Chairman Raybould introduced the staff and
members present from the

Department of Environmental Quality were
introduced by Director Steve

Alired.

Chairman Raybould appointed Vice Chairman
Harwood to chair the rules review which will be
on January 20 and 22.

Representatives were issued binders from the
DEQ with the rules to be considered.

Rep Meyer moved to approve the minutes of January 14. By voice
vote the motion passed.

Chairman Raybould then turned the meeting over to Vice-Chairman
Harwood.

When asked what range of Dissolved Oxygen this section of river has
been running, Don Essig, of the DEQ, did not have a ready answer. He
promised to have the numbers at the next meeting. He said there have
been some violations along this section. In response as to what controls
the Dissolved Oxygen content in the river, Mr. Essig said it is a chain of
events. Excess nutrients contribute to too much algae in the river, this
then depresses the oxygen level when the algae die and decay. Both
man and nature contribute to the lowered oxygen levels, and the TMDL
(Total Maximum Daily Load) is the the best they can to do to sort out the
contribution from each.

In answer to further questions, Mr. Essig said that in order to meet the
TMDL requirements, they must use the higher figure, because that was
the agreed upon goal of the TMDL. Steve Allred, Director of the DEQ,
said the standards cannot go backwards.

In answer to questions, Ms. Hardesty said there are not contentious,
unresolved issues because they used a public advisory team consisting of
such groups as Idaho Power, users, tribes, and the EPA (Environmental
Protection Agency). The Idaho representatives to this advisory team were
appointed by SWBAG (South West Basin Advisory Group). It was the
equivalent of a Watershed Advisory Group (WAG).

In answer to what happens if a violation is found, Mr. Allred said it
goes on the 303D list­a list of impaired streams, and this “triggers a
bunch of things,” one of which is a TMDL to determine how to make the
stream meet the quality standards, and looks at ways to bring the specific
problem in line with the standards. If remedial actions are not taken, then
there could be a fine.

In answer to questions, Mr. Essig said that although this rule only
changes the Dissolved Oxygen Standard for a portion of the Snake River,
it is possible they might look at tributaries as the source of the “load.”

Mr. Essig said the problem times are the last two weeks of October.
Water temperatures have been in excess of this rule. Rep. Raybould
commented that it is very difficult to lower the temperature in the river
after a hot summer. Mr. Essig said that one solution may be that the
dams may have to change their operations.

Mr. Allred pointed out that dams on the Mid-Snake River come up for
re-licensing in the next couple of years. Oregon and Idaho need to get a
TMDL done and in place before the re-licensing comes up. They are
trying to protect the interests of Idaho as federal law requires that local
regulations be honored. These rules will give a certainty to Idaho’s
standards.

This rule language is revised to separate water treatment and water
drinking users because these two fields require different education,
experience and expertise. The Bureau of Occupational Licenses plans to
charge $60 a year, although the rule allows up to $100 a year, or $200
every other year.

Mr. Allred explained that these two temporary rules need to be formally
approved. The DEQ Board will consider the rules in February, but it
would be too late for this year’s Legislative session. The Board will adopt
these rules in February, and then they will come back next year as
pending rules.

EXCUSED:

In response to questions, Mr. Green said notification of this rule will be
sent to all land fills and will be put on the web. Labs that handle
radioactive materials already know how to handle this type of material.

Roy Eiguren spoke. He represents the only company licensed to
dispose of low radioactive materials in the state, and supports this rule.

The Board of Environmental Quality can accept or deny the contested
case. At the suggestion of a Representative, Mr. Conde agreed they
could add the Internet to the ways of notification.

Alan Prouty, Chairman of the Environmental Committee for lACI,
spoke. He has held a number of environmental positions around
the state, and currently is Director, Environmental & Regulatory
Affairs for Simplot.

Mr. Prouty listed three areas of concern.

1) The Development of Rules and Guidance for state agencies,
especially the DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality.) They
want the rules to be consistent with the federal rules. There is
more research done at the federal level, and Idaho companies
can be at a disadvantage with businesses in those states who
have adopted the federal rules. They realize there is a need for a
few rule exceptions, specific to Idaho, but these need to be clearly
understood and adopted by the Legislature. He believes that rules
should be adopted using Negotiated Rule Making, good faith, and
the best science available. Policies need to be developed after the
public has had the opportunity for input.

2) Most federal statutes provide for the state to actually run the
program, with some federal oversight. IACI approves of this. They
believe the State is in the best position to make decisions that
affect Idaho. They encourage the DEQ to be aggressive and
assertive in maintaining their rights under federal oversight
programs.

One environmental program the state does not control is NPDES
(National Pollution Discharge Elimination System.) They support
the State taking this over, but there are issues. The main one is
money. How would this program be funded. The program would
have to be developed within the DEQ, and would have to consider
the role of the EPA (Environmental Protections Agency) and
would have to cover how the ESA (Endangered Species Act)
would affect the permits issued. A committee of very professional
people has started working on this. IACI would like additional
discussions between the regulative community, DEQ,
stakeholders, and the Legislature on this matter.

They want the timely issuance of permits. The federal government
has made some changes. They are appreciative of the DEQs Air
Permitting Process. He hopes the changes will be of benefit to
those in Idaho.

Another area of concern is the Land Application Permits. This
concerns facilities that have waste water with nutrient value that is
applied to crops such as alfalfa. This business has matured, and
they would like to sit down with DEQ and see if they can make
changes to improve the situation.

DEQ is working on revising water standards for metals. IACI is
working to improve the permitting process in air and land use
permit applications.

In response to questions, Mr. Prouty said the DEQ is
evaluating the Air Permit Structure this year. He doesnt know if
there will be a fee increase.

Mr. Prouty said that with the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System being run by the federal government, there is
no fee. If the state takes over primacy, there will be fees charged
to those applying for permits, but he hoped that the requirements
could be less stringent under a state administered program. Our
Region 10, has more stringent regulations than do other areas.

Report on Underground Storage Tanks by DEQ:

Mr. Allred said he is concerned with more than just the underground
storage tanks (USTs). He feels we will regret in future years what we
have allowed to happen to the underground water quality in this state.
Most of the state gets its drinking water from underground water. USTs
are not the only problem. The State of Idaho has the liability to deal with
the underground storage tanks that leak. Some of these sites do not
have insurance. The federal government has helped. So far, they have
spent 3 million dollars in the last couple of years responding to these
leaky tanks. He expressed appreciation to the EPA for making the
following presentation.

There program is prevention orientated. It is much cheaper to prevent
leaks, rather than repair the damage. One cannot say that lack of a
particular program results in a problem, but there is a problem in Idaho.

He said there are two programs in Idaho­prevention and clean-up.
EPA runs the prevention program. They do 60 to 70 inspections a year.
Of Washington, Oregon, Alaska & Idaho states, Idaho is the only state not
to have primacy in prevention.

Last October, the EPA decided to do additional inspections because of
concerns about compliance. Sites were notified ahead of time of the
inspections. He presented a written report (See Attachment 1), and also
had charts for the Committee to view. In a four-day period, eight
inspectors did 94 inspections at 109 sites. No action was taken in 20
cases, 33 were given a written warning, and 47 received field citations.
The total number of violations was 146 and the total penalties assessed
was $24,000.

He went on to discuss the types of violations. Almost 50% of them
were in the area of leak detection, 27% didn’t have protection, 14% had
corrosion issues, and 8.4% did not have insurance. The lack of insurance
could result in a significant liability to the community, taxpayers, and the
state.

He said it is difficult to compare Idaho nationally, and they don’t have
good comparison numbers with other states at this time. That data is
coming. However, they were not surprised by the results of the
inspections in October.

In response to questions, Mr. Werntz said the Federal EPA rules are
adequate to take care of undergound storage tanks, where ever they are.
He said that in order to take over from the EPA, the state’s requirements
must match or exceed the federal standards. Washington State exceeds
federal requirements in some areas.

Chairman Raybould asked if the failure of the Legislature to approve
the rules last year resulted in any spill that the rules would have
prevented.

Mr. Werntz replied that it is difficult to get credit for preventing a
problem that doesn’t occur. Prevention was the focus of the October
inspections. It was field applications of the federal rule.

Chairman Raybould commented that during the 1990s almost
everybody dug up their tanks and put in new ones. Last year’s rules
required redoing those tanks to exceed federal rules. He again asked if
any leaks were discovered that wouldn’t have occurred had those rules
been in place.

Eric Sirs, of the EPA said no they were looking for compliance in
October. In answer to questions from the Committee, he referred to the
charts showing the categories of violations. In some cases the paperwork
was missing, but a release detection method was missing in a large
percentage of the violations. In some cases no paperwork had ever been
done to show if there was ever a tank leak inspection.

Corrosion protection is needed to protect steel tanks and lines.
Fourteen percent couldn’t operate or monitor their corrosion protection
equipment. Some didn’t keep all their 60 day repair documents.

Mr. Sirs agreed that a small percentage of the violations could be
called paperwork. He said that he is the only inspector in the State of
Idaho, and that he has other duties, besides. The 8 inspectors in the
October Enforcement Initiative were brought in from around the country.
Rep. Harwood again raised the issue of the October inspection being
retaliation for the rules being rejected last year.

Mr. Werntz said the documentation must be on site. He said the EPA
runs their program to meet their obligations, and was not affected by last
year’s actions of the Legislature.

In response to questions, Mr. Sirs said that DEQ has an 85% clean-up
rate.

When questioned, Mr. Werntz said the rate of violations in October
was similar to the annual rate. Inspecting 7 or 8% of the facilities at one
time gave the EPA a “snap shot” of the situation. With 1300 facilities in
the state, it would take them 20 years to get through the entire cycle.
They are hoping to be able to do more inspections in Idaho in the future.

In response to questions, Mr. Sirs said that a community finds out
rather quickly when an inspection finds violations. The EPA doesn’t
inform the public, but they do respond to questions. Information isn’t
released until the owner has had a opportunity to correct the situation. If
corrected, the subject is closed.

Mr. Werntz added that some information is not released because it is
an on-going enforcement. It isn’t easy for a citizen to get enforcement
information on a local gas station.

Mr. Allred explained that $600,000 goes to clean up leaks. $200,000
is used to maintain records on the tanks, and provide regulatory
assistance to those bringing a tank into compliance.

