actually 19 happens to be in Europe, but is exposed to levels of 20 particles not dissimilar to what we see in this country.

21 And they have been followed first to see whether 22 there were effects in pregnancy of the mothers or in the 23 children. Now, we'll be following them to see whether 24 there are effects in their development based on more or 25 less exposure. And that will be very important to try and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 250 1 flesh out more on this very effort.

2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Last question, you know, when 3 I was over in Europe you're subject to the same thing.

4 They're putting increasing emphasis on noise pollution to 5 the impact of deaths. What do you make of that? Should 6 we be putting more emphasis on noise?

7 DR. GREENBAUM: Well, I was interested 8 recently

9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: In reducing noise I mean.

10 DR. GREENBAUM: Well, there actually  you know,

11 in this country under federal law we see things as HAPS,

12 Hazardous Air Pollutants. But in the noise analyses in 13 Europe, a HAP is a Heavily Annoyed Person and literally 14 that is the kind of jargon that's there.

15 And noise has taken on a health dimension in 16 Europe that it hasn't come close to in this country. It's 17 been interesting to see that. We've been looking because 18 we do find research in Europe if that's where the 19 researchers come from, and there's a good opportunity to 20 learn something.

21 And we've been looking for whether there are ways 22 that we could bring that into this discussion because 23 there are certainly certain conditions that one would 24 expect that noise could be a contributor to and some of 25 the very same things that we look for, for instance air PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 251 1 pollution.

2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Have you looked at any of the 3 data over there, where they basically say, you know, noise 4 builds more in some cases than traffic accidents. It 5 seems difficult to believe, but these are credible people 6 making that point.

7 DR. GREENBAUM: Well, I think they are well done 8 studies and I think they've gotten a start. I don't think 9 that they have the numbers of studies and the numbers of 10 approaches to it than we have, for example on particulate 11 matter and mortality, so that you want to see that built 12 up some before you leap to sort of the numbers, the 13 numbers debate. But I think you can't dismiss it, and I 14 think it is a real issue.

15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: As an ex regulator, what 16 would be your advice to us, should we, in fact, as we look 17 at some of our regulations, just address the noise issue 18 not do anything about it, but just

19 DR. GREENBAUM: Well, certainly noise is 20 something  I mean, it's certainly something that people 21 have dealt with probably most in this country around very 22 high noise levels, for example, airport noise has been an 23 ongoing concern.

24 But I think we will see increasing attention here 25 and something that we need to look at in certain settings.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 252 1 If we think  your comment a minute go about the 2 children's health study, the children not being able to go 3 to school, certainly an effect on a child's ability to 4 hear as a result of noise exposure is at least as 5 damaging, if not more damaging, than potential future 6 growth and development. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Some of that may be 8 self inflicted with music type.

9 ( Laughter.)

10 DR. GREENBAUM: I'm talking about very young 11 children.

12 ( Laughter.)

13 MR. GREENBAUM: You're really not going to 14 control the music choices of teenagers anymore than I 15 would for my daughter, so that's right.

16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much for 17 coming down. We appreciate that. And I know that you're 18 in close contact with our research staff and we appreciate 19 working with you.

20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And we look forward to 21 continuing to work with the whole staff.

22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And Dr. Prasad back there as 23 well.

24 Thank you.

25 Is this the end of the presentation?

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 253 1 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE:

2 It's the end of our presentation.

3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Any other questions from the 4 Board?

5 Thank you very much. I guess there's no action 6 required on this particular item.

7 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE:

8 I think we have one person signed up?

9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Oh, we do. Thank you very 10 much. Thank you. We do have one person, thank you very 11 much. Brian, I saw you back there earlier and I forgot,

12 but I'm sure you would have reminded me.

13 Brian Lamb from the Great Basin Unified APCD. I 14 know they're greatly concerned about a particular town in 15 that area. And you've made great progress I understand.

16 MR. LAMB: Thank you, Chairman Lloyd. You know 17 if you've got particulate matter on the agenda, then I 18 will bundle into my car at 4: 00 in the morning and get 19 down here, and say a few words. Next time just put 20 unspecified pollutant and I'll stay home.

21 Chair and Members of the Board, I am the District 22 Counsel for Great Basin Air Pollution Control District.

23 Many you know Dr. Ellen Hartebick our PPCO. She sends 24 here regards. We are the home venue, Southern Inyo County 25 in the home venue for Owens Dry Lake, which is the largest PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 254 1 single source of particulate matter air pollution in the 2 country. We have an inventory of about 100,000 to 300,000 3 tons of particulate matter emitted directly every year.

4 We have several 24 hour average concentrations in 5 excess of 10,000 micrograms per cubic liter, measured at 6 the ambient air. In fact, just this year EPA had to add 7 another digit to its data field in the Ayers Database to 8 put our figures in there, because it wasn't big enough.

9 We have a serious air pollution problem. It 10 affects the surrounding communities in that area. It 11 affects indian reservations. It affects military 12 installations, so I'm here to support and encourage your 13 review of the particulate matter standard.

14 We think this is an important pollutant. We 15 don't have epidemiology  Owens Valley we don't have the 16 numbers to do that, but we have very persuasive anecdotal 17 evidence that concentrations of particulate matter at 18 chronic health effects that are very deleterious.

