BOARD MEETING DATE: April 3, 2009
AGENDA NO. 23
REPORT:
Mobile Source Committee
SYNOPSIS:
The Mobile Source Committee met Friday, March 20, 2009.
Following is a summary of that meeting.
COMMITTEE:
Receive and file the attached report.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Ronald O. Loveridge, Chair
Mobile Source Committee
Attendance
Chair Ronald Loveridge called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Present was Committee Member Jane Carney. Committee Member Jan Perry (via videoconference) joined the meeting at 9:10 a.m. Vice-Chair Roy Wilson and Committee Member Bill Campbell were absent. The following items were presented:
ACTION ITEM:
- Issue RFP for Rule 2202 Air Quality Investment Program and Issue
Program Announcement for Low Emission Leaf Blower Vendors
Shashi Singeetham, Air Quality Specialist, gave a presentation on the staff recommendations for the release of RFP for Rule 2202 Air Quality Investment Program, and issuance of Program Announcement for the 2009 Leaf Blower Exchange Program. The presentation included background information on the Air Quality Investment Program (AQIP), details of the RFP, Project Selection Criteria, Details of the 2008 Leaf Blower Exchange Program, Proposed 2009 events and Proposal Requirements.
Committee Member Jane Carney inquired as to what steps are taken to assure that the vendor maintains the integrity of the Program including the scrappage of the old blowers. Mr. Singeetham explained that even though the events are run by the vendor, AQMD staff is present at all the events. He also said that staff observes the destruction of the old blowers and that the vendor supplies pictures of the blower destruction.
Motion by Perry; seconded by Carney; and unanimously approved.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: - Status Report on Proposed Rule 2301 – Control of Emissions from New or Redevelopment Projects
Elaine Chang, Deputy Executive Officer of Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources, presented a status update on the development of Proposed Rule (PR) 2301. The purpose of the rule is to mitigate emissions from new or redevelopment residential, commercial, and industrial development projects. Recent activities include the refinement of the staff rule proposal and the release of a draft White Paper to the PR 2301 Working Group. The working group meetings are attended by representatives from local governments, building industry, realtors, construction industry, environmental groups, consultants, and others. The White Paper includes discussion on the rule’s background, legal authority, development process, current proposal and key issues.
The 2023 emission reduction goal for PR 2301 is 0.8 tpd/NOx, 0.5 tpd/VOC, and 0.5 tpd PM2.5. Additional emission reductions obtained will be applied to the black box. Chair Loveridge inquired as to why the target was set for 2023. Staff responded that the 2023 target was set in order to have these emissions achieved to meet our 2024 ozone standard requirements.
The AQMD is required by law to consider “all feasible measures” for reducing emissions. A precedent has been set by other California Air Districts which have already adopted indirect source rules or polices addressing emissions from development projects. While all of these programs include a fee component, none have been SIP approved.
The staff proposal includes a number of design considerations such as long-term project related reductions, regulatory certainty, a balance between flexibility versus administrative burden, implementation resource impacts, and a co-benefit with GHG programs (e.g., AB 32 Scoping Plan & SB 375). The staff proposal applies to residential, commercial, industrial and institutional development projects with operational NOx emissions of 2 tons/year or more, and projects required to prepare an EIR, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration. For new development or redevelopment projects, PR 2301 will address requirements for both the construction and operational phases. Under the construction phase all projects will be required to verify compliance with the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel regulation (this requirement is under re-evaluation due to rule delay), and will be required to use architectural coatings that do not exceed 50% of the VOC limits in R 1113, with additional options to use Certified Clean Air Choice cleaning products or specific CARB certified leaf blowers. In the operational phase of the development, the project will be required to reduce a specified percentage of NOx emissions from area source and/or transportation mitigation measures. Chair Loveridge and Committee Member Jane Carney inquired about the transportation mitigation list. In response to the question, are other air districts incorporating these; staff responded that some are, but they also include a fee component. Project proponents also have the option to use substitution measures. Additionally, PR 2301 includes a provision for the AQMD to delegate rule authority to a local government. Local Governments can chose to adopt rule provisions by ordinance or adopt a local ordinance that will achieve equivalent emission reductions through local programs.
