HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2007-11-05 #I
e
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: November 5, 2007
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: David Carmany, City Manager
FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF CITY COMMENT LETTER RE:
ADOPTION OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS TO
REDUCE EMISSIONS FROM DIESEL AUXILIARY
ENGINES ON OCEAN-GOING VESSELS WlllLE AT
BERTH AT A CALIFORNIA PORT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
e
Authorize Mayor to sign proposed letter with any amendments determined appropriate.
Receive and File Staff Report. Authorize staff to continue to monitor and report as
appropriate regarding port-related air emission matters.
BACKGROUND:
Since 2005 the City has consistently supported efforts to reduce diesel particulate matter
and other adverse air emissions from the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles.
The California Air Resources Board ("ARB") is proposing to adopt regulations regarding
"Adoption of Proposed Regulations to Reduce Emissions from Diesel Auxiliary Engines
on Ocean-Going Vessels while at Berth at a California Port' on December 6, 2007, prior
to the next City Council meeting.
As identified on page 14 of the "Staff Report; Initial Statement of Reasons for the
Proposed Rulemaking":
e
". . . the proposed regulation would reduce hotelling diesel PM and NOx
emissions from container ships, passenger ships, and refrigerated cargo
ships by 50 percent and 75 percent relative to levels expected to be
emitted in 2014 and 2020, respectively. These emission reductions will
occur in areas at and near ports where environmental justice concerns are
especially prevalent."
Agenda Item I
Z.-\11-OS-07 COUJIcil Meeting - Agenda ItcmsIDS - Staff Report - I - Diesel Auxiliary Engine Pert RcgulaUOll.docILW\IO-2S-07
Approval of City Comment Letter re:
" Adoption of Proposed RegulatiollS to Reduce EmissiollS
from Diesel Auxilia)..y Engines on Ocean-Going Vessels
While at Berth at a Californio Port"
City Council Staff Report
November 5, 2007
e
It is further noted on page 16 of the Staff Report that:
". . . we expect a significant decline in the number of people exposed to
elevated risk levels from hotelling emissions and the acres impacted as the
auxiliary engine fuel regulation is implemented. In addition to this
reduction, the proposed At.Berth Ocean-Going Vessel regulation will
reduce the number of residential ocres and population exposed to diesel
PM concentrations greater than 10 per million by an additional 50
percent by 2014 and 70 percent by 2020. More importantly, all higher risk
levels of greater than 100 in a million are eliminated due to
implementation of the proposed regulation."
Availability of ARB Notice of Public HearinJ! and Related Documents:
The "Notice of Public Hearing," "Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for the
proposed Rulemaking - Regulations to Reduce Emissions from Diesel Auxiliary Engines
on Ocean-Going Vessels while at Berth at a California Port:' the "Technical Support
Document", and all subsequent regulatory documents are available on the ARB internet
site for this proposed rulemaking at
www.arb.ca.govfregact/2007fshorenwr07/shoreDwr07.htm.
e
A copy of the "Notice of Public Hearing" and the "Executive Summary" of the ARB Staff
report are provided as Attachments 2 and 3, respectively, for the information of the City
Council and interested citizens. The complete "Staff Report" is available at the
Department of Development Services, but has not been copied due to its length, 94 pages.
The "Technical Support Document" consists of 318 pages of documentation and is
available to review and download at the ARB intemet site above.
Overview of "Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure Assessment Study for the Ports of
Los Aneeles and Lone Beach". Final Air Resources Board Report. April 2006:
Seal Beach has been clearly identified within the April 2006 ARB report titled "Diesel
Particulate Matter Exposure Assessment Study for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beoch" as being adversely impacted by the health risks identil;ied within the study area,
and is almost totally located within the identified 100-200 isopleths for all emission
sources from the port facilities!. In addition to the general exposure to citizens discussed
in the document a large portion of Seal Beach is developed with a 7,700 person senior
living community, Seal Beach Leisure World. This senior living community is
completely located within the identified 100-200 isopleths for all emission sources from
the port facilities. Leisure World comprises approximately 6,000 housing units, with a
I Figure 1, "Estimated Diese' PM Cancer :Risk from POLA and POLB", page 8, "Diesel Particulate Maner
Exposure Assessment Study for the POrtS of Los Angeles and Long Beach - Final Report," April 2006
2
e
os - Staff Report- 1- Diesel Auxiliary Engine Plllt Regulation
e
App1'01lal of City Comment Letter re:
" Adoption of Proposed Regulatiol'lS to Reduce Emissions
from Di....l AllXiliary Engines on Ocean-Going Vessels
While at Berth at a California Port"
City COlI1Icil Stqff Report
November 5, 2007
population of approximately 6,600 persons 65 or older, or approximately 86.5% of the
total population of Leisure World.
The impacts of the port complex diesel particulate emissions upon Seal Beach, and
particularly within the Leisure World retirement community continue to be an extreme
concern to our citizens.
Previous Citv Actions SuoDomne Port Emission Reduction Efforts:
,
In November 2005 the City Manager sent a letter to the ARB expressing support for the
"Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure Assessment Study for the Ports of Los Angeles and
Long Beach - Draft Report," dated October 2005.
In December 2005 the City Manager sent letters to the ARB expressing support for the
"Proposed Regulations - Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and lntermodal
Rail Yards" and "Proposed Regulations - Auxiliary Diesel Engines and Diesel-Electric
Engines on Ocean-Going Vessels."
e
In May 2006 the City Manager sent a letter to the ARB expressing support for the
"Modified Regulation Text re: Emission Reduction from Auxiliary Diesel Engines and
Diesel-Electric Engines Operated within California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the
California Baseline."
In July 2006 the Environmental Quality Control Board sent letters to the Ports of Long
Beach and Los Angeles expressing support for adoption of the "San Pedro Bay Ports -
Clean Air Action Plan Overview."
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. Staff will continue to monitor and report as appropriate on ongoing studies and
related activities by ARB, SCAQMD and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize Mayor to sign proposed letter with any amendments determined appropriate.
Receive and File Staff Report. Authorize staff to continue to monitor and report as
appropriate regarding port-related air emission matters.
e
3
2007 Diesel Auxilisry Engine Port RoguIBlioo Comment Letter.CC Stall'Roport
Approval of City Comment Letter re:
" Adoption of Proposed Regulations to Reduce Emissions
from Diesel Awci1iary Engines 011 Ocean-Going Yessels
While at Berth at a California Port" a
City Council StajfReport _
November 5, 2007
NOTED AND APPROVED:
Attachments: (3)
Attachment I:
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
"I-
6" , l
David Carman
City Manager
Draft City Comment Letter to California Air Resources
Board re: Adoption of Proposed Regulations to Reduce
Emissions from Diesel Auxiliary Engines on Ocean-Going
Vessels While at Berth at a California Port
Notice of Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of
Proposed Regulations to Reduce Emissions from Diesel
Auxiliary Engines on Ocean-Going Vessels While at Berth
at a California Port, California Air Resources Board,
October 19, 2007
e
"Executive SummAry" - Staff Report: Initial Statement of
reasons for the proposed Rulemaking - Regulations to
Reduce Emissions from Diesel Auxiliary Engines on
Ocean-Going Vessels While at Berth at a California Port,
California Air Resources Board, October 2007
e
2007 Diesel Auxiliary Ensine Port Regulation Commeot Letter.cc S1llffReport
4
e
Approval of City Comment Leiter re:
" Adoption of Proposed Regulati01lS to Reduce Emis.i01lS
from Diesel Auxiliary Engines on Ocean-Going Vessel.
While at Berth at a California Port"
City Council Staff Report
November 5, 2007
ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT CITY COMMENT LETTER TO
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
RE: ADOPTION OF PROPOSED
REGULATIONS TO REDUCE EMISSIONS
FROM DIESEL AUXILIARY ENGINES ON
OCEAN-GOING VESSELS WHILE AT
BERTH AT A CALIFORNIA PORT
e
e
5
2097 Dicso1 Auxiliary Enaine Port Regulalion Comment Letter.CC SlBffReport
e
ApprOllal of City Comment Letter re:
" Adoption of Proposed RegulatiollS to Reduce EmissiollS
from Diesel Awciliary Engines on Ocean-Going Vessels
While at Berth at a California Port"
City Council Stqff Report
NOlIember 5, 2007
November 5, 2007
<
California Air Resources Board
Attn: Clerk of the Board
1001 I Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Clerk of the Board
e
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS TO
REDUCE EMISSIONS FROM DIESEL AUXll.IARY
ENGINES ON OCEAN-GOING VESSELS WHILE AT
BERTH AT A CALIFORNIA PORT
Our City Council considered this matter on November 5 and instructed the Mayor to
execute this letter expressing the formal position of the Seal Beach City Council TO
SUPPORT THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS.