19 We want to encourage your staff to be looking at 20 the setting standard, look at the monitoring methods, and 21 try to work with EPA in having methods for monitoring that 22 are consistent. I've raised with your board before that 23 the current State standards specified a certain method of 24 monitoring. And in our case, it requires us to have 25 separate really obsolete monitors that are maintained just PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 255 1 to measure pollutant for the State standard.

2 We'd really like to see the monitoring methods 3 coordinated with EPA, so that we can use the same monitors 4 for both the State and federal standards.

5 We do support continuous methods of air pollution 6 monitoring. We use the Continuous T. O. method at Owens 7 Lake. And we do sea concentrations on our high days as 8 high as 20,000 micrograms per cubic liter over an hour 9 averaging period. So it really does give you a picture of 10 the space. And since a lot of the evidence on PM 10 is 11 that the effects are chronic related to peaks and exposure 12 that kind of information could be very useful both from 13 the standard and for health effects advice.

14 So I encourage you  we intended the district to 15 participate in this process. If you're looking for a 16 community that's interested, I might recommend a workshop 17 at Ridgecrest, which is downwind of Owens Lake. And all 18 of our workshops in Ridgecrest are standing room. It's a 19 community that feels the effect of particulate matter 20 pollution very dramatically.

21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Does anybody look to the day 22 to day hospital admissions on these high particulate days?

23 MR. LAMB: I don't know that they have. When 24 this issue has come up before  our population in Inyo 25 County is so sparse especially the southern Inyo County,

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 256 1 the population of all of southern Inyo County is probably 2 less than 10,000 people. You have a self selected 3 population to a certain extent of the people that live in 4 the area of Owens Lake with the notable exceptions of the 5 indian reservations that are near and also the military 6 installations that are near are not self selected.

7 When we visited this issue last time, there was a 8 tremendous amount of anecdotal evidence from the Navy Base 9 in Ridgecrest that storm events were connected with like 10 where you go to the bas hospital, sick days.

11 We had in our administrative record a commanding 12 officer of the Navy base asked people to send in E mails 13 about sick days or family health incidents connected with 14 storm events. He got like hundreds of E mails of people 15 anecdotally seen in direct connection between the storm 16 events on Owens Lake and hospital emissions or sick 17 children who are not being able to work.

18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So you came up with that.

19 I'm glad you've looked at some of the data down in the 20 Coachilla Valley.

21 DR. OSTRO: No, the only thing  I mean, there's 22 been a couple of studies on wind blown dust in the Utah 23 Valley and in Spokane and mortality, and they have not 24 found associations between the really high windy days and 25 excess mortality. And that could be either because PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 257 1 particles are so big that they don't get inhaled or it 2 could be that just people are averting on those days and 3 not spending that time outside, but that's the only 4 evidence that's there.

5 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Brian, just a quick 6 question, where would people go, other than military,

7 where would the people go at Ridgecrest for hospital care?

8 MR. LAMB: In Ridgecrest, there is a hospital.

9 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Is there a hospital there?

10 MR. LAMB: Yes. Ridgecrest is pretty well 11 provided for medically. They have hospitals and medical 12 staff there. And, of course, the military at the base 13 hospital.

14 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: It would be good to get 15 some data from that.

16 MR. LAMB: Like I said, it's in anecdotal, but 17 we've been told before is we don't have the numbers for an 18 appropriate study that would come up with significant 19 findings, but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that we 20 find persuasive.

21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: On this measurement issue, I 22 know we talked to you about that when I was down there a 23 year ago, and I guess I'm still a little bit confused on 24 the issue why we have not had any resolution on that.

25 MR. LAMB: Well, the current standard, just to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 258 1 recap, the current standard says a standard is 50 2 micrograms per cubic liter as measured using a high volume 3 size selective inlet monitor according to method B, which 4 is a secret method, but it's basically hard to get 5 somebody to provide with method B, but it's basically a 6 description of the Anderson Monitor that was in effect in 7 1982. So the standard adopted a monitor to go with it 8 monitoring technology in advance and

9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So we have an opportunity to 10 change the measurement method? Do we intend to do that?

11 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE:

12 That's actually definitely one of the things we're looking 13 at. And we've been talking with the Monitoring Laboratory 14 Division, and they're very interested as well. And I 15 think right now they're actually conducting a study 16 looking at continuous monitoring methods versus some of 17 the other ones.

18 MR. LAMB: One of the research proposals that you 19 adopted today was putting those low temperature methods in 20 Los Angeles to use those for continuing monitoring. We 21 use the standard ones at Owens Like because the 22 temperature issue is not  we don't have volatile 23 particulate matter, it doesn't matter for us, but we found 24 those to be very useful and accurate.

25 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Mr. Chairman.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 259 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes.

2 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah, I think we talked 3 about this subject about a year or so ago. And why don't 4 we set a time today for hearing back on it.

5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Maybe a visit from the 6 Executive Officer.

7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: We'll be happy to 8 follow up on this and basically put something together so 9 the Board actually gets a report on what is happening with 10 regard to monitoring.

11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you.

12 MR. LAMB: My final comments.

13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think, you know, again I 14 think the work you talk about with the monitoring 15 division, I'd like to understand, because when I was down 16 there, I know obviously we worked with one of your 17 technicians there. It seems to be pretty compelling to do 18 that, but on the other hand there's clearly some issues 19 with respect to the standard of what's required, et 20 cetera.