The proposed rule calls for a three year phase in of compliance based on a project’s NOx emissions. The largest projects, those with 10 tons/year of NOx or greater would begin rule implementation first, followed by projects of 4 tons/year or greater, and then projects of 2 tons/year or greater. The phase in proposal will address potential implementation issues and staff resource impacts. A Compliance Plan will be required to be submitted prior to the application for final discretionary approval.
Key issues to be addressed include the interaction between PR 2301 and the CEQA process, local governments land use authority, and an off-site reduction fee option. Representatives of the business community have put forth a CEQA-based alternative proposal. Their proposal strives to develop a rule concept that will work through the CEQA process enabling lead agencies to make the final project determination. Lead Agencies would consider the PR 2301 Guidance Document for projects exceeding significance thresholds and would submit final CEQA documents for AQMD to compile reductions for SIP submittal. The environmental community will be submitting a third alternative rule proposal. From discussions with these stakeholders their proposal will include a different threshold for rule applicability, a fee option, and a compliance schedule that does not contain a phase-in period. Chair Loveridge inquired as to how a fee would be determined. Staff responded that we could use Carl Moyer protocols but those are for projects with a 7 to 10 year project life. The project life for PR 2301 is the life of the project. Not incorporating a fee is one reason staff feels the rule shows regulatory certainty.
Staff has had preliminary discussions with US EPA and ARB regarding the staff proposal. The U.S. EPA has asked staff to include language in the Local Government Delegation section addressing revocation procedures if it is determined that rule requirements are not being meet, in which case the project proponents would be held to the requirements of PR 2301 versus to a local ordinance. They have also commented that they are in the process of determining which emerging and voluntary measure policy applies; stationary, mobile or a hybrid approach. The ARB has requested clarification for Compliance Plan amendment procedures, and for an assurance of post project compliance.
The Pre-Hearing for PR 2301 is scheduled for the April Board meeting with the public hearing planned for fall 2009.
Carla Walecka, Realtors Committee on Air Quality, commented on the desire of the business community to rely on the current CEQA process to generate emission reductions, and is concerned with potential fees imposed on developers whom are already subject to many local fees and its SIP approvability based on the recent U.S. EPA comments.
Martin Schlageter, Coalition for Clean Air, would like for the Board to move expeditiously to adopt an ISR rule to maximize the co-benefits of the AB 32 Scoping Plan and SB 375 implementation.
David Pettit, Natural Resources Defense Council, confirmed staffs characterization of the environmental community’s concerns and raised issues of enforceability regarding the CEQA-based approach.
Committee Member Jan Perry left the meeting at 9:45 a.m.
- Health Study Update: Long-Term Ozone Exposure and Mortality
Staff presented a summary of the study published this month in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study followed the cohort recruited by the American Cancer Society in 1983-83, and analyzed the mortality rates and exposure to long term ozone in 96 metropolitan areas. The study was supported by the Health Effects Institute. Ozone exposures were calculated using the peak daily one-hour concentration from April to September averaged over the years 1977 to 2000. Particulate exposures were calculated using PM2.5 average annual concentration for the years 1999 to 2000. The metropolitan areas with the highest ozone averages (Riverside-San Bernardino and Los Angeles-Long Beach) as well as those with the lowest averages (San Francisco and Salinas-Monterey) were in California. When both ozone and PM2.5 were included in the analysis, the authors found a statistically significant association of mortality from respiratory disease with ozone exposure. The study found a 4% increase in respiratory mortality for a 10 ppb change in the long term ozone concentration. When mortality from heart related diseases was looked at, there was a negative association with mortality rate. The authors conclude that this is not likely a “protect effect”, but may be reflective of an underestimate of particulate effects on heart disease because of a lack of data on particulate levels prior to 1999 in the study areas. Committee Member Carney asked about regional differences in the ozone effects. When the data were separated by geographic area of the U.S., the results showed differences in the mortality effects in different regions. Southern California was at the lower end of the effects range.
- Rule 2202 Activity Report
Written report submitted. No comments.
- Monthly Report on Environmental Justice Initiatives – CEQA Document Commenting Update
Written report submitted. No comments.
- Other Business
None
- Public Comment
None
The meeting adjourned at 10:20 a.m.
Attachment (DOC, 66k)
Attendance Roster