The overall control strategy in the AQMP provides the path to
achieving emission reductions and air quality goals. Implementation
of the 1997 AQMP is based on a series of control measures that
vary by source type, such as stationary or mobile, as well as
by the pollutant that is being targeted. Although great strides
have been made in air pollution control technologies, air quality
goals cannot be achieved without significant further advancements.
This chapter discusses the control measures for the 1997 AQMP
and associated emission reductions. Where appropriate, information
regarding the differences between the 1994 AQMP and the 1997 AQMP
are identified. For additional information and details on control
measures please refer to Appendix IV. For additional information
regarding baseline emission projections and estimated reductions,
please refer to Appendix III.
The overall control strategy for this Plan is designed to meet
applicable state and federal requirements, including attainment
with ambient air quality standards. Similar to the 1994 AQMP,
the 1997 AQMP proposes two tiers of emission reduction measures,
based on availability and readiness of technology.
Short- and intermediate-term measures propose the application
of available technologies and management practices between 1997
and the year 2005. These measures rely on known technologies and
proposed actions to be taken by several agencies that currently
have the statutory authority to implement such measures. These
measures are designed to satisfy the federal Clean Air Act requirement
of reasonably available control technologies [Section 172(c)],
and the California Clean Air Act requirements of Best Available
Retrofit Control Technologies (BARCT) [Health and Safety Code
Section 40919, Subsection C].
To ultimately achieve ambient air quality standards, additional
emissions reductions will be necessary beyond the implementation
of short- and intermediate-term measures. Long-term measures rely
on the advancement of technologies and control methods that can
reasonably be expected to occur between 2000 and 2010. These long-term
measures rely on further development and refinement of known low-
and zero-emission control technologies in addition to technological
breakthroughs.
Designing the Overall Strategy
To develop the control strategy required in the Plan to meet state
and federal requirements, an iterative process of technology review
and ambient air quality modeling is utilized. Specifically, a
remaining emissions target is defined utilizing air quality modeling
that will achieve the ambient air quality standards. Technological
assessments are then performed to determine if specific technological
advancements can be expected to result in meeting this remaining
emissions target. Further modeling analyses are conducted using
the actual emissions reductions achieved based on the technology
review process. Ultimately an overall emissions target is determined
that achieves the ambient air quality standard and for which controls
have been defined. Figure 4-1 illustrates this iterative process
used to define the preferred control strategy.
The 1994 California Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) control
strategy serves as the starting point to demonstrate attainment
of both federal PM10 and ozone air quality standards. If necessary,
additional controls from the 1994 comprehensive AQMP or other
alternative approaches would be added to attain the federal air
quality standards. Furthermore, these additional control measures
would be evaluated to determine consistency with potential future
air quality standards and ensure the most cost-effective path
to meet multiple clean air standards.
FIGURE 4-1
Iterative Process to Define Emission Reduction Scenario
Short- and Intermediate-term Emission Reduction Measures
The 1997 AQMP includes 34 stationary and 20 mobile source control
measures. A summary of these measures is provided below. A detailed
description of the control measures is provided in Appendix IV-A:
- Section I: District's Stationary Source Control Measures
- Section II:* District's Mobile Source Control Measures
- Section IV: ARB Mobile Source Control Strategy
- Section V: Further Study Measures
- Section VI: Contingency Measures
A description of the transportation improvement and advanced transportation
technology measures is provided in Appendix IV-B.
Short- and intermediate-term emission reduction control measures
are proposed to be implemented between 1997 and 2005. These measures
primarily rely on the traditional command and control approach
facilitated by market incentive programs to implement technological
solutions and control methods.
Stationary Source Control Measures
Stationary controls are proposed to reduce emissions from both
point sources (permitted facilities) and area (generally small
and non-permitted) sources.
All but three stationary source control measures were previously
contained in the 1994 AQMP or the California Ozone SIP. One 1994
contingency measure for stationary sources has been placed in
the Further Studies category. Sections I and V of Appendix IV
provides detailed descriptions for each of these measures. In
addition, previously subsumed command and control measures for
coatings and solvents under the proposed VOC RECLAIM program have
now become the primary approach and are updated to reflect the
most recent technology assessment and rule implementation schedule.
Three new measures are added in the 1997 AQMP: Intercredit Trading
Program, Air Quality Investment Program and Promotion of Catalyst-Surface
Coating Technology Programs for Air Conditioning Units. These
measures are designed to enhance compliance flexibility, to facilitate
the implementation of the command and control measures. Table
4-1 provides a listing of the short- and intermediate-term stationary
source control measures.
Categorization of Stationary Source Control Measures
Stationary source control measures in the 1997 AQMP are grouped
into 6 subcategories as described below:
Group 1 Coatings and Solvents
Group 2 Petroleum Operations, Refueling, and Fugitive VOC Emissions
Group 3 Combustion Sources
Group 4 Fugitive Dust and Miscellaneous Source Categories
Group 5 Compliance Flexibility Programs
Group 6 Long-Term Stationary Source Measures
A detailed description of the control measures in each of the
above groups is provided in Section I of Appendix IV.
TABLE 4-1
Short- and Intermediate-Term Stationary Source Control Measures
1997 AQMP Number Control Measure Title
Coatings and Solvents
CTS-02E Further Emission Reductions from Adhesives (Rule 1168) (VOC)
CTS-02H Further Emission Reductions from Metal Parts and Products (Rule
1107) (VOC)
CTS-02M Further Emission Reductions from Plastic, Rubber, Glass Coatings
(Rule 1145) (VOC)
CTS-02N Further Emission Reductions from Solvent Degreasers (Rule 1122)
(VOC)
CTS-02O Further Emission Reductions from Solvent Usage (Rule 442) (VOC)
CTS-03 Consumer Product Education Labeling Program (VOC)
CTS-04 Public Awareness/Education Programs - Area Sources (VOC)
CTS-07 Further Emission Reductions from Architectural Coatings (Rule
1113) (VOC)
CP-02 Emission Reductions from Consumer Products (VOC)
DPR-01 Emission Reductions from Pesticide Applications (VOC)
TABLE 4-1
(concluded)
1997 AQMP Number Control Measure Title
Petroleum Operations and Fugitive Emissions
FUG-03 Further Emission Reductions from Floating Roof Tanks (VOC)
FUG-04 Further Emission Reductions of Fugitive Sources (VOC)
Combustion Sources
CMB-02B Control of Emissions from Small Boilers and Process Heaters
(NOx)
CMB-03 Area Source Credits Programs (All Pollutants)
CMB-04 Area Source Credits for Energy Conservation/Efficiency (NOx)
CMB-06 Emission Standards for New Commercial and Residential Water
Heaters (NOx)
CMB-07 Emission Reductions from Petroleum Refinery Flares (All
Pollutants)
CMB-09 Emission Reductions from Petroleum Refinery FCCUs (PM10)
Fugitive Dust Measures
BCM-01 Emission Reductions from Paved Roads (PM10)
BCM-03 Further Emission Reductions from Unpaved Roads, Unpaved Parking
Lots and Staging Areas (PM10)
BCM-04 Emission Reductions from Agricultural Activities (PM10)
BCM-06 Further Emission Reductions from Fugitive Dust Sources to Meet
Requirements of Best Available Control Measures (PM10)
Miscellaneous Sources
MSC-01 Promotion of Lighter Color Roofing and Road Materials and Tree
Planting Programs
(All Pollutants)
MSC-02 In-Use Compliance Program for Air Pollution Control Equipment
(All Pollutants)
MSC-03 Promotion of Catalyst-Surface Coating Technology Programs for
Air Conditioning Units
PRC-01 Emission Reductions from Woodworking Operations (PM10)
PRC-03 Emission Reductions from Restaurant Operations (VOC, PM10)
WST-01 Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste (VOC, PM10, Ammonia)
WST-02 Emission Reductions from Composting (VOC, PM10, Ammonia)
WST-03 Emission Reductions from Waste Burning (VOC)
WST-04 Emission Reductions from Disposal of Materials Containing
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
FSS-04 Emission Charges of $5,000 per Ton of VOC for Stationary Sources
Emitting Over 10 Tons per Year (VOC)
Compliance Flexibility Programs
FLX-01 Intercredit Trading Program (All Pollutants)
FLX-02 Air Quality Investment Program (All Pollutants)
Stationary Source Control Methods and Associated Emission Reductions
As previously discussed, short- and intermediate-term measures
rely on available control technologies. The control methods for
stationary sources identified in Table 4-2 below rely on a variety
of control technologies and management practices. Control technologies
vary according to the source type and pollutant being controlled
and generally include a process or physical modification such
as product reformulation, installation of air pollution control
equipment, etc. In addition, management modifications include
administrative changes such as improved housekeeping techniques,
inspection and maintenance programs, etc.