In response to questions, Mr. Werntz said the news release was in
response to questions from the news media. There was an unusually
high level of interest in this case. They did not provide data until they
actually had it.

Mr. Sirs said that the violations were both on old and new tanks.
Some old tanks were only fixed in certain areas. Three sites out of the 90
did nothing to meet the 1998 deadline.

Mr. Jarvis said they have a data base of 3500 tanks.

Mr. Werntz said a number of new tanks were not properly installed. In
some cases they were sold improper or excessive equipment. The EPA
tries to provide the proper information when asked.

Mr. Allred commented about some of the clean-ups around the state.
In Ashton, they have spent $300,000 and haven’t even started. This was
a modern facility that leaked, and the owners are out of state. DEQ does
not expect to recover much of the costs. A number of residents were
impacted, among them a family with 5 or 6 children who got better when
they started drinking bottled water. DEQ found out about the problem in
Malad City when a basement caught on fire. DEQ has spent a lot of
money there and is not done. DEQ has spent over 2.6 million dollars in
six cities. The General Fund picks up the cost.

In response to Rep. Meyer pointing out all the progress the State has
made, Mr. Allred agreed that Idaho has an excellent Leaking
Underground Storage Tank program. However, he is distressed by the
new tanks that are leaking. These new tanks are big ones. Salmon is
another town with a huge spill. He hoped that preventive measures in
place will catch leaks quickly. If one has detection equipment, but doesn’t
use it, it doesn’t do any good. He thinks the state is making good
progress and is headed in the right direction. They spend 4 million dollars
a year in the clean up of sites. Often they find the petroleum in the
sewage lines, or in the ground. Many of these leaking tanks do not have
insurance.

In response to questions, Mr. Sirs said that these leaking tanks run
between 10,000 to 15,000 gallons on the average.

Mr. Jones said the Petroleum Industry works very hard to clean up
their spills. They are responsible. The State is the last resort, not the first
resort. He urged the State to go after the station owners. He thought the
notice on the October inspection was courteous. All the Stinker stations
passed. (He felt the 96 sites were not randomly selected.) All of their
tanks are insured. He said the petroleum industry felt that the EPA
releases were not positive, even though the EPA claimed they were.

At this point Mr. Allred stood to clarify what he said. He said that most
leaks are reported by tank owners. The big problems are where they
have owners that are not complying with the rules, or ancient owners who
have long since left the property and it has been sold several times.

In response to questions, Mr. Sirs said 94% of the UST (Underground
Storage Tanks) in the state own one or two facilities.

Mr. Jones added that most of the fuel is sold by the larger operators
who have the large tanks. Jackson stations have more sites than he
does. He doesn’t think “Mom and Pop” stores have a reason for not
complying with the rules.

Rep. Campbell asked what is the solution­have the federal
government take over all the stations?

Mr. Jones replied that the public demands more today than they did
30 years ago. They expect cleaner water, air, etc. The federal
government has proven they aren’t very good business people. We
would have a large problem rather than a small problem, if we turned
stations and their management over to the federal government. Banks
are very concerned that stations meet the EPA requirements before they
loan money.

Mr. Allred said that 66% of the facilities in the state are owned by
owners with 1 or 2 tanks.

When asked about any mechanism for forwarding the documentation
for underground storage tanks to new owners, Mr. Allred said real estate
laws talk about disclosure, but state and federal laws depend upon the
information being available at the site. Owners are required to report the
existence of a tank and its physical characteristics. They get a lot of
requests for information about specific pieces of property, but they only
know what they have been told about the upgrades. The EPA does all
the inspections.

She commented that the DEQ and EPA have been dealing with the
Ashton site and another one for 5 to 10 years. The media portrayed this
as a newly discovered sites. On the ratings, Idaho is 15 points better in
clean up than the nation or the region.

Ten years ago, Idaho put in place a Clean Water Trust Fund, a non-profit insurance company. This tank fund insures almost 85% of the tanks
in Idaho. 92% of the tanks have some kind of financial insurance, which
is better than the percentage of insured drivers.

She closed with the comment that people say Idaho’s program isn’t
functioning well enough, but released data shows Idaho is in a good
position. She said she “doesn’t think that policy regulation through press
release is the way to do it.”

He displayed 17 pages of schedules which are the result of court
settlements on the water quality issue. He also showed charts of the
schedules for 2003, 2004, and 2005. His concerns are costs and
schedule. The budget for the water quality program in DEQ is less than it
was two or three years ago. They are just barely meeting the schedule
due to resource issues. They have discontinued providing staff support to
the WAGS as they don’t have the money. He doesn’t believe we can
meet the schedule with this new bill. The EPA (Environmental Protection
Agency) has already put the DEQ on notice as to what the consequences
will be­they will take over the clean water regulation in Idaho. (See letter
“Attachment 1”)

In response to questions, Mr. Allred said making WAGS a formal
process would take more time, not less. He agreed there are WAGS in
place with volunteers, but said the technical people put together the
criteria. Mr. Allred said BAGS have to include agriculture, mining, non
municipal point sources, forest products native groups, and livestock
among others, plus one person appointed at large by the Director.

Rep. Harwood questioned the use of best available science. He said
in the Silver Valley, water from the drinking fountain was good enough to
drink, but not good enough to pour in the river according to the TMDL
standards.

Mr. Allred said the Safe Drinking Water Act criteria would be better
than the water quality standard in the river. There would not be a TMDL
for that river, but the Coeur d’Alene River. He said he didn’t understand
the statement.

Mr. Allred said that if the EPA takes over, they don’t use WAGS.

In answer to a question, Rep. Denny said currently there is no
requirement that any input from the WAG be given any consideration.

In response to comments about scheduling, Mr. Knight, said the
Cattle Association is concerned that they be involved, but they are not
trying to slow down the process.

In answer to a question, Mr. Allred said that if Idaho doesn’t meet the
schedule, the EPA has the choice to take over the whole state, or just the
area that did not have a TMDL. He surmised that they probably would
“just do a TMDL on that source” that did not have one.

In response to questions, Toni Hardesty, of DEQ, said no comments
were received between the first and second drafts. There were
comments between the second and thirds drafts and changes were made.
At this point in time they are waiting to hear back from the Weiser River
WAG to see if their concerns were addressed.

However, they feel on “the Weiser River Sub Basis Assessment (SBA)
and TMDL, their ability to participate has been severely restricted by
IDEQ” They feel “their efforts to be involved in the process have mostly
been ignored.” He said they were told not to worry about temperature as
they couldn’t do anything about it. When the SBA-TMDL was finally
released to them, there was a “ridiculous” proposal calling for 69%
shading on the entire lower Weiser in eleven and one-half years. (Dr.
Dombroski in Oregon set a target of 70 years on the same project.)

In spite of numerous requests, they did not receive any documentation
until after June 20. The WAG told Mr. Ingam of DEQ they considered this
document “garbage.” They did not see another SBA-TMDL until October
16. They have sought legal council. They wanted to sit down with DEQ
and go through the SBA-TMDL page by page, but this still hasn’t been
done.

He closed with the opinion that DEQ should be the biggest supporter
of this legislation because this bill will guarantee that local concerns are
heard and addressed, resulting in the best possible TMDL. “Local buy-in
is the only way that implementation can succeed.”

In response to questions, he felt the same general guidelines for
BAGS, could apply for WAGS. They have no mining or tribal interests in
their area, so those groups are not represented. The BAG did approve
the membership list, but only after the WAG met and organized
themselves.

In response to questions he said that the Weiser River WAG is not the
only problem, but it is especially bad there. The people in that WAG feel
as if they are being “slammed dunked.” They don’t feel there is a co-operative effort between the DEQ and the EPA. They feel the test is “Is it
acceptable to the EPA?”

When asked why the WAGS work in some areas, and not others, Mr.
Olberding said that the DEQ gives lots of times to develop the main
streams, but when they get to the sub basin, things are rushed through.

EXCUSED:

During the last session, the Oregon Legislature made “slight changes”
in their fees that become effective March 1 of 2004. This delayed date
was set to give the Idaho Legislature time to change its code to match
Oregon’s fee schedule.

The price was reduced for large amounts of debris.

When asked why Oregon reduced their fees, Mr. Eiguren said that
Oregon reduced their fees to stay competitive with California’s fees. He
said it would be difficult to estimate how much the state would lose if this
bill is not passed.

Mr. Eiguren promised a full and complete briefing at the hearing,
should this RS become a bill.

Rep. Trail said that DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) has
committed themselves to use this resolution. (Mr. Sandoval of DEQ
nodded his head.)

In response to the Federal Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1984,
Idaho passed their own legislation. In 2001 Idaho made explicit
provisions for low radio active material not previously regulated by any
one previously. In 2002, a bill was passed stating there would be fee
parity with Oregon. This bill simply keeps Idaho fee structure in line with
the small change that was made by the Oregon Legislature.

US Ecology Operates 3 of 18 RCRA (Resource, Conservation &
Recovery Act) sites operating in the US. The country has been very
successful in reducing the amount of waste materials in the US, resulting
in some sites being closed. The parent company, American Ecology
operates other disposal sites in the country. DEQ and the Oregon
counterpart, agreed to keep the rates equal.

He showed a slide of the Grand View site and explained that a waste
site is specially prepared to permanently contain the materials deposited
in the landfill. There are a number of wells around the perimeter to
monitor for any possible leakage.

In 2003, the state received two million dollars in fees. (At the highest
level, the fees were four million dollars a year and this money funded the
DEQ budget.) As the amount of wastes was reduced, the fee structure
was changed and the money now goes into General Fund.

US Ecology sets up a trust into which they donate money each year.
A local committee decides how the money will be spent each year.

He continued with pictures of their disposal waste treatment building,
which treats most waste before it goes into the ground. There is no liquid
waste put in the ground. Other substances are stabilized in cement, or
some other way. They operate a railroad transfer station at Simco. They
take the air pollution control dust from steel mills and make it non
hazardous with their patented system.

They have invested 4.5 million in a new disposal cell at the site. It is a
double lined, leachable collection system. Each system has its own
drainage system. Clay is used to double the protection. Natural high
quality clay deposits occurring near by was one reason this site was
selected.

