Mobile Source Control Division September 25, 2003 Monitoring and Laboratory Division Board Hearing California Air Resources Board Control Measure to Reduce

Mobile Source Control Division September 25, 2003 Monitoring and Laboratory Division Board HearingCalifornia Air Resources Board

Control Measure to Reduce Emissions from Small Off-Road Engines (SORE)

Outline

• Background• Proposed Exhaust Emission Standards• Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards• Environmental Benefits• Economic Impacts• Conclusion

California Air Resources Board

Small Off-Road Engines and Equipment (SORE)

• Engines < 19 kW• Two and four-stroke engines• Lawn and garden and small industrial

equipment• Preempt: farm and construction equipment

< 175hp


Examples of SORE Equipment

History

1990 1995 2000 2003

1st S

ORE Reg

ulatio

n

Adopte

d

1st S

ORE Sta

ndar

ds

Imple

men

ted

SORE R

egula

tion

Amen

ded

SORE Am

endm

ents

Imple

men

ted

and

U.S. E

PA

Finaliz

es R

egula

tions

Staff

Propo

ses N

ew

Exhau

st an

d Eva

pora

tive

Requir

emen

ts


1998

Need for Regulation

2020

2010

2000

121 tpd

152 tpd

Exhaust and Evaporative Emissions Statewide HC+NOx Baseline - Nonpreempt

111 tpd

New SIP Commitments

• Includes two SORE measures– SMALL OFF-RD-1– SMALL OFF-RD-2

• Staff’s proposal designed to accomplish goals of both measures


Proposed 2005 Handheld Standards

Tier 3

• Align with most stringent U.S. EPA HC+NOx standard for engines < 50 cc– 50 g/kW-hr– 30% reduction from current standard


Handheld - ExhaustTier 3 Levels Already Met By Some

• Currently 25 CA engine families certified to levels below proposed Tier 3

• Includes all types of handheld equipment• Technologies

– Four-stroke– Two-stroke with a catalyst– Stratified scavenging– Two-stroke/four-stroke hybrid– Electric equipment


Proposed 2007/8 Nonhandheld Standards

Tier 3• Staff’s Original Proposal

– >80 - <225cc: 8.0 g/kW-hr, 2007+ MY– 225cc and above: 6.0 g/kW-hr, 2008+ MY

• Alternative Proposal– >80 - <225cc: 10.0 g/kW-hr, 2007+ MY– 225cc and above: 8.0 g/kW-hr, 2008+ MY

• Standards based on the use of a catalytic converter


Catalyst Test Program to Show Technical Feasibility

• Three-way catalyst• Secondary air injection• Some enleanment of A/F

Engine Power (kW) ApplicationB&S #1 4.8 WBMB&S#2 4.8 WBM

Tecumseh 4.8 WBMHonda #1 4.1 WBMKawasaki 14.2 Riding MowerHonda #2 8.2 Generator


Catalyst Pictures

B&S #2

Kawasaki

Honda #2

Original Muffler

Muffler with Cat

Muffler with Cat

Original Muffler

Original Muffler Muffler with Cat

Catalyst Efficiency

0102030405060708090

100

B&S#1 B&S#2 Tec. Hon.#1 Hon.#2 Kawa.

% E

ffici

ency

0 hr 125 hr 250 hr 500 hr


Target Level

Exhaust Levels Achieved

02468

1012141618

B&S#1 B&S#2 Tec. Hon.#1 Hon.#2 Kawa.

HC+

NO

x (

g/kW

-hr)

0 hr 125 hr 250 hr 500 hr

Current Standard

Alternative Proposal

Developed Engine Emissions


Original Proposal

>80 cc - <225cc >225cc

Muffler Surface Temperatures

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

B&S#2 Tec.* Honda#1 Kawa** Honda#2Surf

ace

Tem

pera

ture

(deg. F)

No Cat w/ Cat Cat w/ shield


(@Mode 1)

** At 125 hours

* At 250 hours

Summary of Proposed Tier 3 Standards

Size (cc) MY

HC+NOx Standard (g/kW-hr)

< 50 2005+ 50>50 - <80 2005+ 72>80 - <225 2007+ 8/10*

> 225 2008+ 6/8*


* Alternative Standards

“Blue Sky” Engine Standards

• Voluntary

• HC+NOx levels 50% of Tier 3 standard

• Provides opportunity for clean label and

incentives

• Includes zero-emission engine eligibility


Additional Changes to Exhaust Regulations

• Alignment with U.S. EPA– < 25 hp vs. <19 kW– 1000 hour durability option– Test procedures