TABLE 4-2
Stationary Source Control Methods
Source Category Control Method
Coatings and Solvents Market Incentives
Reformulation
Higher Transfer Efficiency
Process Improvements
Add-On Controls
Alternative Coating and Solvent
Application Methods
Alternative Pesticide Formulation,
Application and Methods
Improved Housekeeping Practices
Petroleum Operations and Market Incentives
Fugitive VOC Emissions Process Modifications
Add-On Controls Systems
Improved Vapor Recovery Systems
Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance
Combustion Sources Market Incentives
Add-On Controls
Process Improvement
Improved Energy Efficiency
Fugitive Dust and Miscellaneous Road Dust Suppression
Sources Watering of Disturbed Surface Areas
Windbreaks
Paving at Areas Adjacent to Roadways
Chemical Stabilization of Unpaved Areas
TABLE 4-2
(Concluded)
Source Category Control Method
Fugitive Dust and Miscellaneous Aggregate Covering of Unpaved Roads
Sources (Cont.) Track-Out Prevention
Street Cleaning
Bedliners in and Covering of Fill Import
and Export Vehicles
Post-Event Street Clean-Up
Revegetation of Disturbed Surface Areas
Reduced Vehicular Speeds on Unpaved Roads
Soil Erosion Control for Agricultural
Activities
Add-On Controls
Public Awareness Programs
Compliance Flexibility Programs Compliance Flexibility to Lower Compliance
Costs
Promotion of Early Reductions
Incentivize Clean Technologies
Investment in Clean Technologies
A variety of innovative implementation approaches are proposed
to facilitate and/or compliment the implementation of these measures,
such as intercredit trading, public awareness programs, equipment
certification, etc.
Coatings and Solvents
Controls for the coatings and solvents category are primarily
targeted at reducing VOC emissions. The primary control approach
for this category is command and control regulations with additional
compliance options provided by the Intercredit Trading Program
and/or Air Quality Investment Program (AQIP). Regulated sources
have the options to: (1) apply prescribed control technology;
(2) purchase emission credits in an open market in lieu of controls;
or (3) participate in the AQIP which will in turn generate equivalent
emission reductions. The substitution measures provided in the
1994 AQMP for control measure CTS-01 - VOC RECLAIM are now combined
with CTS-02 - Control of Emissions from Solvents and Coatings.
In addition, the District is proposing to develop a series of
public awareness and education programs for small source categories.
The intent of these programs is to develop a partnership between
the District and smaller more diverse businesses to educate sources
on alternative products, techniques, processes, and equipment
modifications that can be used at their facility to reduce pollution.
Examples of potentially targeted businesses include beauty salons,
leather repair shops, and laboratories.
Included in category are two measures that will be implemented
by ARB to further reduce emissions from consumer products and
by the state Department of Pesticides Regulation (DPR) to control
pesticide emissions as originally contained in the 1994 California
Ozone SIP.
Petroleum Operations and Fugitive VOC Emissions
This category pertains primarily to operations and materials associated
with the petroleum and chemical industries. Within this category
there are two control measures targeting fugitive VOC emissions
associated with transfer and storage of organic liquids and industrial
processes.
Combustion Sources
There are six control measures in this category, two of which
are area source credit programs designed primarily to provide
compliance flexibility and to incentivize clean technologies.
These include commercial and residential equipment and energy
conservation strategies. There is another measure for new commercial
and residential water heaters. In addition, a proposed rule for
petroleum refinery flares is being developed to first assess the
emission inventory for this source category; another rule is being
developed for the control of PM10 emissions from refinery fluid
catalytic cracking units (FCCUs); and lastly, a rule is proposed
for NOx reductions from small boilers and process heaters.
In addition, the results of technology review as required by the
District RECLAIM Rule 2015 - Backstop Provisions are incorporated
in the 1997 AQMP. The purpose of the technology review is to ensure
that the facility allocations are based on control methods that
are likely to be technologically feasible. Furthermore, proposed
changes in allocation due to further technology assessment are
reflected in the Plan to account for potential increases in emissions.
Fugitive Dust and Miscellaneous Sources
This category includes a total of 14 control measures. Ten measures
are designed for a variety of sources ranging from service-oriented
industries such as restaurants and agricultural activities, to
waste-related emissions such as livestock waste, waste burning,
and disposal of VOC-containing materials. An incentive program
is proposed to promote the use of lighter color roofing, roadmaterials, or tree planting. A second incentive program is proposed
to promote catalyst surface coating technologies for air conditioning
units. An in-use compliance program is also considered to ensure
the performance of air pollution control equipment. A measureregarding emissions charges for stationary sources as required
under federal law is proposed for further study to determine its
applicability and feasibility.
Fugitive Dust Control Measure Cost and Technical Feasibility
For the 1994 PM10 Best Available Control Measures (BACM) SIP submittal,
five best available control measures were provided to control
fugitive dust emissions. As part of that submittal, the BACM SIP
committed to adopt all candidate BACM within four years of the
reclassification date (i.e., February 8, 1997) with the exception
of any measure that did not meet a specified cost and technological
feasibility criteria. The SIP revision identified the criteria
as follows:
(1-1) Cost feasibility:
A control measure will be considered cost feasible if the cost-effectiveness
is less than $5,300 per ton of PM10 reduced on an annual basis.
(1-2) Technological feasibility:
A control measure will be considered technically feasible if all
of the following conditions are satisfied:
- The control technology is currently available; and
- The control efficiency has been demonstrated to achieve a
minimum of at least 10 percent.
