BOARD MEETING DATE: May 7, 2010
AGENDA NO. 24
REPORT:
Mobile Source Committee
SYNOPSIS:
The Mobile Source Committee met Friday, April 16, 2010.
Following is a summary of that meeting.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive and file the attached report.
Jane Carney, Acting Chair
Mobile Source Committee
Attendance
Acting Chair Jane Carney called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. Present at the AQMD was Committee Member Josie Gonzales. Chair Ronald Loveridge, Vice-Chair Marion Ashley, and Committee Members Bill Campbell and Jan Perry were absent. The following items were presented:
ACTION ITEM:
1) Issue Program Announcement for Low-Emission Leaf Blower Vendors
Shashi Singeetham, Air Quality Specialist, gave a presentation on the staff proposal to issue a Program Announcement to solicit competitive proposals from qualified contractors for the production and supply of low-emission/low-noise backpack leaf blowers for the AQMD’s 2010 Leaf Blower Exchange Program. The presentation included background information on the Air Quality Investment Program (AQIP), Details of the 2009 Leaf Blower Exchange Program, Proposed 2010 events and Proposal Requirements.
Following the presentation, Supervisor Josie Gonzales asked if the old blowers were disposed of properly. Mr. Singeetham explained that when the vendor receives the old blowers at the exchange event, they drain the fluids in a proper manner and ship the units to Visalia for crushing. Mr. Singeetham stated that he has been to Visalia to witness the scrapping process. Supervisor Gonzales also enquired as to what happens to the scrapped materials, whether the process creates green jobs locally, and whether local businesses that handle the scrapped materials can further benefit from their association with AQMD. Mr. Singeetham said that he would follow up with the vendor. There was also a discussion about the car scrapping process. Dr. Laki Tisopulos, Assistant Deputy Executive Officer, described the auto scrapping process, whereby the fluids are drained and the metals crushed. When asked about what happens to the scrap metal, Dr. Tisopulos stated that depending on the demand, the metal is either sold locally or shipped overseas.
Less than a quorum was present for this meeting; the committee members gave their concurrence and recommended that this item be forwarded for Board consideration.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
2) Update on Proposed Amendments to Rule 1193 – Clean On-Road Residential and Commercial Collection Vehicles
Henry Hogo, Assistant Deputy Executive Officer, provided an update on activities for the proposed amendments to Rule (PAR) 1193 since the last Committee briefing in March 2010. At its April 2, 2010 meeting, the Board set the public hearing on PAR 1193 for June 4, 2010. Staff indicated that they have met with three associations/fleet operators regarding industry’s proposed alternatives to the staff proposed amendments. Staff has scheduled a meeting with interested environmental organizations in the coming week. In addition, staff has been working on completing the socioeconomic analysis of the staff proposed amendments and the industry alternatives. Staff is also evaluating potential relief for small fleets providing refuse services in a limited number of jurisdictions.
Staff indicated that larger fleets prefer a “rolling model year” approach where vehicles older than a certain age would not be allowed to provide refuse service. With each subsequent year, an additional model year would not be allowed to provide refuse services. As an example, under a “10 year rolling model year approach” and a contract is renewed in 2012, refuse vehicles that are 2002 and newer would be allowed to provide refuse collection services. In 2013, vehicles that are 2003 and newer would be allowed to provide the refuse services.
While larger fleets prefer this approach instead of the current staff proposal, smaller fleets prefer the staff proposal, but with a longer timeframe. The association that represents smaller fleets indicated that these fleets tend to be older and a phase-in approach makes more sense for them. The preference is a four-year phase-in rather than staff’s three-year phase-in timeframe. Staff indicated that a longer timeframe would lead to less certainty that vehicles are replaced on a regular basis and some fleets may not replace vehicles until towards the end of the phase-in period. Staff suggested that at a minimum, an equal number of vehicles be replaced each year over the four year period (i.e., 25% each year such that there would be 25% rule compliant vehicles in the first year, 50% the second year, 75% in the third year, and 100% by the end of the fourth year). A comment was made by industry that regardless, beginning in 2020, all vehicles would have to be alternative fueled vehicles.
Staff indicated that industry stakeholders agreed that new contracts for residential refuse collection would be 100% alternative fueled vehicles and that by January 1, 2020 all vehicles must be 100% alternative fueled vehicles.