In answer to questions, Mr. Eiguren said that the large clean-up price
of $2 fee per ton would be a rare occurrence. They are too far from a lot
of clean up sites in Oregon and Washington to compete because of
transportation costs.

In answer to further questions, Mr. Romano said that US Ecology’s
competitiveness with other waste sites depends upon the type of waste
and the facilities. They are not competitive with California wastes. Utah
has an incinerator, so they take burnable materials as well as some
treated waste from the Idaho site.

US Ecology is equipped to take PCB waste, and has taken some from
as far away as New Jersey. Not a lot of places take PCB waste.
Electrical transformers are drained and flushed. The PCB liquid is
incinerated in either Utah or Texas. The drained, flushed carcass is
deposited in their landfill and buried. The eastern part of the United
States has shallow ground water and lots of rain, so they are unable to
take certain types of waste.

Dick Rush, representing 300 companies in Idaho with IACI (Idaho
Association of Commerce and Industry) spoke in favor of this bill.

EXCUSED:

The bill increases the fees from $20 to $70 for a single trip permit, and
increases the fees from $250 to $500 for an annual permit for the
transportation of hazardous wastes.

The monies from these fees will be used for HAZMAT training for
Idaho State Police Officers. It is called the Hazardous
Material/Hazardous Waste Transportation Enforcement Fund.

Rep. Meyer presented a few statistics. Last year 180 annual permits
were sold, and they generated $41,400. Single trip permits were sold
through vendors and also purchased at the port of entries. The change in
fee structure will bring an estimated $92,200 more into this fund.

This bill would only require testing every 2 years, and a vehicle
wouldnt have to be tested the first 3 years. If it will cost over $125
to bring a vehicle into compliance, the owner can claim economic
hardship, and get a variance. There are also other exclusions.

He commented that Ada County has to treat its sewage before it
is released in the Boise River to flow through Canyon County, and
it is only fair that Canyon County treats its air before it moves this
way.

In response to questions, Rep. Langhorst said that ozone
exceeds the limit in the hottest days in the middle of summer. For
PM 2.5, we exceed the limit in December when we get the
inversions.

Rep. Langhorst further explained that this bill only applies to
counties with a population greater than 125,000. At present time,
only Ada and Canyon Counties would be affected by this bill, It is
possible that in ten years Kootenai Countys population could
reach that level

As to the costs, Rep. Langhorst said that it is left to the County to
decide. There would be local input as to the kinds of emission
tests. As to costs, currently Ada County charges $15. It might go
higher.

Rep. Sayler moved to send RS 13801C1 to print.

At Chairmans request, Steve Alired, Director of DEQ
(Department of Environmental Quality) stood and stated that they
are concerned with the air quality in the Treasure Valley. He
thought it was a progressive bill that allows the maximum amount
of local control. He urged the Committee to support it.

EXCUSED:

Rep. Smith said states cannot ban spent nuclear fuel from traveling on
their highways, but they can regulate safety by requiring a permit and
charging a fee. She referred to a chart showing the fees required by
surrounding states. Some around us charge more, but this bill sets our
fees to match those of Oregon State. When Yucca Mountain opens,
projected to open 2010, materials will be transported there.

The purpose of this bill was to charge fees for materials coming into
INEEL, or leaving INEEL and going to New Mexico, or Yucca Mountain in
the future. All materials are shipped by private carriers, not the
Department of Energy. There was some misunderstanding, so an
amendment is being prepared.

In response to questions about their involvement with spills and
containment, Lieutenant Reese mentioned a recent accident near
Mountain Home involving a vehicle carrying nuclear materials. However,
the drum was not compromised. The local law enforcement was closing
the freeway when a specialist showed up and tested the area. He was
able to verify that there was no danger and it was safe to open the
freeway.

The DEQ has various programs it takes to classrooms. One
demonstration shows an inversion. They also do water awareness
demonstrations. An intern from DEQ visited local schools and helped
them take care of the waste from their labs. Some schools have
significant amount of chemicals, some old and unstable, sitting on their
shelves. They help schools get rid of the chemicals they no longer use
and also assist in finding less toxic chemicals for use in experiments.

In questioning, Mr. Ehlert said Ada county has a contractor who
collects electronic waste and sends it to Utah for recycling.

In response to a representative’s comment that these chemicals that
seem to be so dangerous come from the ground and we are returning
them to the ground, she said processing may make them more
dangerous.

He said the loan fund is complicated and involves a lot of money. This
money is used for loans to cities, towns, and other small groups to
improve water quality or to treat sewage. For the past 20 years, money
has come from the federal government and the state has matched that
money. Federal grants are decreasing, and funding for the administrative
costs will need to be provided for in a different manner.

Bill Jerrel, the Loan Program Manager at DEQ, also spoke. There
are two separate loan funds. S 1278 addresses the administrative costs
of both funds. This bill attempts to make these funds self-sufficient and
self-supporting. The bill allows DEQ to use 1% of the loans outstanding
for funding administrative cost. The Legislature would have to approve
this funding annually. The funds would be taken from the interest
revenue. (Federal regulations allow 4% of the Capitalization grant to be
set aside for administrative costs. That amounts to approximately
$600,000 a year between the two funds.) This administration money
funds 4 ½ full time positions. This funding is spread between the state
office and the field offices. There aren’t specific people assigned, but time
is coded for this by people throughout the department. Last year there
were $450,000 in total administrative costs. With the projected smaller
grants, they will be $100,00 short for the FY 2006 budget year.

In response to questions, Mr. Jerrel showed a long list of cities, towns
and associations that have received help. More have used funds for
waste water treatment than for drinking water. Fifteen connections, or 40
users, is the cut-off for qualifying for a loan for a water system.

Toni Hardesty, of DEQ spoke on S 1279. The Idaho board issuing
certificates for waste water engineers and drinking water engineers closed
its office and stopped issuing certificates. DEQ then had to start issuing
these certificates. The Bureau of Occupational Licenses is well equipped,
and is willing to handle these licenses. Ms. Hardesty said the Bureau will
speak to its willingness to handle this when the Senate bill comes before
the Committee.

In the past, large particulate matter, PM_10, and carbon monoxide were
the problem. With the wood stove ordinance, open burning controls,
industrial permits, road dust agreements, and vehicle inspections and
maintenance, PM₁₀ had been reduced in Boise, but it has started up
again. If an airshed goes into nonattainment, it takes a long time to get
out.

Now the problems are PM_2.5 and carbon monoxide. He presented
charts showing nonattainment in carbon monoxide in recent years. They
showed a general drop in nonattainment until the year 2000, a slight
increase in 2001 and a jump up in 2002.

Mr. McGown said DEQ is particularly concerned about PM_2.5, which is
inhaled deep into the lungs. Also of concern is ozone, which is very
reactive. We are having more moderate and unhealthful days in the
Treasure Valley. There is concern that with the increase in population
and traffic in the Treasure Valley, we will reach nonattainment in the near
future. Ozone, which is created in a reaction with strong sunlight,
exceeds the standard on the hottest days in summer. PM_2.5 is the highest
in winter when the Treasure Valley has a temperature inversion. PM_2.5
reacts with nitrogen/sulfur oxides and ammonia from motor vehicles,
diesel fuel, and cattle and forms even more pollution. He said that if
motor vehicles, household emissions, etc., continue to increase, business
and industry will be squeezed out.

Mr. McGown said that vehicles produced 50% of the nitrogen oxides in
the Treasure Valley in 1999, and 20% of the volatile organic chemicals.

As to the consequences of air pollution on public health, he said it
especially impacts children, the elderly, those with pre-existing health
problems, and those who spend time outdoors. It can cause irritation to
the lungs, eyes, and other membranes, asthma, reduced disease
resistance, premature death, cardiovascular disease, and increased
cancer risk. The economic consequences of these problems are
increased health care costs, missed school and work days, an area less
attractive and more costly to new business, reduced tourism, crop and
plant damage, and reduced visibility.

If the federal government takes over, they will implement more stringent
regulations. This will result in costly air quality improvement plans, loss of
state and local control, permanent controls on air pollution emissions,
expensive “retro-fit” solutions, stricter industrial permits for new or
modified facilities and transportation, general conformity requirements and
potential funding loss.

Mr. McGown said that Canyon County vehicle emissions are projected
to go down in future years with more efficient cars, but they might not go
down enough. He said vehicle testing is needed to reduce carbon
monoxide and hydrocarbons, which are important precursors to ozone
and PM _2.5. More than vehicle testing will be needed, however, to reduce
the rates to appropriate levels. Such measures as the control of wood
stoves, open burning, construction dust, maintenance plan permits, and
agreement on road sanding, paving, and chemical treatments will be
necessary.

Mr. McGown urged the Committee to be proactive and pass H714.

In questioning, he said lawn mower exhaust is the next thing on the
Department’s list to regulate.

Mr. McGown said that ethanol can help reduce pollution, but has to be
blended correctly for the area, and it is complicated to do. He agreed that
air quality is improving as older vehicles are being phased out, but said
with our increase growth in the valley, the pollution numbers may start to
go up.

In response to questions, Mr. Turner said there are minimal benefits to
testing newer cars. He said that even though few cars less than 3 years
old fail the test. Ada County chose to test cars over one year old. They
hoped to catch cars still under manufacturer’s warranty to protect the
consumer.

When asked why 1990 vehicles were used in the example, Mr. Turner
said they were older, and thus a good sample.

In response to questions, Mr. Chertudi said that if new regulations go
into fact the Nampa factory would cease to exist.

When asked what methods he would suggest using to reduce
pollution, Mr. Vasquez said that Canyon County has cars that burn
ethanol and has instituted a burning ban, rather than “drop the heavy
hand of government on its citizens.” He said the bill is an unfunded
mandate for Canyon County. This bill exempts semi-trucks and farm
equipment. Also, there are waivers. These all undermine the bill. He
said he would let others talk about the technical aspects of this bill.

He said, “In 2002, Ada County had been subjected to emissions
testing for 18 years. Ada had gone 16 years, from 1986 to 2002” with “no
violations on carbon monoxide,” and “one exceedence in January 1991.”
This was a “great record, but not good enough for DEQ/Compass.”