Table 4-3 presents a summary of the preliminary candidate BACM
cost and technological feasibility analysis. As Table 4-3 indicates,
BCM 1d/1e (curb and gutter/chemical stabilization) exceeds the
cost feasibility criteria. Table 4-3 also shows that BCM-2 (wider
use of plans) does not meet the 10 percent control efficiency
criteria. Additionally, initial studies indicate that emissions
from weed abatement activities are insignificant on a regional
scale and should be managed on a local level. Accordingly, BCM-5
(weed abatement) will not be considered as a primary control measure.
These measures are proposed to serve as contingency measures for
fugitive dust sources and are presented in Chapter 9 and Appendix
IV. As specified by CAA 172(c)(9), these PM10 contingency measures
would only become effective if the Basin fails to make reasonable
further progress or attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date.
TABLE 4-3
Fugitive Dust (PM10) Best Available Control Measures2
AQMP Measure Technology Control
Number $/Ton Available Efficiency3
BCM-01 (a, b, c) $50 Yes 60%
BCM - 01(d, e) $5,604 Yes 75%
BCM - 02 $377 Yes 6%
BCM - 03 $563 Yes 75%
BCM - 04 $154 Yes 28%
BCM - 05 Not Determined
BCM - 06 $212 Yes 12%
2Contingency measures are in bold text.
3Applies only to a portion of the source category emissions.
Based on the cost and technical feasibility assessment, four best
available control measures (i.e., BCM-1a, b, c, BCM-3, BCM-4 and
BCM-6) are provided in the 1997 AQMP.
Compliance Flexibility Programs
Two control measures are proposed under this category which are
new additions to the 1997 AQMP as compared to the 1994 AQMP. The
two control measures (Intercredit Trading Program and Air Quality
Investment Program) are designed to complement command and control
measures. The primary objectives of the two measures are to enhance
regulatory compliance flexibility by providing additional compliance
options and thereby lowering compliance costs and to incentivize
early reductions and advancement of clean technologies through
emission credit banking provisions. These two measures are essential
to the successful introduction of the long-term control measures.
Ozone Depleting Compounds
As a result of worldwide concern over the destruction of the stratospheric
ozone layer, the use of certain stratospheric ozone depleting
compounds (ODCs) is scheduled to be internationally eliminated
under the Montreal Protocol.
ODCs such as 1,1,1-trichloroethane and CFC-113 are currently used
in cleaning, precision cleaning, electronics, coatings, adhesives,
aerosols, and flexible slabstock foam manufacturing in the Basin.
As part of the adoption of the Federal Reactive Organic Compounds
Rate-of-Progress Plan, the District's Governing Board directed
staff to consider the impacts on the urban ozone problem from
the replacement of ODCs with VOC-containing materials.
In 1992 an ODC Working Group comprised of representatives from
the District, ARB, EPA, industry, and other interested parties
was established to evaluate the impact of a potential VOC increase
resulting from elimination of ODCs. The ODC Working Group developed
substitution estimates based on categories of usage and types
of processes. In January 1996, the District prepared "Ozone
Depleting Compounds Replacement Guidelines" to facilitate
the transition from ODCs to substances that are the most environmentally
benign. Based on the estimates provided in the guideline document,
an additional 11 tons/day of VOC is projected by the year 2010
as compared to the baseline projections discussed in Chapter 3.
An adjustment has been made in the remaining emissions inventory
to account for these future year emission increases, which are
subject to District review at the time of conversion to comply
with the criteria established by the guideline document.
On-Road Mobile Source Control Measures
On-road motor vehicles, which include passenger cars, light-duty
trucks, medium-duty vehicles, heavy-duty vehicles, and motorcycles,
currently number approximately 10 million in the South Coast Air
Basin. In 1995, these vehicles traveled more than 300 million
miles per day, and by the year 2010, vehicle miles traveled is
projected to be about 380 million miles per day. ARB and U.S.
EPA have primary authority to control mobile source emissions
through the adoption of emission standards and other related requirements;
whereas the District has more limited authority to reduce emissions
from these sources.
The 1997 AQMP includes seven on-road mobile source control measures.
Two measures are proposed for District implementation, four measures
are provided for ARB implementation, and one control measure is
proposed for U.S. EPA implementation. The two District on-road
control measures are new to the 1997 AQMP, and are voluntary,
market-based measures, while the remaining control measures are
from the 1994 California Ozone SIP. Table 4-4 summarizes the on-road
vehicle control measures, using traditional command and control
as well as market based approaches.
TABLE 4-4
Short- and Intermediate-term Mobile Source Control Measures
1997 AQMP Number Control Measure Title
On-Road Mobile Source Control Measures
M1 Accelerated Retirement of Light-Duty Vehicles
M4 Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles; Early Introduction of low NOx
Engines
M5 Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles; Additional NOx Reductions in
California
M6 Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles; 2.0 g/bhp-hr NOx Standard -
National
M7 Accelerated Retirement of Heavy-Duty Vehicles
MON-09 In-Use Vehicle Emission Mitigation
MON-10 Emissions Reduction Credit for Truck Stop Electrification
Off-Road Mobile Source Control Measures
M11 Industrial Equipment; Gas & LPG - California
M12 Industrial Equipment - Gas & LPG - National
M13 Marine Vessels; National and International Standards
M14 Locomotives; Nationwide Standards, New and Rebuilt
M16 Pleasure Craft; Nationwide Emission Standards
MOF-07 Credits for the Replacement of Existing Pleasure Craft
Engines with New Lower Polluting Engines
Transportation Improvements
TCM-01 Transportation Improvements
Advanced Transportation Technology Measures
ATT-01 Telecommunications
ATT-02 Advanced Shuttle Transit
ATT-03 Zero-Emission Vehicles/Infrastructure
ATT-04 Alternative Fuel Vehicles/Infrastructure
ATT-05 Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems (IVHS)
Further Study Strategy
FSS-02 Market-Based Transportation Pricing
Technology-Based Control Measures
In the past, the control of on-road vehicle emissions was achieved
primarily from the adoption of more stringent emission standards.
The most significant action that has taken place in pursuing this
approach was the adoption of the Low-Emission Vehicle and Clean
Fuels regulations by ARB in September 1990. This regulation established
stringent tailpipe standards and mandated low-emission vehicle
sales for the years 1994 through 2003. This regulation is applicable
for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles,
and its principal requirements are summarized as follows:
- establishes vehicle emission standards that will require additional
VOC and NOx emission reductions of approximately 80 percent and
50 percent, respectively, compared to 1994 emission standards;
- requires the sale of zero-emission vehicles beginning in 2003;
- allows the use of vehicles powered by alternative fuels; and
- requires the widespread availability of alternative fuels,
based on the number of alternative-fueled vehicles produced by
automobile manufacturers.