The overall beneficial health-related impacts to the City of Seal Beach and other
communities currently adversely impacted by port-related emission throughout the State
of California should not be overlooked in the consideration of this matter by the Air
Resources Board. As identified in the ARB Staff Report, Figure 4, "Projected Numbers
of Population Affected by Hotelling Emissio11S at POLA/POLB by 2014" over 2 million
persons are identified as being affected by emissions that can be controlled by the
adoption of the proposed regulations. Impacts to populations adjacent to other port
facilities within the State are not quantified.
e
I therefore urge the Air Resources Board to continue to take appropriate actions to
strengthen the ability of the Air Resources Board ("ARB") to achieve the maximum
feasible reductions from sources under state and federal jurisdiction that are discussed
within the April 2006 ARB report titled "Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure Assessment
Study for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach" by adopting the proposed
regulations, and to continue to work in concert with the Federal government to achieve
6
2007 Dieso1 AIIxiliory Enain< Port Rogu1Bl:iOll COIIIIIIOIIl Lcttcr.CC SlllffReport
Approval afCity Comment Letter re:
" Adopti01l of Proposed Regulations to Reduce Emissions
from Diesel Auxiliary Engines on Ocean-Going Vessels e
While at Berth at a California Port"
City Caunci/ Staff Report
November 5, 2007
the necessary regulatory controls to reduce these identified adverse health effects on 2
million persons to an acceptable level.
On behalf of the City of Seal Beach, our Director of Development Services, Mr. Lee
Whittenberg, has read the above referenced proposed regulations and feels that it is
imperative that these proposed regulations be adopted and implemented by the ARB as
expeditiously as possible. The potential impacts of the identified diesel particulate matter
exposures:to over 2 million persons in the Long Beach, southeast Los Angeles and
northern G5range County areas of California cannot be allowed to remain unrecognized
and umegulated. The proposed regulations will result in a substantial reduction in the
adverse health impacts related to the current port operations of the Ports of Long Beach
and Los Angeles that would be covered by these proposed regulations.
As identified on page 14 of the "Stqff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for the
Proposed Rulemaking":
". . . the proposed regulation would reduce hotelling diesel PM and NOx
emissions from container ships, passenger ships, and refrigerated cargo
ships by 50 percent and 75 percent relative to levels expected to be
emitted in 2014 and 2020, respectively. These emission reductions will
occur in areas at and near ports where environmental justice concerns are
especially prevalent."
e
It is further noted on page 16 of the Staff Report that:
". . . we expect a significant decline in the number of people exposed to
elevated risk levels from hotelling emissions and the acres impacted as the
auxiliary engine fuel regulation is implemented In addition to this
reduction, the proposed At-Berth Ocean-Going Vessel regulation will
reduce the number of residential acres and population exposed to diesel
PM concentrations greater than 10 per million by an additional 50
percent by 2014 and 70 percent by 2020. More importantly, all higher risk
levels of greater than 100 in a mil/ion are eliminated due to
implementation of the proposed regulation. "
The proposed regulation also supports the air quality goals defined in the ''Risk
Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and
Vehicles" (approved by the Board on September 30, 2000), and the Governor's Goods
Movement Action Plan.
Seal. Beach is clearly identified within the April 2006 ARB report titled "Diesel
Particulate Matter Exposure Assessment Study for the Poris of Los Angeles and Long
Beach" as being impacted adversely by the health risks identified within the study, and is
e
7
2007 Dicscl AuxiIiaty Engine Port ReguIBlion CODIID<IIl Lctter.CC Staff Report
e
Approval of City Comment Letter re:
" Adoption of Proposed Regulations to Reduce Emissions
from Diesel Arailiary Engines on Ocean-Going Vessels
While at Berth at a California Port"
City Council Staff Report
November 5, 2007
almost totally located within the identified 100-200 isopleths for all emission sources
from the port facilities2. In addition to the general exposure to citizens discussed in the
document a large portion of Seal Beach is developed with a 7,700 person senior living
community, Seal Beach Leisure World. TIlls senior living community is completely
located within the identified 100-200 isopleths for all emission sources from the port
facilities. Leisure World comprises approximately 6,000 housing units, with a population
of approximately 6,600 persons 65 or older, or approximately 86.5% of the total
population.of Leisure World.
The impacts of the port complex diesel particulate emissions upon our community, and
particularly within the Leisure World retirement community are of extreme concem to
our citizens. The April 2006 ARB report indicates on page 4 that "The most vulnerable
populations are those with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular disease especially
the elderly". The identified health effects on the young, elderly, and infirm are of
particular concern to our residents.
Please contact Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, at (562) 431-
2527, extension 313, or bye-mail atlwhittenberl!:@cLseal-beach.ca.usif you have any
questions regarding this matter or require additional information from Mr. Whittenberg.
e
Sincerely,
John Larson, Mayor
City of Seal Beach
Distribution:
City Council
Planning Commission
Environmental Quality Control Board
City Manager
Director of Development Services
e
2 Figure I, "Estimated Diesel PM Cancer Risk from POLA and POLB", page 8, "Diesel Particulate Matter
Exposure Assessment Study for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach - Final Report," April 2006
8
20g7 Diosel Auxiliuy ilnIine Port Regulation Commont Letlm".cc Staff Report
e
Approval of City Comment Letter re:
" Adoption of Proposed Regulations to Reduce Emissions
from Diesel Awt:iliary Engines on Ocean-Going Yessels
While at Berth at a California Port"
City Council Staff Report
November 5, 2007
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF
PROPOSED REGULATIONS TO REDUCE
EMISSIONS FROM DIESEL AUXILIARY
ENGINES ON OCEAN-GOING VESSELS
WHILE AT BERTH AT A CALIFORNIA
PORT, CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES
BOARD, OCTOBER 19, 2007
e
e
9
2Q07 Diesel Auxiliory Engine Port RegulBlion Comment Lctlcr.CC S1IffRcport
e
e
e
TITLES 13 AND 17, CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF PROPOSED
REGULATIONS TO REDUCE EMISSIONS FROM DIESEL AUXILIARY ENGINES ON
OCEAN-GOING VESSELS WHILE AT BERTH AT A CALIFORNIA PORT
The Air Resources Board (the Board or ARB) will conduct a public hearing at the time
and place noted below to consider adoption of regulations to reduce emissions of diesel
particulate matter (PM) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from the use of diesel-fueled
auxiliary engines aboard ocean-going ships while docked, or hotelled, at a California
port. Auxililllry engines are run to power lighting, ventilation, pumps, communication,
and other ohboard equipment while a ship is docked at a berth. The proposed
regulations would require some vessels to turn off their auxiliary engines; it is expected,
but not required, that many of those vessels would then receive their electrical power
from shore while at berth. The regulations will also reduce emissions of carbon dioxide
(C02), a greenhouse gas that is responsible for much of the global climate change.
Any person who owns, operates, charters, rents, or leases any container ship,
passenger ship, or refrigerated cargo ship that visits a California port, or any person
who owns or operates a port or terminal located at a port where container, passenger,
or refrigerated cargo ships visit, would be subject to and have responsibilities under this
regulation. This notice summarizes the proposed regulations. The Staff Report and
Technical Support Document present the regulation and information supporting the
adoption of the regulation in greater detail.
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE:
December 6, 2007
9:00 a.m.
Air Resources Board
Auditorium
9530 Telstar Avenue
EI Monte, California 91731
This meeting location may change. This item will be considered at a two-day meeting of
the Board, which will commence at 9:00 a.m;, December 6, 2007, and may continue at
8:30 a.m., December 7,2007. This item may not be considered until December 7,
2007. Please consult the agenda for the meeting, which will be available at least 10
days before December 6, 2007, to determine the location and day on which this item will
be considered.