Mr. Johnson said for 11 months, Compass/DEQ told Canyon County
residents that they had a serious carbon monoxide problem, but now they
say there isn’t a problem.

He showed what he said were examples of “bad science” by the DEQ .
He said DEQ chose to use very selective years­just one or two for its
examples, rather than a report on all years. He said its predictions in
1995 of the pollution situation in 2000 were not correct when 2000
numbers actually came in. He pointed out that vehicle emissions have
decreased, even though COMPASS predicts a 71% increase in miles
traveled due to new cars.

He objected to the fact that even when an area passes federal
standards, DEQ still maintains control for years to come.

Since almost no one year old vehicles fail inspection, Ada County
residents pay $166,344 for “no gain.”

He presented a document: “Northern Ada County Carbon Monoxide
Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request”. “This Carbon Monoxide
Limited Maintenance Plan was prepared to meet U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) requirements to support redesignation of the
Northern Ada County not-classified carbon monoxide Nonattainment Area
to Attainment status.” It says of Canyon County “Its contributions to
carbon monoxide levels in the Northern Ada County Nonattainment Area
are considered negligible due to the distance involved and the ready
dispersion of carbon monoxide.”

The same report stated, “Records show that approximately 10% of
Ada County vehicle miles traveled are by out-of-county vehicles.”

Enclosed in the package was a guest opinion he had written, entitled
“Compass uses deception.” Among other things, he pointed out that in a
temperature inversion, the air doesn’t move, so Canyon County’s air is not
mixed with Ada County’s air. He also said a burning ban would take care
of most of the inversion problem.

In closing, Mr. Johnson said the problem is with COMPASS and DEQ,
not the air quality.

Mr. Freeman showed charts. In January, we had 25 Good Air Quality
days and only 6 of Moderate Quality. One of those days was a Sunday,
when there was light traffic. The PM_2.5 was estimated to be 90. The next
day, Monday, the PM_2.5 was estimated to be 58 as were the next two
days. The DEQ air quality forecasting does not seem to be accurate.

He said that emissions readings are going down in Canyon County
and therefore, we don’t need this bill.

In response to questions, she said that diabetics have circulatory
problems in their extremities. When particulates get into the blood
stream, this further compromises their blood circulation. (See Attachment
7)

Mr. Hendricks said if the goal is clean air, the Farm Bureau suggests a
10% blend of ethanol in vehicle fuel. Minnesota has done this and, as a
result, has come off nonattainment status and repealed its emissions
testing. Ethanol reduces the chemicals that must be added to increase
the octane. Ethanol reduces pollutants immediately. In closing, he said
ethanol “will clean our air without cleaning out our wallets.”

He said that there are “several options available to achieve reduced
automobile emissions that are more market-oriented than government-mandated emissions testing. These options include: Transportation flow
improvement…Remote sensor technology….High emission vehicle
retirement (HEVR)….and alternative fuel programs.”

In response to questions, Mr. Clark said Monsanto spent a lot of
money to avoid nonattainment in Soda Springs. He asked that his hand-out be entered into the record. (See Attachment 10) Mr. Clark said remote
sensing technology allows the catching of the 12% responsible for 80% of
the pollutants, while not penalizing those who are legal with annual fees.

EXCUSED:

Rep. Snodgrass said the opinion has been expressed July 1, 2004, is
too soon for any county or city to take action. He suggested a date of July
1, 2005 as a better choice. He said it is too bad, but it seems necessary
to test every automobile to find the offending 8% of the vehicles that fail
the test and produce 40% of the pollution. He said this is an airshed
quality problem for the whole Treasure Valley.

In response to questions, Rep. Snodgrass said he had talked again
with Mr. Trent Clark about the remote sensor technology. He had learned
that the stations used to cost $175,000 per unit. However, the company
manufacturing these testing units has been sold, and cost per unit has
risen to between $350,000 and $400,000. Rep. Snodgrass said there is a
leasing program of $150,00 to $175,00 per year. In response to
questions, he said these are portable units.

1. Is there a need for a statewide law? Is this a statewide
problem?

2. As far as the regulations covering airsheds, is there a better
approach than political subdivisions?

3. Does the advent of newer, cleaner vehicles, make a vehicle
inspection law unnecessary?

4. Is the evolution of newer vehicles enough to lower the
pollution numbers, or will the increase in growth and number of
vehicles make pollution a problem in spite of the cleaner vehicles?

5. Is this legislation constitutional? (He believes it is, but feels
there is a need to check with the Attorney General.)

EXCUSED:

In response to questions, Mr. Toole agreed that the animation showed
the pollution moving generally west. He said the direction of movement
depends upon the winds. He did not have any information as to the
directions of the wind during the four-day period detailed in the
presentation. Also, he did not have any information on what the PM_2.5
level was on those days. He said the relationship between the two PM
numbers was not linear.

In response to questions about whether December 24 was a normal
time pollution-wise, with last minute shopping, etc., he said it was. He
said pollution was at its worst at 10 p.m. because, as the air cools, it
compresses, forcing the pollution down.

Mr. Toole was asked for further information that he did not have, but
promised to get to the Committee

In response to questions, Mr. Lakey said he did not have some
information members requested, such as the number of vehicles in his
county, but promised to get it. He said that in order to reduce pollution,
burning ordinances that include wood stoves have been enacted.
Alternative fuels have been encouraged, and the public has been
educated as to the advantages of keeping their vehicles in good repair.

In response to further questions, Mr. Lakey agreed that Canyon
County does contribute to Treasure Valley air pollution to some degree.
The ethanol fuel used in Canyon County is E10. He said that PM₁₀,
shown in the DEQ presentation, is becoming less of a problem. He said
he thought one-third of the pollution is caused by automobiles, but that
this is difficult to measure. He said it is easier to quantify PM₁₀ and
carbon monoxide levels than NOX and VOC.

In closing, Mr. Lakey said it is not appropriate for the State to enact
legislation that impacts just one county. If testing is required state-wide
with a scientific basis, he would not oppose it. He promised information
on Ada County testing showing the number of cars that fail.

… The Ada County Commissioners have for years held a
position that all counties should do everything they can to
protect the air quality of their counties. We have required
auto emission testing for many years as a way to bring our
county back into compliance. We understand that the
many vehicles traveling from Canyon County to Ada
County every day do impact the entire air shed of Treasure
Valley.

The Ada County Commissioners also support the
concept of local control and therefore do not support state
mandated legislation for issues than can be resolved
locally. We hope your subcommittee will reject HB 714 as
it is written and pursue a different path to encourage
counties to resolve their air quality problems.

(Signed Judy M. Peavey-Derr, Chairman; Rick Yzaguirre, Commissioner,
and Fred Tilman, Commissioner.)

When asked about Idaho’s capacity to produce ethanol, he said that
currently, only a facility in Caldwell produces a small quantity. A permit
and final approval has been received to build a plant in Malheur County,
Oregon, that can produce 15 million gallons of ethanol a year. A study
was done about a year ago by the Energy Division of the Department of
Water Resources on the feasibility of ethanol plants in Idaho. The study
concluded that Idaho has adequate grain stocks to produce 100 million
gallons per year. State-wide, Idahoans burn approximately 600 million
gallons a year. With a 10% blend of Ethanol, we would only need 60
million gallons. He said it would take time to “ramp up” the infrastructure.

In response to questions, Mr. Hendrichs said that reformulated
gasoline is used in the Midwest and East Coast. He agreed that the
petroleum industries added MTBE and some states legislated it. It was
then discovered that MTBE causes a worse problem–ground water
pollution. Blended ethanol does not have those environmental concerns.

Mr. Eiguren said he also represents Amalgamated Sugar. It is
committed to working with all interested parties, but has concerns about
its economic viability over the longer term if the pollution problem gets
worse. Late in last year’s session, Amalgamated Sugar asked for a
voluntary compliance schedule. The bill passed. The company has a ten
year agreement with the DEQ for their three plants in Idaho. In addition to
the 12 million Mr. Chertudi mentioned on February 24, the company will
be spending an additional 8 million to address other issues.

Mr. Eiguren said that ValleyRide sent a report to many legislators done
by the Idaho Association of Counties, Idaho cities, and the Idaho
Department of Transportation. SCR 132 establishes an interim committee
to; 1) receive and examine the report and funding issues of public transit,
2) look at issues of air quality and public transportation’s effect on it.

Q. How much traffic does Ada County get from Canyon County?

A. IDEQ did a study that showed about 30% of the workers in Canyon
County drive to Ada County. That amounts to about 5% of the traffic in
Ada County

Q. What is the cost of Vehicle Emissions Testing to the citizens of
Canyon County?

A. As of 2002, there were about 125,000 registered vehicles in Canyon
County. With the testing required every other year, 62,500 would be
tested in a year’s time. Therefore, the annual cost would be 62,500 times
$15, which would equal close to one million dollars per year.

Q. What is the net reduction in emissions with testing?

A. IDEQ data shows 8% of the vehicles would fail, which would be
10,000 cars. Based on known data as to excess VOC and NOX from cars
that have failed the test, the annual reduction in VOC is 151 tons and
NOX is 161 tons. Using the IDEQ and ENVIRON report’s Mobile 6 model,
the result would be equal to a 2% reduction in the total VOC and NOX
emissions for both Ada and Canyon Counties.

Q. What are the Vehicle Emissions Testing costs and test results for the
citizens of Ada County?

A. IDEQ’s test results for 2002 showed approximately 92,500 vehicles.
Model years 1988-2002 were tested at a cost of $15 each, which totals
$1,387,500. Less than 2% or about 1,800 failed. Based on excess VOC
and NOX from cars that fail the test, the annual reductions in emissions of
VOC was 272 tons. For NOX it was 289 tons. The total of 561 tons is
about 5% of the total for Ada County of 10,431 tons.

Q. What are the emissions reductions expected solely due to new cars
replacing older cars?

A. The ENVIRON report data shows the vehicle contribution of VOC
would drop from 20% in 1995 to 6% in 2020, a 70% reduction, while NOX
would drop from 50% to 12.5% a 75% reduction.

Rep. Snodgrass said that he and Rep. Langhorst are concerned
with air quality. This issue won’t go away. He appreciates the motion to
refer this bill to the interim committee. He said there is need for good
information from all the players–consumers, local government, business,
and industry.