The 1997 AQMP, consistent with 1994 AQMP, includes a control measure
that proposes ARB adoption of emission standards that are more
stringent than existing low-emission vehicle requirements, to
continue the progress in reducing passenger car and light-duty
truck emissions for the post 2003 timeframe. This is based on
the development of cost-effective gasoline engine control technology,
along with anticipated advancements in electric vehicle battery
technology and supporting infrastructure. With regard to medium-duty
vehicles, it is proposed that the current requirements applicable
for the 1998 to 2002 timeframe be modified by ARB to accelerate
the in-use penetration of low-emission vehicles and ultra-low
emission medium-duty vehicles. Again, carryover this proposal
from the previous plan is based on assumptions regarding expected
advancements in light-duty vehicle emission control technology
that would be applicable for the medium-duty vehicle sector.
With regard to heavy-duty vehicles, the approach for further reducing
emissions depends on whether the vehicles are powered with gasoline
or diesel fuel. For gasoline-fueled heavy-duty vehicles, ARB proposes
to obtain oxides of nitrogen and VOC emission reductions by lowering
emission standards, through the application of emission control
technology (i.e., utilization of three-way catalytic converters)
that is already well established for light-duty vehicles. For
diesel-powered heavy-duty vehicles, ARB is proposing a combination
of strategies in an overall effort to maximize the utilization
of very low NOx emitting engines in California trucking fleets.
These strategies include the adoption by ARB of more stringent
NOx emission standards, effective for the post 2002 timeframe,
as well as U.S. EPA adoption of correspondingly stringent nationwide
oxides of nitrogen emission standards for the post 2004 timeframe.
U.S. EPA action in this area is particularly important since a
significant amount of diesel-fueled heavy-duty vehicles operating
in California are powered with federally certified engines.
Market-Based/Incentive Strategies
The 1994 AQMP included a number of market-based control measures
that have been adopted in 1995 as District Rules 1612 and 1620.
These include MON-01 - Emissions Reduction Credit for Low-Emission
Retrofit Fleet Vehicles, MON-05 - Emissions Reduction Credit for
Heavy-Duty Buses, and MON-06 - Emissions Reduction Credit for
Heavy-Duty Trucks. In continuing this approach to reduce mobile
source emissions, the 1997 AQMP includes several market-based/incentive
control measures targeting the light- and heavy-duty vehicle sectors.
With regard to District implementation, it is proposed that mobile
source emission reduction credits be issued for certain strategies
that will produce emission reductions surplus to existing or planned
requirements, such as truck stop electrification and the use of
fuel additives.
The 1997 AQMP also includes market-based/incentive control measures
for ARB implementation. Specifically, it is proposed that ARB
adopt regulations implementing a 75,000 vehicle per year accelerated
retirement program for light-duty vehicles beginning in 1999 (Control
Measure M1), with a smaller pilot-scale program to be implemented
in the 1996 to 1998 timeframe. The oldest, highest-emitting vehicles
would be targeted for this program. It is also proposed that a
similar strategy be implemented for heavy-duty diesel trucks (Control
Measure M7), targeting the accelerated retirement of 1,600 vehicles,
using the same implementation dates as the light-duty vehicle
accelerated retirement program. Finally, a market incentive rule,
to be implemented by ARB and/or the District, is proposed with
the objective of accelerating the penetration of low-NOx heavy-duty
engines in local trucking fleets. This would occur in the 1996
to 2002 timeframe, prior to the implementation of revised oxides
of nitrogen emission standards for heavy-duty engines.
Off-Road Mobile Source Control Measures
Off-road mobile sources refer to off-road vehicles and mobile
non-vehicular equipment categories such as aircraft, trains, marine
vessels, farm and construction equipment (e.g., bulldozers), industrial
equipment (e.g., forklifts), and utility equipment (e.g., lawn
mowers). The authority to develop and implement regulations for
off-road mobile sources lies primarily with the U.S. EPA, ARB,
and to a lesser extent with the District.
The 1997 AQMP includes a total of six off-road mobile source control
measures. Four measures are based on U.S. EPA implementation,
one measure is provided for ARB implementation, and one control
measure is provided for District implementation. The District
control measure is new to the 1997 AQMP and is a voluntary market-based
measure. The remaining control measures represent control measures
from the 1994 California Ozone SIP and target mandatory emission
limits for certain types of off-road equipment categories. Table
4-4 provides a list of the off-road mobile source measures.
Because of practical and legal considerations, the majority of
control measures for off-road mobile sources focus on the U.S.
EPA adoption of nationwide emission standards. Control measures
proposing emission standards for new aircraft engines, as well
as new and rebuilt and locomotive engines target U.S. EPA or other
federal agencies implementation, since the federal government
has sole authority over these emission sources. For the same reason,
U.S. EPA implementation is assigned to control measures that propose
more stringent emission standards for diesel powered off-road
industrial equipment, and gasoline and LPG powered industrial
equipment from 25 to 175 horsepower. (It should be noted that
industrial equipment can include emission sources that are categorized
under the farm and construction equipment category above and below
175 horsepower. Since U.S. EPA has sole authority for farm and
construction equipment below 175 horsepower, separate control
measures targeting industrial equipment have been included based
on whether implementation would be assigned to ARB or U.S. EPA.)
A control measure proposing nationwide emission standards implemented
by U.S. EPA, in conjunction with international standards, is also
the most viable approach for reducing marine vessel emissions
since many of these vessels are not based in California or the
United States. Finally, nationwide emission standards for pleasure
craft are being proposed since manufacturers would have a larger
market base to promote the development of emission control technology.
As a backstop strategy, ARB would act to adopt emission standards
(where legally permitted) for off-road emission sources if U.S.
EPA fails to adopt nationwide standards.
The District's new market-based control measure proposes the issuance
of mobile source emission reduction credits for programs that
accelerate the replacement of existing pleasure craft engines
with new lower-polluting engines. These programs would be voluntarily
implemented and would provide industry with more flexible and
potentially more cost-effective approaches in complying with District
emission reduction requirements.
Transportation Control Measures
One transportation control measure (TCM), five advanced transportation
technology (ATT) measures, and one further study strategy measure
(FSS) have been included in the 1997 AQMP and are listed in Table
4-4.
Specific performance based transportation standards were replaced
by 1996 state legislation. Recent federal and state legislation
provides for alternative control approaches which can achieve
equivalent emission reductions to the AVO-based programs to be
developed in place of commuter rideshare programs. District Rule
2202 was adopted in December 1995 to provide the mechanism for
employers of 100 employees or more to achieve targeted emission
reductions through a menu of control options approach. The emission
reductions obtained through Rule 2202 implementation are currently
included as part of the baseline emissions inventory estimates.
Upcoming efforts to replace Rule 2202, as called for in SB 836
(Lewis) through voluntary rideshare programs or other means, are
to be based on actions that provide surplus, real and quantifiable
emission reductions equivalent to those that would have otherwise
occurred under Rule 2202. Thus, the full emission reduction attributable
to Rule 2202 will be achieved and is accounted for in the 1997
AQMP.
Control Measure Development
Several policy committees as well as local governments submitted
recommendations to SCAG and the District regarding control measure
development and implementation for the 1994 AQMP. These included:
the TCM Policy Committee; Advanced Transportation Technology (ATT)
Task Force; Market Incentives Task Force; Regional Railroad Air
Quality Emission Reduction Board; and Subregional Organizations.
