BOARD MEETING DATE: March 5, 2004
AGENDA NO. 27

Mobile Source Committee

SYNOPSIS:

The Mobile Source Committee met Friday, February 27, 2004. Following is a summary of that meeting.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive and file.

Jane Carney, Chair
Mobile Source Committee

Attendance

The meeting started at 9: 05 a.m. Present: Committee Chair Jane Carney, Vice Chair Roy Wilson (via videoconference), and Committee Members William Craycraft, Jan Perry (via videoconference; left at 9:35 a.m.) and Jim Silva (left at 10:15 a.m.). Absent: Committee Member Ron Loveridge.

ACTION ITEM:
 

1)

Rule 2202 – AQIP Proposed Recommendations for First Three Quarters of 2003 Shashi Singeetham, Science and Technology Advancement Air Quality Specialist, made a presentation to the Committee. Report elements included: emission reduction targets, project selection process, summary of available funding; proposals received – 28 proposals in total; and analysis of proposals received. Staff’s recommended actions are: Action #1 Six contracts be awarded, for a total amount not to exceed $2,267,978 from the AQIP Special Revenue Fund. The recommended contracts would be with: 1) Nationwide Environmental Services to replace six diesel-powered street sweepers with model year 2004 CNG street sweepers (in an amount not to exceed $360,000); 2) Clean Energy to deploy 100 CNG cargo vans and pickup trucks for commercial fleet application throughout the South Coast Air Basin (in an amount not to exceed $300,000); 3) City of Pasadena to repower eight C-10, model year 2000, Caterpillar Refuse Trucks from diesel to CNG (in an amount not to exceed $210,666); 4) City of Carson to replace one 1983 Crown bus with a new CNG-powered bus (in an amount not to exceed $10,000); 5) McLaughlin Engineering and Mining to repower two dual engine scrapers and two single engine scrapers with Tier 2 engines (in an amount not to exceed $387,312); and 6) Pick Your Part Auto Wrecking for old vehicle scrapping (in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000). Action #2 Purchase of up to 4,000 electric powered lawnmowers, in an amount not to exceed $850,000, for the "Mow Down Air Pollution 2004" Program, which involves residents exchanging their operable gasoline-powered lawn mowers for zero emission cordless electric lawn mowers, at a discount. With regard to the proposed lawn mower exchange events, Committee Member Craycraft asked staff to look into the possibility of conducting the Orange County event at Los Alamitos race course facility. Committee Chair Carney asked that staff verify that the lawn mower manufacturer responsible for the warranty and performance of the equipment. Action #3 Transfer funds, equal to the amount expended to buy down electric mowers for the area within the LADWP jurisdiction, from the LADWP settlement fund to the AQIP Special Revenue Fund, after the completion of the lawnmower exchange events. Action #4 Transfer $150,000 from the AQIP Special Revenue Fund to the General Fund for the Lawn Mower Buy Down Program. Action #5 Issue an RFP to solicit projects to meet emission reduction targets through June 30, 2004. Committee Member Silva moved to recommend approval of this item to the Governing Board and Committee Member Craycraft seconded. The motion was passed with four Committee Members in favor and one Committee Member in abstention.

INFORMATION ITEMS:
 

