Charlotte City Council
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 17, 2006
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
Briefing and Discussion: Air Quality
No action.
II.
Subject:
Next Meeting
May 1, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 280
Agenda: Briefing and Discussion: Water Quality
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Time:
Anthony Foxx, Pat Mumford, Susan Burgess, Nancy Carter, and Don
Lochman
3:30 p.m. to 5:10 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Agenda Package
2. Presentation: Air Quality Overview
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 17, 2006
Page 2
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
Committee Discussion:
Council member Foxx welcomed everyone to the meeting with a reminder that the next
four meetings were to educate the Committee on each of the four topic areas: air quality,
water quality, land preservation; and energy and resource conservation. Today’s meeting
is on air quality. He asked those in attendance to introduce themselves and then turned
the meeting over to Norm Steinman for a presentation.
I.
Briefing and Discussion: Air Quality
Mr. Steinman asked the Committee to please stop and ask questions or discuss any parts
of his presentation throughout rather than just waiting until the end. This should be a
conversation about air quality. A copy of his presentation is attached.
Burgess:
Why do we not count nuclear power plants as a source?
Haynes:
They do not have emissions into the air.
To explain the chart showing percentages of daily NOx emissions for the non-attainment
area and Mecklenburg County, Mr. Steinman described the category of “area” as
including dry cleaners, gas stations, and fast food establishments (kitchens).
Foxx:
Kitchens? What about kitchens?
Haynes:
The burgers and fries you smell in the air.
Steinman:
Those are volatile organic compounds or in this case grease.
Carter:
Are established restaurants non-polluters?
Haynes:
No. We just used restaurants as an example. They are not regulated, but
they do emit into the air like gas stations or dry cleaners. We have to
count them as a pollutant.
Carter:
I thought maybe it was specific to fast food restaurants since you would
have cars idling.
Haynes:
No, it is the actual cooking.
Carter:
Are there different controls for non-fast food restaurants?
Haynes:
No.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 17, 2006
Page 3
Steinman:
But, it should be noted that emissions from restaurants are not a big source
of pollutants.
Carter:
Is it because they are frying in fat?
Haynes:
No. You could add restaurants that make wood-fired pizzas. They also
emit into the air.
Mr. Steinman continued that there are technology controls in place now with motor
vehicles and changes in diesel fuel that help onroad emissions go down in the 2009 chart.
Carter:
There is an increase from 22% to 26% for nonroad. Is that off-road
vehicles?
Steinman:
Nonroad is a catch-all for anything that is not an area, onroad or point
category. It includes bbqs, lawn mowers, and construction equipment.
Carter:
Those points will not improve?
Steinman:
They are not regulated, so they will increase.
Burgess:
Would it include motor homes and jet skis?
Steinman:
Yes. Anything that has fuel to burn.
Lochman:
In looking at the growth in travel, I understand growth outside of
Mecklenburg County is more rapid, but there is such a sharp increase in
vehicle miles traveled.
Steinman:
That shows travel that doesn’t necessarily start or stop in Mecklenburg
County. Long distance trips create a steeper line. Carbon monoxide is not
a pollutant of concern right now. The primarily concerns are nitrogen
oxides and volatile organic compounds. Those lead to ozone. Due to
technology, with cleaner engines and cleaner fuels we will start to drop by
2020 and then slow down. Technology is helping us reduce emissions
even though we continue to have growth and increased vehicles miles
traveled.
Lochman:
At what point do we reach attainment?
Steinman:
I have another slide that addresses that. The North Carolina Division of
Air Quality assigns the roles for air quality to the Federal government,
State government and some to the County. The City is not officially
designated. It is the State’s responsibility to reach attainment.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 17, 2006
Page 4
Mr. Steinman continued with existing issues and challenges related to air quality include
ozone and particulate matter.
Carter:
The slide shows 2.5 what?
Steinman:
PM.
Carter:
What is PM?
Haynes:
Microns. Particulate matter comes from natural sources, forest fires,
human activity, and tire friction sometimes called tire wear.
Burgess:
Tires wear from the road, so particulate matter is friction from the road?
Steinman:
Anything made of materials that deteriorate can be particular matter.
Haynes:
Sulfur dioxide is emitted as a gas. Anything that can chemically react can
turn into particulates.
Burgess:
I heard we are 1% off of non-attainment for fine particulates.
Steinman:
That is coming up in the presentation.
Foxx:
How close are we?
Steinman:
That is coming up.
