South Coast Air Quality Management District

Mobile Source Committee

SYNOPSIS: 

The Mobile Source Committee met Friday, October 26, 2001. Following is a summary of that meeting.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive and file.

S. Roy Wilson, Chair
Mobile Source Committee

Attendance

The meeting started at 9:10 a.m. Present: Committee Chair Roy Wilson, Committee Vice Chair Jon Mikels, and Committee Members Jane Carney and Jim Silva. Absent: Committee Members Norma Glover and Ron Loveridge. Attached is an attendance roster.

INFORMATION ITEMS

1. CEQA Handbook Update
   At the September 28 Mobile Source Committee meeting, staff was directed to conduct a study to determine how the new localized significance thresholds proposed by staff would affect the significance determination of projects and what additional costs would be incurred by local governments if projects that formerly qualified for a negative declaration were required to undergo the full environmental impact report process. Potential additional costs include costs to local governments associated with preparing an EIR and implementing additional mitigation measures that would not otherwise have been required. Staff was requested to report back to the October 26 Mobile Source Committee meeting with a timeline for completing the project.
   
   Staff then provided preliminary results on the status of the project to date. Approximately 70 negative declarations (NDs) have been reviewed, and of these, 41 included emission calculations. Four of the 41 NDs were found to be significant under the current regional thresholds and 19 were found to exceed the staff proposed localized significance thresholds for that source receptor area (SRA). To obtain a more representative sample of projects located throughout the district, staff will need to review another 70-100 NDs. Based on work completed to date and work to be completed, staff recommends presenting the results to the Mobile Source Committee meeting in January 2002.
   
   Supervisor Jon Mikels pointed out that the staff proposal involves a major change in policy, that is, considering air quality impacts from a localized perspective instead of a regional perspective. This is important because attainment designations for the criteria pollutants are for an entire region, not a local area. Staff clarified that localized thresholds apply only to pollutants with localized air quality impacts, such as NOx, CO and PM₁₀. Although thresholds may differ by source receptor areas, SRA because they are based on local ambient concentrations, they are measured against the same ambient air quality standards.
   
   Committee Member Jane Carney requested that staff return to the December Mobile Source Committee meeting to discuss the policy change associated with the staff proposed localized thresholds. Further, she asked that maps be prepared illustrating the different concentrations of the various criteria pollutants in the SRAs in the district.
   
   
2. Proposed Amendments to Rule 2202 - On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options

Staff provided an update on proposed amendments to Rule 2202. The majority of the amendments are administrative and include a new definition and exemption for Police and Sheriff. The amendments also included deletion of the reference to alternative fuel credit and remote sensing, due date clarification, inclusion of special procedures in the guidelines, consistent definitions in all documents, updated emission factors tables, and added language to identify additional sources of credits. This item is set for hearing at the January 21, 2002 Board meeting.

3. Proposed Amendments to Rule 444 - Open Burning

Staff reported that amendments to Rule 444 were in response to a Notice of Limited Disapproval issued by EPA for a lack of "carrying capacity" for burn allocation within the basin and a lack of incentives to prioritize the issuing of burn permits. The amendments address EPA’s limited disapproval of the rule, incorporate elements of the 1999 AQMP control measure WST-03, and modify the rule language to be consistent with state law and current AQMD format.

Modifications to Rule 444 would change the Burn Day Definition to include a marginal burn day, set a burn window in which burns can take place, require smoke management plans to mitigate smoke impacts through populated areas, and include a carrying capacity and burn prioritization scheme. EPA has stated that the proposed rule language would satisfy the limited disapproval. This item is set for hearing at the December 21, 2001 Board meeting.

Staff gave a presentation on the possibility of expanding the Enhanced Smog Check Program to some areas of San Bernardino and Riverside counties. This was in response to a letter from the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) informing us that, in accordance with the Health & Safety Code, an Enhanced I/M program was required in the urbanized area of Temecula. BAR asked if the District would be interested in requesting an Enhanced program in adjacent areas.

The Enhanced program applies to urbanized areas classified as serious or above for ozone or moderate or serious for CO with a population of more than 50,000. There is a major difference between an Enhanced program and a basic program. The basic smog check is an idle test which measures hydrocarbon and CO. The Enhanced program is a loaded-mode test in which the vehicle is placed on a dynamometer, and hydrocarbon, CO and NOx are measured. In addition, a complete Enhanced program requires that 15% of vehicles go to a testing only station. If the District requests a partially-Enhanced program, the 15% "test only" element would not be included. That element is exclusively for completely enhanced areas.