2)	Status Report on PR1198 – Intermodal Equipment Zorik Pirveysian, Planning and Rules Manager, presented a status report on the feasibility study for controlling emissions from intermodal equipment (which is to be addressed under Proposed Rule 1198). The preparation of a feasibility study for this source category is in accordance with the 2003 AQMP, the AQMD Governing Board’s 2002 Environmental Justice Enhancements, and the AQMD’s 2000 Air Toxic Control Plan. The source category specifically evaluated is yard tractors (also known as yard hostlers or yard spotters) which are used to transfer containers at ports, rail yards, and distribution centers. These vehicles are primarily powered by off-road diesel engines with engine sizes ranging from about 150 to 220 hp. Based on the Port of Long Beach (POLB) preliminary draft emissions inventory report, 565 yard tractors were in operation at the Port in 2002, representing 67% of the total cargo handling equipment (CHE) at POLB container terminals. Emissions from these yard tractors are calculated to be 3.9 tpd NOx and 0.3 tpd PM10. An inventory of the equipment used at the Port of Los Angeles (POLA) is expected to be available in March 2004. Preliminary estimates indicate a population of about 700 yard tractors at the POLA with emissions comparable to that of POLB. In response to request for clarification by Committee Member Craycraft, Mr. Pirveysian stated that the remaining 33% of the CHE used at the Port includes equipment such as cranes, forklifts, sidepicks, top loaders, etc. As a point of reference for the importance of this source category, Dr. Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer, pointed out that the emissions inventory from all yard tractors represents an amount equal to approximately one-third of the NOx RECLAIM universe. As part of the feasibility study, retrofit technologies applicable to this equipment category (i.e., off-road equipment powered by diesel engines) were evaluated. Existing technologies which have been verified by CARB include diesel oxidation catalyst (25% PM10 reduction) and alternative diesel fuel (emulsified diesel: 60% PM10 reduction; 15% NOx reduction). Potential future retrofit technologies include particulate filter, NOx absorber catalyst, lean NOx catalyst, alternative diesel fuel (e.g., biodiesel, Fischer-Tropsch fuel). In addition to retrofit technologies, staff has analyzed the control of emissions from yard tractors through replacement with alternative fuel vehicles (LPG, CNG, LNG) and vehicles powered by on-road engines (which have more stringent emission standards than off-road engines). Based on staff’s preliminary analysis, the cost-effectiveness ranking of these control technologies is in the following order: 1) on-road engines (with or without DOC and/or emulsified diesel), 2) retrofit technologies, and 3) alternative fuel vehicles. In response to request for clarification by Committee Chair Carney, staff explained that alternative fueled yard tractors would be available through special order, as opposed to "off-the-shelf" at a showroom. Committee Member Craycraft requested that staff convene meetings with equipment manufacturers and end users to facilitate the production and purchase of cleaner engines for this application in a cost-effective manner. Committee Chair Carney suggested that staff engage air pollution control staff in other areas of the country with high concentrations of yard tractors (e.g., Houston, New York) to facilitate a market for cleaner vehicles. The potential regulatory approaches identified by staff for controlling emissions from yard tractors are: 1) indirect source approach, 2) fleet rule approach, 3) retrofit approach, and 4) air toxics approach. Under the indirect source approach, the AQMD would adopt and implement a rule to reduce emissions from yard tractor operations at port terminals pursuant to its authority under Health & Safety Code § 40716 (a)(1). A fleet rule approach would require new yard tractor purchases to be vehicles powered by alternative fuel or equivalent. Since AQMD’s authority to adopt fleet rules is pending a Supreme Court ruling, this approach is not recommended at this time. A retrofit approach would establish retrofit requirements based on CARB verified technologies for existing yard tractor fleets. However, there are federal/state preemption issues relative to AQMD’s retrofit authority and this approach is not recommended at this time. An air toxics approach would require operators to reduce their facility-wide toxic risk (by reducing emissions from all sources including mobile sources) under AQMD’s indirect source authority. This approach requires further evaluation. Staff’s recommended approach for yard tractors is to develop an indirect source rule that would establish mass emissions or other use restrictions under AQMD’s indirect source authority. This recommendation would require the evaluation of feasible reductions and alternative compliance options such as a fleet average emission rate, purchase/retirement requirements, operational requirements, an alternative fuels option, and a mitigation fee. Mr. Pirveysian concluded with a discussion of the next steps in the process which include a review of the upcoming POLA inventory (expected in March 2004), the release of a draft feasibility study, meetings with the Ports and terminal operators, establishment of control requirements and development of indirect source rule. Future rule phases could include control of emissions from yard tractors used at rail yards. In reference to meeting with the Ports and terminal operators, Committee Member Craycraft requested that staff ensure Port administrators, including the Harbor Commissioners, be included during rule development.
