Air Quality Commission/LUESA Air Quality Episodic Ozone Controls

Air Quality Commission/LUESA Air Quality Episodic Ozone Controls

September 1, 2004 Options Analysis/Recommendations

Page 7

MECKLENBURG COUNTY

- A i r Q u a l i t y C o m m i s s i o n -

- L U E S A A i r Q u a l i t y –

September 1, 2004

M E M O R A N D U M

To: Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners

From: Steven D. Weber, Chairman

Air Quality Commission

Don R. Willard, Director

Mecklenburg County Air Quality

Subject: Options Analysis and Recommendation – Episodic Ozone Rules

The Mecklenburg County Air Quality Commission (AQC) and Mecklenburg County Air Quality staff (AQ staff) jointly advise the Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) that local action integrated with state and federal programs is needed to ensure clean healthy air for the citizens of the County. This option analysis has been reviewed by the AQC and the recommendation was approved by a majority vote on August 23, 2004. This option analysis and recommendation has also been approved by AQ staff.

As you know, the AQC was established in 2002 by the BOCC from former members of the Mecklenburg County Environmental Protection Commission, the Breathe stakeholders, and others for the purpose of analyzing and advising the BOCC on air quality issues. At its monthly meetings, the AQC has considered such topics as re-designation boundaries, particulate matter and air toxics concerns in the region, and concerns over nitrogen oxides (NOx) and coal-fired electric utility boilers (ultimately recommending a County position regarding NOx emission reductions). In developing this recommendation, the AQC has received and considered at length the Breathe stakeholder recommendations, AQ staff’s “Cutting Pollution When It Counts,” public and AQ staff input, and the facts set forth below.

Facts

1. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were established to be protective of human health and the environment. Ozone is an ambient air pollutant for which NAAQS have been established.

1. Mecklenburg County has had historic difficulties meeting the ozone NAAQS, being officially designated non-attainment (violating the NAAQS) for the one-hour ozone standards from 1978 – 1995.

1. Mecklenburg County currently does not comply with the NAAQS for ozone. The County was designated as a non-attainment area for the eight-hour ozone standard on April 15, 2004. Current ozone levels show that this region now has the highest ozone levels in the southeast. This region's deadline to comply with the ozone NAAQS is June 15, 2010 (for compliance to be achieved, the average of the fourth highest ozone level at each of seven regional monitoring sites for 2007, 2008 and 2009 must be less than 85 parts per billion (ppb) ozone).

1. In recent years, the eight-hour ozone standard has been exceeded in Mecklenburg County on the following number of days: 1997 - 26 days; 1998 - 48 days; 1999 - 34 days; 2000 - 20 days; 2001 – 13 days; 2002 – 26 days; 2003 – 4 days; and 2004 – 4 days (thru July 26th). From the mid 1990’s through the CY 2003 ozone season there has been no discernible trend with respect to the number of days exceeding the ozone standard.

1. Unhealthful levels of ozone occur during the warmer months, generally from May 1st to September 30th, and tend to be “episodic” rather than constant, typically lasting from 1-3 days at a time.

1. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and NOx are the primary pollutants involved in ozone formation (precursors). NOx is a pollutant generated by combustion of fossil fuels and is the most important ozone precursor for Mecklenburg County. Multiple mobile pollution sources (i.e., cars, trucks, heavy duty diesel equipment) comprise over 90% of NOx emissions in Mecklenburg County.

1. The key growth factors that lead to increased levels of ozone precursor emissions - population and vehicle miles traveled - continue to climb in Mecklenburg County at a significant rate.

1. Computer modeling from the North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) has shown that reductions in NOx emissions from large, medium and small sources - mobile and stationary - are an essential component to achieving healthful levels of ozone.

1. Failure to attain the ozone standard has resulted in continued unhealthful air episodes for all citizens of Mecklenburg County each summer, in additional health care costs, and in the costly and burdensome requirement of demonstrating transportation “conformity.”

1. Failure to attain the ozone standard may result in the loss of federal highway funds, in industry and citizens becoming discouraged from locating to a region with “dirty air,” in citizens and industry migrating from Charlotte/Mecklenburg to cleaner air, and in small business and individuals being more heavily regulated (such as businesses in cities such as Los Angeles, Houston and Atlanta).

