Fieldnote Mar 17 2023 - 9:20pm

James’ Notes from AQMD meeting with Arlene Farol Saria and Ricardo Rivera: 

Arlene: First step of AB617 is Community identification. We take our workshop on the road. 

Applications can be sent by an Individual, city, community org. Fill out a form, self recommendation form. 

General AB617 webpage, community presentation that they take out to their communities. 

Who we are, elements of 617. 

We assess whether… Essentially prepared to take on the work. In depth challenging. Make sure there is already EJ community engagement and progress happening in the community. That they are involved and ready to provide input. 

Community Steering Committee: 50% residents on our roster. Whether 20/30/50… they range, but they need to be 50% residents. They also represent business, government, tribal organizations etc. That’s how we build the CSC. 

Then it’s about building trust, educational training, Ricardo, engineering, small business, and folks who are SERC writers, monitoring teams. Sensors, sensor network, ECV, Enforcement and compliance, a whole agency-wide endeavor. 

Aiden: Why such a low number of recommended AB617 communities this time around? 

Rick: Low number of proposed communities was due to a lack of resources. We would like to see more, but there is only so much we can do. I had a convo with the City of Santa Ana, I said, “If we can get the worst section and do something with it, that would be ideal.” If you do get the whole city of Santa Ana, it’s about allocating resources. 

The end result, the package that was sent forward to our board. Gives you an idea to better characterize a community to justify that they need to be an AB 617 community. 

Arlene: Applicants can apply to the state, they can go to “us.” The more information you have is ideal. 

This process is a lot of work for the community. The issues that have come up throughout the state, it is a matter of resources available to the community. How can they be there to make sure the community can participate adequately? 

Kim: What would it take to bring AQMD into collaboration with the development of the application?

Rick: That is a question that I am not at liberty to answer. For us, it is a matter of conflict of interest. Not all communities are accepted, so we have to make sure it’s fair. 

…

Kim: Strategically, do we focus on one neighborhood? Or the whole city? We can start with one neighborhood. 

Rick: I'm gonna reverse what I just said, but in terms of your work, to characterize… why the community needs AB 617. Maybe Santa Ana, maybe the State. These are the ones finally making that decision. 

Arlene: Even if we recommend a city, the state has final say. ECV decided to focus on 6 areas. South LA had 4, expanded to 6. Southeast LA had 6. 

These groups, in their application, did select these areas where they could point out those sources. Great suggestion to look at the board letter, we learn as we go. Our year 1 communities are coming to a close. We are learning how to exit them and still keep them involved. 

The simplified form is about 10 questions. I presume community orgs have… what I have seen in the past, 2-3 lead actors lead that application. They have extensive reasoning, flesh that out. And then garner support from the residents. That has been successful in the past. 

Kim: An early step is scheduling a workshop. 

Arlene: identification workshop, so, before. 

We have the largest of AB617 communities. Wanted to focus attention to those communities. Idk about this year, in terms of recommending selection. Those workshops are held over the summer. We don't know if we will have one this summer. Anyone can go. Do them in different regions. Now that we have zoom. They have hybrid. 

Aiden: SERP vs CAMP, or Both? Strategy? 

Arlene: resources for emission reduction is a different team. It all comes down to resources. The community prioritizes the issues. It really depends. Because we haven’t looked at it that way. Some only have a camp, idk if any only have a SERP. In our district, they have both. 

Rick: I wouldn't say it's a factor of selection, whether you have only CAMP or CAMP and SERP. You need both. We already have a lot of monitoring. It only makes sense to have both. 

Kim: each thread looks like once selected. About to see imperial county, and coachella valley. 

Arlene: So much work behind this, ECV, my colleagues have different puzzles. ECV, one in person meeting, outreach was in the year prior to pandemic. All the work was done virtually, able to have more meetings. Not to say that will be available in years to come. Worked very closely with local agencies in the region, DPT of pesticides, that is not in our jurisdiction, but had to collaborate with other agencies outside our regulation or set of rules. Another was Salton Sea, so we had to do a lot of collaboration. 

Knowing who to partner up with will hel;p put the puzzle together. Had to have refineries at the table. How to reduce unless they are at the table. 

This allows different groups to get together to discuss what those issues are and how to build trust with the community to work with these different agencies. 

Ryan Sinclair, really pushed for community and community science, teaches us, agency science, weaving that together. There is no set formula. It takes a village. A lot of work for the community and for the agencies as well. 

Rick: the Inland Empire is different, Santa Ana, LA, those are urban, Inland Empire is very rural. One of the things that I know that we would like to see, those agencies that we need to partner with, that they have a more active role in the program. That will require legislation, it is quite a mandate. We will see how successful that it. I would say, also. Understanding, where the sources are in Santa Ana, I am not as familiar… one good thing would be, for example, making sure that all the facilities that we have jurisdiction on, that they are in compliance, that would be a big win for the communities. 

Arlene: identifying the sources, there was a lot of pushback from the agencies. They don't have capacity and resources. It takes a lot of collaboration and patience and working with the community. 

Kim: We have observed a lot of that. We do research across california. It is a challenge, we have been in discussion in the US, EJ Coordinator for Central California, sees her role is getting people to come into conversation. Was appointed recently, so, we appreciate that. 

Mapping the stakeholders is a first pass. Understanding that is part of hazard characterization. 