3)	Report on the Status of Federal Controls Zorik Pirveysian, Planning and Rules Manager, provided a report on the status of federal controls. The report included a review of existing federal regulations and those currently proposed for aircraft, ships, trains, on-road diesel, and other off-road diesel engines. Several additional control options for each of the categories were also presented. Sources under Federal jurisdiction account for 33% (252 tons per day) of the total NOx emissions in the Basin in 2010. These sources include aircraft, ships, trains, off-road diesel (e.g., farm and construction equipment), and 49 state vehicles. U.S. EPA’s aircraft emission standards for Hydrocarbons (HC) regulations were originally adopted in 1984 to be aligned with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards. ICAO’s NOx and CO standards were added to the federal regulations in 1997. In 2003, U.S. EPA proposed additional aircraft NOx standards in line with ICAO’s standards adopted in 1999. Since these standards do not provide significant emission reductions, additional controls are needed to achieve a fair share reduction from aircraft. Additional potential control options include more stringent emission standards, re-routing the cleanest aircraft to the Basin fleet, mitigation fee programs and a repower/retrofit program for ground support equipment (GSE) beyond the currently approved GSE Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Committee Member Craycraft recommended a local aircraft expert to advise AQMD staff on airport related issues. AQMD staff concurred responding that they have already met with the expert and will work closely with him to discuss possible aircraft controls. For ships, U.S. EPA’s marine vessel engine emission standards are equivalent to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) NOx emission standards. Overall, the emission standards account for a 32% reduction in NOx for category 1 and 2 engines, and a 20% reduction in NOx for category 3 engines by 2030. Since these standards do not provide significant emission reductions (because of slow turnover rate), additional emission reductions are needed for ships. Potential control options include more stringent emission standards, low sulfur fuel requirement, cold ironing, retrofit/repower auxiliary engines, mitigation fees, and incentives which accelerate the retirement of older engines. Committee Member Craycraft asked whether foreign flag ships are required to obtain permission (access permit) before entering local ports, and if so, the AQMD could request U.S. EPA to seek authority to limit access to foreign ships which do not employ the latest emissions reduction technologies. AQMD staff agreed to investigate this matter. U.S. EPA’s locomotive emission standards were adopted in 1998 for new and remanufactured locomotives beginning in 2001. A 41% reduction in NOx emission is expected by 2010. In addition, ARB and the two major railroads (i.e., UP, BNSF) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 1998 agreeing to a fleet-wide average for all locomotives operating in the District. AQMD staff considers the MOU to have several problems, including lack of public review process, ARB’s not submitting the MOU for SIP approval, lack of a backstop rule, exclusion of some locomotives, and not addressing pollution occurring due to lack of grade separations. Additional control options for locomotives include more stringent emission standards, low sulfur fuel requirement, repower/retrofit engines, mitigation fees, and inclusion of non-MOU locomotives in the fleet-wide average concept. A question was raised on how the railroads plan to comply with the additional reductions required under the MOU beyond the national standards. AQMD staff responded that the cleanest locomotives would be routed to the Basin in order to meet the fleet-wide average. Dr. Barry Wallerstein also commented that legislation is being introduced to establish an emission reduction program for railroads, and AQMD is seeking support from state legislators and local officials to promote the adoption of the program. U.S. EPA’s on-road diesel engine standards were first adopted in 1988. Both the U.S. EPA and ARB on-road diesel emission standards have been harmonized for the last several years. Additional control options for on-road diesel engines include a repower/retrofit program, fleet rules for private fleets, and a mitigation fee program. In response to a clarification question, AQMD staff indicated that the standards for new on-road diesel engines are indeed very stringent, but there are efforts by CARB to roll back the urban bus standards as well as U.S. EPA potentially revisiting its 2007 on-road standards. These developments cause concern and will be monitored closely. In 1994, U.S. EPA adopted federal standards for non-road compression-ignited engines (Tier 1) which became effective beginning in 1996. In 1998, more stringent emission standards (Tier 2 and Tier 3) were adopted. U.S. EPA has also proposed additional Tier 4 emission standards in 2003 which are expected to reduce NOx and PM by 90% in 2030. These Tier 4 emission standards would not take effect until 2011 so additional controls are needed to achieve near-term reductions. Additional control options include mitigation fee programs, a repower/retrofit program, fleet rules for non-road sources, and additional incentive programs to accelerate the retirement of older engines.
4)	Rule 2202 Activity Report Rule 2202 Summary Status Report submitted, no comments.
5)	Monthly Report on Environmental Justice Initiatives Item #4 – CEQA Commenting: a. CEQA Document Commenting Update: Written report submitted, no comments.
6)	Status Report on Mobile and Area Source Pilot Credit Generation Rules Written report submitted, no comments.
7)	Other Business None.
8)	Public Comment None.

The meeting adjourned at 10:25 a.m.

Attachment

Attendance Roster

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
MOBILE SOURCE COMMITTEE

February 27, 2004


ATTENDANCE ROSTER
 

/ / /