1. Failure to attain the ozone standard will result in the region’s placement in the "Serious" category, which reduces the major industrial source threshold from 100 tons/year potential to 50 tons/year potential for NOx and VOC and increases the offset ratio requirement to 1:1.2. This means that it will be more difficult for stationery sources (industries) to achieve compliance with the air regulations.

1. Federal and state governments have adopted and implemented rules (i.e., stricter mobile source tailpipe standards, Clean Smokestacks) to reduce ozone levels but Mecklenburg County has taken minimal effective County-wide actions.

1. Mecklenburg County’s Clean Air Policy of March 29, 2001 reads: “Mecklenburg County wishes to achieve and maintain clean healthful air as determined by national, state and local ambient air quality standards for the well-being of its citizens and the economic vitality of this community and shall act proactively at the county level to achieve this goal.”

1. Preliminary modeling results released by NCDAQ on February 17, 2004, in a document entitled “State of North Carolina’s Recommendation on Boundaries of 8-Hour Ozone Non-attainment Areas Supplemental Submittal,” incorporating data from year 2000 air emissions, demonstrate that air quality (ozone) in the region is expected to improve as a result of federal and state regulations and initiatives. Regarding the Charlotte/ Gastonia/Rock Hill, SC Area, the document reports, “[o]ur modeling results further prove that a larger non-attainment boundary is not necessary at this time as all monitors are expected to attain by the year 2010.” However, attainment of the ozone standard is based on computer models and is expected to be borderline at best, and additional local measures may be required as the attainment demonstration is completed to provide assurance of meeting the standards. Additional NCDAQ modeling data (received July 30, 2004) for the years 2007 and 2012 continue to support the above statements.

1. The Breathe stakeholders advocated an incentive-based approach to implementing their 16 recommendations of April 2002. Their recommendations focused on off-road and on-road mobile sources as the best sources from which to obtain NOx emission reductions. Their recommendations also included energy conservation, and promoted transportation alternatives and episodic controls.

1. The Breathe stakeholder recommendations can be executed voluntarily with viable incentives or by local regulation.

1. Requests for local and state funding to pay for incentives have not been successful.

1. Survey results have shown significant public awareness for the local ozone problem but little public willingness to voluntarily perform ozone control measures.

1. The U.S. Supreme Court preempted the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD – Los Angeles, California) from requiring private fleets to purchase clean-fueled vehicles. In an 8-1 opinion on April 28, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the fleet rules promulgated by SCAQMD, as they apply to privately owned fleets, are preempted by Section 209 of the Clean Air Act. The rules required public and private fleet operators to purchase clean-fueled vehicles. In the case of Engine Manufacturers Association and Western States Petroleum Association v. SCAQMD, the petitioners argued that SCAQMD’s rules were “standards related to the control of new motor vehicles” and, therefore, preempted by Section 209(a) of the Act.

1. The theory, science, efficacy, practicality and value of local episodic ozone control regulations described in “Cutting Pollution When It Counts” were considered. For example when the City of Atlanta took actions to lessen traffic congestion for the residents for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, data showed: (1) a positive correlation occurred between weekday A.M. peak traffic counts and peak ozone concentrations and (2) Atlanta’s ozone concentrations decreased more than three other Georgia sites with similar weather patterns (28% vs. 11%, 17%, 18).

Atlanta’s actions included: encouraging the use of public transportation with 24 hour service, free use of transit to Olympic ticket holders, and adding 1000 additional buses for park and ride services, working with employers and residents to stagger work hours, alter delivery and pick up schedules, encourages carpooling, encourage flex time, and telecommuting, highway road widening and creation of high occupancy lanes, media warning of potentially severe traffic congestion, and traffic restrictions in the center city in and around the Olympic site.

1. After various multi-media means of solicitation, AQ staff has met with 35 organizations to recruit their participation in the “Cutting Pollution When It Counts” pilot program. Through July 26th, 15 have agreed to be pilots, including City and County government. AQ staff has received 5 actual implementation plans to date.

1. AQ staff has conducted a series of public meetings on the episodic controls concept and has had numerous stakeholder meetings with government, business and environmental groups.

