Public Records act request? I have and do still do that in the water and wastewater area. First of all I do not have the time to dig on the air stuff. For clarification, my opinions on the air rule setting are based upon my experience based on dealings on the water side. I really don't have the time or inclination at this time.

Also, trying to get these regulatory boards to cooperate and get the records, the real data and the good stuff will cost some serious cash. And more than likely along the way it will require a court order. That is why these things usually wind up in court, whereby the data is reviewed at that time, because the courts will help.

But your method does work. I just don't have the time right now. I have another month or two off of work and I would rather spend it doing what I am doing around the house and getting things in order BUT most of all I would rather take my free time getting pounded by the good folks here on PPOT than deal with another California agency. At least the guys here have compassion.

No I do not dispute your point. On its face it is completely valid. Without getting into one of my long drawn out diatribes my point is there are complicated matrices of many factors. I rule setting a goal is set that takes into account at risk portions of the society. These factions can be dealt with with point specific solutions that are far more cost effective. The rules are set based upon the single pollutant, not that pollutant's priority in the grand scheme of things. The setting of that individual threshold impact, or to use another term from the medical profession, an "infectious dose" (this is not the term used but I think you get my point). In other words how clean is clean, what is the risk to the general population, what is the best expenditure of funds etc. This is not done for a variety of reasons, emotions, fear, politics, economic gain by the environmental businesses, etc. Not only the environmental impacts but also the financial and economic impacts. Green house gasses are just the latest cause celeb. All of these issues need to be taken in priority based upon science.

My dealings with the regulatory implementation by the executive branch of California Government is one of a chaotic administrative law system that does not readily allow for judicial challenge by businesses or individual citizens. The cost to get to the truth of many scientific solutions is so expensive that it is darn near impossible. In the case of the administrative challenge process for water, you have to go to two kangaroo courts, the regional boards and than the state board. I say screw that, get rid of those two processes and allow folks to go directly to the judicial courts, just like you can in many other states and on the federal side. The consolidation of this review could be funded by dismantling the administrative review on the regulatory side (executive branch) and shifting those resources to an administrative court on the judicial side. This will accomplish something that does not exist in California today and that is accountability of the executive branch in the form of the regulatory board. At this time it is prohibitively expensive for folks to exercise their due process rights.

Your comment regarding staff making up data is something that I once believed. I have little if any faith in the manner or the capability of those staff's. On the water side many of the staff members are not scientists and that goes for the members of the boards. And they do make up stuff, no $hit. That is why they are getting their a$$ handed to them in the few cases that have been elevated through the judiciary.

Don't get me wrong, regulation of these areas are very important. Rule of law is key. But the laws for the most part set based upon science are not implemented by scientists. And these boards (some regions are better than others) do not care about the rule of law, just look at the record of the Los Angeles and Central Coast regional boards. They suck.

I see - sounds like the bureaucrat-to-scientist ratio is off . . .

Big time (IMHO)

There is some validity to this statement. When I was in engineering school back in the 80’s worked for the ARB as a student engineer (after I passed the state EIT exam I got an Engineer title). I did statistics for Mobil Source (autos) division. I thought I was doing true environmentally sound engineering. But I was given reports that were filled with blanks. My task was to fill in the blank with some kind of a stat number to substantiate the claim of that line in the report. Many times I could create a statistical argument that conflicted with that claim.

One of the functions of the Mobile Source division was to evaluate car modifications and test for the impact to the cars original emission certification levels. There were several companies converting small cars to electric power. However since the electric motor did not fit into a certifiable category for the model year of that car, Cease and Desist notifications were sent to these companies. That’s right! The ARB initially killed zero emission vehicles and killed an industry that could have matured into who knows what in California? All because of ARB bureaucracy.

The ARB is full of politics. I saw the light. When I got my degree I left and went into aerospace. What a joke!

BTW…many of the degreed engineers at the ARB were actually ex-aerospace engineers from the aerospace crash in the 70’s.

Sounds like your experience was similar to my eye opening experience with the water boards. Glad you are out of it in one way for your own sake but we sure need other scientists driving this stuff. I have tons of stories regarding the inept managers and decision makers on these boards. How many of your co-workers were political science majors or english majors?

All that was required to be an Air Resource "Engineer" was to have a degree and pass a verbal exam. On the laboratory side (where all the testing was performed) there were chemist and degreed specialist. However at the Technical Resource Group (the group that researched potential emission control regulations) was “as you stated” filled with political science majors or english majors and wanna-be lawyers. This group did not need to have a technical background. :confused:

No one said anything about high efficiency heaters until you did. the one I bought and the ones I looked at were no more efficient than the one I replaced, they just cost much more and supposedly put out fewer NOX.
May be time for some more "quick reading".

jyl - I took the liberty of highlighting part of your post before some noxious malcontent who doesn't "read too good" accuses you of hi-jacking this thread by posting comparative, irrelevant info..

"High-efficiency water heaters are appx 60% more energy-efficient and lower-emissions

than the average existing water heater."

From the SCAQMD website: http://www.aqmd.gov/finn/financialinformation.htm

The SCAQMD is for the most part a self-sustained organization that exists on the fines it collects.
They fine companies and individuals, and then use the revenue from those fines to pay their expenses and salaries.
Their proposed 2008-2009 budget was listed as $130,042,000 and later adjusted upwards to around $131,500,000.

One hundred and thirty one million dollars a year in fines.
no fines, no jobs.
If they make new rules and create more fines, they get more money.
See any conflict of interest there?

SCAQMD collects a pretty penny from Permit applications too.

