APCD skews report on Nipomo Mesa air quality

April 4, 2013
Larry Allen

Larry Allen

By JOSH FRIEDMAN

A member of the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District Board discovered last week that district staff used incomplete data sets to compile a report which inaccurately portrays escalating pollution levels on the Nipomo Mesa.

Prior to the March 27 presentation of the APCD report on county air quality trends for the years 1991 through 2011, board member and Pismo Beach Councilman Ed Waage told district staff that they used an incomplete set of data in their analysis. In a response to the initial report, Waage showed that the incomplete data set skewed the conclusion of the study such that levels of particulate matter, or solid particles smaller than a human hair in diameter, on the Nipomo Mesa appeared worse than they would have if the report included all the data available.

The APCD is currently battling the California Department of Parks and Recreation over the implementation of a set of fees it plans to impose on the Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area based upon the conclusion of a previous study that off-road activity at the dunes is causing particulate matter pollution on the Nipomo Mesa. The APCD regulation, known as the “dust rule,” is the subject of three current lawsuits.

The March 2013 report, authored by Air Quality Specialist Karl Tupper, concluded that, over the years 1991 through 2011, particulate matter pollution improved throughout the county, but worsened on the Nipomo Mesa. But, the Nipomo Mesa study used a season in which particulate matter levels are low as a starting point and compared it to full years of pollution data that followed.

Instead of beginning the study with data from January 1991, Tupper used October 1995 as a starting point. Particulate matter pollution on the mesa varies by season, with spring generating the highest levels. In 1995, levels of PM10, particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter, only exceeded state limits in the months of January through September. Since Tupper only used data from the final three months of 1995, he reported that PM10 levels never exceeded state limits that year. However, data from a July 2005 APCD report showed that 4 percent of PM10 samples taken on the Nipomo Mesa in 1995 exceeded state standards.

1995 was the only year in Tupper’s report in which particulate matter never exceeded state standards. Between 1996 and 2011, the percentage of samples that exceeded state standards each year ranged from 5 percent to 14 percent. Including the incomplete set of samples from 1995, the overall data from the mesa particulate matter samples for the years 1995 through 2011 produced “a statistically significant upward trend,” meaning the report faultily concluded air quality is worsening on the mesa.

In advance of the March 27 meeting where Tupper presented the report, Waage produced his own graph that included the pre-October 1995 data that the APCD omitted. He included complete data for the years 1990 through 2011, excluding 2005, for which the district only had a partial year’s worth of samples. Waage’s graph produced a slight downward trend in particulate matter, and the Pismo Beach councilman concluded that air quality on the mesa is neither improving, nor worsening in notable manner.

“I do not believe PM 10 levels are declining,” Waage said. “There is too much uncertainty to tell. But, by the same token, there is not enough evidence to make any summary conclusion about what is happening as the staff report originally stated.”

Air Pollution Control Officer Larry Allen said the air district did not include the pre-October 1995 data in its report because the data did not appear in the Environmental Protection Agency database that the APCD uses.

“We pulled data from the EPA federal air quality database,” Allen said. “We made a decision to only use federal data.”

The data Waage used to complete his graph came from a July 2005 APCD particulate matter report. In 2005, APCD staff gathered that data from California Air Resources Board statistics. Allen told Waage in an email that CARB often posts data on its website without validating it. He did not, however, explain why district staff used the CARB statistics in its own July 2005 particulate matter report.

Prior to the March 27 board meeting, APCD staff issued a revised version of the Tupper report stating that the data it used from 1995 was incomplete. The updated report included descriptions of two new graphs, one of which removed all data from 1995 and the other eliminated all data from both 1995 and 2005. Still, staff only used the EPA statistics and concluded that air quality is worsening at the mesa, although not in a very significant manner.

While Waage disputed the revised conclusion, he said at the board meeting that his acknowledgement of the incomplete data set for 1995 at least led to an improvement upon the initial report.

“If I hadn’t raised that point, this report would continue to state that this was a significant particulate matter increase on the mesa,” Waage said.

 

Audio record disappears

In the days following the meeting, members of the board and public noticed that the archived audio of the board discussion on the air quality trends report did not exist.

The APCD provides live and archived audio and video feed of all of its meetings. Archived video of the March 27 meeting is available in entirety on the district website, but the audio cuts out just prior to beginning of the discussion on the particulate matter report. The archived audio only version also cuts out at the same moment.

Just prior to Tupper’s presentation of his report, Allen requested that the board take a break in the meeting. When the meeting reconvened, the audio feed cut off.