BAR intends to implement the enhanced requirement for Temecula on October 1, 2002. If the District decides to expand the semi-Enhanced program to the adjacent areas, BAR would prefer to do this on the same time schedule as the inclusion of Temecula.

Staff recommendations are to conduct additional analysis to assess the cost impact and available options should these emission reductions be included in the SIP or be used for credit generation. Dr. Wallerstein recommended that they be used in the SIP, but wanted the Board to be fully aware of the available options.

Staff requested that the Board consider including some areas of San Bernardino and Riverside counties in the partially-Enhanced program effective October 1, 2002, to coincide with BAR’s time schedule for inclusion of the Temecula area. This item will be brought to the Board in January 2202.

Staff provided an update on Proposed Rule 1634, which will be the sixth mobile source credit pilot rule adopted since March. Last month staff requested that the Board continue the hearing on this rule to allow time to address questions raised by EPA, particularly questions regarding inventory. Staff is working very intensively with EPA to resolve these issues to ensure that the rule will be approvable once it is adopted by the Governing Board. Staff intends to visit truck stops to interview truck stop operators and ask them about their idling practices to allay EPA’s concerns. Staff intends to bring this item back to the Board at the November 9, 2001 meeting.

Jane Carney mentioned that when the Board was considering the various changes to the RECLAIM Program, they had discussed the idea of having experts in the theoretical workings of markets prepare an analysis of the RECLAIM Program. She asked if that had been done.

Dr. Wallerstein responded that three outside experts were hired to examine the changes recommended by staff last May and to see whether they would erode the viability and functioning of the market. Their response was that the changes staff made to the program, as approved by the Board, would help stabilize the prices and would not hurt the market aspect.

Ms. Carney requested that staff invite the experts to comment on the introduction of this mobile source credit rule into RECLAIM.

At the request of Councilman Bernson, staff reported on the cost impact to school districts and private contractors if Rule 1195 did not have the exemption for the offsetting of cost and were not required to retrofit.

The range in cost of a conventional diesel school bus is between $88,000 and $95,000. The cost of a natural gas fuel bus ranges from $128,000 to $135,000. The incremental cost of a natural gas school bus versus a diesel school bus is $40,000. The historical purchase of school buses averaged between $100,000 and $200,000 in any given year. Staff used a 200 number and straight multiplication to arrive at an $8 million annual cost impact to implement the rule if the exemption was not there.

Since the request from Councilman Bernson was made, CARB approved the use of particulate traps for 1994 and newer diesel engines. Approximately 2,000 school buses would be eligible for retrofit with these traps. Currently, there is $7.5 million in the statewide Lower Emission School Bus Program. At a cost of about $7,400 per trap, approximately 1,000 school buses could be retrofitted at this time. In addition, the school bus program has another $100,000 to cover the increase in fuel cost. Staff estimates that, if an additional $7 million were available, all 2,000 school buses could be retrofitted.

Dr. Wallerstein mentioned that the Board has set aside $1 million for the Adopt-A-School-Bus Foundation which currently has a funding of a little over a half million dollars. Based on what happens with those monies, there may be another million and a half that could go to this effort.

Rule 2202 Summary Status Report submitted, no comments.

Item #4 - CEQA Commenting:

1. CEQA Document Commenting Update: Written reports submitted, no comments.

Status Report on Credit Rule Implementation submitted, no comments.

Staff mentioned that, after polling the Governing Board Members, it has been determined that the Stationary Source, Mobile Source, and Technology Committee meetings previously scheduled on November 23 and December 28 will be held as a single meeting on December 7 at each of their regularly scheduled times.

Committee Member Jane Carney commented that she was concerned about the air quality impacts of major distribution centers, particularly in the western portions of Riverside and San Bernardino counties. She asked staff to conduct a special study to determine what the air quality impacts are from increased truck traffic and from the distribution facilities themselves.

Dr. Wallerstein requested that staff be given to the first of the year to complete the study in order to prepare data on the projected growth at those types of facilities and also to conduct a series of scenarios to show the diesel emissions impact from those facilities. The results could then be compared to a dry cleaner, plater or other types of facilities with toxic emissions.

None.

The meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m.

Attendance Roster
 

/ / /