In addition, the SCAG Regional Council recommended that the proposed
transportation control measures be included as part of the 1994
AQMP. These measures and recommendations have been moved forward
and included in the 1997 AQMP.
Control Method Objectives
The status of the objectives for the implementation of the 1994
AQMP developed by the Transportation Committees and Task Forces
are as follows: a delegation and substitution process, to allow
delegation for implementation of regional indirect source rules
and/or substitution of local implementation plans or measures
for requirements of District rules, has been developed and approved
by the Governing Board; however, since future ISRs, have not been
incorporated in the 1997 AQMP, the delegation substitution process
relative to these rules is also not incorporated in this Plan.
The delegation substitution process is still available for any
future regional transportation rule. The process is described
in greater detail in Appendix IV-B. The Partnership to accelerate
implementation of advanced transportation technologies has been
implemented and is proceeding with the implementation of the ATTs
included in the 1994 AQMP; and the REACH Task Force has been convened
and is in the process of developing market-based solutions to
regional transportation and air quality problems. The current
proposal from the REACH Task Force is included in the 1997 AQMP
as a further study strategy measure.
Control Methods
A list of control methods for transportation control measures
is summarized in Table 4-5. As shown below, control methods are
categorized into three groupings: advanced transportation technologies,
transportation improvements, and a further study strategy.
TABLE 4-5
Transportation Control Methods
Source Category Control Method
Advanced Transportation Technologies Telecommunications
Smart Shuttle Transit
Zero Emissions Vehicles/Infrastructure
Alternative Fuel
Vehicles/Infrastructure
Intelligent Vehicle Highway System
(IVHS)
Transportation Improvements Transportation Improvements
Capital-based Actions and Their Pricing
Alternatives
HOV Lanes
Transit Improvements
Traffic Flow Improvements
Park and Ride and Intermodal Facilities
Urban Freeway, Bicycle, and Pedestrian
Facilities
Non-Capital-based Actions and
Information Services
Rideshare Matching
Congestion Management Program-based TDM
Telecommunication Facilities/Satellite
Work Centers
TDM Demonstration Projects/Programs
Transit Pass Centers
Further Study Strategy REACH Task Force Recommendations
Emission Reductions from Short- and Intermediate-Term Control
Measures
Short and intermediate-term control measures potentially available
for implementation by 2005 were identified and to the extent possible
quantified. These quantified measures were modeled to determine
their effectiveness in meeting the attainment goals. For stationary
point sources, measures were quantified for equipment and industry
categories which are more detailed than quantifying measures based
in large part on equipment categories. Appendix III provides a
more detailed discussion of the emissions inventories for the
South Coast Air Basin, and emission estimation techniques used
for quantifying reductions for the 1997 AQMP.
A summary of emission reductions available by the year 2000 for
short- and intermediate-term measures is provided in Tables 4-6
through 4-8. Emission reductions represent the difference between
the projected baseline and the remaining emissions. In addition,
the tables identify projected reductions based on the summer planning
inventory for VOC and NOx emissions; the winter planning inventory
for CO and NOx emissions; and the annual average inventory for
SOx and PM10 emissions. The CO emission reductions in 2000 represent
the level of control needed to achieve the federal CO standard.
TABLE 4-6
Emission Reductions for Short- and Intermediate-Term Measures
for 2000
Based on Summer Planning Inventory (tons per day)
Sources VOC NOx
Year 2000 Baseline 937 916
Stationary 467 109
Mobile
On Road 335 509
Off-Road 135 298
Emission Reductions
Short-, Intermediate-Term Measures 18 5
Stationary
Mobile
On-Road 9 11
Off-Road 1 1
Total Reductions (All Measures) 28 17
2000 Remaining Emissions 909 899
TABLE 4-7
Emission Reductions for Short- and Intermediate-Term Measures
for 2000
Based on Winter Planning Inventory (tons per day)
Sources Co NOx
Year 2000 Baseline 5142 960
Stationary 295 130
Mobile
On Road 3298 535
Off-Road 1549 295
Emission Reductions
Short-, Intermediate-Term Measures
Stationary 1 5
Mobile
On-Road 173 12
Off-Road 0 1
Total Reductions (All Measures) 174 18
2000 Remaining Emissions 4968 942
TABLE 4-8
Emission Reductions for Short- and Intermediate-Term Measures
for 2000
Based on Annual Average Inventory (Tons per Day)
Sources SOx PM10
Year 2000 Baseline 66 441
Stationary 18 410
Mobile
On Road 14 16
Off-Road 34 15
Emission Reductions
Short-, Intermediate-Term Measures
Stationary 0 134
Mobile
On-Road 0 0
Off-Road 0 0
Total Reductions (All Measures) 0 134
2000 Remaining Emissions 66 307
Previous AQMPs showed that achievement of ambient air quality
standards will require additional emission reductions beyond the
implementation of short- and intermediate-term control measures.
Historically, the AQMP has emphasized and relied upon the continual
need to deploy advanced air pollution control technologies and
cleaner fuels to ultimately achieve air quality goals. In the
1994 AQMP, emissions reduction targets were established for the
remaining emissions after implementation of short- and intermediate-term
controls. These targets, referred to as long-term or Section 182(e)(5)
control measures, were based on the application of advanced technologies
and additional market incentives and operational measures. The
1997 AQMP reached similar conclusions and proposed to further
reduce emissions through measures that are based on specific technological
advancements and control methods that can be reasonably expected
to be implemented and in use by the year 2010. These technologies
and control methods cannot be fully implemented today; however,
recent promising advancements suggest that such technologies could
be commercially viable and implemented over the next 13 years.
Section 182(e)(5) Control Measures
Section 182(e)(5) of the federal Clean Air Act allows extreme
ozone nonattainment areas to develop control measures which rely
on anticipated development of new control techniques or improvement
of existing control technologies. An enforceable commitment to
develop and adopt contingency measures, to be implemented should
the proposed control measures fail to meet stated emission reductions,
must be made. Contingency measures for the Section 182(e)(5) measures
must be submitted to the U.S. EPA no later than three years before
proposed implementation of the Section 182(e)(5) measures.
Many of the long-term emission reduction measures which rely on
technologies that are not fully developed for commercial use (such
as fuel cells, hydrogen engines, and fly-wheel batteries) are
considered as meeting Section 182(e)(5) requirements. Other measures
such as market-incentive programs which promote the advancement
of new technologies, or long-term measures which rely on improving
existing control technologies and have future compliance dates
beyond 2000, are also considered as part of the Section 182(e)(5)
control measures.
The U.S. EPA approved the Section 182(e)(5) measures in the 1994
California Ozone SIP. The long-term measures listed in Table 4-9
are those provided in the 1994 California Ozone SIP and serve
as the Section 182(e)(5) control measures for the 1997 AQMP. Many
of the District and Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review
Committee (MSRC) programs and the associated fundings are intended
to demonstrate new technologies for the long-term measures listed
in Table 4-9, some of which are discussed in this chapter. When
the new advanced technology demonstrations are completed, an assessment
is performed to determine the feasibility of the advanced technology.