Burgess:
64% of mobile sources in Mecklenburg County contributed to the
emissions, what share of transportation is in the budget?
Haynes:
Plus or minus 33 tons.
Burgess:
What is the entire budget for Mecklenburg County?
Haynes:
The new budget will be available in a month or two and we will have
better figures then.
Burgess:
But, how much of the 34 ton universe?
Steinman:
Just for transportation?
Burgess:
The total tonnage for all of Mecklenburg County.
Steinman:
We can get you that information.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 17, 2006
Page 5
Haynes:
Even staying within the budget doesn’t mean air quality is better. The
other pollutants must do their share of conforming to maintain the air
quality standards.
Steinman:
The best speed to drive for the lowest emissions is 30-35 mph, other than
being stopped or off. There are pollutants at speeds above 50 and 60 mph.
When they are checking for attainment, the three year average for the
monitors cannot exceed 85 ppb.
Haynes:
It should be 84.9 or less.
Steinman:
Back to your question about attainment in 2009, the North Carolina
Division of Air Quality is preparing model forecasts of average summer
day scenarios. They have predicted that with most conditions we will
likely be under the standard. There might be one or two over, but it is
likely we will continue to be potentially borderline.
Lochman:
We’re the 25th largest city. Would most cities be in comparison? Is there
some advantage we have in Charlotte that helps us reach attainment?
Steinman:
The best way to avoid air quality episodes is to be in Florida, there is
enough of a breeze there to blow away pollutants. The worst situation
would be Los Angeles where there is a mountain range blocking the wind.
Our problems are when we have no wind.
Lochman:
Are most other cities in compliance?
Steinman:
The more people and more industry you have, the more pollution.
Carter:
Does the pattern of wind negatively affect us? Are we impacted by
pollution in Atlanta or Ohio or the Tennessee Valley?
Haynes:
Charlotte is primarily its own problem. The more distance you have, the
less impact. Atlanta would have a small influence on our ozone; the Ohio
area would be smaller.
Steinman:
We produce our own stuff.
Burgess:
So, how can we predict where we’ll be in 2009?
Steinman:
Different comparisons show forecasts of what might happen, but we most
likely will be in attainment.
Lochman:
Does that assume we are not doing something today we will be doing in
the future?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 17, 2006
Page 6
Steinman:
Technology is helping us with new vehicles and cleaner fuels. We also
are looking at cleaner smokestacks in North Carolina.
Haynes:
When they are making the calculations for 2009, they are assuming the
same meteorological conditions as 2002.
Lochman:
Is there a concern out there the things within our control are mapped out,
but we may not be able to achieve them since the projections are based on
current measures?
Steinman:
The North Carolina Division of Air Quality is relying on the current
projections for 2009. If they show those can’t work, we will look to
incorporate some additional measures.
Lochman:
Is it not true that the vast majority of improvements are insufficient for
2009?
Steinman:
Overwhelmingly the most important operational changes will be in
business practices.
Carter:
Are you concerned with weather? Isn’t the weather due to continue to
increase?
Haynes:
My background is in meteorology. Some research indicates global
warming will get worse. Some research indicates global warming will
improve. Both are believable.
Steinman:
The North Carolina Division of Air Quality expects no changes from 2002
and they are responsible for producing the State Implementation Plan.
Burgess:
As a follow-up, what more could we do? For example, we have in our
control congestion mitigation. Other regions have rubber caps for gas
nozzles. Have we set up something that is impossible given global
warming, etc.?
Steinman:
That is a question for the policy makers. Basically, if we don’t do
anything we are likely to attain. But, if we do some other things, we have
a better guarantee.
Lochman:
If vehicle emissions and particulate emissions are the most significant and
there are other activities nibbling the edges don’t economic concessions
bring a relatively small improvement that could be wiped out by bad
weather? Any improvements are worth considering, but with an economic
price.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 17, 2006
Page 7
Steinman:
The EPA decides the non-attainment region. Violations can be anywhere.
They cannot be addressed just by the City of Charlotte. The cold, hard
fact is everybody should be doing something. At this time, there are no
additional regulations, but changes and new actions guarantee a continued
borderline situation.
Carter:
In the 8-hour ozone values, the ppb reading needs to be 85 everywhere?
Haynes:
That is a complicated answer. It is a three year average of 85. The rule
allows the average to be taken over several monitors.
Rhodes:
There are three particulate matter monitors. The three year average for
2005 was 15.3.
Burgess:
How many ozone monitors are there?
Haynes:
Three in Mecklenburg County and eight or nine in the non-attainment
region.
Burgess:
I heard there is one showing a consistent problem.
Haynes:
East Cabarrus and Rowan County typically show a higher NOx.
Burgess:
I overheard there is one monitor in Mecklenburg County that is a
consistent problem. Where is that?
Haynes:
In the Northeast part of the County, University City area – near the race
track.
Steinman:
But, the race track is not the problem.
Haynes:
Historically, the highest readings have been in Rowan County.
Carter:
Any chance of restructuring the district?
Steinman:
No.
Carter:
When would the California vehicle emissions standards be up for passage
in our legislature?
Steinman:
This session.
Burgess:
Should we consider adding that to our legislative package?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 17, 2006
Page 8
Burch:
The full City Council would need to endorse that first.
Burgess:
I know that, but should this Committee make a recommendation?
Foxx:
Are you making a motion then?
Burgess:
I don’t know that I know enough about the standards to make a motion.
Burch:
We could get a copy of the proposed legislation.
Burgess:
I think it is something Council should consider.
Burch:
The Civil Service Board is on the Council agenda tonight, you could bring
it up then.
Foxx:
Could you get us more information on that?
Burch:
Yes.
Foxx:
I would like to acknowledge that we are drafting high-level principles
looking at ongoing efforts and addressing a range of issues. We are
looking high-level. The environmental principles we anticipate creating
are broad. We should look at them as concentric circles – where the
principles are the broadest circle and the small circles, like the
environmental GDPs, are still be addressed. Do we have an internal
policy related to our own initiatives within the City?
Burch:
The City has been participating with the ozone reduction initiative and
anti-idling.
Foxx:
I know there are efforts in the corporate community to buy into the ozone
alert day. Are we looking at internally at green fleets? Do we have a
policy that wraps everything together?
Burch:
No, we don’t have a direct policy. We have a voluntary effort to
encourage employees to use other transportation when we have high
ozone days. City Council adopted a policy that allowed us to purchase
and test 20 vehicles in a green fleet. But, we don’t have a policy that says
we should only purchase green vehicles.
Burgess:
We’re not even talking about the big gorilla in the room, CATS or CMS
buses.
Kinard:
The City does have a SmartRide policy where city employees receive a
transit pass in exchange for giving up their parking space. They receive a
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 17, 2006
Page 9
parking pass 12 times a year and we have a guaranteed ride home
program. We are using ultra-low sulfur fuels. It has an added cost of
about $.25 per gallon. We have programmed that into our budget. 90
buses have particulate filters. We have two hybrid electric buses running
now and we are using them in our local service vs. express. They do get
greater gas mileage; however, the cost is twice as much.
Presutti:
We also have an anti-idling policy. Buses cannot turn on 10 minutes prior
to leaving.
Kinard:
We have some green parking lots with our park ‘n ride. It helps capture
the oil and grease and we can recapture water for the plants.
Burgess:
We should initiative conversations with the schools.
Presutti:
We do supply them fuel. They have started a pilot program.
Rhodes:
The schools are working with their buses and are looking at an anti-idling
policy.
Yarbrough:
They were using ultra low sulfur through a grant with Toyota. The
particulate traps can’t run without the ultra low fuel. To be effective they
need both.
Kinard:
The fuel is shipped from Atlanta; no one stores it here, so that is an added
cost.
Burgess:
Are you using it exclusively?
Presutti:
In about 75 vehicles, our small vehicle fleet.
Burgess:
You have 90 filters on those?
Kinard:
The new buses have been ordered with them.
Presutti:
We are in line with the 2007 regulations.
Burch:
Would you like us to give you an information sheet on what CATS and
CMS does with their fleet?
Foxx:
For the next meeting, I’d like staff to provide some air quality principle
statements from other communities. This would give us a sense of what is
going on in other communities. We could discuss those statements at the
tail end of the next meeting.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 17, 2006
Page 10
Mumford:
I’m not sure we have to have an air quality principle. We just need
general statements that cover air quality, water quality, land preservation;
and energy and resource conservation. We just need the cover work done
so our future work aligns with what’s important.
Burgess:
With air quality I think it is important we consider indoor air quality as
well. Smoke Free Charlotte would be a good resource. The more I read
about Duke Power, I would like some information about their leadership.
I would like to see the legislation regarding the California emissions
standards. I want to be knowledgeable about the Clear Skies initiatives.
That may supercede the clean smokestacks. Do we need to look a new
source of revenue to counteract the potential negative impact? I’d want to
have a clear understanding.
Burch:
Would you like all that information by the next meeting?
Burgess:
It shouldn’t be hard to get that background information.
Burch:
Would you like a presentation?
Burgess:
No, just stuff to read.
Foxx:
Would a couple of weeks be enough time to pull this together?
Burgess:
The more I read the more impressed I am with Duke Power. I think we
need to acknowledge our own Charlotte based company is a leader in
nuclear power plants. If they were a coal plant, we’d be in serious trouble.
Other regions are looking at using less oil and making nuclear power more
important. I can gather the information for the committee.
Mumford:
I agree Duke is doing good stuff, but they are dealing mostly with carbon
emissions. We are looking at the ozone. I would like to be kept up to
speed with what the private sector is doing and support them, but I’m not
sure there is extreme relevance to what we are doing. There are a lot of
large employers doing good work environmentally.
Foxx:
Then, let me make a suggestion that we not vote on an air quality
principle, but I would still like to ask for a range of statements for us to
react too.
Burch:
As we look toward our next presentation on water quality, was this
briefing helpful? Did we cover most of the things you were looking for
with air quality?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 17, 2006
Page 11
The Committee agreed they liked the presentation and wanted that much detail for future
subjects.
II.
Next Meeting
The next meeting is Monday, May 1 from 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. in Room 280.
Agenda:
Briefing and Discussion: Water Quality
Meeting adjourned.
Environment Committee
Monday, April 17, 2006 – 3:30 p.m.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Room 280
Committee Members:
Anthony Foxx, Chair
Patrick Mumford, Vice Chair
Susan Burgess
Nancy Carter
Don Lochman
Staff Resources:
Julie Burch
Debra Campbell
AGENDA
I.
Briefing and Discussion: Air Quality – Norm Steinman, lead
Staff will provide an overview on Air Quality and its importance to Charlotte and the
region. Additional background on reverse side.
This will be an interactive presentation in which Committee members are encouraged
to ask questions and engage in discussion throughout. Staff will be asking the
Committee for preliminary guidance for drafting of the environmental principles.
II.
Next Meeting:
Monday, May 1, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 280
Attachment: 2006 Meeting Schedule
Distribution:
Mayor/City Council
Mac McCarley
Environmental Cabinet
Emmy Lou Burchette
Leslie Rhodes
Pamela A. Syfert, City Manager
Brenda Freeze
Environmental GDP Stakeholders
Bobbie Shields
Leadership Team
Keith Henrichs
Peter Pappas
Don Willard
Council Environment Committee
Background for the April 17 Meeting
•
The Committee’s first charge is to develop and recommend to the City Council a
set of broad environmental principles or statements. After adoption by the
Council, the principles will be the foundation from which the new Environment
Focus Area plan will be developed.
•
To begin work on this charge, the Committee has requested background briefings
on the City’s environmental issues, challenges and initiatives.
•
The briefings will be organized around the four categories of the environment
confirmed by the Committee at its first meeting on April 5. The categories are air
quality, water quality, land preservation, and energy and resource conservation.
•
The briefings will give the Committee a broad, high level overview of each area.
Information will be provided about “big picture” issues and challenges; current
City and regional initiatives; related City policy proposals under review (such as
the Environmental chapter of the General Development Policies); and pending
State or Federal legislation that may have an impact.
•
The briefings will be interactive, i.e. the Committee will be encouraged to ask
questions and engage in discussion throughout.
•
During these briefings, staff will be seeking the Committee’s preliminary
guidance in the drafting of the environmental principles.
•
The first briefing and discussion will be on Air Quality on Monday, April 17.
Briefings on the other three categories will be scheduled for subsequent meetings.
•
Based on Committee direction, staff will bring back draft principles for review
and consideration.
Environment Committee
2006 Meeting Schedule
1st Monday from 2:00 to 3:30 in Room 280
3rd Monday from 3:30 to 5:00 in Room 280
April 17
May 1
May 15
June 5
June 19
September 5 (Tues)
September 18
October 2
November 6
November 20
December 4
December 18
** No July and August meetings due to Council’s summer schedule
Note: 2nd October meeting conflicts with NCLM - tbd
AIR QUALITY
Overview
Presentation to
Charlotte City Council
Environment Committee
April 17, 2006
TOPICS
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Urban growth trends & impact on air quality
Issues and challenges for air quality
City policy initiatives impacting air quality
Pending Federal and State legislation that
would impact air quality
ƒ Concluding messages
2
Why is Air Quality Important?
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Health
Quality of life
Economic growth
3
Urban Growth Trends
And Impact On Air Quality
4
5
6
Mecklenburg County Population & Jobs Growth
7
Mecklenburg County Population & Jobs Growth
8
Mecklenburg County Growth in Travel
9
Mecklenburg County CO Emissions from Mobile Sources
10
Mecklenburg County NOx Emissions from Mobile Sources
11
Mecklenburg County VOC Emissions from Mobile Sources
12
Air Quality
Existing Issues and Challenges
ƒ Ozone
ƒ Particulate Matter (PM)
13
Formation of Ground-level Ozone
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)
- AND -
=>
=>
Strong Spring or Summer Sun
(with low RH & light winds)
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
Ozone (O3)
14
8-Hour Ozone
Non Attainment Area
15
Particulate Matter (PM)
ƒ Very small particles
ƒ About 1/30th the width of a human hair
16
PM Can Be Emitted Directly
or Formed
in the Air From Gases
PM
NOx
VOC
SO2
PM
18
Air Quality
Future Issues And Challenges
19
The SIP
What is it?
ƒ State Implementation Plan, or the “State’s
Air Quality Plan”
ƒ Make dirty air clean
ƒ Keep clean air clean
20
The SIP
What does it contain?
ƒ Addresses smokestacks, area sources, and
mobile sources
– On road (cars, trucks, busses)
– Off road (lawnmowers, motorboats, ATVs)
ƒ Sets time limit for attainment
ƒ If air is not cleaned in time, SIP must be
revised
21
Transportation Conformity
What is it?
ƒ Non-attainment area must show
transportation emissions stay within an
emissions budget that conforms
to the air quality plan (SIP)
ƒ Failure to stay within emissions budget
causes federal transportation funding to
cease
ƒ Required for 20 yrs after air is cleaned up
22
How does the Real World affect
Conformity and Attainment?
Conformity
ƒ NOx and VOC emissions from motor
vehicles are being reduced by:
ƒ Improvements in motor vehicle technology
ƒ Expansion of transportation system capacity
Attainment
ƒ Temperature and wind patterns have major
effect on pollutant concentrations
23
8-Hr Ozone Regional Design Value
110
105
8-Hr Ozone (ppb)
100
95
Range of
model
forecasts for
2009 (as of
June, 2005)
Maximum design values in Metrolina
region based on ozone monitoring data
105
105
101
102
100
95
90
88
85
80
Critical AQ
Monitoring
Period
(2007-09)
86
84
83
82
80
79
75
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Will we achieve the ozone standard by 2009? …Are we sure??
24
Mecklenburg County PM Air Quality
25
Pending Federal and State
Legislation
ƒ EPA proposes new PM air quality standards
effective September 2006
– Annual standard proposed to remain as is, but could be
made stricter
ƒ EPA proposes lowering Benzene emissions
effective 2010
ƒ North Carolina may adopt the California vehicle
emissions standards.
– All new, conventional cars sold in state would meet
stricter emissions requirements.
26
Pending City Policy Initiatives
¾ Transportation Action Plan- policies, programs and
projects to provide more travel choices
¾ Centers and Corridors- growth management strategy
to focus growth and more travel in strategic locations
¾ General Development Policies Environment- policies
to mitigate land use and development impacts
¾ Urban Street Design Guidelines- increase
transportation choices (multimodal streets, more
routes, and more trees)
27
Regional Initiatives for Air Quality
ƒ Sustainable Environment for Quality of Life
(SEQL)
ƒ Enhanced Ozone Awareness- focuses on the impact of ozone
and how to reduce ozone formation.
ƒ Air Awareness Program- provides fundamental air quality
information and public education.
ƒ Diesel Emissions Reduction Programs- produce measurable
reduction in NOx and other air pollutants.
ƒ Clear the Air for Kids!- Promote anti-idling policies for school
buses and no idling for parents in carpool lanes.
ƒ Regional Air Quality Board
ƒ 2006 Pilot Project
ƒ Engage 50 largest businesses and local government
28
Air Quality
Summary Remarks
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Ozone a continuing issue
PM may become an issue
Technology is helping control emissions
Land use and transportation planning will
help
29
Next Steps
ƒ Committee guidance in developing
principles
ƒ Schedule for further briefings
30