• Handheld limit raised to 80cc


Additional Changes to Exhaust Regulations

• Warranty Defects Reporting– Voluntary/Ordered Recall– Included in Exhaust and Evaporative Program

• Additional text to clarify use of cooling fans during testing


Sources ofSORE Evaporative Emissions

Fuel Tank Permeation

Fuel Line Permeation

Vented Emissions(Tank & Carburetor)

Fuel ConnectorsHC

HC

HC HC HCHC HC HC

HC

HC HC

HC

HC

Fuel Tank Permeation

Fuel Line Permeation

Vented Emissions(Tank & Carburetor)

Fuel ConnectorsHC

HC

HC HC HC

Overview

• Evaporative Emission Control Elements• Control Technology and Test Data• Industry Issues• Nonhandheld Alternatives• Comparison of Alternatives• Overall Cost Effectiveness• Conclusions


Evaporative Emission Control Elements

• Handheld standards• Nonhandheld standards• Certification


Handheld Standard

SORE Equipment Category

Effective Date

Model Year

Permeation Standard Grams ROG/m2/day

Diurnal Standard Grams HC/day

< 80 cc 2007 2.0 None


Nonhandheld Standards

SORE Equipment Category

Effective Date

Model Year

Permeation Standard Grams ROG/m2/day


Walk-Behind Mowers

> 80 cc - < 225 cc 2007 None 1.0

> 80 cc - < 225 cc Excluding Walk-Behind Mowers

2007 None 0.21 * Tank

Volume (gal.) + 0.95

> 225 cc 2008 None 2.0


Certification

• Requires certification of evaporative families• Handheld tanks

– Tested per TP-901– Certified per CP-901

• Nonhandheld equipment– Tested per TP-902 – Certified per CP-902


Permeation Control Technologies

• Tanks– Metal and coextruded tanks, nylon tanks, and barrier

treatments

• Connectors, Gaskets, and Hoses– Thermoplastic materials, Viton®, and Teflon®


Untreated HDPE Tanks vs. Optimized Fluorinated Tanks

22.4

0.34

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

gram

s/m

2/d

ay

Untreated Avg. Fluorinated Avg.

ARB Permeation Test Data


Diurnal Emission Control Technologies

• Sealed systems• Carbon canister systems• Hybrid sealed systems


Diurnal Emission Control TechnologiesARB Feasibility Testing

• ARB tested prototype equipment• Six mowers configured with:

– sealed systems, – fluorinated HDPE tanks– low permeation fuel lines

• A generator and commercial mower configured with:– carbon canisters– metal tanks– low permeation fuel lines


ARB Test Results for Sealed Systems

Lawn Mower Evaporative Emission Reduction Data(24-Hour Diurnal Fuel Comparison)

2.8

2.6

3.3

3.5

2.5 2.5

3.0

3.4 3.4

3.0

3.8

0.6

1.0 0.9

1.31.4

3.1

0.80.9

0.80.9

0.80.8 0.8

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

B&S #1 B&S #2 Tecumseh #1 Tecumseh #2 Honda #1 Honda #2

Gra

ms

HC

UncontrolledMTBE UncontrolledEthanolControlled MTBE Controlled Ethanol

ProposedStandard


ARB Test Results for Canister Systems

Commercia l Equipment Evaporative Emission Reduction Data(24-Hour Diurnal Comparison)

26.8

1.2

14.7

1.9

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

22.0

24.0

26.0

28.0

30.0

Avg. Uncontrolle d M TBE Avg. Controlle d M TBE

Gra

ms

HC

Commercial GeneratorCommercial Mower

Propos e dStandard


Additional Changes to the Evaporative Proposal

• Adjust canister working capacity in TP-902• Require small volume manufacturers to submit

a letter of conformance


Industry Issues

• Standards too stringent– Exhaust– Evap.