If the technology is feasible, future rule development will be
undertaken to realize the emission reductions associated with
the long-term measures. Thus, the advanced technology projects
funded by the District and the MSRC are an important and necessary
process in order to ensure the realization of advanced technologies
within the next 13 years.
As part of its action on the 1994 California Ozone SIP, an "additional
measures" approach was provided by ARB to achieve further
mobile source emission reductions. No specific control approaches
were identified with the adoption of the California Ozone SIP.
However, many of the advanced technology projects under the District's
sponsorship could be feasible by the mid-2000s and would complement
the market-based approaches for these additional measures.
The advanced technologies proposed for implementation in this
Plan are based largely on the projects funded or co-funded by
the District's Technology Advancement Office (TAO), as well as
projects funded by MSRC which was established in 1990 with the
adoption of Assembly Bill 2766. The primary purpose of TAO is
to conduct public-private research, development, and demonstration
projects in order to identify and promote low- and zero-emissions
technologies for both mobile and stationary sources. The District
has developed a Technology Advancement Plan to comply with recent
Legislative requirements. This plan, which will be updated periodically
to be as responsive as possible to technological advances, is
available upon request and includes an overview of the TAO program,
project planning and selection processes, and proposed project
areas.
The primary purpose of AB 2766 is to ensure that District's and,
in the Basin, local governments implementing CCAA have access
to the funds necessary to implement the California Clean Air Act
(CCAA) of 1988. In addition, a fund of monies set aside to obtain
emission reductions from mobile sources through a grant program
developed by MSRC. To this end, MSRC funding can be used solely
for projects to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles.
Some of the key technological advancements resulting from the
District and MSRC programs are highlighted and reviewed below.
A 1995 report entitled "Building Markets for Low-Emission
Technologies and Clean Fuels: A Status Report on Commercialization
and Technology Transfer," which provides more detailed information
on District-funded technologies, is available upon request.
Multiple Application Advanced Technologies
Fuel Cells /Advanced Battery Technologies
Advanced zero and near-zero emission technologies (such as fuel
cells) are needed to help meet the District's air quality goals
by the year 2010. If deployed on a large scale, such technologies
can achieve substantial air pollution reductions for a wide spectrum
of stationary and mobile sources.
Fuel cells are devices that electrochemically convert hydrogen
and oxygen into electricity and pure water, with little or no
emissions. Most fuel cell systems obtain oxygen from ambient air.
Hydrogen can be generated through catalytic steam reforming of
a hydrogen-rich fuel such as methanol or natural gas. Fuel cells
and batteries offer similar advantages over internal combustion
engines, including zero or near-zero emissions, high fuel efficiency,
good power, few moving parts, and low noise. A key difference
is that unlike batteries, fuel cells can provide continuous operation
because they generate power from an external fuel supply. Thus,
fuel cell electric vehicles offer comparable driving range and
refueling time to today's gasoline vehicles, while battery-electric
vehicles must be recharged over the course of several hours from
the electrical grid.
Fuel cells are currently being developed for a wide variety of
applications, and the District's technology advancement program
has played a leading role towards expediting their commercialization.
For example, the District has formed and convened a Fuel Cell
Implementation Task Force to help develop incentives for the manufacture
of fuel cell technologies. The District is working with the federal
government and various private-sector entities to expedite commercialization
of proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells in transit buses
and automobiles. As a follow-up to a District-co-funded project,
by late 1997 one fuel cell manufacturer will deploy 10 prototype
PEM fuel cell buses in revenue service at three North American
cities. The manufacturer has now achieved diesel-equivalent power
density in its fuel cell powerplant for buses and cars, and is
projecting commercialization of PEM fuel cell buses by 2000. Virtually
all the major automobile manufacturers are working on fuel cell
passenger cars, and two have announced their intention to conduct
pre-production demonstrations of PEM fuel cell cars within the
next five years. The District is also working with the federal
government to develop methanol-fueled phosphoric acid fuel cell
transit buses. This prototype technology is now being optimized
and scaled up, with prospects for commercialization by about 2005.
Progress with fuel cells for stationary applications is also proceeding
steadily. Since the District became the first commercial site
for a 200kW PC-25 Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell (PAFC) unit for stationary
power, more than 70 units are on order or have gone on line around
the world. Units installed between 1993 and 1994 have logged more
than 7,500 hours continuously, with an average availability exceeding
95 percent. Operating efficiency, in terms of thermal input (lower
heating value of natural gas) to electrical output, has averaged
40 percent. Measured emissions are so low that the District has
exempted these powerplants from all air quality permitting requirements
in the greater Los Angeles basin. Noise levels are also extremely
low. The latest version of this PAFC technology, the PC 25C, is
lighter, smaller, and costs about 40 percent less (from $5000
per kW to $3000 per kW). The target cost, at which the PC-25 sales
are expected to be self-sustaining, is $1,500 per kW. The manufacturer's
aim is to achieve this cost target by the end of 1998 through
increased production and sales.
According to a report sponsored by the ARB, entitled, "Performance
and Availability of Batteries for Electric Vehicles: A Report
of the Battery Technical Advisory Panel," dated December
11, 1995, improved lead-acid and nickel cadmium batteries will
be used in electric vehicles in the near future. However, a variety
of advanced battery technologies which will provide greater vehicle
range are being developed for use in production electric vehicles
during the 2000 to 2001 timeframe and beyond. Some of the most
notable technologies include nickel-metal-hydride, lithium-ion,
and sodium-nickel-chloride. Honda and Toyota have announced they
will introduce pilot fleets of electric vehicles with nickel-metal-hydride
batteries in 1998. Refuelable zinc-air battery systems which provide
long vehicle range are also being developed.
In July 1995, the MSRC created the "Quick Charge" program,
intended as a large-scale pilot demonstration of electric vehicles
within the jurisdiction of the District during 1996, 1997, and
1998. This demonstration will aid local communities, manufacturers,
and utilities to test the consumer market and demonstrate the
infrastructure, permitting processes, and coordination that would
be necessary for the eventual introduction of larger quantities
of electric vehicles. The pilot demonstration seeks to identify
and resolve potential barriers to broad electric vehicle commercialization.
Among the various issues to be addressed are the following: battery
recycling, charging methods, codes and standards, consumer education
and training, emergency response training, equipment availability,
electric vehicle service capability, fast charging, home charging,
incentives, permitting, remote charging, utility capacity, and
utility electric rates.
Concurrently, the MSRC has initially allocated revenues to be
leveraged with local funding to create "Quick Charge"
electric vehicle corridor communities. This program supports the
deployment of electric vehicles along designated freeway corridors
and within specific communities that have committed to be electric
vehicle ready. Local government will play a critical role in permitting
and inspection, adopting codes and ordinances, and providing public
recharging infrastructure.
Alternative Fuels
Significant advancements have been made in the development and
use of alternative clean fuels for a variety of on- and off-road
mobile sources as well as stationary source applications. Alternative
fuel technologies for on-road sources include methanol, ethanol,
propane, compressed natural gas and electricity. Numerous District
and MSRC projects have demonstrated the viability of each of these
fuels. While progress has been made, further advancements or infrastructure
are required for full commercialization.