In an email to the members of the board, Allen said a mishap involving the livestream platform used by the APCD caused the loss of audio.

“The audio problem was caused by the unmute button for the microphones not activating properly after the board returned from the break – either because the button didn’t respond or Kim, our board clerk, could have pushed the wrong button,” Allen wrote.

Allen said district staff would monitor the online feed of future meetings and alert the board if an issue arises. The air district chief also said that he took notes on the discussion of the trends report, and that he would submit them into the minutes, along with the notes taken by the board clerk and the other staff members present.

But, critics say the disappearance of the audio feed removes from the permanent record critiques of an air quality report that held political significance.

The APCD currently faces a lawsuit filed by California Attorney General Kamala Harris on behalf of state parks alleging that the district used a scientifically flawed study to pass its Oceano Dunes dust rule. The dust rule levies fines of $1,000 per day on the Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area if it does not reduce particulate matter blowing toward the Nipomo Mesa. The district is also awaiting judgments on suits filed by Friends of the Dunes and Kevin Rice and is simultaneously battling state parks to implement the dust rule.

Still, Allen said politics did not factor into the Tupper report concluding that particulate pollution is getting worse on the mesa.

“It’s not a political report,” Allen said.

 


Loading...
25 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Josh thanks for writing a story that must have been difficiult to write but important to tell. I had to read it twice. All the detail was necessary, as Larry Allen has no scruples and will manipulate the facts to get the conclusion he wants.

Contrary to most people commenting I siuport air pollution districts. Dirty air is a health issue.. However changes need to be made so the districts don’t ge the majority of their funds from fines and permits. Allen is known for socking it to small businesses and letting wineries skate on pollution issues. Grape is king in SLO county.

Is his staff just incompetent or do they do as told to keep their well paying jobs ?

Allen needs to go. People like him don’t change.


I’d be interested to hear why you believe Allen lets wineries “skate”.


In 2008, the APCD implemented a “winery emissions fee” (a tax on the emissions of fermenting grapes).


A July 2008 APCD staff report justified the winery emissions fee, known as Rule 302, as follows: “The District has not actively sought permits from wineries in the past; however, the large increase in wineries and wine production over the last decade has resulted in a significant increase in ethanol emissions (an ozone precursor) that are not exempt under our regulations.”


Yet, the same staff report indicates the fee would do nothing for the environment: “There are no anticipated environmental impacts or identifiable pollutant emission reductions associated with the proposed revisions to Rule 302.”


The district’s Fiscal Year 2008-09 budget message projected expected revenue of $50,000 due to the new winery fees. This projection is reflected in the FY08-09 budget approved by the Board and contains a separate line item for “Winery Emissions Fees.”


However, the winery fees actually netted $107,222 in FY08-09, a fact that was hidden from the Board and the public! The FY09-10 budget fails to report the windfall revenue—only the “projected” $50,000 is shown (even AFTER the $107K came in). The “Winery Emissions Fees” line item is then consolidated into the generic “Air Pollution Renewal Permits” account.


In other words, the Board was told winery emissions fees would net $50K, but when $107K came in the fees were rolled into the general revenue line item, thus hiding the amount.


SLOAPCD cited one further reason for fee increases:


“Fee increases are needed most years to offset inflation of District costs, which are MAINLY LABOR RELATED.”


The July 2008 Budget Message enumerates salary, benefit and position changes totaling $434,764:


• A 4.51% projected COLA increase amounting to $125,031

• Salary “inequity” adjustments totaling $97,765

• A $14,221 pension cost increase

• Reclassification of three personnel to the title of “Division Manager”, costing $58,361

• Additional work hours for a ½-time employee equaling $20,295

• Merit increases of $18,014

• Post-employment health benefits of $30,852

• Additional overtime, comp time and on-call labor expenses of $11,225


SLOAPCD reported 74% of the FY08-09 budget as allocated to salaries and benefits. In contrast, the Placer County APCD reported 46% of their FY09-10 budget devoted to salaries and benefits, 45% in FY10-11 and 53% in FY11-12.


APCDs and AQMDs serve a legitimate purpose, but Allen’s $252K compensation and the labor and benefit costs of the District are beyond the pale.


Kevin

Sorry for the delay in responding. I checked witih my source and I had oniy half the info. The additional information you provided certainly gives the public a lot more information about how APD operates and how little over sight there is by the county.