Several members expressed the hope that the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) will have more information available on the
current research and percentages the next time this issue is discussed.

EXCUSED:

Rep Meyer moved to approve the minutes of January 14. By voice
vote the motion passed.

Chairman Raybould then turned the meeting over to Vice-Chairman
Harwood.

When asked what range of Dissolved Oxygen this section of river has
been running, Don Essig, of the DEQ, did not have a ready answer. He
promised to have the numbers at the next meeting. He said there have
been some violations along this section. In response as to what controls
the Dissolved Oxygen content in the river, Mr. Essig said it is a chain of
events. Excess nutrients contribute to too much algae in the river, this
then depresses the oxygen level when the algae die and decay. Both
man and nature contribute to the lowered oxygen levels, and the TMDL
(Total Maximum Daily Load) is the the best they can to do to sort out the
contribution from each.

In answer to further questions, Mr. Essig said that in order to meet the
TMDL requirements, they must use the higher figure, because that was
the agreed upon goal of the TMDL. Steve Allred, Director of the DEQ,
said the standards cannot go backwards.

In answer to questions, Ms. Hardesty said there are not contentious,
unresolved issues because they used a public advisory team consisting of
such groups as Idaho Power, users, tribes, and the EPA (Environmental
Protection Agency). The Idaho representatives to this advisory team were
appointed by SWBAG (South West Basin Advisory Group). It was the
equivalent of a Watershed Advisory Group (WAG).

In answer to what happens if a violation is found, Mr. Allred said it
goes on the 303D list­a list of impaired streams, and this “triggers a
bunch of things,” one of which is a TMDL to determine how to make the
stream meet the quality standards, and looks at ways to bring the specific
problem in line with the standards. If remedial actions are not taken, then
there could be a fine.

In answer to questions, Mr. Essig said that although this rule only
changes the Dissolved Oxygen Standard for a portion of the Snake River,
it is possible they might look at tributaries as the source of the “load.”

Mr. Essig said the problem times are the last two weeks of October.
Water temperatures have been in excess of this rule. Rep. Raybould
commented that it is very difficult to lower the temperature in the river
after a hot summer. Mr. Essig said that one solution may be that the
dams may have to change their operations.

Mr. Allred pointed out that dams on the Mid-Snake River come up for
re-licensing in the next couple of years. Oregon and Idaho need to get a
TMDL done and in place before the re-licensing comes up. They are
trying to protect the interests of Idaho as federal law requires that local
regulations be honored. These rules will give a certainty to Idaho’s
standards.

This rule language is revised to separate water treatment and water
drinking users because these two fields require different education,
experience and expertise. The Bureau of Occupational Licenses plans to
charge $60 a year, although the rule allows up to $100 a year, or $200
every other year.

Mr. Allred explained that these two temporary rules need to be formally
approved. The DEQ Board will consider the rules in February, but it
would be too late for this year’s Legislative session. The Board will adopt
these rules in February, and then they will come back next year as
pending rules.

EXCUSED:

In response to questions, Mr. Green said notification of this rule will be
sent to all land fills and will be put on the web. Labs that handle
radioactive materials already know how to handle this type of material.

Roy Eiguren spoke. He represents the only company licensed to
dispose of low radioactive materials in the state, and supports this rule.

The Board of Environmental Quality can accept or deny the contested
case. At the suggestion of a Representative, Mr. Conde agreed they
could add the Internet to the ways of notification.

Alan Prouty, Chairman of the Environmental Committee for lACI,
spoke. He has held a number of environmental positions around
the state, and currently is Director, Environmental & Regulatory
Affairs for Simplot.

Mr. Prouty listed three areas of concern.

1) The Development of Rules and Guidance for state agencies,
especially the DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality.) They
want the rules to be consistent with the federal rules. There is
more research done at the federal level, and Idaho companies
can be at a disadvantage with businesses in those states who
have adopted the federal rules. They realize there is a need for a
few rule exceptions, specific to Idaho, but these need to be clearly
understood and adopted by the Legislature. He believes that rules
should be adopted using Negotiated Rule Making, good faith, and
the best science available. Policies need to be developed after the
public has had the opportunity for input.

2) Most federal statutes provide for the state to actually run the
program, with some federal oversight. IACI approves of this. They
believe the State is in the best position to make decisions that
affect Idaho. They encourage the DEQ to be aggressive and
assertive in maintaining their rights under federal oversight
programs.

One environmental program the state does not control is NPDES
(National Pollution Discharge Elimination System.) They support
the State taking this over, but there are issues. The main one is
money. How would this program be funded. The program would
have to be developed within the DEQ, and would have to consider
the role of the EPA (Environmental Protections Agency) and
would have to cover how the ESA (Endangered Species Act)
would affect the permits issued. A committee of very professional
people has started working on this. IACI would like additional
discussions between the regulative community, DEQ,
stakeholders, and the Legislature on this matter.

They want the timely issuance of permits. The federal government
has made some changes. They are appreciative of the DEQs Air
Permitting Process. He hopes the changes will be of benefit to
those in Idaho.

Another area of concern is the Land Application Permits. This
concerns facilities that have waste water with nutrient value that is
applied to crops such as alfalfa. This business has matured, and
they would like to sit down with DEQ and see if they can make
changes to improve the situation.

DEQ is working on revising water standards for metals. IACI is
working to improve the permitting process in air and land use
permit applications.

In response to questions, Mr. Prouty said the DEQ is
evaluating the Air Permit Structure this year. He doesnt know if
there will be a fee increase.

Mr. Prouty said that with the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System being run by the federal government, there is
no fee. If the state takes over primacy, there will be fees charged
to those applying for permits, but he hoped that the requirements
could be less stringent under a state administered program. Our
Region 10, has more stringent regulations than do other areas.

Report on Underground Storage Tanks by DEQ:

Mr. Allred said he is concerned with more than just the underground
storage tanks (USTs). He feels we will regret in future years what we
have allowed to happen to the underground water quality in this state.
Most of the state gets its drinking water from underground water. USTs
are not the only problem. The State of Idaho has the liability to deal with
the underground storage tanks that leak. Some of these sites do not
have insurance. The federal government has helped. So far, they have
spent 3 million dollars in the last couple of years responding to these
leaky tanks. He expressed appreciation to the EPA for making the
following presentation.

There program is prevention orientated. It is much cheaper to prevent
leaks, rather than repair the damage. One cannot say that lack of a
particular program results in a problem, but there is a problem in Idaho.

He said there are two programs in Idaho­prevention and clean-up.
EPA runs the prevention program. They do 60 to 70 inspections a year.
Of Washington, Oregon, Alaska & Idaho states, Idaho is the only state not
to have primacy in prevention.

Last October, the EPA decided to do additional inspections because of
concerns about compliance. Sites were notified ahead of time of the
inspections. He presented a written report (See Attachment 1), and also
had charts for the Committee to view. In a four-day period, eight
inspectors did 94 inspections at 109 sites. No action was taken in 20
cases, 33 were given a written warning, and 47 received field citations.
The total number of violations was 146 and the total penalties assessed
was $24,000.

He went on to discuss the types of violations. Almost 50% of them
were in the area of leak detection, 27% didn’t have protection, 14% had
corrosion issues, and 8.4% did not have insurance. The lack of insurance
could result in a significant liability to the community, taxpayers, and the
state.

He said it is difficult to compare Idaho nationally, and they don’t have
good comparison numbers with other states at this time. That data is
coming. However, they were not surprised by the results of the
inspections in October.

In response to questions, Mr. Werntz said the Federal EPA rules are
adequate to take care of undergound storage tanks, where ever they are.
He said that in order to take over from the EPA, the state’s requirements
must match or exceed the federal standards. Washington State exceeds
federal requirements in some areas.

Chairman Raybould asked if the failure of the Legislature to approve
the rules last year resulted in any spill that the rules would have
prevented.

Mr. Werntz replied that it is difficult to get credit for preventing a
problem that doesn’t occur. Prevention was the focus of the October
inspections. It was field applications of the federal rule.

Chairman Raybould commented that during the 1990s almost
everybody dug up their tanks and put in new ones. Last year’s rules
required redoing those tanks to exceed federal rules. He again asked if
any leaks were discovered that wouldn’t have occurred had those rules
been in place.

Eric Sirs, of the EPA said no they were looking for compliance in
October. In answer to questions from the Committee, he referred to the
charts showing the categories of violations. In some cases the paperwork
was missing, but a release detection method was missing in a large
percentage of the violations. In some cases no paperwork had ever been
done to show if there was ever a tank leak inspection.

Corrosion protection is needed to protect steel tanks and lines.
Fourteen percent couldn’t operate or monitor their corrosion protection
equipment. Some didn’t keep all their 60 day repair documents.

Mr. Sirs agreed that a small percentage of the violations could be
called paperwork. He said that he is the only inspector in the State of
Idaho, and that he has other duties, besides. The 8 inspectors in the
October Enforcement Initiative were brought in from around the country.
Rep. Harwood again raised the issue of the October inspection being
retaliation for the rules being rejected last year.

Mr. Werntz said the documentation must be on site. He said the EPA
runs their program to meet their obligations, and was not affected by last
year’s actions of the Legislature.

In response to questions, Mr. Sirs said that DEQ has an 85% clean-up
rate.

When questioned, Mr. Werntz said the rate of violations in October
was similar to the annual rate. Inspecting 7 or 8% of the facilities at one
time gave the EPA a “snap shot” of the situation. With 1300 facilities in
the state, it would take them 20 years to get through the entire cycle.
They are hoping to be able to do more inspections in Idaho in the future.

In response to questions, Mr. Sirs said that a community finds out
rather quickly when an inspection finds violations. The EPA doesn’t
inform the public, but they do respond to questions. Information isn’t
released until the owner has had a opportunity to correct the situation. If
corrected, the subject is closed.

Mr. Werntz added that some information is not released because it is
an on-going enforcement. It isn’t easy for a citizen to get enforcement
information on a local gas station.

Mr. Allred explained that $600,000 goes to clean up leaks. $200,000
is used to maintain records on the tanks, and provide regulatory
assistance to those bringing a tank into compliance.