Emission reductions can be expected from light-duty off-road engines
based on zero- or near-zero-emission technologies such as electric
or battery-powered equipment or fuel cell-powered units. These
technologies are expected to eventually be used for the majority
of light-duty off-road equipment (e.g., pumps, compressors, and
forklifts). For heavy-duty off-road engines (i.e., > 50 hp),
advanced alternative fuel technologies can also be relied upon
to achieve additional emissions reductions.
Many activities of the District program are directed at crediting
commercialization of alternative fuel vehicles that are fully
certified and warranted under state regulations for light- and
medium-duty vehicles. In January 1994, the ARB certified a 1994
Chrysler natural gas minivan to meet the stringent ultra low-emission
vehicle (ULEV) emission standards. The Dodge Caravans and Plymouth
Voyagers were certified to less than half of the nonmethane organic
gas (NMOG) standard, one-sixth of the CO standard, and one-tenth
of the NOx standard. These front-wheel drive vehicles are equipped
with a 3.3 liter V-6 engine using a three-way catalytic converter,
heated oxygen sensor, and sequential multi-port natural gas fuel
injection system
Retail sale of ARB-certified methanol transitional low-emission
vehicles (TLEV) has followed several years of strategically targeted
demonstration programs, with co-funding from the District program,
to address key commercialization barriers.
To date, there are no light- or medium-duty propane vehicles certified
to ARB low-emission vehicle standards. Working both with original
equipment manufacturers and aftermarket companies, the District
program has sponsored projects designed to advance the state of
the art in low-emission propane vehicles.
Hydrogen also offers an extremely good option. It can substantially
eliminate a range of criteria, toxic, and global-warming pollutants
by significantly reducing tailpipe, refueling, and evaporative
emissions. In addition, since it can be made from water and is
recyclable, its supply is potentially inexhaustible.
The fuel can be used in dedicated or hybrid internal combustion
engines, or in fuel cells. Ballard and Mercedes-Benz have already
made substantial progress in developing hydrogen powered fuel
cell vehicles. However, the entry of such vehicles into the marketplace
is constrained due to a complete absence of a hydrogen fueling
infrastructure. However, ARB LEV requirements mandate the establishment
of alternate fuel outlets if vehicle sales, propelled by a particular
fuel, reach 20,000 or more.
Renewable Power Generation Technologies
Several technologies are on the horizon that involve the production
of fuel for mobile or stationary applications from renewable energy
sources. Some technologies that have been demonstrated either
through the efforts of the District and MSRC, or by others include:
use of photovoltaics to recharge electric vehicles; generation
of hydrogen through electrolysis of water which can be utilized
for mobile or stationary applications; and generation of electricity
with a solar concentrator in combination with a Stirling engine
system.
Advanced Mobile and Transportation Technologies
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
In recent years, many technological advances have occurred in
making the vehicle and the highway more intelligent, mostly in
order to improve traffic. Several technologies are considered
part of the general category of ITS including: traffic signal
synchronization; interchangeable message signs; traveler information
systems; automatic course finders; variable ramp metering; automatic
fee collection systems; and vehicle platooning systems. The District
is a major participant in the planning and development of various
elements of ITS.
Remote Sensing Devices
Remote sensing devices (RSDs) are instruments capable of measuring
instantaneous concentrations of pollutants in the exhaust of vehicles.
These devices have been in the development stages for several
years and are now commercially available for use. The District
and others have been extensively involved in the research, development
and application of RSDs.
In recent years, major advancements have been made in the technical
capabilities of the devices such as the ability to measure volatile
organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide. In
addition, a program funded by the District demonstrated that RSDs
can be used to detect high-emitting vehicles, and that most of
these vehicles can be repaired at an acceptable cost.
Advanced Add-On Control Technologies
Significant research is in progress to advance control technologies
for on-road motor vehicles. For gasoline vehicles, improvements
in three-way catalytic converter technology (such as the utilization
of greater catalyst loadings, improved wash coats, and electrically
heated catalysts) have shown the potential to further reduce volatile
organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen emissions by more than
80 and 50 percent, respectively. Improvements in fuel management
techniques, in an effort to maintain stoichiometric air fuel mixtures
during warm engine operating conditions, have also been responsible
for substantial reductions in vehicle emissions. These techniques
include sequential fuel injection, dual oxygen sensor systems,
and adaptive transient control. These technologies are transferable
to off-road mobile source applications as well as to the existing
on-road vehicle fleet whose emission control systems have deteriorated
or are of less advanced design.
Relative to diesel-powered vehicles, it is anticipated that improvements
in NOx reduction technologies will occur in the areas of lean
NOx catalysts and exhaust gas circulation. In addition, alternative
fuels such as methanol and natural gas, used in diesel engine
applications, have shown the potential to reduce NOx emissions
by more than 50 percent. Again, these technologies are expected
to be transferable to off-road mobile source applications.
Stationary and Area Source Technologies
Appendix IV-A of the 1997 AQMP provides a more detailed discussion
of each long-term measure including a description of the source
category, potential control technologies, and implementation milestones.
Zero-VOC Coating Formulations
Significant advancements have been made relative to the development
and application of zero- or near-zero-VOC coating formulations.
Powder coatings, UV coatings for various substrates, zero-VOC
interior flat architectural coating materials, as well as waterborne
lacquers for wood products, are examples of technological advancements
that have developed over the last 5 to 10 years. The source categories
subject to the long-term control measures include architectural
coatings, solvent degreasing and cleaning operations and miscellaneous
industrial coating operations. The focus of the long-term control
measures for these source categories is primarily the small and
unpermitted sources. Therefore, in addition to control technologies,
innovative implementation mechanism is also needed to successfully
carry out the control program.
Zero-VOC Consumer Products
Haircare products, deodorants and laundry cleaning materials are
examples of products that contain VOCs. The use of these products
represents a significant source of emissions. Lower VOC containing
products have been developed, in part due to the California consumer
products regulations. Further development and use of less-polluting
products are key technological advancements proposed in this Plan.
Fugitive Emissions
Fugitive emissions from industrial processes, chemical plants,
refineries, and oil and gas production sources, or transfer and
storage of organic materials contribute to overall VOC emissions.
Efficient and cost-effective technologies such as enhanced inspection
and maintenance program, leakless valves, or vapor recovery device
are critical to support further reductions from fugitive emission
source categories.
Miscellaneous Sources
This source category represented many small and unspecified emission
sources and yet in aggregate a significant contribution to the
overall emissions. Development of an emission reduction strategy,
first requires a better emission inventory to identify specific
sources of emissions. Applicable controls or innovative controls
can then be developed in conjunction with better management practices
and effective regulatory programs to reduce emissions.
Emission Reduction Targets
Table 4-9 lists long-term or 182(e)(5) measures calling for advanced
technologies. It represents the emission reduction targets beyond
the short- and intermediate-measures.
Alternative Control Approaches
Spatial and temporal emission reduction programs offer a potentially
viable method of reducing ambient concentrations
of atmospheric pollutants. These methods are described below and
will continue to be further evaluated in the future.