21 So what was the last issue?

22 MR. LAMB: I just wanted to mention as an 23 information point that we are making progress on the work 24 at Owens Lake. We're expecting by the end of this 25 calendar year to have at least ten square miles of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 260 1 Owens Lake flood, which is about roughly a third of what 2 we originally identified as needed to control will be 3 controlled by the end of this year with shallow flooding.

4 It will be a significant historic and technical and 5 emotional event to see water from the Los Angeles aqueduct 6 released back on Owens Lake. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Can you let us know when that 8 happens?

9 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Are you going to invite us 10 to serve?

11 MR. LAMB: We'll invite you all.

12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And I presume you're 13 agreement was with LADWP and not Mr. Freeman?

14 MR. LAMB: It was with LADWP, yes and it's 15 completely legal and binding. That's my opinion.

16 ( Laughter.)

17 MR. LAMB: So I really thank you, Dr. Lloyd and 18 your staff and the entire Board for helping us make the 19 progress that we have. It's only because we are making 20 timely progress against the federal standard that we are 21 really engaged at looking at what the State standard is.

22 This wouldn't be an issue with us if we didn't think we 23 would get past the federal standard in the foreseeable 24 future.

25 So thank you.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 261 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much.

2 So with that, anymore comments?

3 And with that, I would like to close this item 4 and thank the staff very much and thank Bart and Dan and 5 Bob very much.

6 Okay. So we're going to move to the next item,

7 which is 01 5 3, public meeting to consider the net 8 effects of education on air quality. The presentation is 9 in response to questions raised by the public on the 10 effects of tree planting and vegetation on air quality. 11 Many of us are familiar that the Air Resources Board past 12 research and the effects of air pollution on plant health 13 in crop years.

14 However, we have heard less about the opposite 15 consideration, the effect of trees and other plants have 16 on the quality of the air we breathe. So I look forward 17 to hearing about how plants influence air quality and any 18 practical applications that might help us achieve cleaner 19 air.

20 Again, I'd like, at this point, to reintroduce 21 Mr. Kenny and begin staff presentation.

22 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: Thank you, Mr.

23 Chairman and Members of the Board. Over the years, the 24 staff has put considerable effort in the hydrocarbons that 25 come from plants. These emissions and other processes PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 262 1 that we will hear about in the presentation related to air 2 quality, and thus they can influence the overall 3 effectiveness of our clean air strategies.

4 With that, I'd like to turn the presentation over 5 to Jim Pederson who will make the presentation.

6 MR. PEDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. Good 7 afternoon, Dr. Lloyd

8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: You've got to chew on it 9 otherwise it doesn't get you.

10 That's better.

11 ( Thereupon an overhead presentation 12 was presented as follows.)

13 MR. PEDERSON: Thank you Mr. Kenny. Good 14 afternoon Dr. Lloyd and members of the Board. This 15 presentation is in response to interests shown by members 16 of the Board and the effects of plants on air quality.

17 We know that there are important anthropogenic 18 emissions related to plants for example, from agricultural 19 activities or tree maintenance. But today, we will focus 20 on the ways that the plants themselves affect air quality,

21 and the affects of plants have an impact on ARB's efforts 22 to achieve clean air for all Californians.

23 Understanding these effects has been and 24 continues to be a long term effort. It is fundamental to 25 the emissions inventory used in our air quality modeling.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 263 1 Thus understanding the effects of plants is part of 2 predicting how hair quality will change as a mandate 3 emissions change.

4 And surprisingly we can have a positive influence 5 on air quality by the use of plants.

6  o0o

7 MR. PEDERSON: I will briefly cover four broad 8 topics, how vegetation affects air quality, what ARB is 9 doing in this area, the information gaps that remain, and 10 what each of us can do to help improve air quality by 11 using plants.

12  o0o

13 MR. PEDERSON: First, let's look at the way 14 plants influence air quality. I will cover four main 15 effects. The first two are positive, the effects of 16 cooling and pollutant removal. And two are negative, the 17 emission of pollutants and release of allergens.

18 The shaded evaporative cooling provided by trees 19 can improve air quality in two ways, cooling reduces the 20 pollutant emissions from many sources, and slows chemical 21 reactions in the air. A different type of benefit is that 22 that plants speed up removal of some air pollutants.

23 Removal of pollutants by surfaces is called deposition.

24 But trees and other vegetation also emit 25 pollutants biogenic volatile organic compounds. The PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 264 1 biogenic gases studied to date are highly reactive,

2 meaning they are especially efficient in reacting to form 3 ozone and PM 2.5.

4 Another negative effect is that many plants 5 release allergens that can initiate asthmatic responses in 6 sensitive individuals. Over 2 million Californians suffer 7 from asthma. For many of those individuals, the effects 8 of allergens is a major health concern. In the next 9 several slides, I will cover each of this in more detail,

10 beginning with the air quality effects from cooling.

11  o0o

12 MR. PEDERSON: This slide shows the cooling 13 provided by Sacramento's urban forest. The colors 14 represent surface temperature in late June at 1: 00 p. m.

15 The coolest surfaces are blue. The Sacramento River flows 16 from north to south, and the American can be seen in the 17 top right corner. The areas of green are the urban 18 forest. These areas are about 50 degrees cooler than the 19 rooftops shown in white which are about 140 degrees 20 Fahrenheit.