In response to questions, Mr. Werntz said the news release was in
response to questions from the news media. There was an unusually
high level of interest in this case. They did not provide data until they
actually had it.

Mr. Sirs said that the violations were both on old and new tanks.
Some old tanks were only fixed in certain areas. Three sites out of the 90
did nothing to meet the 1998 deadline.

Mr. Jarvis said they have a data base of 3500 tanks.

Mr. Werntz said a number of new tanks were not properly installed. In
some cases they were sold improper or excessive equipment. The EPA
tries to provide the proper information when asked.

Mr. Allred commented about some of the clean-ups around the state.
In Ashton, they have spent $300,000 and haven’t even started. This was
a modern facility that leaked, and the owners are out of state. DEQ does
not expect to recover much of the costs. A number of residents were
impacted, among them a family with 5 or 6 children who got better when
they started drinking bottled water. DEQ found out about the problem in
Malad City when a basement caught on fire. DEQ has spent a lot of
money there and is not done. DEQ has spent over 2.6 million dollars in
six cities. The General Fund picks up the cost.

In response to Rep. Meyer pointing out all the progress the State has
made, Mr. Allred agreed that Idaho has an excellent Leaking
Underground Storage Tank program. However, he is distressed by the
new tanks that are leaking. These new tanks are big ones. Salmon is
another town with a huge spill. He hoped that preventive measures in
place will catch leaks quickly. If one has detection equipment, but doesn’t
use it, it doesn’t do any good. He thinks the state is making good
progress and is headed in the right direction. They spend 4 million dollars
a year in the clean up of sites. Often they find the petroleum in the
sewage lines, or in the ground. Many of these leaking tanks do not have
insurance.

In response to questions, Mr. Sirs said that these leaking tanks run
between 10,000 to 15,000 gallons on the average.

Mr. Jones said the Petroleum Industry works very hard to clean up
their spills. They are responsible. The State is the last resort, not the first
resort. He urged the State to go after the station owners. He thought the
notice on the October inspection was courteous. All the Stinker stations
passed. (He felt the 96 sites were not randomly selected.) All of their
tanks are insured. He said the petroleum industry felt that the EPA
releases were not positive, even though the EPA claimed they were.

At this point Mr. Allred stood to clarify what he said. He said that most
leaks are reported by tank owners. The big problems are where they
have owners that are not complying with the rules, or ancient owners who
have long since left the property and it has been sold several times.

In response to questions, Mr. Sirs said 94% of the UST (Underground
Storage Tanks) in the state own one or two facilities.

Mr. Jones added that most of the fuel is sold by the larger operators
who have the large tanks. Jackson stations have more sites than he
does. He doesn’t think “Mom and Pop” stores have a reason for not
complying with the rules.

Rep. Campbell asked what is the solution­have the federal
government take over all the stations?

Mr. Jones replied that the public demands more today than they did
30 years ago. They expect cleaner water, air, etc. The federal
government has proven they aren’t very good business people. We
would have a large problem rather than a small problem, if we turned
stations and their management over to the federal government. Banks
are very concerned that stations meet the EPA requirements before they
loan money.

Mr. Allred said that 66% of the facilities in the state are owned by
owners with 1 or 2 tanks.

When asked about any mechanism for forwarding the documentation
for underground storage tanks to new owners, Mr. Allred said real estate
laws talk about disclosure, but state and federal laws depend upon the
information being available at the site. Owners are required to report the
existence of a tank and its physical characteristics. They get a lot of
requests for information about specific pieces of property, but they only
know what they have been told about the upgrades. The EPA does all
the inspections.

She commented that the DEQ and EPA have been dealing with the
Ashton site and another one for 5 to 10 years. The media portrayed this
as a newly discovered sites. On the ratings, Idaho is 15 points better in
clean up than the nation or the region.

Ten years ago, Idaho put in place a Clean Water Trust Fund, a non-profit insurance company. This tank fund insures almost 85% of the tanks
in Idaho. 92% of the tanks have some kind of financial insurance, which
is better than the percentage of insured drivers.

She closed with the comment that people say Idaho’s program isn’t
functioning well enough, but released data shows Idaho is in a good
position. She said she “doesn’t think that policy regulation through press
release is the way to do it.”

He displayed 17 pages of schedules which are the result of court
settlements on the water quality issue. He also showed charts of the
schedules for 2003, 2004, and 2005. His concerns are costs and
schedule. The budget for the water quality program in DEQ is less than it
was two or three years ago. They are just barely meeting the schedule
due to resource issues. They have discontinued providing staff support to
the WAGS as they don’t have the money. He doesn’t believe we can
meet the schedule with this new bill. The EPA (Environmental Protection
Agency) has already put the DEQ on notice as to what the consequences
will be­they will take over the clean water regulation in Idaho. (See letter
“Attachment 1”)

In response to questions, Mr. Allred said making WAGS a formal
process would take more time, not less. He agreed there are WAGS in
place with volunteers, but said the technical people put together the
criteria. Mr. Allred said BAGS have to include agriculture, mining, non
municipal point sources, forest products native groups, and livestock
among others, plus one person appointed at large by the Director.

Rep. Harwood questioned the use of best available science. He said
in the Silver Valley, water from the drinking fountain was good enough to
drink, but not good enough to pour in the river according to the TMDL
standards.

Mr. Allred said the Safe Drinking Water Act criteria would be better
than the water quality standard in the river. There would not be a TMDL
for that river, but the Coeur d’Alene River. He said he didn’t understand
the statement.

Mr. Allred said that if the EPA takes over, they don’t use WAGS.

In answer to a question, Rep. Denny said currently there is no
requirement that any input from the WAG be given any consideration.

In response to comments about scheduling, Mr. Knight, said the
Cattle Association is concerned that they be involved, but they are not
trying to slow down the process.

In answer to a question, Mr. Allred said that if Idaho doesn’t meet the
schedule, the EPA has the choice to take over the whole state, or just the
area that did not have a TMDL. He surmised that they probably would
“just do a TMDL on that source” that did not have one.

In response to questions, Toni Hardesty, of DEQ, said no comments
were received between the first and second drafts. There were
comments between the second and thirds drafts and changes were made.
At this point in time they are waiting to hear back from the Weiser River
WAG to see if their concerns were addressed.

However, they feel on “the Weiser River Sub Basis Assessment (SBA)
and TMDL, their ability to participate has been severely restricted by
IDEQ” They feel “their efforts to be involved in the process have mostly
been ignored.” He said they were told not to worry about temperature as
they couldn’t do anything about it. When the SBA-TMDL was finally
released to them, there was a “ridiculous” proposal calling for 69%
shading on the entire lower Weiser in eleven and one-half years. (Dr.
Dombroski in Oregon set a target of 70 years on the same project.)

In spite of numerous requests, they did not receive any documentation
until after June 20. The WAG told Mr. Ingam of DEQ they considered this
document “garbage.” They did not see another SBA-TMDL until October
16. They have sought legal council. They wanted to sit down with DEQ
and go through the SBA-TMDL page by page, but this still hasn’t been
done.

He closed with the opinion that DEQ should be the biggest supporter
of this legislation because this bill will guarantee that local concerns are
heard and addressed, resulting in the best possible TMDL. “Local buy-in
is the only way that implementation can succeed.”

In response to questions, he felt the same general guidelines for
BAGS, could apply for WAGS. They have no mining or tribal interests in
their area, so those groups are not represented. The BAG did approve
the membership list, but only after the WAG met and organized
themselves.

In response to questions he said that the Weiser River WAG is not the
only problem, but it is especially bad there. The people in that WAG feel
as if they are being “slammed dunked.” They don’t feel there is a co-operative effort between the DEQ and the EPA. They feel the test is “Is it
acceptable to the EPA?”

When asked why the WAGS work in some areas, and not others, Mr.
Olberding said that the DEQ gives lots of times to develop the main
streams, but when they get to the sub basin, things are rushed through.

EXCUSED:

During the last session, the Oregon Legislature made “slight changes”
in their fees that become effective March 1 of 2004. This delayed date
was set to give the Idaho Legislature time to change its code to match
Oregon’s fee schedule.

The price was reduced for large amounts of debris.

When asked why Oregon reduced their fees, Mr. Eiguren said that
Oregon reduced their fees to stay competitive with California’s fees. He
said it would be difficult to estimate how much the state would lose if this
bill is not passed.

Mr. Eiguren promised a full and complete briefing at the hearing,
should this RS become a bill.

Rep. Trail said that DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) has
committed themselves to use this resolution. (Mr. Sandoval of DEQ
nodded his head.)

In response to the Federal Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1984,
Idaho passed their own legislation. In 2001 Idaho made explicit
provisions for low radio active material not previously regulated by any
one previously. In 2002, a bill was passed stating there would be fee
parity with Oregon. This bill simply keeps Idaho fee structure in line with
the small change that was made by the Oregon Legislature.

US Ecology Operates 3 of 18 RCRA (Resource, Conservation &
Recovery Act) sites operating in the US. The country has been very
successful in reducing the amount of waste materials in the US, resulting
in some sites being closed. The parent company, American Ecology
operates other disposal sites in the country. DEQ and the Oregon
counterpart, agreed to keep the rates equal.

He showed a slide of the Grand View site and explained that a waste
site is specially prepared to permanently contain the materials deposited
in the landfill. There are a number of wells around the perimeter to
monitor for any possible leakage.

In 2003, the state received two million dollars in fees. (At the highest
level, the fees were four million dollars a year and this money funded the
DEQ budget.) As the amount of wastes was reduced, the fee structure
was changed and the money now goes into General Fund.

US Ecology sets up a trust into which they donate money each year.
A local committee decides how the money will be spent each year.

He continued with pictures of their disposal waste treatment building,
which treats most waste before it goes into the ground. There is no liquid
waste put in the ground. Other substances are stabilized in cement, or
some other way. They operate a railroad transfer station at Simco. They
take the air pollution control dust from steel mills and make it non
hazardous with their patented system.

They have invested 4.5 million in a new disposal cell at the site. It is a
double lined, leachable collection system. Each system has its own
drainage system. Clay is used to double the protection. Natural high
quality clay deposits occurring near by was one reason this site was
selected.

In answer to questions, Mr. Eiguren said that the large clean-up price
of $2 fee per ton would be a rare occurrence. They are too far from a lot
of clean up sites in Oregon and Washington to compete because of
transportation costs.