City of LA actually has its own library of approved architectural products & details that designers have to follow in order to get a Permit. All products intended for installation have to have a corresponding LARR (L.A. Research Report) number or they will literally hold up your Permit for MONTHS, possibly even deny it. Don't ask how I know.

Why anyone continues to do business with or in the City of L.A., much less build anything there is completely unfathomable to me. As if the state of CA wasn't anti-business enough to start with, I swear the City of LA goes out of its way to kill/discourage any business growth that the state doesn't manage to!

Evidently the concept of having licensed professionals stamp (and by doing so, certify) drawings for Permits means nothing in LA. I wonder how they'd react if I sent them a bill for the tens of thousands of dollars I've spent on my education, testing, certifications, etc. that they evidently don't honor or respect.

LARR is basically a self-serving, money-making racket. Although I've not heard about this particular issue dealing with residential water heaters per se, I'm not the least bit surprised by it. Not one bit, given where it's originating from...

Do ya think? And there is a archaic "administrative" hearing process that is giganormous to fight in that assures that those "fines" are collected based on very questionable science that is driving businesses out of the state that has for all intents and purposes no judicial accountability.

On some of the federal projects I have worked on over the past three or more decades has been cause for the federal government to invoke sovereign immunity from some of the LA CRAP. Like the handicap access to a taxiway at LAX.

"I do not have the time to dig on the air stuff."

ah, c'mon... It takes less time to modify an existing request - or even draft a new one - than you spent writing the stuff just on this page!

Now, if you don't have the inclination -- I'm cool with that.


We are all agreed that SoCal AQ sucks, right?*

The issue is how to improve it in the "best" way...

Everybody gets to define best in their own way....


* not that it hasn't gotten way better...

Actually it is quite exhaustive. The staff will give you crap at every turn. Been there done that. And if you haven't gathered by now writing here is much more educational (no BS, I mean it). And just plain fun. The intelligence on this board FAR exceeds that of the managers at the AQMD or any other board for that matter. Plus, the BS switch gets pulled here far more often and there is no substitute for that. (I have another 8 weeks off before I gotta go back to the grind).

Thanks, your cool and I'm not inclined ;). Plus I gain much more enjoyment from the learning when you throw the BS switch and rightfully bop me on the head :).

This is not good, we strongly agree on something, so much for the fun part.:D

As far as improving it? The first thing is allow appeals to go directly to the court. It costs far more the way it is and it ends up in court anyway. This would be similar to how some of the federal agencies are held accountable, with special courts to address apeals. It keeps the feds in check and they get to do a better job. (seriously).

How are the other states handling it?

Oregon just implemented a do not top up law for gas stations.

The locals (we have our own air agency for Eugene & nearby) recently worked with the trucking firms to create some kind of powers supply so they don't have to leave the motor idling overnight. It's voluntary.

The thing here is that our biggest AQ issues are particulates in winter (wood heating) and pollen and smoke in spring & summer (from the grass seed growers). We are small enuff and cold enuff to not have a big AQ problem. As it gets hotter over the next few decades they predict problems tho.



BTW - I never have any trouble with Calif. on records requests. I may have struck fear into them at some point tho.

Rwebb,

Sounds like you folks try to solve problems, not be the problem. Sorry had to put in a dig.

Here is my question on the winter particulate; what is the anticipated problem? What is the known threshold on the incidence of such a health hazard?

Records requests on rule setting are very detailed. The heck of it is that many of the rules are not set based on science, or through a scientific principal. For example the state has set regulations based upon the Global Warming issue. You know how I view that and why, and I do not think that the current commitment based on the given uncertainty of the science (hell we don't know the certainty) is premature. We are throwing our State's wealth on an unfounded dictum.

If you have an appeal from a air permit requirement what is the process? Can you go right to the court? If not how many levels of administrative review do you have to go through?

Is your local board a state agency or locally funded?

Actually, Dan, you are getting into a legal issue -- I'll phrase it as "how certain does an agency have to be before it does something." Or - to constrain it more -- "how certain does an agency have to be before it does something via rule-making." That's my legal specialty [for federal law] and it is long story.

Generally, the agency can do whatever, however as long as they do enough public involvement and procedure (the r/m part) AND stay within whatever statutory bounds were set by Congress. Some fed. statutes require the agency to consider "the best available science." The decision does NOT have to follow the science, but consider means they have to explain why they are not following it.

Example: The science shows that this endangered species will be harmed by not designating critical habitat in areas X, Y, and Z. However for xxx reasons, we conclude that it won't be harmed so badly that it's existence is in jeopardy and we conclude that the habitat in question is economically improtant for the politically powerful destructive business.
- they will win that in court

the local air Agency (LRAPA) has a web site, but basically they are given authority by the Or. state DEQ for this area; all subject to EPA. The local polluters/industries (that happen to pollute) keep trying to pack it with their droids or kill it altogether. If killed, then the local citizenry will be raising holy hell with the state DEQ, which I imagine would rather not have to deal with us. So, LRAPA is a buffer for DEQ.


BTW, Often, my goal is to BE the problem...

the winter issue is carcinogenic and mechanical effects from small smoke particles. not a biggie when it rains (most of the time) but we are often beset with air inversions, which trap these particles

there is abundnant evidence that these small particulates (PM10s, PM50s, etc. - they are based on size) are a big health issue - EPA has tons of it.

what no one HAS really looked at very well is the surface chemistry. We all know (today) that the real action is on surfaces (for an analogy - think about the cristae in mitochondria and the respiratory chain if that rings any bells) and we WOULD expect that pollutants would be formed rapidly on particle surfaces. Likewise, the surfaces are likely quite biologically active. So there is a research direction for the budding young epidemiologists out there.