21 So how does temperature affect emissions?

22  o0o 23 MR. PEDERSON: Lower air temperature reduces 24 emissions from many different sources. Cooling reduces 25 evaporative emissions of volatile organic compounds, for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 265 1 example, shaded parking lots can reduce evaporation of 2 gasoline from vehicle fuel tanks.

3 In addition potential emission reductions are 4 available from lowered electrical power demand. Over the 5 last decade, the Sacramento Utility District has invested 6 over $ 20 million dollars to supply free shade trees and 7 educate their customers regarding how to place trees from 8 maximum cooling.

9 This investment has been formally evaluated and 10 determined to be fiscally sound. The conclusion is that 11 well sited shade trees can provide a substantial energy 12 savings for individual customers and collectively reduce 13 power demand. In the extreme, properly placed shade trees 14 can lower individual residential air conditioning bills by 15 more than 40 percent. But the average savings are also 16 substantial.

17 The average mature tree in this program cuts the 18 cooling air energy load by 153 kilowatt hours per year.

19 Thus ten mature trees safe the energy needed to power one 20 air conditioner.

21 When mature, the 300,000 trees planted by SMUD 22 customers will provide energy savings equivalent to 16 23 megawatts of new power generation. In addition to 24 reducing emissions, lower air temperatures slow chemical 25 reactions, so that even less ozone is formed from those PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 266 1 reduced precursor emissions.

2  o0o

3 MR. PEDERSON: In addition, to reducing emissions 4 and slowing reactions, we also know that under some 5 conditions, plants help clean the air and in some cases we 6 can predict how the rate of pollutant removal will be 7 influenced by new plants that are present.

8 Removal pathways depend on the specific pollutant 9 and the environmental conditions. For example, how they 10 react to the pollutants, such as nitric acid, are quickly 11 removed by any surface. So the limited factor is usually 12 the amount of atmospheric mixing. In other words, as the 13 pollutant concentration close to the surface is quickly 14 depleted, the bottle neck for removal will come from any 15 limitation in small turbulent motions needed to transport 16 air with high pollutant concentrations into contact with 17 the surface.

18 Thus, for those pollutants, the presence or 19 absence of plants will have relatively little effect on 20 removal rates. For PM 10, deposition rates depend on 21 complicated relationships between particle size,

22 meteorological variables and surface shapes. Plants may 23 increase the deposition of some sizes of particles, but 24 this is difficult to quantify.

25 On the other hand, we know that moderately PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 267 1 reactive pollutants, like ozone and hydrogen dioxide are 2 removed mainly by uptake into the pours the plant pollutes 3 called staminodium.

4 So their removal rate is mainly determined by the 5 amount of leaf area and whether the staminodium are fully 6 open, which is fairly predictable. As you might expect,

7 deposition rates vary over a wide range.

8  o0o

9 MR. PEDERSON: This slide shows relative amounts 10 of ozone deposition to various surfaces. Note the range 11 of values given for each plant, and the wide range between 12 the different types of plants. Various air quality model 13 simulations have suggested that the deposition of all 14 pollutants occurred in both the San Joaquin Valley and 15 Upland areas could be decreasing ozone concentrations in 16 some areas of the valley by more than 10 to 30 parts per 17 million.

18 The two aspects of vegetation that I covered so 19 far have positive effects on air quality. Unfortunately,

20 plants can also have a negative effect by emitting VOCs 21 that form ozone fine particles.

22  o0o

23 MR. PEDERSON: This slide shows approximately 24 biogenic emissions for different plants. The values are 25 Calculated assuming average temperatures and light PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 268 1 intensity for the month of July in the central valley. If 2 the assumed temperatures were 18 degrees warmer, reaching 3 a max up 170 degrees, that the estimated biogenic 4 emissions would more than double.

5 Thus, although, a single number is shown for each 6 species, in fact, the amount emitted can vary widely,

7 perhaps by more than a factor of 10, due to seasonal 8 differences.

9 Despite the range of values that must be 10 considered for each species, it is also clear that 11 biogenic emissions can vary with the type of plant. The 12 biogenic VOC emissions are a large portion of the VOC 13 inventory in most California air basins.

14 For example, in the South Coast Air Basin, during 15 ozone episodes, biogenic emissions may be 1/ 4th of the 16 total VOC inventory. And they are also more reactive than 17 most anthropogenic emissions.

18 Based on sensitivity simulations, again, using an 19 air quality model, the effects of zeroing out all of the 20 biogenic emissions in the San Joaquin Valley is the 21 reduction of ozone concentrations by about seven parts per 22 billion in the urban plume down wind of Fresno.

23 For concentrations were about 140 parts per 24 billion. And by three to seven parts per billion over a 25 fairly wide area where concentrations were somewhat PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 269 1 lowered.

2 In areas with more nitrogen oxide emissions, we 3 expect the BBOCs to have a larger effect on ozone 4 concentrations. Similarly in future years, as the 5 anthropogenic emissions are further reduced, the biogenic 6 emissions will likely have more affect on ozone 7 concentrations.

8 Thus characterizing biogenic emissions is 9 important to our understanding of atmospheric chemistry 10 and our ability to predict future air quality.