In answer to further questions, Mr. Romano said that US Ecology’s
competitiveness with other waste sites depends upon the type of waste
and the facilities. They are not competitive with California wastes. Utah
has an incinerator, so they take burnable materials as well as some
treated waste from the Idaho site.

US Ecology is equipped to take PCB waste, and has taken some from
as far away as New Jersey. Not a lot of places take PCB waste.
Electrical transformers are drained and flushed. The PCB liquid is
incinerated in either Utah or Texas. The drained, flushed carcass is
deposited in their landfill and buried. The eastern part of the United
States has shallow ground water and lots of rain, so they are unable to
take certain types of waste.

Dick Rush, representing 300 companies in Idaho with IACI (Idaho
Association of Commerce and Industry) spoke in favor of this bill.

EXCUSED:

The bill increases the fees from $20 to $70 for a single trip permit, and
increases the fees from $250 to $500 for an annual permit for the
transportation of hazardous wastes.

The monies from these fees will be used for HAZMAT training for
Idaho State Police Officers. It is called the Hazardous
Material/Hazardous Waste Transportation Enforcement Fund.

Rep. Meyer presented a few statistics. Last year 180 annual permits
were sold, and they generated $41,400. Single trip permits were sold
through vendors and also purchased at the port of entries. The change in
fee structure will bring an estimated $92,200 more into this fund.

This bill would only require testing every 2 years, and a vehicle
wouldnt have to be tested the first 3 years. If it will cost over $125
to bring a vehicle into compliance, the owner can claim economic
hardship, and get a variance. There are also other exclusions.

He commented that Ada County has to treat its sewage before it
is released in the Boise River to flow through Canyon County, and
it is only fair that Canyon County treats its air before it moves this
way.

In response to questions, Rep. Langhorst said that ozone
exceeds the limit in the hottest days in the middle of summer. For
PM 2.5, we exceed the limit in December when we get the
inversions.

Rep. Langhorst further explained that this bill only applies to
counties with a population greater than 125,000. At present time,
only Ada and Canyon Counties would be affected by this bill, It is
possible that in ten years Kootenai Countys population could
reach that level

As to the costs, Rep. Langhorst said that it is left to the County to
decide. There would be local input as to the kinds of emission
tests. As to costs, currently Ada County charges $15. It might go
higher.

Rep. Sayler moved to send RS 13801C1 to print.

At Chairmans request, Steve Alired, Director of DEQ
(Department of Environmental Quality) stood and stated that they
are concerned with the air quality in the Treasure Valley. He
thought it was a progressive bill that allows the maximum amount
of local control. He urged the Committee to support it.

EXCUSED:

Rep. Smith said states cannot ban spent nuclear fuel from traveling on
their highways, but they can regulate safety by requiring a permit and
charging a fee. She referred to a chart showing the fees required by
surrounding states. Some around us charge more, but this bill sets our
fees to match those of Oregon State. When Yucca Mountain opens,
projected to open 2010, materials will be transported there.

The purpose of this bill was to charge fees for materials coming into
INEEL, or leaving INEEL and going to New Mexico, or Yucca Mountain in
the future. All materials are shipped by private carriers, not the
Department of Energy. There was some misunderstanding, so an
amendment is being prepared.

In response to questions about their involvement with spills and
containment, Lieutenant Reese mentioned a recent accident near
Mountain Home involving a vehicle carrying nuclear materials. However,
the drum was not compromised. The local law enforcement was closing
the freeway when a specialist showed up and tested the area. He was
able to verify that there was no danger and it was safe to open the
freeway.

The DEQ has various programs it takes to classrooms. One
demonstration shows an inversion. They also do water awareness
demonstrations. An intern from DEQ visited local schools and helped
them take care of the waste from their labs. Some schools have
significant amount of chemicals, some old and unstable, sitting on their
shelves. They help schools get rid of the chemicals they no longer use
and also assist in finding less toxic chemicals for use in experiments.

In questioning, Mr. Ehlert said Ada county has a contractor who
collects electronic waste and sends it to Utah for recycling.

In response to a representative’s comment that these chemicals that
seem to be so dangerous come from the ground and we are returning
them to the ground, she said processing may make them more
dangerous.

He said the loan fund is complicated and involves a lot of money. This
money is used for loans to cities, towns, and other small groups to
improve water quality or to treat sewage. For the past 20 years, money
has come from the federal government and the state has matched that
money. Federal grants are decreasing, and funding for the administrative
costs will need to be provided for in a different manner.

Bill Jerrel, the Loan Program Manager at DEQ, also spoke. There
are two separate loan funds. S 1278 addresses the administrative costs
of both funds. This bill attempts to make these funds self-sufficient and
self-supporting. The bill allows DEQ to use 1% of the loans outstanding
for funding administrative cost. The Legislature would have to approve
this funding annually. The funds would be taken from the interest
revenue. (Federal regulations allow 4% of the Capitalization grant to be
set aside for administrative costs. That amounts to approximately
$600,000 a year between the two funds.) This administration money
funds 4 ½ full time positions. This funding is spread between the state
office and the field offices. There aren’t specific people assigned, but time
is coded for this by people throughout the department. Last year there
were $450,000 in total administrative costs. With the projected smaller
grants, they will be $100,00 short for the FY 2006 budget year.

In response to questions, Mr. Jerrel showed a long list of cities, towns
and associations that have received help. More have used funds for
waste water treatment than for drinking water. Fifteen connections, or 40
users, is the cut-off for qualifying for a loan for a water system.

Toni Hardesty, of DEQ spoke on S 1279. The Idaho board issuing
certificates for waste water engineers and drinking water engineers closed
its office and stopped issuing certificates. DEQ then had to start issuing
these certificates. The Bureau of Occupational Licenses is well equipped,
and is willing to handle these licenses. Ms. Hardesty said the Bureau will
speak to its willingness to handle this when the Senate bill comes before
the Committee.

In the past, large particulate matter, PM_10, and carbon monoxide were
the problem. With the wood stove ordinance, open burning controls,
industrial permits, road dust agreements, and vehicle inspections and
maintenance, PM₁₀ had been reduced in Boise, but it has started up
again. If an airshed goes into nonattainment, it takes a long time to get
out.

Now the problems are PM_2.5 and carbon monoxide. He presented
charts showing nonattainment in carbon monoxide in recent years. They
showed a general drop in nonattainment until the year 2000, a slight
increase in 2001 and a jump up in 2002.

Mr. McGown said DEQ is particularly concerned about PM_2.5, which is
inhaled deep into the lungs. Also of concern is ozone, which is very
reactive. We are having more moderate and unhealthful days in the
Treasure Valley. There is concern that with the increase in population
and traffic in the Treasure Valley, we will reach nonattainment in the near
future. Ozone, which is created in a reaction with strong sunlight,
exceeds the standard on the hottest days in summer. PM_2.5 is the highest
in winter when the Treasure Valley has a temperature inversion. PM_2.5
reacts with nitrogen/sulfur oxides and ammonia from motor vehicles,
diesel fuel, and cattle and forms even more pollution. He said that if
motor vehicles, household emissions, etc., continue to increase, business
and industry will be squeezed out.

Mr. McGown said that vehicles produced 50% of the nitrogen oxides in
the Treasure Valley in 1999, and 20% of the volatile organic chemicals.

As to the consequences of air pollution on public health, he said it
especially impacts children, the elderly, those with pre-existing health
problems, and those who spend time outdoors. It can cause irritation to
the lungs, eyes, and other membranes, asthma, reduced disease
resistance, premature death, cardiovascular disease, and increased
cancer risk. The economic consequences of these problems are
increased health care costs, missed school and work days, an area less
attractive and more costly to new business, reduced tourism, crop and
plant damage, and reduced visibility.

If the federal government takes over, they will implement more stringent
regulations. This will result in costly air quality improvement plans, loss of
state and local control, permanent controls on air pollution emissions,
expensive “retro-fit” solutions, stricter industrial permits for new or
modified facilities and transportation, general conformity requirements and
potential funding loss.

Mr. McGown said that Canyon County vehicle emissions are projected
to go down in future years with more efficient cars, but they might not go
down enough. He said vehicle testing is needed to reduce carbon
monoxide and hydrocarbons, which are important precursors to ozone
and PM _2.5. More than vehicle testing will be needed, however, to reduce
the rates to appropriate levels. Such measures as the control of wood
stoves, open burning, construction dust, maintenance plan permits, and
agreement on road sanding, paving, and chemical treatments will be
necessary.

Mr. McGown urged the Committee to be proactive and pass H714.

In questioning, he said lawn mower exhaust is the next thing on the
Department’s list to regulate.

Mr. McGown said that ethanol can help reduce pollution, but has to be
blended correctly for the area, and it is complicated to do. He agreed that
air quality is improving as older vehicles are being phased out, but said
with our increase growth in the valley, the pollution numbers may start to
go up.

In response to questions, Mr. Turner said there are minimal benefits to
testing newer cars. He said that even though few cars less than 3 years
old fail the test. Ada County chose to test cars over one year old. They
hoped to catch cars still under manufacturer’s warranty to protect the
consumer.

When asked why 1990 vehicles were used in the example, Mr. Turner
said they were older, and thus a good sample.

In response to questions, Mr. Chertudi said that if new regulations go
into fact the Nampa factory would cease to exist.

When asked what methods he would suggest using to reduce
pollution, Mr. Vasquez said that Canyon County has cars that burn
ethanol and has instituted a burning ban, rather than “drop the heavy
hand of government on its citizens.” He said the bill is an unfunded
mandate for Canyon County. This bill exempts semi-trucks and farm
equipment. Also, there are waivers. These all undermine the bill. He
said he would let others talk about the technical aspects of this bill.

He said, “In 2002, Ada County had been subjected to emissions
testing for 18 years. Ada had gone 16 years, from 1986 to 2002” with “no
violations on carbon monoxide,” and “one exceedence in January 1991.”
This was a “great record, but not good enough for DEQ/Compass.”

Mr. Johnson said for 11 months, Compass/DEQ told Canyon County
residents that they had a serious carbon monoxide problem, but now they
say there isn’t a problem.