For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in Braille, large print,
audiocassette or computer disk. Please contact ARB's Disability Coordinator at
(916) 323-4916 by voice or through the California Relay Services at 711, to place your
request for disability services. If you are a person with limited English and would like to
request interpreter services, please contact ARB's Bilingual Manager at (916) 323-7053.
e
INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION AND POLICY STATEMENT
OVERVIEW
Sections Affected: Proposed adoption of new section 2299.3, title 13, Califomia Code
of Regulations (CCR) and new section 93118.3, title 17, CCR. The following
documents would be incorporated in the regulations by reference: (1) "Verification
Procedure, Warranty and In-Use Compliance Requirements for In-Use Strategies to
Control Emtssions from Diesel En9ines," 13 CCR 2700 et seq.; (2) 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 94, "Control of Emissions from Marine Compression-Ignition
Engines"; (3) Annex VI of the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL
73/78); (4) ARB Method 100 - Procedures for Continuous Gaseous Emission Stack
Sampling," 17 CCR 94114; (5) International Standard ISO 8178-1 (E):1996,
"Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines - Exhaust Emission Measurement -
Part 1: Test-Bed Measurement of Gaseous and Particulate Exhaust Emissions";
(6) International Standard ISO 8178-2(E):1996, "Reciprocating Intemal Combustion
Engines - Exhaust Emission Measurement - Part 2: Measurement of Gaseous and
Particulate Exhaust Emissions at Site"; (7) International Standard ISO 8178-4(E):1996,
"Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines - Exhaust Emission Measurement-
Part 4: Test Cycles for Different Engine Applications"; (8) Bay Area Air Quality e
Management District Source Test Procedure ST-1 B, "Ammonia Integrated Sampling;
dated January 1982; (9) Intemational Standard ISO 8754:2003(E), "Petroleum Products
- Determination of Sulfur Content - Energy-Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence
Spectrometry; Second Edition, 2003-07-15; and (10) United States Department of
Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, "Vessel Entrance or
Clearance Statement," CBP Form 1300 (v. 02102), 19 CFR Part 4.
Backaround
Over 90 percent of Californians breathe unhealthful air at times. To improve air quality
and human health, ARB establishes requirements to reduce emissions from new and
in-use on-road and off-road vehicles, engines, and other sources. To reduce emissions
from marine vessels, which are considered to be off-road sources,1 ARB adopted a
series of regulations since 2004 that (1) require diesel fuel sold for use in harbor craft
comply with ARB diesel specifications2 and, (2) require ocean-going vessels with diesel
auxiliary engines to comply with specified diesel fuel and other requirements while
operating in Regulated California Waters.3 Although the latter regulation will reduce air
pollution from marine auxiliary engines while in port, significant opportunities exist to
, The California term .off-road' and the federal tenn "non road" refer to the same sources and ere used
Interchangeably
2 ARB's fuel standards for harbor craft are codified at tftle 13, CCR, section 2299.
3 ARB'~ fuel standards and other requirements for diesel auxiliary engines on ocean-golng vessels are
codified altltle 13, CCR, section 2299.1 and title 17, CCR, section 93118.
e
2
e
e
e
further reduce emissions from ocean-going vessels docked at Califomia ports. Ships
can be docked at a California port from several hours to several days.
Control of Criteria Air Pollutants
Health and Safety Code (HSC) sections 43013 and 43018 direct ARB to adopt
standards and regulations that the Board has found to be necessary, cost-effective, and
technologically feasible for various mobile source categories, including off-road diesel
engines and equipment such as marine vessels, through the setting of emission control
requirements. Specifically, HSC section 43013(b) directs ARB to adopt such standards
and regulatiPns for marine vessels to the extent permitted by federal law.
.'
Control of Toxic Air Contaminants
The Califomla Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Program (Air Toxies
Program), established under Califomia law by Assembly Bill 1807 (Stats. 1983, ch.
1047) and set forth in HSC sections 39650 through 39675, requires ARB to identify and
control air taxies in Califomia. The identification phase of the Air Toxies Program
requires ARB. with participation of other state agencies such as the Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, to evaluate the health impacts of, and
exposure to substances, and to identify those substances that pose the greatest health
threat as toxic air contaminants (TACs). ARB's evaluation is made available to the
public and is formally reviewed by the Scientific Review Panel (SRP) established under
HSC section 39670. Following ARB's evaluation and the SRP's review, the Board may
formally identify a TAC at a public hearing. Following identification, HSC
sections 39658, 39665, and 39666 require ARB, with participation of the air pollution
control and air quality management districts (districts), and in consultation with affected
sources and interested parties, to prepare a report on the need and appropriate degree
of regulation for that substance (a "needs assessment") and to adopt airborne toxic
control measures (ATCMs).
In 1998, the Board identified diesel PM as a TAC with no Board-specified threshold
exposure level. A needs assessment for diesel PM was conducted between 1998 and
2000, which resulted in ARB staff developing and the Board approving a Risk Reduction
Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles
(Diesel RRP) in 2000. The Diesel RRP presented information that identified the
available options for reducing diesel PM and .recommended control measures to
achieve further reductions. The scope of the Diesel RRP was broad, addressing all
categories of engines, both mobile an~ stationary, and included control measures for
off-road diesel engines, such as those covered by the proposed regulation. The
ultimate goal of the Diesel RRP is to reduce Califomia's diesel PM emissions and
associated cancer risks from 2000 baseline levels by 85 percent by 2020. The
proposed regulation would reduce diesel PM emissions and the local health impacts
from ships docked in Califomia's ports and would assist the Board with meeting the
2020 Diesel RRP goal.
3
Attainment of Ambient Air Quality Standards
e
The federal Clean Air Act (CM) requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (National Standards) for
pollutants considered harmful to public health, including fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
and ozone. Set to protect public health, the national standards are adopted based on a
review of health studies by experts and a public process. Ambient PM2.5 is associated
with premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, asthma
exacerbation, chronic and acute bronchitis and reductions in lung function. Ozone is a
powerful oxidant. Exposure to ozone can result in reduced lung function, increased
respiratory ~mptoms, increased airway hyper-reactivity, and increased airway
inflammation. Exposure to ozone is also associated with premature death,
hospitalization for cardiopulmonary causes, and emergency room visits for asthma.
Areas in the State that exceed the national standards are required by federal law to
develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) describing how they will attain the standards
by certain deadlines. The NOx emission reductions are needed because NOx leads to
formation in the atmosphere of both ozone and PM2.5; diesel PM emission reductions
are needed because diesel PM contributes to ambient concentrations of PM2.5. At this
time, the South Coast Air Basin is required to attain the PM2.5 standard by 2015.
U.S. EPA further requires that all necessary emission reductions be achieved one
calendar year sooner - by 2014 - in recognition of the annual average form of the _
standard. .,
The ARB has adopted revisions to the ozone and PM2.5 SIPs and, as part of that action,
will request from U.S. EPA a reclassification of the Basin to "extreme" nonattainment for
ozone, which will give the Basin until 2023 to attain the federal ozone standard. ARB
will submit the SIPs to the U.S. EPA by the applicable due dates within the next year.
Air quality modeling indicates that significant reductions of NOx are crucial to help meet
both these standards. At this time, the strategy to achieve attainment of the PM2.5
standards in the South Coast Air Basin includes a 55 percent reduction in NOx
emissions and a 15 percent reduction in direct PM2.5 emissions from 2006 baseline
levels. The NOx emission reductions from the proposed regulation would play an
essential role in assisting the South Coast Air Basin with meeting its 2014 PM2.5
deadline as well as its future ozone deadlines.
The federal CM permits states to adopt more protective air quality standards if needed,
and California has set standards for particulate matter and ozone that are more
protective of public health than respective federal standards. The Bay Area, South
Coast, and San Diego areas are nonattainment for the State standards for ozone and
PM2.5. Health and Safety Code section 40911 requires the local air districts to submit
plans to the Board for attaining the State ambient air quality standards, and HSC
section 40924 requires triennial updates of those plans. The NOx and PM2.5 emission
reductions from the proposed regulation will assist the local air districts in achieving _
attainment of the State ambient air quality standards. .,
4
e Control of Emissions from Goods Movement-related Activities
In April 2006, the Board approved the Emission Reduction Plan for the Ports and Goods
Movement in California (GMERP). The GMERP identifies strategies for reducing
emissions created from the movement of goods through California ports and into other
regions of the State. The GMERP is part of the broader Goods Movement Action Plan
(GMAP) being jointly carried out by the California Environmental Protection Agency and
the Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency. Phase I of the GMAP was released
in September 2005 and highlighted the air pollution impacts of goods movement and the
urgent need to mitigate localized health risk in affected communities. The final GMAP
was releasacl in January 2007 and includes a framework that identifies the key
contributors' to goods movement-related emissions.
e
The GMERP Identifies numerous strategies for reducing emissions from all significant
emission sources involved in goods movement, including ocean-going vessels, harbor
craft, cargo handling equipment, locomotives, and trucks. The GMERP identifies
several strategies for reducing emissions from ocean-going vessels. Specific to
hotelling emissions, the GMERP establishes a goal of utilizing shore power for
20 percent of the ship visits to California ports by 2010,60 percent of visits by 2015,
and 80 percent of visits by 2020. The proposed regulation would represent a significant
first step toward satisfying the GMERP goals by requiring specific vessel types to use
shore power for 50 percent of a fleet's visits to a port by 2014 and 80 percent of visits by
2020. Furthermore, emission reductions would begin in 2010 for vessel owners or
operators choosing an alternative emission control technology to reduce their hotelling
emissions.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
e
In June 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05, which
established targets for reducing GHG emissions in California: roll back GHG emissions
to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and finally to 80 percent below 1990
levels by 2050. In 2006, the Governor signed Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (Stats. 2006, ch.