Aidern: making sure that people are in compliance, have the right permits. Is that seen as a strategy of AB617? I have been told that, as it is, there's not a capacity to visit every site. So, would being able to be on top of that, is that part of the SERP?

Rick: it is part of the strategym, like in los Angeles, it is. It makes sense to me, for two reasons,. 1, you achieve community education. When people don't know what is going on, a lot of fear and distrust between the community and government. And instead of better outcomes, it is always fighting. 2) you truly start understanding the sources that are affecting the environment and who is responsible. So you can start addressing those things. 

We get situations in which “you guys are not doing enough, not enforcing your rules.” 

But sometimes they are not in the jurisdiction. They may be an air quality issue, but not in your jurisdiction. 

The pandemic created all sorts of problems, I don't think the… the agency, over the years, has done a good job of enforcement.  It is a key tool to making sure that facilities operate within the rules, and more importantly the permitted issues that they are allowed to operate. But I do understand, for example, there might be an issue of capacity. We don't have a 1000 inspectors… for me… it is a very good strategy because we did it in paramount with Chromium 6. That was a program that I ran for about a year. Much to the surprise of activists, when the chromium issue came out, it was horrific. The agencies were failing, the business did not have permits, everything. There was actually a significantly higher level of compliance than the public thought. But, there was a big distrust, because the toxin was so dangerous. But the regulation was there, and in learning that, it built trust and that was important. It paved the way for holding regulators accountable. It is an interesting dynamic. 

Kim: Seems like there are two primary forms of AB617 work: air monitoring and multifaceted reduction program. 

Rick: Our terms, its a community emissions reduction plan, from the community perspective. In east Los Angeles, the primary, one of the primary concerns was pollution from the freeway, from mobile sources. That was identified, what that helped, we had our office that works through an “incentive approach” to reduce emissions, a lot of money went to replace trucks and mobile sources. So… it depends on the characteristics of the community. 

The localized air monitoring programs attempt to identify… for me it's almost going beyond the MATES study that we have done, such that it gives communities an opportunity to help us see if there is an immediate problem to be addressed quickly. I see it hand in hand. 

Aiden: MATES seems like an important component. Applications site MATES. But the closest air monitor was in Anaheim? How to understand Santa Ana from Anaheim? Unless i am wrong. 

Rick: MATES is not a fixed network of monitors. We, where we see potential for emissions, we go and monitor. But i don't know how the MATES study was done and how the data was collected. But, having said that, I would say, I have a high level… in my mind, how the data was collected, based on the quality of the data, and the work the agency does, I don't think it was deficient. I don't think the monitoring that was done would be ineffective to yield the results that they have. I trust the experts in that field, that whatever process that they used to do that, I would not expect that it was deficient. 

Arlene: It's kinda what we did in ECV, wherever we need to amend or supplement monitors, we did that. We expanded the network to [put monitors where they thought they needed to be. 

Kim: does AQMD, AB617 help characterize cumulative pollution? 

Rick: So, excellent question, and… um, the answer is complicated. I have been with the agency 34 years, this is the key question of this work. So…, I think that the attempt front the  programmatic kind of way. We are in MATES 5 now. That is the process by which that has been “kind of” addressed, but I would like to do more.. But over the years, I can say that, going back to the 90’s that, there are rules that have that kind of process… but it is a large debate over the last 3 decades. It is not an easy characterization, but MATES is the best tool for that. 

Kim: good to know that it has been on your agency’s mind for decades. 

Rick: yes, it is difficult. It makes sense and you know, through MATES, this is how the issues of Chrome 6 happened…. But yea, it is not an easy proposition to have in regulatory form. I think we do a good job regulating sources of pollution, so even if we don't have the data or regulatory specific tool, like we do in sources to address the broad. So, we go from a dry cleaner to a refinery… so, that is how we do it. 

Aiden: CARB switched mentality on AB617? Cuz it seems overloaded. Trying to digest what they have already, rather than adding new communities?

Arlene: Well, lessons are learned each year. Like a baby, born, grows, starts talking, etc. I see that with the way the state, community, us in the air districts, etc. handle it. We meet regularly to ensure funding. There is a lot of talk about AB617, rumors about where it’s headed. We're giving it time to mature, to become the program it needs to be. It takes a special role. We have to learn the community side and the science side of things. At the beginning, we were not all open to that. We had a lot of smart people in regulating offices, but we had to diversify to begin to see and understand the community needs. That is the biggest challenge, community and science, making them mesh together. We are trying to work with the state agency, they are pivoting to new ways of looking at things; there are always 2.0 versions. 

Rick: the communities have learned as well. I don't think you can say that the regulatory agencies, whether the state or local, are the only ones. The communities are changing their expectations too. Yes, it is about resources and capacity, but at the same time, if I learn that the government can address the concerns that I have, that is a big win for the community. Then they are in a better position to demand that from the government. To expand, I have enjoyed watching how some of those individuals that worked in the community that were so difficult because they did not understand the process. They are now more pleasant and they also hold you to task more, because they know how to do that. I have hopes that the program's evolution, all the growing pains, it will be a program that continues to add value into the future. 

Aiden: deliberately trying to build that capacity to hold the regulators accountable. 

Kim: and thank you for your role in AQMD. I know you face a lot of challenges and we appreciate what you do.