An alternative to the application of the long-term advanced control
technologies described above, or an in-concert approach, is the
selective reduction of sources in certain geographical zones in
the Basin. Advanced technologies and control practices could be
targeted for those areas of the Basin that contribute more significantly
to the exceedances of the ambient air quality standards than other
areas. Under this approach, further advanced control zones would
be identified and programs developed.
The District has evaluated the potential viability of spatial
and temporal approaches. As part of its analysis for the Environmental
Impact Report for the 1994 AQMP, the District developed a control
strategy based on the proposed control program as set forth in
the 1994 AQMP, but applied the long-term VOC stationary source
measures in the western portion of the Basin only.
TABLE 4-9
Long-Term Control Measures Approaches
Technology
On-Road Mobile
Measure M2
Fuel Cells/Electric Hybrid or Equivalent
Alternative Fuels/Advanced Emission Controls
New Measures Development to Achieve Overall Emission Reductions
Market Incentives and Operational Measures
Alternative Fuels/Advanced Emission Controls
Fuel Cells/Electric Hybrid
Off-Road Mobile Sources
Measure M9
Zero-Emission Technologies
Measure M10
Off-Road Diesel Equipment; 2.5 g/bhp-hr NOx Standard - National
Measure M15
Aircraft; Nationwide Emission Standards
New Measure Development to Achieve Overall Emission Reductions
Market Incentives and Operational Measures
Alternative Fuels/Advanced Emission Controls
Fuel Cells/Electric Hybrid
Stationary Sources
Control Measure CP4: Consumer Products
Reformulations/Alternative Applications
ADV-ARCH: Architectural Coatings; ADC-CLNG: Solvent Cleaning and
Degreasing Operations; ADV-CTS: Miscellaneous Industrial Coating and
Solvent Operations
Reformulations/Alternative Applications
Innovative Implementation Mechanism
ADV-FUG and ADV-PRC: Fugitive Emissions and Industrial Process
Operations
Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance
Leakless Valves
Enhanced Vapor Recovery
ADV-MISC:
Improved Inventory Methodology
Innovative Management Practices/Regulatory Programs
The District found that a long-term strategy based on such an
approach can provide equivalent air quality benefits, achieving
all of the ambient air quality standards within the same timeframe
as the 1994 AQMP. Moreover, since the use of such approaches narrows
the degree of control in the Basin, they can significantly reduce
the cost of the Plan.
This analysis represented the District's first step toward developing
a comprehensive control strategy. Further analysis was needed
to define the specific geographic zones in the Basin. However,
the necessary quantitative tools were not available.
As part of the development of the 1997 AQMP, the District sponsored
a study to develop an ozone assessment tool which provides the
contribution from various source regions to ozone exceedances.
An alternative control approach is provided as part of the Environmental
Impact Report for the 1997 AQMP. While the appropriate assessment
tools are now available, further evaluations of the specific geographic
zones are needed to fully address the socioeconomic impacts of
geographic controls.
Temporal/Seasonal Reduction Programs
In addition to spatial reduction programs and long-term advanced
technologies, reduction efforts could be directed at the time
of release of emissions. Under this approach, selective source
emissions in the Basin could be shifted to hours that would be
less conducive to forming photochemical pollutants and to seasons
with less photochemical activity. One of the proposals of the
Intercredit Trading Program is to allow VOC stationary sources
to shift emissions-related activities to the winter season from
the summer ozone season. The Environmental Impact Report for the
1997 AQMP provides an analysis of the air quality impacts of this
alternative control approach.
A summary of emission reductions available by the years 2006 and
2010 for short-, intermediate- and long-term measures is provided
in Tables 4-10 through 4-13. Emission reductions represent the
difference between the projected baseline and the remaining emissions.
For 2006, Table 4-10 identifies projected reductions based on
the annual average inventory for all criteria pollutants (VOC,
NOx, CO, SOx, and PM10). It represents the level of emission reductions
needed to achieve the federal PM10 standards. For 2010, Tables
4-11 through 4-13 identify projected reductions based on the summer
planning inventory for VOC and NOx emissions, the winter planning
inventory for CO and NOx emissions, and the annual average inventory
for SOx and PM10 emissions. Emission reductions by 2010 illustrate
the extent of controls needed for achieving the federal ozone
standard.
TABLE 4-10
Emission Reductions for Short-, Intermediate-, and Long-Term Measures
for 2006 Based on Average Annual Emissions Inventory (tons per
day)
Sources VOC NOx CO SOx PM10
Year 2006 Baseline 801 738 3657 66 454
Stationary 459 104 191 13 424
Mobile
On-Road 222 403 2,103 16 14
Off-Road 120 231 1,363 37 16
Emission Reductions
Short-, Intermediate-Term
Measures
Stationary 98 8 1 0 153
Mobile
On-Road 30 50 356 0 0
Off-Road 23 31 512 0 0
Long-Term Measures
Stationary 20 0 0 0 0
Mobile
On-Road 5 3 0 0 0
Off-Road 2 11 0 0 0
Total Reductions (All 178 103 869 0 153
Measures)
2006 Remaining Emissions 623 635 2,788 66 301
TABLE 4-11
Emission Reductions for Short-, Intermediate-, and Long-Term Measures
for 2010 Based on Summer Planning Inventory (tons per day)
Sources VOC NOx
Year 2010 Baseline 839 727
Stationary 532 98
Mobile
On Road 163 360
Off-Road 144 269
Emission Reductions
Short-, Intermediate-Term Measures
Stationary 132 10
Mobile
On-Road 35 61
Off-Road 55 49
Long-Term Measures
Stationary 132 0
Mobile
On-Road 47 21
Off-Road 25 56
Total Reductions (All Measures) 426 197
2010 Remaining Emissions 413 530
TABLE 4-12
Emission Reductions for Short-, Intermediate-, and Long-Term Measures
for 2010 Based on Winter Planning Inventory (tons per day)
Sources CO NOx
Year 2010 Baseline 3,893 759
Stationary 337 120
Mobile
On Road 1,913 373
Off-Road 1,643 266
Emission Reductions
Short-, Intermediate-Term Measures
Stationary 0 9
Mobile
On-Road 430 63
Off-Road 1038 51
Long-Term Measures
Stationary 0 0
Mobile
On-Road 0 21
Off-Road 0 54
Total Reductions (All Measures) 1,468 198
2010 Remaining Emissions 2,425 561
TABLE 4-13
Emission Reductions for Short-, Intermediate-, and Long-Term Measures
for 2010 Based on Annual Average Inventory (tons per day)
Sources SOx PM10
Year 2010 Baseline 70 463
Stationary 13 433
Mobile
On Road 17 14
Off-Road 40 16
Emission Reductions
Short-, Intermediate-Term Measures
Stationary -1** 156
Mobile
On-Road 0 0
Off-Road 0 0
Long-Term Measures*
Stationary 0 0
Mobile
On-Road 0 0
Off-Road 0 0
Total Reductions (All Measures) 0 156
2010 Remaining Emissions 71 307
*No reductions estimated, although some concurrent reductions
expected due to VOC and NOx controls.
** Emission increase due to Rule 518.2 variance SIP allowance
for Title V facilities.
|