488), which established the 2020 GHG emission reduction goal in State law (set forth in
HSC ~38500 et seq.) and made the ARB responsible for monitoring and reducing GHG
emissions. AB 32 requires the Board, by January 1, 2009, to design and adopt an
overall plan to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The Board has until
January 1, 2011, to adopt the necessary regulations to implement that plan.
Implementation begins no later than JanuarY 1, 2012, and the emission reduction target
must be fully achieved by January 1, 2020. AB 32 also required the Board to identify a
list of discrete early action GHG reduction measures by June 30, 2007. AB 32 defines
discrete early action measures as regulations that are to be adopted by the Board and
be enforceable by January 1, 2010.
In April 2007, ARB staff released a report identifying 37 proposed early action items the
Board could undertake to mitigate GHG emissions in California. Port electrification was
identified as a GHG emission reduction measure in this report. In September 2007,
5
ARB staff recommended reclassifying port electrification (now called Green Ports) from
an early action measure to a discrete early action measure. Staff's recommended
reclassiflC8tions will be considered by the Board at its October 25, 2007 hearing. The
proposed regulation, while reducing diesel PM and NOx emissions, would also result in
significant reductions of CO2 emissions as a co-benefit of requiring cleaner grid-
supplied electrical generation for ocean-going vessels while docked. These C02
emission reductions will help California meet its 2020 greenhouse gas emission
reduction goal.
e
Authority
The ARB has authority under California law to adopt the proposed regulations. Health
and Safety Code sections 43013(b) and 43018 provide broad authority for ARB to adopt
emission standards and other regulations to reduce emissions from new and in-use
vehicular, nonvehicular and other mobile sources. Under HSC sections 43013(b) and
43018, ARB is directly authorized to adopt emission standards and other regulations for
marine vessels, as expeditiously as possible and to the extent pennitted by federal law,
to meet State standards. The ARB is further mandated by California law under
HSC section 39666 to adopt ATCMs for new and in-use nonvehicular sources, including
marine vessels such as ocean-going vessels, for identified TACs such as diesel PM. As
noted, ARB is also mandated under HSC section 38500 et seq. to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, which are emitted at significant levels by ships hotelling at California _
ports. .,
Emission Reductions and Public Health Benefits Projected
The proposed regulations are expected to significantly reduce emissions of diesel PM
from at-berth ocean-going vessels. Diesel PM emission reductions are needed to
reduce premature mortality, cancer risk, and other adverse impacts from exposure to
this TAC. The proposal would help achieve the 2020 goal set forth in the 2000 Diesel
RRP of reducing diesel PM by 85 percent from 2000 baseline levels and the 2015 and
2020 goals of the GMAP. In December 2005, the Board adopted an auxiliary engine
fuel regulation that will provide significant emission reductions from auxiliary engines on
ocean-going vessels. The proposed regulations are expected to provide additional
significant emission reduction benefits. Staff projects that, by 2020, the proposed
regulation would reduce hotelling diesel PM and NOx emissions frorn container ships,
passenger ships, and refrigerated cargo ships by nearly 75 percent relative to levels
expected to be emitted. These emission reductions will occur in areas at and near ports
where environmental justice concerns are especially prevalent. In addition, hotelling
C02 emissions are expected to be reduced by 136,000 to 269,000 metric tons in 2020,
. which will assist the State with meeting the AB 32 mandates for greenhouse gas
reductions.
The proposed regulations would also reduce diesel PM and NOx emissions that
contri~ute to exceedances throughout the State of ambient air quality standards for both
e
6
e
e
e
PM2.5 and ozone. These reductions will assist California in its goal of achieving State
and federal air quality standards.
Furthermore, in addition to reducing cancer impacts caused by diesel PM, the proposed
regulation will provide a significant reduction in non-cancer health impacts, including
premature death, due to reductions in directly-emitted PM and the secondary formation
of PM from NOx
Staff Report and Further Information
As described in more detail below, ARB staff has prepared two documents as part of
this rulemaking, a Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons (Staff Report) and a
Technical Support Document. Together with the needs assessment (i.e., the Diesel
RRP), ttiese two documents serve as the report on the need and appropriate degree of
regulation for at-berth ocean-going vessels auxiliary engines.
DescriDtion of the Pro Dosed Reaulatory Action
Under the approach proposed by staff, the Board would adopt a regulation, pursuant to
its authority under HSC sections 38500 et seq., 43013 and 43018, which would apply to
the emissions from diesel engines on ocean-going ships while docked at a California
port (as defined in the proposal). The Board would also approve adoption of essentially
identical provisions as an ATCM, pursuant to its authority under HSC section 39666,
which would complement the regulation and provide maximum notice to the regulated
community of the regulatory requirements on ocean-going vessels. These measures
will hereinafter sometimes be referred to collectively as "the proposed regulations."
Applicability
The regulations would apply to any person who owns, operates, charters, rents, or
leases any container ship, passenger ship, or refrigerated cargo ship that visits a
California port, or any person who owns or operates a port or terminal located at a port
where container, passenger, or refrigerated cargo(reefer) ships visit. These ports
include Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco, and Hueneme.
The regulations apply to both U.S.-flagged vessels and foreign-flagged vessels.
Foreign-flagged vessels are vessels registered under the flag of a country other than
the United States.
Exemptions
The proposed regulations contain general and specific exemptions. Under the general
exemptions, vessels in "innocent passage"; vessels owned or operated by local, state,
federal or foreign governments in government non-commercial service; steamships; and
auxiliary engines using natural gas are exempt from the regulations in their entirety. A
steamship is an ocean-going vessel whose primary propulsion and electrical power are
provided by steam boilers. Further, there are particular exemptions from specified
7
portions of the regulations for emergency events and delays caused by federal agency
inspections, as set forth in the proposal.
Limited Hours of Operation for Auxiliary Diesel Engines at Berth
The proposed regulations allows for two options to reduce hotelling emissions; ship
operators can either shut clown their auxiliary engines while in port (not including 3 or
5 permissible hours of total operation, as specified in the proposal), or they can reduce
the emissions from those auxiliary engines by specified degrees while docked.
e
The "limited auxiliary engine operation" option in the proposed regulations requires that
the operatotS of container ships, passenger ships, and reefers that visit Califomia ports
shut down their auxiliary engines for most of their stay while hotelling. Specifically,
these auxiliary engines must be shut down for 50 percent of a fleet's total visits to a
California port in 2014 and 80 percent of the fleefs total visits to a port in 2020. While
auxiliary engines are shut down, the ship's onboard electrical requirements would need
to be satisfied by some other source of power. The source of electrical power used
instead of the auxiliary engines must be provided either by the grid or by another power
source with specific emissions standards.
Fleets that do not make a minimum number of annual visits to a California port are
exempt from the auxiliary engine limitations for that port. The engine shutdown
requirement is applied when there are 25 or more total annual visits by a container
vessel fleet or reefer vessel fleet to a port. For passenger vessel fleets, this threshold Is e
five annual visits. However, regardless of the number of annual visits, the regulations
require a vessel to use shore power if it is equipped to do so, and it visits a berth
equipped to provide compatible shore power.
As noted, to provide for sufficient time to connect and disconnect electrical lines for
shore power, the proposed regulations allow the auxiliary engines to operate for up to
three hours during a visit, or five hours during a visit for vessels that lose power during
the process of switching power from the vessel's auxiliary engines to shore power. This
time period may be extended due to circumstances beyond the control of the vessel
operators, such as emergency events or delays resulting from obligations imposed by
federal agencies (for example, the Department of Homeland Security or the U.S. Coast
Guard).
Emission Reduction Option
Art altemative to the "limited auxiliary engine operation" approach is the "emissions
reduction option"; operators choosing this option are required to reduce their auxiliary
engine emissions at a port by specific amounts and by specific dates. The compliance
dates vary based on the types of emission reduction techniques applied to the fleets.
The emission reduction techniques that could be applied to a fleet include: 1) using
selected vessels for grid-supplied power based on potential auxiliary engine emission
reduct!ons rather than fleet visit percentages; 2) using distributed generation equipment
e
8
e
e
e
to provide power to a vessel; 3) using alternative emission controls onboard a vessel or
at the berth; and 4) using a combination of these techniques.