11 But the massive emissions alone cannot tell us 12 how much ozone will be formed. The timing and the 13 location of the biogenic emissions are also important. We 14 needed inventory that describes that time and location, in 15 addition to the mass of emissions.

16  o0o

17 MR. PEDERSON: Over the last two decades, the ARB 18 has made a great deal of progress in constructing such an 19 inventory and could be considered a pioneer in this area.

20 However, the ARB is still working to improve that 21 inventory of biogenic VOCs used for air quality modeling.

22 Obtaining the inventory of biogenic emissions 23 requires a great deal of supporting information. For 24 example, emission rates vary widely between different 25 plant species. We know that many high emitter species PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 270 1 release 10,000 VOC compared to low emitting plants.

2 Measuring or estimating emissions rates for over 3 6,000 plants species is a difficult task.

4 Additionally, because emission rates need to be 5 multiplied the biomass to get the total emissions, we also 6 need to know the leaky biomass.

7 The first step is to identify plant species and 8 where they grow throughout the State.

9  o0o

10 MR. PEDERSON: In this inventory database, the 11 different colors that represent different types of land 12 use for plant communities.

13 The data base had a few of the dominant species 14 in each natural plant community, but their relative 15 numbers, biomass and other species present are usually 16 undefined. The many climates of California support over 17 6,000 new species. We have measured emission rates for 18 less than ten percent. Emission rates for the other 90 19 percent are inferred from measured rates of the related 20 species.

21 Biogenic emissions are calculated by multiplying 22 the plants emission rate times the mass of its weeds. So 23 we also need a way to figure out the mass of leaves.

24 For that, we use a parameter called Leaf Area 25 Index.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 271 1  o0o

2 MR. PEDERSON: These satellite images go straight 3 even within the Ozone, season. The leaf area there is 4 great. Areas of Brown representing areas with very low 5 green vegetation. Yellow and green and blue representing 6 increasing leaf area. The special patterns of leaf Area 7 are complex.

8 The special atoms of leaf area are complex and 9 cannot be characterized based on simple categories, such 10 as agriculture or forests. For example, note the 11 variability within the central valley during July. Also,

12 you see decreased leaf area in October for many areas,

13 including the coast range, agricultural areas and the 14 higher elevations in the sierra.

15 We use maps of plants species and leaf area index 16 to estimate the mass of location of emissions because both 17 factors help determine the amount of ozone that will be 18 formed. But we also set the timing of emissions was 19 important to ozone formation. You may be surprised at the 20 size of tempo variations and biogenic emissions.

21  o0o

22 MR. PEDERSON: To illustration the timing, this 23 slide shows the emissions for three principal types of 24 biogenic VOCs expressed in tons per hour, over a five day 25 ozone episode. The largest emissions are isoprene. The PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 272 1 reason the emissions change from hour to hour and from day 2 to day is because they respond to light and temperature.

3 Because August 5th was the hottest day biogenic 4 emissions were much higher on this day. As The 5 temperature in Azusa rose from 99 degrees on August 3rd to 6 106 on August 5th, the biogenic emissions over the greater 7 southern California area increased by nearly 40 percent.

8 The hotter days also tend to be days with higher ozone 9 concentrations.

10 The amount of ozone formed is also affected by 11 hourly aeration in emissions. For example emissions late 12 in the day will have less impact, because they have less 13 opportunity to participate in photochemical reactions.

14  o0o

15 MR. PEDERSON: The last effect I want to mention 16 is the allergens released by plants. Pollen from grasses,

17 weeds shrubs and trees is an important source of 18 allergens. Vegetation is also a factor for propagation Of 19 some moulds. But there are also many other allergens that 20 not related to plants, for example, pet dander and dust 21 mites. 22 For sensitive individuals, allergenic responses 23 can range from discomfort to misery to life threatening 24 respiratory problems. Allergens are a factor for about 90 25 percent of asthmatic individuals. Although, plant PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 273 1 allergies are an important contributors to asthmatic 2 responses exposure to these allergens is seasonal, since 3 most people spend the majority of their time indoors.

4 Indoor allergens, such as dust mites and moulds 5 which are present year round are more frequent triggers of 6 asthmatic responses. We've examined both positive and 7 negative effects in plants, each of which is quite complex 8 and subject to many assumptions and uncertainties.

9  o0o

10 MR. PEDERSON: So as the ARB develops plans to 11 further improve air quality in California, our key 12 question is can we actively predict the effects of trees 13 and vegetation on air quality? We do know enough to draw 14 several conclusions.

15 The total air quality effect of vegetation 16 depends on the plant's species and it's placement on the 17 microscale. For example, with respect to a house a 18 microscale meeting its location relative to other sources 19 within our region. We also know that biogenic emissions 20 are an important part of the emissions inventory.

21 But how do the positive and negative effects of 22 vegetation balance out? The analysis performed by Dr.

23 Hidre Taha of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 24 suggests that in certain cases, low emitting trees can 25 reduce ambient ozone by removal of pollutants and emission PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 274 1 reductions associated with cooling.

2 However his analysis also suggested that for high 3 emitting trees, the beneficial cooling air cleaning 4 effects are offset by the ozone formed from the VOC 5 emissions. Thus such trees may actually increase ozone.

6 It is important to remember that these results should be 7 interpreted with caution, because of the uncertainties of 8 large number of barriers.