I hope we will hear more from you and Josh about the “going ons.at APD. APD needs to be exposed for what it is just as was JohnWallace and the board of the sourth county sanitation district. (and the oceano district)


QUOTING ARTICLE: “Archived video of the March 27 meeting is available in entirety on the district website, but the audio cuts out just prior to beginning of the discussion on the particulate matter report. The archived audio only version also cuts out at the same moment.


As they used to say on the old TV program, “Coincidence? YOU be the judge!”


Air quality control in California is a sophisticated shell game as you can easily see from this article. The people in charge of air quality in California are masters of deceit and professional liars to boot, as you can also easily see from this article.


People are on the board of these air districts who don’t even know what air is. They have low to no health literacy, and should be forced to pass minimum health literacy requirements with continuing education absolutely required. They routinely make very bad decisions that affect public health and we pay for their bad decisions with our loss of health.


DOCTOR DEATH IS IN CHARGE OF AIR QUALITY AT SCAQMD


The audio “accidentally” got turned off??? How convenient is that “accident”?????


APCD is either sloppy in their statistical reporting, incompetent OR purposely skewing data to get more fines. Yes, Fines mean more salary increases and staff increases with no likely benefit to the tax paying public. If APCD is successful in fining the State Parks so much that they close the Off Road part of the beach, the entire county will suffer from the economic loss of visitors to the park / beach.


I seem to recall statistical data errors back when the dust rule was first voted in by the APCD board. More evidence mounts that they aren’t getting it right.


Why are we paying these folks if they are so sloppy, so incompetent, or so falsely skewed that the data used for decision making always seems to be flawed????


Why are we paying these folks if they are so sloppy, so incompetent, or so falsely skewed that the data used for decision making always seems to be flawed????


To answer your question we are paying them to be incompetent at best becasue the people we do elect to be our fiscal stewards are incompetent also, people like, Adam Hill, Bruce Gibson and the rest of the BOS and our various city leaders. The green movement gets so excited about anything that even sounds green they ignor finances and responsibility. Until we the voters quit electing morons to represent us this is what we will continue to get.


Half of our voter problem is Cal Poly, kids from out of town come here and are able to vote in our elections, then after they finish here most to all of them go back to where they came from leaving us with the green feeling, these kids are fed so much BS about sustainability and being green that they have no idea what its like in the real world, so they elect greenies as they’ve been taught.

The other half must be just ignorant in the working world around them.


QUOTING ISOLO: “Why are we paying these folks if they are so sloppy, so incompetent, or so falsely skewed that the data used for decision making always seems to be flawed????


While they may be incompetent at knowing pushing a button to “off” means the action stops, they do appear to be at least proactive at constructing a cover-up.


Larry Allen does let his hair down and he know how: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMOGaugKpzs


How in the hell does levying a fine of $1,000 per day of TAXPAYER MONIES from one government agency to another solve any air pollution issues? I guess it will help pay for Larry Allen’s salary which EXCEEDS that of the Governor of the State of California!


That’s right, the APCD is on the lookout for money now that the Morro Bay Power Plant is about to close forever.

And how does fining State Parks translate into lowering the dust coming from the dunes. So long as the OHV park is open, it won’t help the poor folks downwind breathing that dusty air.

It could give them an opening to sue the state though. If they are being fined, it would tend to identify the state parks as liable for illnesses and such. Then again the state does exempt itself.

Old Ed Waage must drive Adam Hill bonkers he being on Hill’s baby the APCD board.


Read what Dr. Bill Wattenburg has to say about the ARB, the agency the APCD answers to.


Dr. Bill was always warning the public about the nincompoops at CARB and their idiotic regulations when he was at KGO radio. Too bad he’s off the air now.


Exactly! It’s clearly a case of the blind leading the blind.


Skewing reports is par for the course for APCD staff.


As far as I know, the APCD is still falsely inflating pollution forecasts:


http://dunefacts.com/nipomo-mesa-air-forecasts-manipulated


The world would be a better place without the APCD. It started out as a good idea and has morphed into money sucking monstrocity. La Cosa Nostra could learn a few lessons from the APCD.


QUOTING MARKGB: “It started out as a good idea and has morphed into money sucking monstrocity


That seems to be the fate of most good ideas once greedy politicians get involved in it. Just look at CAPSLO….


I’m sure if we just raise Mr Allen’s salary $1000,000, push the majority of his staff now at over $100,000 to closer to $200,000 they can fix everything


He’s almost important enough for his own taxpayer-sponsored Legislative Assistant…


female of course….


…..or not.