For option 1, the emission reduction targets are aligned with the limited engine
operation approach: the NOx and PM emissions from the fleet's auxiliary engines at a
port must be reduced by 50 percent from the baseline fleet emissions by 2014 and by
80 percent by 2020. For options 2 and 3, in which altemative control technologies are
implemented, the NOx and PM emissions from the fleet's auxiliary engines at a port
must be reduced by 20 percent from the baseline fleet emissions by 2010,40 percent
by 2012,60 percent by 2014, and 80 percent by 2016. For option 4, in which a
combination of approaches is implemented, NOx and PM emissions must be reduced
by 20 percant from the baseline fleet emissions by 2012,50 percent by 2014, and
80 percent by 2020.
The proposed regulations provide default values for making the emission reduction
calculation, including default values for emission factors and power requirements, in lieu
of more specific values. In addition, the proposal provides procedures for determining
control factors and applicable emission testing procedures.
Sources of electrical power, other than the grid, that are used to comply with the
emission reduction option would be subject to additional requirements. Before January
1, 2014, distributed generation equipment must satisfy the emission standards
applicable to a newly manufactured spark-Ignited off-road engine. By January 1, 2014,
all distributed generation must satisfy a more stringent emission standard that is
equivalent to a spark-ignited engine using Best Available Control Technology (BACT).
Finally, the source of electrical power must emit no more C02 (a greenhouse gas)
emissions than a combined-cycle gas turbine - the emissions level that the California
Public Utilities Commission recommended for unspecified sources of power.
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
The proposed regulations have reporting and record keeping requirements affecting the
vessel owners and operators, terminals, and ports.
The reporting and record keeping requirements for vessel owners or operators depend
upon the compliance option selected by the vessel owner or operator and terminal. The
proposed regulations require a vessel fleet plan to be submitted to the Executive Officer
of the ARB in the years prior to the fleet's regulatory compliance dates.
In addition to the vessel fleet plans, the proposal requires an annual statement of
compliance to be submitted to the Executive Officer of the ARB certifying compliance
with the regulatory requirements for the previous calendar year. As with the vessel fleet
plans, the dates for the initial submittals depend upon the compliance option selected by
the vessel owner or operator.
9
The record keeping and reporting requirements are simpler for the limited auxiliary
engine use option because the vessel owner or operator choosing that option must
track only those vessels that will comply with the 2014 and 2020 shore power
requirements. The record keeping and reporting requirements for the emission
reduction option are more significant because the vessel owner or operator choosing
that option must track the emissions of each vessel in the fleet.
A terminal that receives more than 50 vessel visits in 2008 is required to submit a plan
to ARB's Executive Officer by July 1, 2009, that identifies how the terminal will be
upgraded to allow vessels to satisfy either the limited auxiliary engine operation option
or the emis~ons reduction option. The terminal is also required to submit plan updates
at a frequency dependant upon the control strategy selected by the vessel fleet owner
or operator and the terminal.
The port is required to submit wharfinger data annually to ARB's Executive Officer,
documenting when each vessel visits the port, the berth that the vessel visited, and the
dates and times that the vessel was initially tied to the berth and subsequently released
from the berth. In addition, the terminal operator is required to keep records of
electricity usage for shore power and equipment breakdowns that affect a vessel's
ability to comply with the limited auxiliary engine operation option or the emission
reduction option.
e
Test Methods and Other Incorporated Documents
The proposal would incorporate by reference Parts 1, 2, and 4 of Intemational Standard
ISO 8178, as revised in 1996 by the International Organization for Standardization
(ISO). This standard includes test methods for reciprocating internal combustion
engines. Further, the proposal would incorporate by reference ISO 8754 (as adopted in
2003) for measuring the sulfur content of fuels used in auxiliary engines. The proposal
would also incorporate by reference ARB's verification procedure requirements for
diesel engine control measures as set forth in 13 CCR 2700 et seq. (June 2003), ARB's
test method for NOx and C02 emissions as set forth in 17 CCR 94114 (July 1997), and
tne Bay Area Air Quality Management District's source test procedure for ammonia slip,
ST-1B, dated January 1982. The proposal would also incorporate U.S. EPA's
regulations for compression-ignition engines (40 CFR 94) and Annex VI of the 1973
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (as amended in
1978, also known as the MARPOL 73nS Protocol); these would be incorporated to
permit operators to submit engine test data measured pursuant to the federal regulation
and international treaty, respectively.
e
Violations
The proposal specifies a violations provision that provides, among other things, that any
violation of any part of the regulation would constitute a single, separate violation for
each hour that the violation occurs. The exception to this would be for violations of the
e
10
e
e
e
record keeping and reporting requirements; a violation of those provisions would
constitute a single, separate violation for each day that the violation occurs.
Severability
The proposed regulation states that if any part of the regulation is held to be invalid, the
remainder of the regulation shall continue to be effective.
At the hearing, the Board may consider other elements that provide additional flexibility
to affected owners and operators. In addition, the Board may consider revisions to the
staffs propGsal that result in requirements that are more or less stringent to those whom
the proposed regulation is applicable.
COMPARABLE FEDERAL REGULATIONS
No federal standards or control requirements have been promulgated addressing
emission reductions from at-berth ocean-going vessel auxiliary engines. Under
CAA section 213, U.S. EPA is without authority to adopt in-use standards for nonroad
engines, including marine engines.
California is the only governmental entity in the United States authorized by the CAA, in
the first instance, to adopt emission requirements for in-use off-road engines. See
Engine Manufacturers Association v. U.S. EPA (D.C. Cir. 1996) 88 F.3d 1075, 1089-
1091. Under CAA section 209(e)(2), California may adopt and enforce emission
standards and other requirements for off-road engines and equipment not conclusively
preempted by section 209(e)(1), so long as California applies for and receives
authorization from the Administrator of U.S. EPA. To obtain authorization, the Board
must make a finding that the California adopted requirements will be, in the aggregate,
at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. CAA
section 209(e)(2)(A). The Administrator must grant a request for authorization from
California unless he finds that ARB's protectiveness finding is arbitrary and capricious,
that California does not need the standards to meet compelling and extraordinary
conditions, or that the standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not
consistent with CAA section 209. Ibid.
AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS AND AGENCY CONTACT PERSONS
As noted above, the Board staff has prepared two documents for the proposed
regulatory action: a Staff Report, which includes a summary of the economic and
environmental impacts of the proposal, and a Technical Support Document, which
describes the basis of the proposed action in more detail. The Staff Report is entitled,
"Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed Rulemaking - Regulations
to Reduce Emissions from Diesel Auxiliary Engines on Ocean-Going Ships while At-
Berth at a California Port." The Technical Support Document is entitled, "Technical
Support Document: Technical Support for the Proposed Rulemaking - Regulations to
,
11
Reduce Emissions from Diesel Auxiliary Engines on Ocean-Going Ships while At-Berth
at a California Port."
e
Copies of the Staff Report with the full text of the proposed regulatory language and the
Technical Support Document may be accessed on the ARB's web site listed below, or
may be obtained from the Public Information Office, Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street,
Visitors and Environmental Services Center, 1st Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814,
(916) 322-2990 at least 45 days prior to the scheduled hearing on December 6,2007.
Upon its completion, the Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR) will be available and
copies may Jie requested from the agency contact persons in this notice, or may be
accessed on the ARB's web site listed below.
Inquiries conceming the substance of the proposed regulation may be directed to the
designated agency contact persons, Mike Waugh, Manager of the Project Assessment
Section, at (916) 445-6018, or by email atmwauah@arb.ca.aov. or Grant Chin, Staff Air
Resources Engineer, at (916) 327-5602, or by email atgchin@arb.ca.aov.
Further, the agency representative and designated back-up contact persons to whom
nonsubstantive inquiries concerning the proposed administrative action may be directed
are Alexa Malik, Manager, Board Administration & Regulatory Coordination Unit,
(916) 322-4011, and Amy Whiting, Regulations Coordinator, (916) 322-6533. The
Board has compiled a record for this rulemaking action, which includes all the e
information upon which the proposal is based. This material is available for inspection
upon request to the contact persons.
This notice, the Staff Report, Technical Support Document, and all subsequent
regulatory documents, including the FSOR, when completed, are also available on the
ARB Internet site for this rulemaking at
www.arb.ca.aov/reaactl2007/shoreowr07/shoreowr07.htm.