Other comments received included comments from the Coalition for Clean Air indicating their preference for the rolling model year approach and that the cut-off year should be ten; the City of Santa Clarita indicated that one small fleet with four roll-off vehicles needed some relief since this fleet does not have the resources to replace their vehicles and the fleet operates only in Santa Clarita; Cal Disposal, a refuse collection operator in San Bernardino County, requested relief from Rule 1193 since they are the only operator within a subregion of the County and use less than 15 vehicles for this service (the operator has a total of over 15 vehicles in the fleet), and Waste Management requested consideration of a limited crediting for alternative fueled vehicles used in refuse services not subject to Rule 1193 to allow for 11 and 12 year old vehicles to operate longer. A question was asked if there is a difference in emissions between 11 and 12 year old vehicles and ten year old vehicles. Staff indicated that the NOx emissions are the same between the different model years. New emissions standards took effect beginning in 2002. In addition, a majority of the existing diesel refuse vehicles have been retrofitted with diesel particulate filters as required by the statewide solid waste refuse collection vehicle regulation. Staff will be analyzing the difference between a 10 year and a 12 year rolling approach.
Staff indicated that they are evaluating giving each fleet a choice of the rolling model year approach or the four year phase-in approach. In addition, government agencies or the affected fleets under contract to the government agencies would be required to report the path each fleet has chosen, when a new contract is signed or existing contracts are renewed. Fleets would not be allowed to go between the two paths from contract to contract.
In addition, staff is evaluating inclusion of an allowance for fleets to have no more than 3% of their Rule 1193 affected vehicles to be diesel powered. Staff indicated that there is recognition that for a majority of the refuse fleets, there will be more than 3% diesel powered vehicles since many of these vehicles (primarily roll-offs and transfer trucks) operate in a private to private setting and are not subject to Rule 1193.
Staff is also evaluating an approach to allow fleets with less than 15 vehicles to choose one of the compliance options (i.e., rolling model year or phase-in) or purchase rule compliant vehicles at the time the fleet is ready to purchase or replace existing vehicles. This is the implementation path for public solid waste collection fleets. A question was asked about whether the January 1, 2020 deadline applies to public fleets. Staff indicated that public fleets have been complying with Rule 1193 since 2001 and 2002. There have not been any violations of the Rule from the public sector. The current proposals apply to services being provided under contract.
Staff concluded the update indicating that the emissions and economic analysis will be completed in the next couple of weeks. Staff will be providing proposed new amendments based on comments received to get stakeholders feedback and the socioeconomic analysis will be released. Staff believes that the proposed amendments will be before the Board in June. A question was asked when the Socioeconomic Report has to be released. Staff indicated at a minimum 30 days prior to the Board meeting. Staff indicated that as each approach is analyzed, the results will be release so that interested stakeholders will have more than 30 days to review and provide comments.
Staff indicated that they have been receiving calls from cities indicating that their respective refuse operators are requesting renewing their existing contracts with the recognition that Rule 1193 will be amended. Staff continues to recommend that cities have alternative fueled refuse trucks for their refuse collection services. The Committee members indicated that staff should prepare appropriate contract language for cities to use in contract renewals to recognize the need to for fleets to comply with Rule 1193. Staff will look into providing such language.
Mr. Paul Ryan, California Refuse Recycling Council, commented that they are surveying their members regarding the two approaches and the appropriate percentage of remaining diesel vehicles in the fleet. Mr. Ryan indicated that he will be contacting the California Office of Emergency Services to see if there is a number that has been established. Lastly, he indicated that the industry will continue to work with staff on the proposed amendments.
3) Briefing on New U.S. EPA Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles
Jill Whynot, Director of Strategic Initiatives, briefed the committee on new fuel economy and greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for passenger cars and light-duty trucks between model years (MY) 2012-2016, inclusive. This is the first federal rule covering GHGs, which now will trigger Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V permit requirements. A rulemaking is in progress to streamline those programs. The U.S. EPA & the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) adopted standards for fleet-wide averages on April 9, 2010.
A table comparing California and federal standards was provided. State GHG standards for MY 2016 are more stringent than the federal rule. Benefits of the federal rule include oil saved, reduced GHGs, less NOx and VOC emissions and overall consumer savings due to improved fuel efficiency. Ms. Jane Carney asked how CO2 emissions reductions would be achieved. Ms. Whynot explained that it was primarily related to fuel economy. Mr. Hogo added that CARB and U.S. EPA have worked closely with automobile manufacturers and that CARB will be revisiting their standards later this year.
4) Rule 2202 Program Status Report for Calendar Year 2009
This item was deferred to the May meeting.
5) Rule 2202 Activity Report
Written report submitted. No comments.
6) Monthly Report on Environmental Justice Initiatives – CEQA Document Commenting Update
Written report submitted. No comments.
7) Other Business
None
8) Public Comment
None
The meeting adjourned at 9:46 a.m.
Attachment (DOC, ~46k)
Attendance Roster