1. The August 19, 2004 letter of support from Keith Overcash, Director, NCDAQ (attached), which provided factual information, concluded by stating “…NCDAQ supports Mecklenburg County Air Quality efforts to implement local measures geared toward reducing ozone pollution in the County. I look forward to working with you as you implement this progressive program. NCDAQ will be carefully watching and learning from your process and experience. As we consider SIP strategies for achieving ozone attainment, your rule may become a model one for other counties in the State.”

Options Analysis

Mecklenburg County must consider taking local action as an integral part of a federal, state and local air quality ozone attainment strategy and to respond to the BOCC's “Clean Air Policy.” In developing this recommendation, the following options were considered:

Option 1. Do not adopt the proposed local rule.

Rationale: The majority of the ozone precursor emissions are regional and we can rely on state and federal government for regional solutions. Also, the County’s contribution to the regional problem will be minimal and the County should not expect its citizens, businesses and industries to do more than what is required of others, either nationally or in surrounding counties. The latest computer modeling demonstrates that the County should comply with the ozone NAAQS by the mandated deadline – June 15, 2010.

Option 2. Direct staff to continue to promote voluntary programs using existing resources AND continue implementing its “Environmental Leadership Policy.”

Rationale: Any actions taken would be self-imposed and not mandated and they would affect many segments of the population. Therefore, it is important that a consensus be built concerning the necessity and effectiveness of the “Cutting Pollution When it Counts” approach. Representative stakeholder groups, correctly charged, would help ensure the ultimate success of a complex and controversial undertaking such as this. The “Environmental Leadership Policy" applies to County operations. Government-funded projects or operations of government agencies fall within the decisional and operational jurisdiction of local governments who have the ability to require replacement of existing on-road or off-road engines from their own fleets. Public projects may consider performance factors that are deemed in the public interest when selecting contractors or performing operations. Such measures include requirements to replace or retrofit percentages of government-owned heavy-duty equipment, bid specifications requiring equipment meeting specific emissions standards, and operational practices such as timing of activities which have impacts on emissions (lawn maintenance, garbage collection, road construction, vehicle idling, reduced non-peak bus route frequency (running empty buses), etc.)

Option 3. Postpone action. Direct the AQC to identify a “Funding Authority Champion” and to continue studying air pollution reduction strategies and report back.

Rationale: The AQC is the citizen board designated to advise the BOCC on air quality matters and is representative of the larger community. The actual number of ozone action days has been lower last summer and this summer (to date) and the trend could continue. Additional funds are needed for an effective program. In conjunction with staff, the AQC would be able to continue research for best methods and possibly locate additional funds.

RULE ADOPTION VARIATIONS

Option 4(a). Direct AQ staff in coordination with other City and County staff to implement episodic ozone control regulations requiring plan development and submittal, but no implementation.

Rationale: Requiring a plan to be developed, submitted and approved by AQ staff will result in some ozone reduction benefit and will ensure that additional actions can be implemented if ozone levels do not improve as much and as quickly as projected.

Option 4(b). Direct AQ staff in coordination with other City and County staff to implement episodic ozone control regulations requiring plan development and submittal AND with a trigger date and ozone design value if ambient ozone levels fail to reach specified levels by a specified date.

Rationale: Requiring a plan to be developed, submitted and approved by AQ staff will result in some ozone reduction benefit. Establishing by ordinance respective trigger ozone values and dates (i.e., a reasonable progress towards compliance graph or table) will ensure that additional actions will be implemented if ozone levels do not improve as much and as quickly as projected.

Option 4(c). Direct AQ staff in coordination with other City and County staff to implement episodic ozone control regulations requiring plan development and implementation but without a requirement to meet a daily reduction target.

Rationale: Requiring a plan to be developed, submitted and approved by AQ staff will result in some ozone reduction benefit but will not give AQ staff the authority to take enforcement action against a regulated business simply because it did not meet the emission reduction target on a given day. Since introducing the proposal, many local businesses have indicated that they are concerned about being required to meet a target through actions over which they do not have complete control. This option would allow AQ staff to require approved plans that detail actions to be taken and how they will be implemented, yet not hold the employer responsible for the employees’ actions.