COSTS TO PUBLIC AGENCIES AND TO BUSINESSES AND PERSONS AFFECTED
Costs to Businesses and Private Individuals
The determinations of the Board's Executive Officer concerning the costs or savings
necessarily incurred by public agencies and private persons and businesses in
reasonable compliance with the proposed regulations are presented below.
While the proposal's engine shutdown requirement does not require vessels, ports, or
terminals to install or modify any equipment, we anticipate vessel owners, operators,
ports, and terminals will elect to install equipment that will allow vessels to use shore
power while the auxiliary engines are shut down at berth. Assuming operators, ports,
and terminals will make such investments, we estimate the total cost of regulatory
compliance to be about $1.8 billion in 2006 expenditure-equivalent dollars (2006 _
dollars). This represents the total cost of the regulation if all money required to comply .,
12
e
e
e
with the proposed regulation were spent In 2006. This cost includes both capital and
annual recurring costs. These costs would be spread over the years 2009 to 2020 for
passenger ships and reefers and to 2030 for container ships. Two-thirds of this cost is
the capital cost to add shore-power equipment to vessels. Annually, the costs are
expected to vary from $15 million to $120 million. The total statewide annual costs to
private business include recovery of capital expenditures, both aboard the ships and at
the ports, and operating costs, which are labor costs and net energy costs. if any.
The total costs to a typical vessel operator complying with the proposed regulation,
including capital costs, are estimated to be about $34 million. This cost would be
distributed over a 22-year period, from 2009 to 2030. About 40 percent of the cost is
associated with modifying additional vessels to replace vessels that have been re-
deployed away from California ports. Annual costs would vary between $700,000 and
$3 million per year, with the average cost of $1.7 million per year over this time period.
Similarly, the total costs to a typical tenninal operator complying with the proposed
regulation, including capital and ongoing costs are estimated to be about $17 million.
About half of the cost Is attributed to labor costs and the other half is for capital costs.
This cost-would be distributed over an 11-year period, from 2009 to 2020. Annual costs
would vary between $500,000 and $1.7 million per year, with the average cost of
$1.4 million per year over this time period. With 31 tenninals and 35 vessel fleets
affected by the proposed regulation, the cost to a typical business would be $26 million.
Vessel owners or operators, tenninals, and ports would have additional recurring costs
associated with record keeping and reporting. Reporting requirements begin July 1,
2009, and recordkeeping requirements begin January 1, 2010. For the vessel owner or
operator, the costs associated with reporting and recordkeeping will vary between $600
and $12,000 annually. The higher cost for reporting and recordkeeplng Is based on the
vessel owner or operator choosing to comply with the emission reduction option of the
proposed regulation, and the lower end of the range represents the costs for vessel
owners or operators complying with the limited auxiliary engine operation requirement.
For the tenninal operators and ports, the costs associated with reporting and
record keeping are about $800 annually.
Staff estimates the cost-effectiveness of the proposed regulations, in tenns of dollars
per ton of PM emission reduction, to be Is about $690,000 per ton if the total annualized
cost is attributed solely to the PM reduction. ,Staff estimates the cost-effectiveness of
the proposed regulation. In terms of dollars per ton of NOx emission reduction, to be
about $12,800 per ton, if the total cost is attributed solely to the NOx emission
reductions. Because the proposed regulation reduces significant amounts of both NOx
and PM, staff also evaluated cost-effectiveness by attributing half the total annualized
cost to the PM emission reductions and half to the NOx emission reductions. The
resulting cost effectiveness values using that method are $6,400 per ton of NOx
reduced and $345,000 per ton of PM reduced.
13
The Executive Officer has made an initial determination that the proposed regulatory
action will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting
businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in
other states. The ARB staff has considered proposed alternatives that would lessen
any adverse economic impact on businesses and invites you to submit proposals.
Submissions may include the following approaches for consideration:
e
(i)
(ii)
Establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables
that take Into account the resources available to businesses.
Consolidation or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements for
btjsinesses.
Use of perfonnance standards rather than prescriptive standards.
Exemption or partial exemption from the regulatory requirements for
businesses.
(iii)
(Iv)
Alternatives that ljltaff considered are described In more detail in the Staff Report.
In accordance with Government Code section 11346.3, the Executive Officer has
determined that the proposed regulatory action may affect the creation or elimination of
jobs within the State of California, the creation of new businesses or elimination of
existing businesses within the State of California, or the expansion of businesses
currently doing business within the State of California. Businesses may be created in
California that install electrical infrastructure at ports, sell emission control technologies e
that reduce NOx or PM from auxiliary engines, or provide distributed energy, due to the
i-egulatory requirements.
The Executive Officer has also detennlned, pursuant to title 1, CCR, section 4, that the
proposed regulatory action would not affect small businesses; due to the large capital
and operating costs associated with vessel operations, we do not anticipate any small
businesses would be affected by the proposal.
In accordance with Government Code sections 11346.3(c) and 11346.5(a)(11), the
Executive Officer has found that the reporting requirements of the regulations which
apply to businesses are necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the people of
the State of'California.
Before taking final action on the proposed regulatory action, the Board must detennine
that no reasonable alternative considered by the Board or that has otherwise been
identified and brought to the attention of the Board would be more effective in carrying
out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective and less
burdensorne to affected private persons than the proposed action.
Costs to Local and State Government Agencies
Pursuant to Government Code sections 11346.5(a)(5) and 11346.5(a)(6), the Executive a
Officer' has detennined that the proposed regulatory action will not create costs or .,
14
e
e
e
savings to any state agency or in federal funding to the state, costs or mandate to any
local agency or school district whether or not reimbursable by the state pursuant to
Part 7 (commencing with section 17500), Division 4, Title 2 of the Govemment Code,
except as discussed below, or other nondiscretionary savings to state or local agencies.
The govemmental agencies affected by the proposed regulation are the port authorities,
which are branches of the local city govemments. The ports affected by the proposed
regulation include the ports of Hueneme, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, San
Diego, and San Francisco. In addition, the cruise terminal at the Port of Long Beach is
owned by the City of Long Beach. The total costs to be expended by the port
authorities tEl add shore-power equipment to their facilities range from $4 million to
$86 million:' Staff anticipates that the port authorities would begin to make payments
during fiscal years 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 for the necessary shore-power equipment
to satisfy the 2014 shore-power requirements. The estimated fiscal costs for the ports
rangeJrom $600,000 to $7.4 million for fiscal years 2007/2008 and 2009/2010.
A detailed assessment of the economic impacts of the proposed regulatory action can
be found in the Staff Report.
SUBMITTAL OF COMMENTS
Interested members of the public may also present comments orally or in writing at the
meeting, and in writing or bye-mail before the meeting. To be considered by the Board,
written comments submissions not physically submitted at the meeting must be
received no later than 12:00 noon. Pacific Standard Time. December 5. 2007. and
addressed to the following:
. Postal mail: Cieri< of the Board, Air Resources Board
10011 Street, Sacramento, Califomia 95814
. Electronic submittal: htto:/Iwww.arb.ca.aovllisoub/comm/bclist.oho
. Facsimile submittal: (916) 322-3928
Please note that under the Califomia Public Records Act (Govemment Code
section 6250 et seq.), your written and oral comments, attachments, and associated
contact information (e.g., your address, phone, email, etc.) become part of the public
record and can be released to the public upon request. Additionally, this Information
may become available via Google, Yahoo, and other search engines.
The Board requests but does not require that 30 copies of any written statement be
submitted and that all written statements be filed at least 10 days prior to the hearing so
that ARB staff and Board Members have time to fully consider each comment. The
Board encourages members of the public to bring to the attention of staff in advance of
the hearing any suggestions for modification of the proposed regulatory action.
15
e
STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REFERENCES
This regulatory action is proposed under the authority granted to ARB in Health and
Safety Code sections 38560, 38560.5, 39600, 39601, 39650, 39658, 39659, 39666,
41511,43013, and 43018. This action is proposed to implement, interpret, or make
specific Health and Safety Code sections 38560, 38560.5, 39000, 39001,39515,
39516,39650,39658,39659,39666,41510,41511,43013,43016,and 43018; and
Western Oil and Gas Ass'n v. Orange County AirPol/ution Control District, (1975) 14
Cal.3rd 411,.121 CaI.Rptr.249.
HEARING PROCEDURES
The public hearing will be conducted in accordance with the Califomia Administrative
Procedure Act, title 2, division 3, part 1, chapter 3.5 (commencing with section 11340) of
the Government Code.