He showed what he said were examples of “bad science” by the DEQ .
He said DEQ chose to use very selective years­just one or two for its
examples, rather than a report on all years. He said its predictions in
1995 of the pollution situation in 2000 were not correct when 2000
numbers actually came in. He pointed out that vehicle emissions have
decreased, even though COMPASS predicts a 71% increase in miles
traveled due to new cars.

He objected to the fact that even when an area passes federal
standards, DEQ still maintains control for years to come.

Since almost no one year old vehicles fail inspection, Ada County
residents pay $166,344 for “no gain.”

He presented a document: “Northern Ada County Carbon Monoxide
Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request”. “This Carbon Monoxide
Limited Maintenance Plan was prepared to meet U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) requirements to support redesignation of the
Northern Ada County not-classified carbon monoxide Nonattainment Area
to Attainment status.” It says of Canyon County “Its contributions to
carbon monoxide levels in the Northern Ada County Nonattainment Area
are considered negligible due to the distance involved and the ready
dispersion of carbon monoxide.”

The same report stated, “Records show that approximately 10% of
Ada County vehicle miles traveled are by out-of-county vehicles.”

Enclosed in the package was a guest opinion he had written, entitled
“Compass uses deception.” Among other things, he pointed out that in a
temperature inversion, the air doesn’t move, so Canyon County’s air is not
mixed with Ada County’s air. He also said a burning ban would take care
of most of the inversion problem.

In closing, Mr. Johnson said the problem is with COMPASS and DEQ,
not the air quality.

Mr. Freeman showed charts. In January, we had 25 Good Air Quality
days and only 6 of Moderate Quality. One of those days was a Sunday,
when there was light traffic. The PM_2.5 was estimated to be 90. The next
day, Monday, the PM_2.5 was estimated to be 58 as were the next two
days. The DEQ air quality forecasting does not seem to be accurate.

He said that emissions readings are going down in Canyon County
and therefore, we don’t need this bill.

In response to questions, she said that diabetics have circulatory
problems in their extremities. When particulates get into the blood
stream, this further compromises their blood circulation. (See Attachment
7)

Mr. Hendricks said if the goal is clean air, the Farm Bureau suggests a
10% blend of ethanol in vehicle fuel. Minnesota has done this and, as a
result, has come off nonattainment status and repealed its emissions
testing. Ethanol reduces the chemicals that must be added to increase
the octane. Ethanol reduces pollutants immediately. In closing, he said
ethanol “will clean our air without cleaning out our wallets.”

He said that there are “several options available to achieve reduced
automobile emissions that are more market-oriented than government-mandated emissions testing. These options include: Transportation flow
improvement…Remote sensor technology….High emission vehicle
retirement (HEVR)….and alternative fuel programs.”

In response to questions, Mr. Clark said Monsanto spent a lot of
money to avoid nonattainment in Soda Springs. He asked that his hand-out be entered into the record. (See Attachment 10) Mr. Clark said remote
sensing technology allows the catching of the 12% responsible for 80% of
the pollutants, while not penalizing those who are legal with annual fees.

EXCUSED:

Rep. Snodgrass said the opinion has been expressed July 1, 2004, is
too soon for any county or city to take action. He suggested a date of July
1, 2005 as a better choice. He said it is too bad, but it seems necessary
to test every automobile to find the offending 8% of the vehicles that fail
the test and produce 40% of the pollution. He said this is an airshed
quality problem for the whole Treasure Valley.

In response to questions, Rep. Snodgrass said he had talked again
with Mr. Trent Clark about the remote sensor technology. He had learned
that the stations used to cost $175,000 per unit. However, the company
manufacturing these testing units has been sold, and cost per unit has
risen to between $350,000 and $400,000. Rep. Snodgrass said there is a
leasing program of $150,00 to $175,00 per year. In response to
questions, he said these are portable units.

1. Is there a need for a statewide law? Is this a statewide
problem?

2. As far as the regulations covering airsheds, is there a better
approach than political subdivisions?

3. Does the advent of newer, cleaner vehicles, make a vehicle
inspection law unnecessary?

4. Is the evolution of newer vehicles enough to lower the
pollution numbers, or will the increase in growth and number of
vehicles make pollution a problem in spite of the cleaner vehicles?

5. Is this legislation constitutional? (He believes it is, but feels
there is a need to check with the Attorney General.)

EXCUSED:

In response to questions, Mr. Toole agreed that the animation showed
the pollution moving generally west. He said the direction of movement
depends upon the winds. He did not have any information as to the
directions of the wind during the four-day period detailed in the
presentation. Also, he did not have any information on what the PM_2.5
level was on those days. He said the relationship between the two PM
numbers was not linear.

In response to questions about whether December 24 was a normal
time pollution-wise, with last minute shopping, etc., he said it was. He
said pollution was at its worst at 10 p.m. because, as the air cools, it
compresses, forcing the pollution down.

Mr. Toole was asked for further information that he did not have, but
promised to get to the Committee

In response to questions, Mr. Lakey said he did not have some
information members requested, such as the number of vehicles in his
county, but promised to get it. He said that in order to reduce pollution,
burning ordinances that include wood stoves have been enacted.
Alternative fuels have been encouraged, and the public has been
educated as to the advantages of keeping their vehicles in good repair.

In response to further questions, Mr. Lakey agreed that Canyon
County does contribute to Treasure Valley air pollution to some degree.
The ethanol fuel used in Canyon County is E10. He said that PM₁₀,
shown in the DEQ presentation, is becoming less of a problem. He said
he thought one-third of the pollution is caused by automobiles, but that
this is difficult to measure. He said it is easier to quantify PM₁₀ and
carbon monoxide levels than NOX and VOC.

In closing, Mr. Lakey said it is not appropriate for the State to enact
legislation that impacts just one county. If testing is required state-wide
with a scientific basis, he would not oppose it. He promised information
on Ada County testing showing the number of cars that fail.

… The Ada County Commissioners have for years held a
position that all counties should do everything they can to
protect the air quality of their counties. We have required
auto emission testing for many years as a way to bring our
county back into compliance. We understand that the
many vehicles traveling from Canyon County to Ada
County every day do impact the entire air shed of Treasure
Valley.

The Ada County Commissioners also support the
concept of local control and therefore do not support state
mandated legislation for issues than can be resolved
locally. We hope your subcommittee will reject HB 714 as
it is written and pursue a different path to encourage
counties to resolve their air quality problems.

(Signed Judy M. Peavey-Derr, Chairman; Rick Yzaguirre, Commissioner,
and Fred Tilman, Commissioner.)

When asked about Idaho’s capacity to produce ethanol, he said that
currently, only a facility in Caldwell produces a small quantity. A permit
and final approval has been received to build a plant in Malheur County,
Oregon, that can produce 15 million gallons of ethanol a year. A study
was done about a year ago by the Energy Division of the Department of
Water Resources on the feasibility of ethanol plants in Idaho. The study
concluded that Idaho has adequate grain stocks to produce 100 million
gallons per year. State-wide, Idahoans burn approximately 600 million
gallons a year. With a 10% blend of Ethanol, we would only need 60
million gallons. He said it would take time to “ramp up” the infrastructure.

In response to questions, Mr. Hendrichs said that reformulated
gasoline is used in the Midwest and East Coast. He agreed that the
petroleum industries added MTBE and some states legislated it. It was
then discovered that MTBE causes a worse problem–ground water
pollution. Blended ethanol does not have those environmental concerns.

Mr. Eiguren said he also represents Amalgamated Sugar. It is
committed to working with all interested parties, but has concerns about
its economic viability over the longer term if the pollution problem gets
worse. Late in last year’s session, Amalgamated Sugar asked for a
voluntary compliance schedule. The bill passed. The company has a ten
year agreement with the DEQ for their three plants in Idaho. In addition to
the 12 million Mr. Chertudi mentioned on February 24, the company will
be spending an additional 8 million to address other issues.

Mr. Eiguren said that ValleyRide sent a report to many legislators done
by the Idaho Association of Counties, Idaho cities, and the Idaho
Department of Transportation. SCR 132 establishes an interim committee
to; 1) receive and examine the report and funding issues of public transit,
2) look at issues of air quality and public transportation’s effect on it.

Q. How much traffic does Ada County get from Canyon County?

A. IDEQ did a study that showed about 30% of the workers in Canyon
County drive to Ada County. That amounts to about 5% of the traffic in
Ada County

Q. What is the cost of Vehicle Emissions Testing to the citizens of
Canyon County?

A. As of 2002, there were about 125,000 registered vehicles in Canyon
County. With the testing required every other year, 62,500 would be
tested in a year’s time. Therefore, the annual cost would be 62,500 times
$15, which would equal close to one million dollars per year.

Q. What is the net reduction in emissions with testing?

A. IDEQ data shows 8% of the vehicles would fail, which would be
10,000 cars. Based on known data as to excess VOC and NOX from cars
that have failed the test, the annual reduction in VOC is 151 tons and
NOX is 161 tons. Using the IDEQ and ENVIRON report’s Mobile 6 model,
the result would be equal to a 2% reduction in the total VOC and NOX
emissions for both Ada and Canyon Counties.

Q. What are the Vehicle Emissions Testing costs and test results for the
citizens of Ada County?

A. IDEQ’s test results for 2002 showed approximately 92,500 vehicles.
Model years 1988-2002 were tested at a cost of $15 each, which totals
$1,387,500. Less than 2% or about 1,800 failed. Based on excess VOC
and NOX from cars that fail the test, the annual reductions in emissions of
VOC was 272 tons. For NOX it was 289 tons. The total of 561 tons is
about 5% of the total for Ada County of 10,431 tons.

Q. What are the emissions reductions expected solely due to new cars
replacing older cars?

A. The ENVIRON report data shows the vehicle contribution of VOC
would drop from 20% in 1995 to 6% in 2020, a 70% reduction, while NOX
would drop from 50% to 12.5% a 75% reduction.

Rep. Snodgrass said that he and Rep. Langhorst are concerned
with air quality. This issue won’t go away. He appreciates the motion to
refer this bill to the interim committee. He said there is need for good
information from all the players–consumers, local government, business,
and industry.

Several members expressed the hope that the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) will have more information available on the
current research and percentages the next time this issue is discussed.

EXCUSED: