california proposed diesel emissions controls

[H3Jim]

On July 26, equipment intensive contractors in California were hit with new off-road diesel equipment emissions regulations.


Now, many of those same contractors will have to comply with additional emissions regulations in the coming years, because the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is in the process of crafting on-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment emissions standards.


A draft of the proposed regulation was recently posted on CARB's Web site and discussion workshops were held this past week in El Monte and Sacramento, providing an opportunity for contractors and other parties affected by these regulations to express their concerns to CARB staff. An additional workshop is scheduled on Tuesday in Fresno.


The new on road regulations will apply to concrete mixers, dump trucks, crane trucks, tow/hauling trucks and bucket/boom trucks that exceed the 14,000 gross vehicle weight rating, according to a presentation given at the workshops.


Most of the proposed regulation is a clone of the adopted off-road rule, requiring diesel equipment owners to meet emission targets for oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions through either fleet averaging or best available control technology (BACT) approaches.


For construction companies involved in asphalt, cement, concrete, grading and excavation, the effects stemming from compliance with on road regulations will be much larger than those resulting from compliance with the recently adopted on-road standards, according to Mike Lewis, executive vice president of the Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition (CIAQC).


"It's (the adoption of on road regulations) going to be huge because some contractors have a much bigger on-road equipment supply," Lewis said, adding some contractors have five pieces of on-road equipment for every one piece of off-road equipment.


A good amount of that on-road equipment supply represents hauling trucks that take off-road equipment and supplies to construction sites.


To put things in perspective, Lewis said there are around 180,000 pieces of off-road equipment statewide and at least 1.5 million on-road diesel trucks that would have to comply with the proposed regulations.


Included in the 1.5 million figure are diesel trucks that haul consumer goods, passenger buses and fuel tank trucks, meaning this regulation reaches fair beyond the construction industry.


"When it's going to affect beer deliveries you know there's going be a problem," Lewis remarked, adding there will be a broad coalition of association's that will oppose the language contained within these proposed regulations including the California Trucking Association.


Despite this broad coalition Lewis said it is unlikely that CARB and its staff will listen to concerns from various industries or alter the language within the regulations, as comments from contractors during the off- road regulation workshops did little to affect the adopted language.


According to the proposed on road language, contractors and other affected parties must comply with emissions regulations through fleet averaging or BACT approaches.


If a fleet owner chooses the averaging route, that person must demonstrate that on Dec. 31 of each year, starting in 2009 and ending on Dec. 31, 2018, the NOx Index of the applicable portion of the fleet was less than or equal to the calculated NOx target rate.


Additionally, a fleet owner must demonstrate that on December 31 of each year the PM Index of the applicable portion of the fleet was less than or equal to the calculated PM Target Rate.


The BACT approach requires the NOx exhaust emissions from a vehicle to be less than or equal to the NOx emissions from an engine certified to the NOx emission standard for a 2004 model-year heavy-duty diesel engine.


It also requires that the PM exhaust emissions from a vehicle must be less than or equal to the PM emissions from an engine certified to the 0.1 g/bhp-hr PM emission standard for a 2004 model-year heavy-duty diesel engine.


Compliance dates would begin on December 31, 2009 and end in 2019.

By Dec. 31, 2019 all vehicles must meet engine model-year 2007 PM and NOx standards.

Exemptions will be given to low-use vehicles with fewer than 1,000 miles and less than 100 hours of operation during previous 12-month period; vehicles used for emergency operations; tactical military vehicles; hybrid vehicles; and any vehicle with a 2007 or newer engine and diesel particulate filter.

Fleet owners can comply with NOx and PM targets by applying a verified diesel emission control strategy to an engine, repowering engines, and retiring old vehicles and replacing them with new or cleaner used equipment.

Compliance extensions will be given to equipment owners if manufacturer delays occur.

CARB will consider adoption of the proposed on road regulations in mid-2008.

Currently there are CARB adopted emissions regulations for solid waste collection vehicles, public agency fleets and transit agency fleets.

Emissions regulations are also in development for heavy-duty drayage trucks.

For more information, including a copy of the draft regulation, go to: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/workshops.htm.

[Songman]

One more reason to get the H-E_double toothpicks out of this state! Although this won't effect individual owners, at least not in the first drafts.

[Don Fairchild]

Jim;

   That is why Clean Cam Technology Systems was formed. we clean up the exhust emission's from the 71 & 92 series engines. we deal with four of the emission gases. PM, NOx, HC, CO  with the 71 series the numbers are HC 0.20 CO 0.34 NOx 5.00 and pm  0.1 this is a  56% 72% 52% and 49% improvement over a DDC built bace line engine.  The numbers for the 92 series go as follows,HC 0.31 Co 0.45  NOx 5.15 and pm  0.1 this represents an improvement of 39 49 43 and 62 % over the DDC base line engine all teted at Southwest research institute. We are working with as many company's as we can to save the two stroke engines and save the companies money. One of the things I tell the customer is not to buy a new engine now because starting in 2011 or sooner according to the engine manufactures there will be a new round of engines on the market and they won,t look like today's engines.
You can go to www.cctskit.com and read all about us.

Don

[HB of CJ]

It may be even worse.  Emergency vehicles (fire apparatus?) my NOT be exempt.  In Bakersfield CA, the next batch of fire engines the city orders MAY have to have cold, compressed natural gas engines.

Seems Kern County MAY be overly impacted, since they are one of the three or four targeted counties that have the worst air pollution in CA/USA.  Ever seen pics of a natural gas fire engine?  Weird.

[H3Jim]

Had a pickup that was converted to propane, 350 chevy, somehow the car caught fire, and it swallowed it.  had to totally rebuild the engine.

Maybe that means there will be some great deals on some old firetrucks!!!

[belfert]

I work at a state fair every year.  The fair converted a bunch of old 1946 Chevy trucks to compressed natural gas.  The trucks were supposedly fire engine chassis converted to open air parking shuttles. 

The performance of these trucks went way downhill after the CNG conversion.  Nobody liked to drive them anymore even though they were never driven over 20 MPH.  Part of the performance issue was adding the weight of eight CNG tanks plus they went from single to dual rear wheels.  Fuel mileage was really bad.  The CNG tanks had to be filled at night and at least once during the day.  Of course, what 10 ton vehicle gets good MPG idling 10 to 15 minutes an hour and then driving around at 10MPH stopping every few blocks?

There were some transit buses on Ebay last year that had been converted back to diesel from CNG because the engines wore out when used on CNG.

[H3Jim]

The pickup I had that ran on propane did suffer from acceleration and fuel mileage after the conversion .  Propane is a less dense fuel, and has less energy in it, which explains both those things. 

Although I sold mine before I put hundreds of thousands of miles on it, I understand that the engines would go forever.  The stated reason was that there was little if any acids and conmbustion byproducts that found their way into the oil, so the oil stayed pristine and did not ever break down.  Reportedly there could be found hone marks still  on the cylinder walls after 100,000 miles.

[HB of CJ]

Yeah...ain't technology dandy?  Several years ago I visited my old home town, Bakersfield CA and my brother who was still active duty fire service showed me two (2) transit buses that were natural gas powered....but not any more since they had burned down to the axles.  Nobody hurt thank goodness.

Anyway....talked to my now retarded, er...retired brother and he told me as far as he knows, Kern County may be OFF THE HOOK as requiring natural gas fire engines for the time being.  But who knows, government can change their collective minds anytime they choose.  Where does a Gorilla sit?....

There are some good sites regarding piston changes to exploit propane as a motor fuel source.  Seems 11 to 1 pistons work fine and recover some of the efficiency lost using propane instead of gasoline.  Anyway, something to consider.  Us old dinosaurs must adapt or you know what. 

[belfert]

The transit buses I first mentioned were Cummins 8.3 liter engines that supposedly had wore out when used with natural gas due to lack of lubricity in the fuel.  The engines failed in under 80,000 miles.