Following the public hearing, the Board may adopt tfJe regulat.ory language as originally
proposed, or with non-substantial or grammatical modifications. The Board may also
adopt the proposed regulatory language with other modifications if the text as modified
is sufficiently related to the originally proposed text that the public was adequately
placed on notice that the regulatory language as modified could result from the _
proposed regulatory action. In the event that such modifications are made, the full .
regulatory text, with the modifications clearly indicated, will be made available to the
public for written comment at least 15 days before it is adopted.
The public may request a copy of the modified regulatory text from the ARB's Public
Information Office, Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Visitors and Environmental
Services Center, 1st Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814, (916) 322-2990.
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Isl
Tom Cackette
Acting Executive Officer
Date: October 9,2007
The energy chellenge feeing Ca/ifomla is l8a/. Every Californian needs to take Immediate aellon to teduce energy
consumption. For a list of simple ways you can I8duce demand end cut your enerpy cos/3 see our Wabslte at
www arb r.tL tmv
e
16
e
ApprG1lal of City Comment Letter re:
" Adoption of Proposed Regu/atioM to Reduce EmusioM
from Diesel Auxiliary Engines on Ocean-Going Vessers
While at Berth at a California Port"
City Council Stqff Report
NG1Ie",ber 5, 2007
ATTACHMENT 3
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY" STAFF
REPORT: INITIAL STATEMENT OF
REASONS FOR THE PROPOSED
RULEMAKING REGULATIONS TO
REDUCE EMISSIONS FROM DIESEL
AUXILIARY ENGINES ON OCEAN-GOING
VESSELS WHILE AT BERm AT A
CALIFORNIA PORT, CALIFORNIA AIR
RESOURCES BOARD, OCTOBER 2007
e
e
10
2~01 Diesel Auxiliuy Engin. Port Regulation CllIIIDlOIII LeItcr.cc StalfRopnrt
e
eJt:;-.:E';OU;'~~~ARD
Staff Report:
Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed
: Rulemaking
e
Regulations to Reduce Emissions from Diesel Auxiliary
Engines on Ocean-Going Vessels While At-Berth at a
California Port
Stationary Source Division
Project Assessment Branch
e
October 2007
e
State of Califomia
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
STAFF REPORT:
INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS
FOR THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Public Hearing to Consider
,;
ADOPTION OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS TO REDUCE EMISSIONS FROM
DIESEL AUXILIARY ENGINES ON OCEAN-GOING VESSELS WHILE
AT.BERTH AT A CALIFORNIA PORT
To be considered by the Air Resources Board on December 6 and 7, 2007, at:
Air Resources Board
Auditorium
9530 Telstar Avenue
EI Monte, Califomia 91731
e
StationarY Source Division
Robert Fletcher, Chief
Robert Barham, Ph.D., Assistant Chief
Proiect Assessment Branch
Michael Tollstrup, Chief
Health and ExDosure Assessment Branch (RD)
Linda Smith, Ph.D., Chief
Technical Analvsis Section
Peggy Taricco, Manager
Health and Ecosvstems Assessment Section (RDl
Hien Tran, Ph.D., Manager
Proiect Assessment Section
Michael Waugh, Manager
Reaulatorv SUDDort Section (PTSD)
Todd Sax, D. Env., Manager
This report has been prepared by the staff of the Air Resources Board.
Publication does not signify that the contents reflect the views and policies of the
Air Resources Board, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
e
e
State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
REGULATIONS TO REDUCE EMISSIONS FROM DIESEL AUXILIARY
ENGINES ON OCEAN-GOING VESSELS WHILE AT-BERTH AT A
CALIFORNIA PORT
Contributina Authors
Andrew Alexis
Alvaro Alvarado, Ph.D.
Raymond Asregadoo, P.E.
Joe Calavita
Grant Chin
Pingkuan Di, Ph.D., P.E.
Reza Mahdavi, Ph.D.
Lori Miyasato, Ph.D.
Brad Penick
Marcelle Surovik
Kelly Weatherford
e
Leaal Counsel
Floyd Vergara, P.E., Office of Legal Affairs
SUDDortina Divisions
Planning and Technical Support DMsion (PTSD)
Research Division (RD)
Acknowledaements
This report was prepared with the assistance and support from the other
divisions and offices of the Air Resources Board. In addition, we would like to
acknowledge the assistance and cooperation that we have received from many
individuals and organizations.
e
e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
Paae
Executive Summary................................. ..... ................ ................................ ............. ES-1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
e 9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Introduction ........... ................ ............................. ....... ......... .................. ............ .....1
Dptermination of Affected Ocean-Going Vessel Categories..................................4
.'
Emissions Inventory ........... ... ........ ........... ........ ....... ....... .......... ........... ....... ......... ..6
Health Risk..... .... ............:... .... .... .............. ........ ..... .... ......... ...... ..... ....... ......... .... ....8
Summary of the Proposed Regulation ................................................................10
Emission Reductions...... .... ... ..... ..... ......... ........ ..... .... ....... .......... ... ............. ....... ..14
Risk Reduction ....................................................................................................16
Environmental Impact .........................:...............................................................19
Impact on Global Warming..................................................................................19
Economic Impacts.......... .... ... ....... ... ............... ........... ......... ...... ....... .... ............... .20
Cost to Local Agencies .......................................................................................22
Cost-Effectiveness ............. ... ....... ....... ........ ...... .... ............. ...... ..... ........... .... ..... ..23
Feasibility of Proposed Regulation ......................................................................24
Alternatives Considered ..... ... .... ... ... ...... ...... .......... .... ....... ........ ..... ... ....... ........ ....26
Outreach ...... ...................... ... ....... .... ........ .... .............. ........... ........ .......... ......... ....27
Environmental Justice .. ...... ... .... ... ... ...... ...... .......... ...... .............. ..... ...... ......... ..... .28
Implementation and Enforcement .......................................................................28
Recommendation... ................ ...... ... ........ .... .................... ........ .... ............. .......... .28
e
Appendix A - Proposed Regulations
e
List of Tables
Contents
f!s!
Table 1: Estimated 2006 Hotelling Emissions by Ship Category ................................. 6
Table 2: Estimated 2006 Hotelling Emissions by Port (Tons per Day).......................... 7
Table 3:': Projected 2014 and 2020 Emissions from Container Ships, Passenger
. Ships, and Reefer Ships ................................................................................ 8
Table 4: Emission Benefits from Implementation of the Proposed Regulation ........... 16
Table 5: Summary of Cost-Effectiveness for Shore-Power......................................... 24
List of Figures
Contents
Paae
Figure 1: Projected Diesel PM Emissions With and Without the Proposed
Regulation..................................................................................................... 15 e
Figure 2: Projected NOx Emissions With and Without the Proposed Regulation......... 15
Figure 3: Projected Residential Areas Impacted by Hotelling Emissions at
POLA/POLB by 2014....................................................................................17
Figure 4: Projected Numbers of Population Affected by Hotelling Emissions at
POLA/POLB by 2014.................................................................................... 17
Figure 5: Projected Residential Areas Impacted by Hotelling Emissions at
POLA/POLB by 2020.................................................................................... 18
Figure 6: Projected Numbers of Population Affected by Hotelling Emissions at
POLA/POLB by 2020...............:.................................................................... 18
e
e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The California Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) staff is proposing two
essentially identical regulations to reduce diesel particulate matter (PM) and
oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from diesel-fueled auxiliary engines used aboard
ocean-going ships while docked or at-berth, at a California port. For the
remainder of this report, the regulations will collectively be referred to as "the
regulation." The proposed Regulations to Reduce Emissions from Diesel
Auxiliary Engines on Ocean-Going Vessels While At Berth at a California Port
(regulation) Is part of ARB's ongoing effort to reduce PM and NOx emissions
from di~el-fueled engines and vehicles and improve air quality associated with
goods movement. A copy of the proposed regulation is provided in Appendix A
of this report.
e
Auxiliary engines are run to power lighting, ventilation, pumps, communication,
and other onboard equipment while a ship is docked at a berth, or "hotelled."
The proposed regulation would require operators of vessels meeting specified
criteria to turn off their auxiliary engines for most of their stay in port. We
anticipate that such vessels would then receive their electrical power from the
shore, or use an alternative, but equally effective, means of emission reductions.
The process of shutting off engines and connecting to power on shore is
sometimes referred to as "shore power" or "cold-ironing." The term "cold-ironing"
is derived from the metal aboard the ships "going cold" when combustion
equipment is shut down.
There are six major categories of ocean-going vessels that visit California ports:
container ships, passenger ships, refrigerated cargo ships (reefers), bulk ships,
tankers, and vehicle carriers. Over 2000 of these ocean-going vessels call at
California ports each year. In 2006, about 1.8 tons per day (TPD) of diesel PM
and 21.1 TPD of NOx were emitted from diesel-fueled auxiliary engines on
ocean-going vessels while at-berth in California ports.
