California Construction Trucking Association (CCTA)

The old adage, “The more things change the more they stay the same,” has never been truer—at least to me these days! As we get older, “change” for many may not be easy to take, but generally speaking, I believe it is a good thing most of time. Although I have to say as I get older, I find myself more and more wishing we could go back to when times where less divisive and a little more simple.

While I find the Internet an invaluable tool for research and communication, I’m slightly overwhelmed by the constant changes taking place, and I regularly feel somewhat “Left Behind” with the changes in technology.

Try as I might, I do not want to “text,” nor do I. The same goes for Facebook, Myspace or any other trendy dot.com social web-thing. I just do not want to share the activities of my daily life with family or friends, or friends of friends, or friends of friends of friends, etc. If I care enough about someone or some issue, I will pick up the “cell” phone and call… always hoping there will be service, of course!

But the times, “oh they-are-a-changin,” and today in our hi-tech world, most six-year-olds can flawlessly send text messages but seemingly can’t tie their own shoes. Many schools are giving up on teaching cursive writing, and I have to wonder what will happen to a document that needs a signature. Perhaps we will all go back to marking their signature with an X. So, I admit it, sometimes I do not want change if this is what the future looks like.

I feel some what comforted now because evidently the State of California and the majority of the voters here don’t want change either in many ways. The election results outside of California in November were “YES, we need change in America now,” but inside of California it was “No changes, thank you, keep up the good work!”

Consistent with those state election results, another great example of “No Change” was evolving with our influential and yet publically almost anonymous Scientific Review Panel or SRP. The SRP is arguably the most powerful group (made up of mostly activist UC academics) outside the Governor’s office and legislature in this state. I’ll bet most of you had never heard of this scientific fraternity, legislatively created and staffed by mostly liberal University of California based academics.

On CARB’s website, it states, that the Scientific Review Panel (SRP/Panel) is charged with evaluating the risk assessments of substances (PM2.5, ozone, carbon dioxide, even cars painted black) proposed for identification as toxic air contaminants by the Air Resources Board (ARB), the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), and the review of guidelines prepared by OEHHA. In carrying out this responsibility, the Panel reviews the exposure and health assessment reports and underlying scientific data on which the reports are based, which are prepared by the ARB, DPR, and OEHHA pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 39660-39661, 39669.5 and 44360, and Food and Agricultural Code sections 14022-14023. These reports are prepared for the purpose of determining whether a substance or pesticide “should be” identified as a toxic air contaminant, or as guidelines to be used in preparing health risk assessments.

A toxic air contaminant (TAC) is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or which “may” pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

Last month I read in Skip Brown’s Letter to the Editor that three bills in the early to mid-1980s created a law now referred to as the “Tanner Act.” I also read that the Act, which was named after California Assemblywoman Sally Tanner, who introduced the first key measure in 1980, led to California state law (Health and Safety Code section 39650 et seq.) effective January of 1984. This Act established the framework for California’s toxic air contaminant identification and control program. The SRP’s designation of diesel emissions or components of it as toxic air contaminates (TAC) in 1998, empowered CARB to regulate or really eliminate all pre-2010 diesel engines. Yes, CARB, along with this conspiracy of activist UC scientists in 1998, was able to declare that diesel emission-related PM2.5 “may” be a TAC. Not that there was any clear evidence that it was toxic “they just had a feeling that it maybe” – what? This is what one of the “unpopular” scientist (Tony Facullaro) on that panel in 1998 said to us in 2008 at a meeting. Incidentally, Professor Facullaro was only allowed to serve one term on the Board – he suggested that it was because he was conservative.

I hope I haven’t lost you yet.

Most of you should remember that CDTOA was at the forefront of helping to ‘out’ the continually unobstructed, unquestioned, non-appointed members of this panel of scientific activists, some who have been on the panel for 27 years now. Based on the rules, panel members were supposedly to be there just for one 3-year term. Let’s face it, two or three terms would be acceptable, but six, seven, eight, nine straight 3-year terms? Something is wrong here, this is not diversity, it’s empire-building. Apparently, the public policy of term limits does not apply to “The UC4: Froines, Glance, Blanc and Hammond”!

A lawsuit was brought by CDTOA member Skip Brown and about six other companies and trade associations including CDTOA two years ago through the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF). The case is referred to as Brown vs. Adams. I encourage all of you to go to the PLF website and read their report on this corrupt group of activists that has been allowed to control our lives without most of us even knowing it.

After our lawsuit was addressed by the defendants, who agreed to submit new candidates, it was announced in September 2010 by the PLF. In fact the PLF featured the case on their website with the title, “Clean Air Science Panelists Are Not Regulators for Life.” We all thought, wow, for the first time in over twenty years we might see some balance on this secret society panel. Here’s the link to the PLF video: http://www.pacificlegal.org/page.aspx?pid=933

PLF’s website states, “In 2008, PLF learned that a majority of the Panel’s members were holding over after their 3-year terms had expired. PLF therefore filed a suit on behalf of a variety of businesses in seeking a court order to compel the appointing authorities to fulfill their legal duty and make new appointments, through the legally prescribed process, where panel members have overstayed their terms of office. After filing the suit, the government defendants initiated the nomination and appointment process for the slots on the Panel occupied by holdovers. Today, thanks to PLF’s suit, a majority of the Panel is staffed by new members.”