9 ARB recognizes the importance of understanding 10 the effects of vegetation on air quality and so we have a 11 number of ongoing efforts.

12  o0o

13 MR. PEDERSON: Lawrence Berkeley National 14 Laboratory ARB is consulting with that group.

15 As a partner, in the central California ozone 16 study, we are working to organize and raise funds for 17 study of the deposition of pollutants other than ozone.

18 ARB has several research projects who help to 19 address biogenic biomass, biogenic emissions and 20 deposition. These efforts have resulted in significant 21 improvements in the budget inventory over the last decade,

22 especially in the South Coast Air Basin.

23 We also formed the biogenic working group five 24 years ago to enlist cooperation of academics and other 25 agencies.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 275 1 Through the coordination with other agencies, the 2 group has acquired vegetation maps and leaf biomass 3 databases.

4  o0o

5 MR. PEDERSON: As part of our efforts to 6 investigate the health effects of exposure to air 7 pollutants, we also consider the combined effect of 8 allergens and air pollutants acting together. Our most 9 recent efforts also include outreach For the web page and 10 directly to tree advocate groups.

11  o0o

12 MR. PEDERSON: Some of the advocacy groups we are 13 working with include the Sacramento Tree Foundation, The 14 Tree People and municipal utility districts. We'd like to 15 thank the Sacramento Tree Foundation for joining us today.

16 It's too late now to stop by the booth but they 17 came with expert advise and expert help with tree 18 selection and placement for maximum energy conservation.

19 Within the greater Sacramento Area the Tree 20 Foundation can arrange delivery for free shade trees 21 attached to your planning site and your individual needs.

22 Through partnership with tree groups, we can provide 23 information to the public regarding tree selection and 24 placement to improve air quality.

25 These groups are especially well equipped for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 276 1 public education. They already provide valuable guidance 2 on actions we can take as communities and as individuals 3 to better our environment.

4  o0o

5 MR. PEDERSON: But what information do we still 6 need and what are the highest priorities? The most 7 critical need is to improve estimates of biogenic VOC 8 emissions to allow us to better predict future year ozone 9 concentrations. To do this, we need more complete 10 inventories of the spacial distribution of plant species.

11 We also need to measure emission rates for more plant 12 species.

13 Our models of deposition require better 14 supporting information for making ozone precursors. And 15 lastly we can improve our emissions inventory by more 16 fully considering the effects of local temperature 17 variations on energy use and emissions.

18 Filling in these information gaps is important if 19 ARB is to design the best strategies to achieve clean air.

20 Despite the information gaps, at this time we can identify 21 many types of species that are clearly desirable or 22 undesirable from an air quality perspective.

23 So an action we can take now is to inform and 24 influence the public to make planning choices to improve 25 air quality and avoid choices that would degrade air PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 277 1 quality.

2 There are effective actions that individuals can 3 take. These actions are fairly simple and in the long 4 term are very cost effective.

5  o0o

6 MR. PEDERSON: The key ideals which we invite 7 people to be aware of are listed on the slide, achieving 8 the potential benefits of energy savings and improved air 9 quality requires planting the right tree in the right 10 location. The very biggest improvements will come from 11 planting large fast growing trees in areas that have 12 little coverage at present and planting to shape the west 13 and south sides of buildings and roofs.

14 Shading parking lots or other sources of 15 evaporative emissions also reduces VOCs. However, for a 16 positive net effect on air quality, it is important to 17 choose species that emit relatively small amounts of VOCs 18 and avoid species that release allergens.

19 The difficulty in promoting use of low emitters 20 and less allergenic species is that these effects are not 21 visible to the public and they are only two of over 40 22 tree characteristics that might be considered in deciding 23 what to plant. Clearly, influencing consumers directly 24 would be very difficult.

25 Because tree advocacy groups are active and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 278 1 effective in public education, that again is our primary 2 target audience.

3 The choice of the best tree for a specific 4 location is not simple, but it is possible to choose trees 5 with the positive characteristics I talked about today.

6 The Sawleaf Zelkova on the left is a good example. It 7 grows relatively quickly to large size. It is a low 8 emitter. Additionally, it has know known health effects 9 with respect to allergens or irritants. From an air 10 quality standpoint, this is a better tree choice than the 11 tree on the right.

12 The Liquidambar is quite popular. Unfortunately,

13 in addition to requiring maintenance due to litter drop, 14 it is a very high emitter of VOCs. There are alternative 15 low emitter species that also provide fall color that emit 16 far fewer volatile organic compounds.

17 A great resource for finding the best tree for a 18 particular location is the database Selectree that is 19 available on the web. Selectree describes over 40 20 characteristics for each of over 1,400 species of trees.

21 Searches can be based on any combination of 22 characteristics.

23 Cal Poly State University at San Luis Obispo 24 developed and maintains this database. It incorporates up 25 to date information regarding biogenic emissions.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 279 1 We have focused on the effects of vegetation on 2 air quality. That is only part of the larger picture in 3 addition to decreasing energy use, trees and vegetation 4 have other important benefits. They provide well 5 quantified watershed benefits, both in urban and nonurban 6 areas. For example, by increasing rates of water 7 percolation, it creates reduced runoff and increased 8 groundwater supplies.