• Proposal lacks flexibility• Costs too high


Alternatives Suggested by Industry

• Alternatives presented by Briggs & Stratton, EMA/OPEI, and Honda

• Staff evaluated alternatives• Alternatives 1 and 2 developed from industry

proposals


Nonhandheld Alternatives

Alternative 1 and 2 would:• Provide nearly same emission reductions

– Greater evaporative emission reductions– Less exhaust emission reductions

• Provide flexibility for compliance• Reduce costs• Meet SIP commitments


Overall Emission Reductions

Statewide Comparison of the Alternatives(Annual Average Tons Per Day for Nonpreempt Equipment)

21.7 21.0 19.8

49.5 48.7 49.4

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

TPD

2010 2020

Staff's Proposal Alternative #1 Alternative #2


1st Alternative - Major Elements

• Achieves additional evaporative emission reductions (running loss)

• Requires testing of complete engines

• Implements low permeation hoses one year early

• Allows fleet averaging


1st Alternative - Nonhandheld Standards

Effective Date

Model Year

Engine Displacement Fuel Hose Permeation Standard Grams ROG/m2/day


2006 > 80 cc 15 None 2007 and

2008 > 80 cc - < 225 cc

15 1.2 + 0.21*tank vol.

(gal) 2009 WBMs > 80 cc - < 225 cc 15 1.0 2009 Non-

WBMs > 80 cc - < 225 cc

15 0.95 + 0.21* tank vol.

(gal)

2008 > 225 cc

15 1.2 + 0.21* tank vol.

(gal)


2nd Alternative - Major Elements

• Achieves additional evaporative emission reductions (running loss)

• Requires testing of Class I walk-behind mowers (WBMs)

• Implements low permeation fuel hoses two years early• Reduces compliance testing

(design standards)


2nd Alternative - Nonhandheld Standards

Class I Engines, > 80 cc - < 225 cc

EffectiveDate

Model Year

Fuel HosePermeation StandardGrams ROG/m2/day

Diurnal StandardGrams HC/day

2005 15 None2007 thru

201115 1.3

2012 15 1.0


EffectiveDate

Model Year

Fuel HosePermeation StandardGrams ROG/m2/day

Fuel Tank PermeationStandard

Grams ROG/m2/day

Carbon Canister orEquivalent

Butane Working CapacityGrams HC/Liter Tank Vol.

2005 15 None None2007 thru

201115 2.5 Per TP-902

2012 15 1.0 Per TP-902

Walk-Behind Mowers

Non Walk-Behind Mowers

2nd Alternative - Nonhandheld Standards Class II Engines, > 225 cc

Effective DateModel Year

Fuel HosePermeation

StandardGrams ROG/m2/day

Fuel TankPermeation

StandardGrams ROG/m2/day

Carbon Canister or EquivalentButane Working CapacityGrams HC/Liter Tank Vol.

2005 15 None None20081 15 3.0 Per TP-90220102 15 None Per TP-90220131 15 1.0 Per TP-902

1 First year of implementation 90% of production volume must be compliant increasing to 100% thefollowing year.2 Applies to small volume manufacturers.


Overall Cost Effectiveness

• Handheld Equipment - $1.71 to $6.21 per pound of HC reduced

• Nonhandheld Equipment – $0.20 - $4.30 per pound of HC+NOx


Estimated Retail Price Increase

• Handheld Equipment - $2.16 to $4.84

• Nonhandheld Equipment - $37 to $179


Cost Effectiveness of Major Regulations

Hand Cleaner

OBD1

0.25HC LDV

4-Stroke Law nLEV2-Stroke Law n

Off-Road Diesel Medium TruckOff-Road Motorcycle 2.4 HDDE

Off-cycle LDT0.4 Nox LDV

5g HDD

RFG2

PWC/Outboard

On-Road Motorcycles

Aerosol Adhesives

Inboard Sterndrive

SORE Handheld

SORE Nonhandheld

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Board Hearing Year

Do

llar

s p

er P

ou

nd

EVR

Ind. Maint. Coatings

Carpet Cleaner


Comparison of Controlled Emissions

(Annual Average Tons Per Day for Nonpreempt Equipment)

111.0 121.089.3 71.5

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

2010 2020Uncontrolled ISOR Control Alt. Control.


Max Alt. Shortfall

0.8 TPD

Max Alt. Shortfall

0.9 TPD

Conclusions

• Proposal and alternatives provide significant emission reductions

• Proposed controls are cost effective• Standards are attainable with existing technologies• Staff recommends Board adoption including alternatives


Documents

Mobile Source Control Division September 25, 2003 Monitoring and Laboratory Division Board Hearing California Air Resources Board Control Measure to Reduce