So in late 2010, following the PLF lawsuit, Mr. Froines was not reappointed to the SRP, and the entire environmental community was up in arms. And we all thought, great, now they are finally getting some well-deserved justice in return for how they have manipulated this panel and its appointments over the last 20+ years, which in return has done many things to negatively impact businesses in our state including trucking. So we naively thought that was the end of Froines, Glantz, and some of the others on the SRP after at least 10 years of scientific manipulations.
Oh, yeah—wrong!

When we saw once again last month that John Froines and friends’ names listed on CARB’s website’s “Directory of SRP Members,” I thought for sure it must be an error or the page was outdated.

The fact is they are all back on board and laughing about it!

It is my understanding, after reading the code sections pertinent to the SRP, that scientists in a variety of disciplines are supposed to apply for and be appointed to the Scientific Review Panel on three-year terms. Froines was appointed in 1984 and continued to virtually sit on (and arguably control) that panel for more than 25 years, although he was only reappointed a couple of times in his first few terms.
Appointment terms were created for the same reasons term limits were passed by the voters of this state: to bring more diversity and eliminate control freaks (can you say Willie Brown?). It’s not just an issue of needing new blood; it’s an issue of balance. The Scientific Review Panel verifies and approves methodologies for studies, which are mostly government-funded; to find through verifiable scientific evidence anything in our environment that has a direct and negative health effect on the population of this state.

Mr. Froines is also head of the Southern California Particle Center, which seems to be behind virtually every particulate (PM) related health effects study in and around this state. All or most of these studies are government-funded (EPA and CARB). I have read that directly and indirectly, he and his grant laundering center has had influence and oversight of $25-million in grants over the last 25 years. Not bad! The status achieved within a university department is largely based on grant funding that an academic brings into a university. If you consider all these elements, Froines de facto lifetime appointment to the SRP seems more than a little conflicted and self-serving. But what’s new with this group?

I was asked (told by Lee) to attend the first meeting of the New Year that the Scientific Review Panel had scheduled. It was held on the UC Berkeley campus on January 21. Actually, both Hank de Carbonel of our Concrete Pumpers and I attended and witnessed firsthand who the new members of this panel actually are.

Sure enough, I noticed the name plaques on the meeting room table when we walked in, and John Froines name stood right out. He sat down and took the lead with the following opening statement, “My name is John Froines, and I am chairing the Scientific Review Panel for the foreseeable future.” Evidently he was reappointed by the Assembly Speaker Perez for another term after the new appointee, Dr. Michael Kleinman mysteriously resigned, which I guess makes the process legal, but clearly unethical from my point of view. The term ethics at the UC Public Health Schools seems nonexistent!

Froines’ next statement concerned diesel. He said, “We were once sued over diesel; we won. Rejecting industry position, it was a mess. The ‘American Dumpster Association’ accused me of misconduct.” I elbowed Hank and whispered, “Who is the American Dumpster Association?” I realized quickly it was probably ATA/CTA’s Apodaca v. CARB case in 2006 and the California Dump Truck Owners Association more recently he was referring to. I wondered to myself if he was that accurate about his own research, too!

That was my only laugh of the day as it soon became apparent that we haven’t heard the last from the SRP and Froines concerning “killer diesel.” No sir-ee, they have big plans with even more damaging reports in the works. Forget the PM/soot and NOx; they are moving on to diesel emission–related “vapors.” As you can see, this will be a never-ending battle to justify themselves and CARB-types forever. They have to always find something that “may” be killing us to justify their professions, their empires. It is now very clear to me that they are committed to eliminating “diesel,” regardless of how clean it can get and how efficient it is. I hope the diesel engine, truck, and equipment manufacturers and their customers are really watching this closely, because I now believe that by 2023, all diesel powered engines will be outlawed here, and we all will have to start over again. The politics of natural gas stinks here too. This is all totally unacceptable to me!

While I’m sure Froines’ “American Dumpster” sarcastic comment was probably not just a slip of the tongue, it clearly showed his disdain for the information we are disseminating about CARB, EPA, the SRP and him and his minions. Interestingly, the more I though about the comment and name, the more I kind of liked it. I have met some of the finest people on earth through this “dumpster group,” people I’m proud to call friends as well as business associates. Hardworking and compassionate are two words I would use to describe our members.

I would also like to share with you a story of how one group of our “dumpsters” went the extra mile to help a person in need. There was a large levee job in the Bay Area in the latter part of 2010. By all accounts it was a tough one, hauling mud on less than ideal hauling roads. Many didn’t last long, others stayed because they were desperate for income after four devastating years of little work. When they were called back last week to haul one final round of material to complete the job, Bay Chapter Chair and Executive Committee Member Susan Jones learned that the grade-checker who had also been called back lived three hours away from the jobsite and had been sleeping in his car each night on the levee. He had asked Susan only for a nearby truck-stop where he could perhaps take a shower. Susan immediately got on her CB radio and asked her fellow “dumpster folks” if anyone could donate to help this guy out. And help out they did! By the end of the day, they had enough money to rent him a room for one week until his first paycheck arrived. I repeat this story to you as an example of the true goodness that is alive and well among our “American Dumpster” members.

So, wear your new titles proudly as members of an organization that this year will be celebrating 70 years since it’s inception, an organization whose membership includes many who will reach into their own pockets to generously help a fellow human being in need.

As far as Mr. Froines and his public pension-sucking, diesel-hating, peer-reviewing environmental syndicate at the SRP, CARB and EPA, somehow I believe they will soon get theirs.

Transparency and disclosure in government and public health science will hopefully change, and that is good because we are all being played like fools, and that has to stop now!

Proudly signing off,
Betty Plowman, Membership Director
The “New” American Dumpster Association (ADA)