9 Other benefits are also well documented.

10 Controlled studies have clearly demonstrated very 11 significant social and psychological benefits from trees 12 in residential areas. Trees also store carbon in their 13 woody biomass as they grow. Thus, large long lived 14 forests can help produce carbon dioxide concentrations.

15 With the carbon storage even for large forests is 16 a relatively small effect compared to other global 17 processes. Additional, the storage is temporary. As a 18 tree dies and decays, most of the carbon will be released 19 back to atmosphere, as carbon dioxide.

20 So we cannot rely on urban trees to handle global 21 warming directly. However, those same trees if properly 22 placed to shade buildings can indirectly help reduce 23 carbon dioxide emissions by reducing the demand for 24 electrical power.

25 To recap we have examined the ways vegetation PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 280 1 affects ozone and fine particle concentrations both 2 positively and negatively. The largest air quality 3 benefit comes from shade evaporative cooling that reduce 4 emissions and slow the chemical reactions, but with 5 removal is also important.

6 Biogenic emissions of old compounds have a 7 negative effect and needs to be well quantified to 8 understand and predict future year concentrations of ozone 9 and fine particles.

10 We also mentioned the effect of allergens on 11 sensitive individuals including asthmatics. Plus they may 12 make some practical recommendations regarding how to use 13 plants, how the use of plants can help us to improve air 14 quality.

15 Now, we now there are going to be core day with 16 other groups to help influence planning decisions.

17 In conclusion we know a great deal about the 18 affects of vegetation on air quality. In particular we 19 see the low emitting plants can have many positive effects 20 on the environment and can even improve air quality.

21 I hope that we have demonstrated the developments 22 and importance of ARB programs of accurately quantifying 23 the effect of vegetation on air quality.

24 Thank you for your time and attention. We would 25 appreciate and questions or direction.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 281 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much.

2 Ms. D'Adamo.

3 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: This is very interesting 4 presentation. How far off are we from data whereby when 5 we look on a chart listing various tree species and come 6 with any determination on similar to the information you 7 had about temperature, freeze, the shade that's generated 8 from temperature of trees would enable of one air 9 pollution removal et cetera et cetera go out in 10 production?

11 How far off are we from getting information 12 similar to that in terms of emissions data?

13 MR. PEDERSON: Michael Benjamin is our expert on 14 biogenic emissions. He's done a lot of the research that 15 went into the database.

16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And if you could direct 17 your question not just to the negative effects but also to 18 the positive effects reduction of ozone, et cetera.

19 MR. PEDERSON: Shall we start with the negative 20 of the positive?

21 EMISSION INVENTORY SYSTEMS SECTION MANAGER 22 BENJAMIN: Thank you.

23 As Jim mentioned, our understanding of biogenic 24 VOC emissions is not that well known. It would be 25 approximately 6,000 plant species in California. We have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 282 1 measured emission rates for something on the order of 500 2 of those species.

3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Job security.

4 ( Laughter.)

5 EMISSION INVENTORY SYSTEMS SECTION MANAGER 6 BENJAMIN: Measuring these is extremely complex, very 7 resource intensive, plants are biological systems. In 8 many ways it's like the PM studies that we heard earlier.

9 It's like epidemiologic studies. It takes a lot of 10 resources and time to measure these biogenic VOC 11 emissions.

12 However, we do feel like we have a fairly good 13 understand of the relative emission rates of different 14 plant species.

15 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, what I'd be 16 interested in seeing and maybe others on the Board would 17 disagree, but it seems like a relatively easy way to 18 achieve some benefits.

19 If you have an idea of good trees versus bad 20 trees. And not having to go through all of the scientific 21 processes for every single of the 6,000 trees, if you had 22 a general idea that that  that there are probably around 23 50 different species that would get us in that ballpark 24 where the negative aspect are quite minimal and the 25 positive aspects are quite great.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 283 1 I would be in favor of exploring and perhaps 2 we're just a long ways off of that, but I would be in 3 favor of exploring some sort of incentive based program 4 either run by the State of California or some similar to 5 the Carl Moyer Program. It sounds easy, but if we can 6 help local air district retrofit, they why can't we 7 encourage a program of additional treatment, and maybe 8 expand that a step further.

9 I remember when I got the staff briefing I had 10 asked this questions, and I don't know what the answer is,

11 but where I live there are  every year there are 12 hundreds if not thousands of acres of orchards that lack 13 production and they get paved over so that houses can be 14 built. I suspect that the result of that is that the 15 result of that is that we've got in certain areas more 16 cars and addition emissions.

17 However, there may be  it may be a wash when 18 you look at the PM impacts of say an almond orchard that 19 is not longer there and reduce the agricultural activity.

20 I don't know, but in my gut it tells me that something 21 should be done in order to encourage  if those trees are 22 in fact, good overall, if something should be done in 23 order to encourage agricultural production of certain 24 types that are on balance positive to air quality.

25 I don't know that. I'll just open it up for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 284 1 discussion. I don't know how far off we are from getting 2 that data so that we can put a program of that nature 3 together.

4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Of course, I assume, Didi, 5 that while they're are 6,000, you'll put those in classes 6 so it's not as onerous as one might think. I would agree 7 with you Didi.

8 The other question that I'd like to ask along the 9 line the Didi was asking, presumably since we're talking 10 about shade trees in some ways deciduous trees would be 11 better, because that would allow you to reduce cooling in 12 the summer and heating in the winter? Would that be true?