Staff is proposing to reduce hotelling emissions from three out of the six major
vessel categories noted above; through a separate rulemaklng, staff will address
the hotelling emissions from the other three categories at a later date. This
bifurcation of regulated vessel categories was based on information presented in
an earlier ARB report, evaluation of Cold7ironing Ocean-Going Vessels at
California Ports (Evaluation Report), which was released as a draft in March
2006. The purpose of the Evaluation Report was to present an analysis of the
feasibility and cost-effectiveness of requiring ships to shut off auxiliary engines,
while in port and connect to power provided at the berth, as a potential emission
control measure. The Evaluation Report was intended as a prelude to this
rulemaking and was therefore never published as a final report. Nevertheless,
the Evaluation Report provided a useful foundation on which this Staff Report
was based.
e
ES-1
From the Evaluation Report, staff found the most attractive ship candidates for
shore power to be those ships that make frequent visits to a California port,
spend a sufficient number of hours at berth, and have an ample power demand
while hotelled. Accordingly, the proposal specifically targets hotelling emissions
from ship categories that meet these criteria-container ships, passenger ships,
and reefer ships-and the California ports where these ships frequently visit-the
Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco, and
Hueneme.
e
As noted) staffwill be proposing a separate rulemaking to reduce emissions from
the other ship categories that were not considered as good candidates for shore
power at this time-i.e., bulk ships, tankers, and vehicle carriers. Staff
anticipates presenting to the Board a proposal covering those other ship
categories in late 2008. We expect that at-berth emissions from tugboats
operating at California ports will also be addressed at that time.
Diesel PM was identified as a toxic air contaminant in 1998. Long-term
exposures to diesel PM Increase the risk of developing lung cancer. Non-cancer
health effects, including premature deaths and respiratory disease, are
associated with exposure to directly emitted diesel PM and secondary diesel PM
formed when NOx emissions from diesel engines react in the atmosphere to form
nitrates. A recent ARB exposure study at the ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach shows that over two million people live in areas around the ports with
predicted cancer risks of greater than 10 in a million due to hotelling emissions
from ocean-going vessels. From that study and information developed for this
rulemaking, staff estimates that about 61 premature deaths per year are
attributable to current exposure to direct and secondary diesel PM from hotelling
emissions.
e
The proposed regulation allows for two main options to reduce hotelling
emissions. First, ship operators can shut down their auxiliary engines while in
port, except for three or five permissible hours of total operation per visit ("limited
engine use" option). Alternatively, operators can implement a fleet-based option
to reduce the emissions from the auxiliary engines in the fleet by specified
percentages while docked ("emissions reduction option").
The "limited engine use" option requires that the operators of container ships,
passenger ships, and reefers that visit California ports shut down their auxiliary
engines for most of their stay while hotelling. Auxiliary engines would be allowed
to run for three or five hours per visit. Specifically, these auxiliary engines must
be shut down for at least 50 percent of a fleet's total visits to a California port in
2014 and at least 80 percent of the fleet's total visits to a port in 2020. While
auxiliary engines are shut down, the ship's on board electrical needs must be
satisfied by some other source of power, presumably the region's electrical grid.
e
ES-2
e
An alternative compliance option is the "emissions reduction option: in which
ship operators would be required to reduce their fleet's auxiliary engine
emissions at a port by specific percentages and by specific dates. The specified
percent reductions apply to the fleet's engines, rather than to individual engines.
The compliance dates for this option vary based on the emission reduction
technique applied to the fleets.
The emission reduction techniques that could be applied to a fleet include:
1) using selected vessels for grid-supplied power based on potential auxiliary
engine emission reductions rather than fleet visit percentages; 2) using
distribut~d generation equipment to provide power to a vessel; 3) using
alternative emission controls onboard a vessel or located adjacent to the vessel;
and '4) using a combination of these techniques.
Vessel owners or operators, terminals, and ports would also be subject to
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
e
Staff projects that the proposed regulation would reduce hotelling diesel PM and
NOx emissions from container ships, passenger ships, and refrigerated cargo
ships by nearly 50 percent relative to levels otherwise expected to be emitted in
2014, and 75 percent relative to levels otherwise expected to be emitted in 2020.
These emission reductions will occur in areas at and near ports where
community impacts are of most concern. These emission reductions would play
an essential role in assisting the South Coast Air Basin with meeting its 2014 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) deadline in its State Implementation Plan as well as its
future ozone deadlines.
In addition, hotelling C02 emissions are expected to be reduced by 122,000 to
242,000 metric tons in 2020, which will assist the State with meeting the
Assembly Bill (AB) 32 targets for greenhouse gas reductions.
The emission reductions from the proposed regulation would result in lower
ambient PM levels and reduced exposure to diesel PM. Staff estimates that
approximately 280 premature deaths statewide would be avoided by year 2020
from implementation of the proposed regulation. The estimated cost benefIt of
the avoided premature deaths and other health benefits due to the emission
reductions are estimated to range from $1.3 to $1.9 billion.
The reduction in potential cancer risk was assessed based on the overell
projected reduction in hotelllng emissions from the proposed regulation. It was
estimated that the population exposed to a risk of 10 in a million would be
reduced by about 70 percent by 2020 due to these emission reductions. More
importantly, all higher risk levels of greater than 100 in a million are eliminated
due to implementation of the proposed regulation.
e
ES-3
Staff estimates the statewide total regulatory costs for affected businesses and
port authorities to comply with the proposed regulation to be approximately
$1.8 billion, in 2006 dollars. This includes costs to comply with the regulation,
which are primarily those incurred by vessel operators when they shut down their
auxiliary engines at dock, as well as costs that are not strictly required to comply
with the regulation but are nonetheless anticipated by ARB (e.g., installation of
electrical infrastructure or distributed generation by shoreside entities).
Annually, the costs are expected to vary from $30 million to $137 million. The
low end of the range represents a year when the only major capital expenditures
are for retrofitting container ships due to repositioning, and the high end of the
range represents a year when capital expenditures are being made for shores ide
infrastructure and for retrofitting a considerable number of ships to meet the 2020
milestone. The total statewide annual costs to private business include recovery
of capital expenditures, both aboard the ships and at the ports, and operating
costs. which are labor costs and net energy costs. The Proposition 1 B Bond
program (Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program) potentially could
provide funding for shore power projects. ARB is currently holding workshops for
determining minimum requirements of shore power projects and other Prop 1 B
Bond projects.
e.
The governmental agencies affected by the proposed regulation are the port
authorities, which are branches of the local city govemments. The ports affected
by the proposed regulation are the Ports of Hueneme. Long Beach,
Los Angeles. Oakland, San Diego, and San Francisco. Additionally, the cruise
terminal at the Port of Long Beach is owned by the City of Long Beach. The
costs to be expended by the port authorities to add shore-power equipment to
their facilities ranges from $4 million to $86 million.
The overall cost-effectiveness ofthe regulation based on the regulatory costs
and projected emission reductions is estimated to be $690.000 per ton if the total
annualized cost is attributed solely to the PM reduction. Staff estimates the
overall cost-effectiveness of the proposed regulation, in terms of dollars per ton
of NOx emission reduction, to be about $12,800 per ton. This would be the
cost-effectiveness if the total cost were attributed solely to the NOx emission
reductions.
The cost-effectiveness for this regulation 'is consistent with those of other recent
rulemakings, such as the Bus Fleet Rule. which was estimated to have a cost-
effectiveness of nearly $68,000 per ton of NOx reduced, based on attributing all
of the costs toward NOx emissions reductions. Because the proposed regUlation
reduces significant amounts of both NOx and PM, staff also evaluated
cost-effectiveness by attributing half the total annualized cost to the PM emission
reductions and half to the NOx emission reductions. The resulting
co!lt-effectiveness values using that method are $6,400 per ton of NOx reduced
and $345,000 per ton of PM reduced.
e
e
ES-4
e
As noted, the proposal will reduce C02 emissions by 122,000 to 242,000 metric
tons in 2020. The proposed regulation achieves these reductions automatically
as a co-benefit of the diesel PM and NOx emission reductions. Because the
proposed regulation is primarily a diesel PM and NOx control measure, and it will
not mandate any additional requirements in order to reduce C02 emissions, there
will be effectively zero costs involved in achieving these C02 emission
reductions. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness for reducing CO2 as a co-benefit of
achieving the primary reductions in diesel PM and NOx emissions is essentially
zero dollars per pound of CO2 reduced.
e
e
ES-5