13 MR. PEDERSON: One of the important things that 14 really the energy savings hinge on is the location. And 15 SMUD has some great materials on that, the truth audition 16 is also actually come to a siting and looked through that.

17 Planting on the west side is where the big 18 savings is. The local effects of deposition are 19 important. We have done some measurements of deposition 20 and we know differences between many species, but we've 21 measured fewer species than on the biogenic side.

22 However, there's probably a smaller range between 23 species on deposition than there is for biogenic 24 emissions.

25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Maybe, if you could, Mr.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 285 1 Kenny, if staff could respond to Ms. D'Adamo with some 2 suggestions, whether, in fact, that such a program makes 3 sense.

4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: We'll be happy to do 5 that. I think actually there's a couple of things we can 6 do. We can look at least subsidy programs, and we can 7 also look at least publications that have highlighted 8 those kinds of trees that are essentially more beneficial 9 and also highlight those kinds of tress that we just as 10 soon not see and try to essentially put that out there as 11 information so that people actually are educated and make 12 the right choices.

13 But we'll be happy to follow up on this and we 14 can make a report to the Board on what me are able to do 15 and how We can implement this kind of a program. And I 16 guess, you know, I don't think it's goofy. I think this 17 is actually something that's actually very valuable so I 18 think it's something we really do want to put some effort 19 into it.

20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: If staff could also when 21 it comes back before the Board, include, I know that the 22 Governor's has included in his budget a central valley 23 agricultural assessment. I've spoken with Ms. Terry about 24 it. And I think the idea is to get the Air Board, along 25 with the various other resources agencies involved to put PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 286 1 together a database that the idea or the vision would be 2 to plug in information about the example that I gave an 3 almond orchard going out of product of what that means in 4 terms of air quality, water, et cetera, economics. So I 5 would hope Trade and Commerce is involved in the economic 6 piece, so if staff could report back on that piece as 7 well.

8 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I've got to 9 assume that Cal Poly San Luis Obispo at Pomona they've got 10 a lot of information I would think and I appreciated 11 having the reference of the trees.

12 The partnership with some of these foundations, 13 there's TreePeople in LA. I'm not sure your group up here 14 that you mentioned. Certainly we need to involve 15 ourselves with them. They are the true workers. And Ms.

16 D'Adamo, I don't know if you've met any of them. They are 17 so dedicated. And if we were to really make a difference,

18 I think we need to somehow associate ourselves with them 19 and support them, because they're the ones that would go 20 out and really sell the program, once you've developed the 21 information, and they're really a dedicated group.

22 You also need to work through  I'm trying to 23 think of the program with the cities where they're 24 designated as  sacramento is one of them, where you're 25 designated as a tree city, and there's some recognition PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 287 1 of  I not  I think I'm correct when I say this, you're 2 recognized, but also the City makes a real effort to do 3 street trees and some really good things that maybe 4 littler cities may not have undertaken not knowing of the 5 strong benefits.

6 But, you know, some of those kinds of linkages 7 are very important if you really want to make it work 8 well.

9 RESEARCH AND ECONOMIC STUDIES BRANCH CHIEF COREY:

10 Board Member Riordan, Richard Corey. I wanted to respond.

11 It think that's an excellent suggestion and make the point 12 that we have begun those efforts to reach out to a number 13 of the tree organizations who have  many of them have 14 well established educational programs and they're very 15 perceptive to including within those educational programs 16 information on air quality and emissions that we've 17 discuss with you and expand those efforts and have 18 established a web page that includes links to those 19 organizations as well, and also looking  and also 20 coordinating with educational programs, landscape 21 architect education programs, as well as others.

22 So we see that linkage as an opportunity to build 23 on it in terms of the vehicle to funnel this information 24 through.

25 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 288 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. I think before we 2 conclude this item, I thought that the Board would get 3 some free samples of trees we should plant, but what 4 happened to them?

5 MR. PEDERSON: You took a little too long on the 6 earlier item.

7 ( Laughter.)

8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: You didn't tells us there's 9 an incentive clause in there.

10 ( Laughter.)

11 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: The trees are already 12 planted.

13 MR. PEDERSON: I'll just make a comment that the 14 fact that a lot of the tree organizations are cited where 15 there's already a program going on, and the place where 16 the biggest change can occur, is where there isn't a 17 program. So some of the areas that aren't well treed and 18 particular schools, in our cities, could occur.

19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, thank you. That 20 concludes that item, and thank you very much, staff. 21 We will take a ten minute break now to 4: 30 while 22 we change the court reporter an then we'll continue on the 23 smoke management guidelines item.

24 ( Thereupon a brief recess was taken.)

25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 289 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I'd like to restart the board 2 meeting.

3 As you'll notice that, contrary to what I stated 4 before the break, we're going to hold the item on rice straw 5 phase down in deference to some of the farmers we may have 6 here to speak on this item.

7 So the next item on the agenda today is 01 5 5,

8 public meeting to consider the 2001 biennial report to the 9 Legislature on the phase down of rice straw burning in the 10 Sacramento Valley region.

11 State law requires the Air Resources Board and the 12 California Department of Food and Agriculture to report to 13 the Legislature every two years on progress in reducing the 14 amount of rice straw burning in the Sacramento Valley.