The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program Assessing 10 Years of Experience -- Special Report 264 (2002) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix F - Cost-Effectiveness of Mobile Source Non-CMAQ Control Measures
Appendix F - Cost-Effectiveness of Mobile Source Non-CMAQ Control Measures
Pages 420-500
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 420... ...
In 1997, the author conducted a study to examine some of the methodological issues involved in calculating the cost effectiveness of mobile source control measures. In that study, ways were proposed to deal with such methodological issues as using user costs or societal costs, using costs at the manufacturer or the consumer level, determining baseline emissions, using emission reductions in nonattainment or in both nonattainment and attainment areas, using annual or pollution-season emission reductions, considering multiple pollutant emission reductions, and applying emission discounting.
|
From page 421... ...
The evaluation com mittee commissioned the author to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of non-CMAQ mobile source control measures. Findings of the com missioned study are documented in this report.
|
From page 422... ...
First, different studies use different methodologies and parametric assumptions concerning control costs and emission reductions for given measures. Though these differences undoubtedly reflect the uncertain nature of the given measures, they also reflect institutional positions on methodological issues.
|
From page 423... ...
Table F-1 sum marizes mobile source control measures already in place or to be in place soon. Control measures in Table F-1 that have already been implemented include the following: · The federal Tier 1 LDV emission standards, · The California LEV I program, · The federal oxygenated fuel requirement, · The California Phase 1 RFG, · The California Phase 2 RFG, · The California low-sulfur (LS)
|
From page 424... ...
In some cases, a program reduces emissions of other pollutants besides the targeted pollutants. Consequently, these measures have become part of the baseline con trol measures for evaluating new control measures such as CMAQ measures.
|
From page 425... ...
TABLE F-2 Non-CMAQ Control Measures Selected in This Study and the Nature of Their Impacts Travel Congestion Emission Response Mitigation Reduction Vehicle emission standards CA LEV II program No No Yes Federal Tier 2 LDV standards No No Yes Federal Phase 1 HDE standards No No Yes Federal Phase 2 HDE standards No No Yes Clean conventional fuels CARFG2 Smalla No Yes CARFG3 Smalla No Yes FRFG2 Smalla No Yes Alternative-fueled or advanced vehicles Ethanol vehicles Smalla No Yes Methanol vehicles Smalla No LPG vehicles Smalla No Yes CNG vehicles Smalla No Yes Hybrid electric vehicles Smalla No Electric vehicles Smalla No Yes I&M programs No No Yes Old vehicle scrappage Smalla No Yes Remote sensing programs No No Yes aDifferences in fuel prices caused by these measures may result in increased or decreased operating costs of motor vehicles, which may cause changes in travel. However, the changes induced by fuel prices are probably small, and virtually all studies ignored such changes in travel.
|
From page 426... ...
Relative to the LEV I program, the LEV II program establishes stringent oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emission standards to achieve large NOx emission reductions (see Tables F-3 and F-4)
|
From page 427... ...
2004. Federal Tier 2 LDV Standards In early 2000, EPA adopted the Tier 2 emission standards for passen ger cars and light-duty trucks (LDTs)
|
From page 428... ...
Besides establishing vehicle tailpipe emission standards, EPA requires gasoline sulfur content to be reduced to 30 ppm beginning in 2004. Federal HDE Emission Standards for MY 20042006 (Phase 1 Standards)
|
From page 429... ...
In addition to these standards, EPA established new testing procedures and required on board diagnosis systems for HDEs. Federal HDE Emission Standards for MY 2007 and Later (Phase 2 HDE Standards)
|
From page 430... ...
Under the CARFG2 requirement, gasoline producers are allowed to certify gasoline by meeting either the specified composition require ments (Table F-8) or predetermined emission reduction requirements with any alternative gasoline reformulation formula.
|
From page 431... ...
0660-12/Appendix F 6/12/02 4:39 PM Page 431 dis 2004) is (winter 03.7 after 1.1 35.0 10.0 220 330 Yes CARFG3 6.407.20 (30 1.83.7 areas)
|
From page 432... ...
EPA allows gaso line producers to use its Complex Model to determine emission reductions of a given gasoline reformulation formula. FRFG2 began to be introduced into the worst ozone nonattainment areas in 2000.
|
From page 433... ...
. In 2000, EPA adopted the Phase 2 HDE emission standards.
|
From page 434... ...
If a vehicle fails the emission test, it must be fixed, with some exceptions. Emission reductions by I&M programs come from three sources: (a)
|
From page 435... ...
If the cut points are not stringent enough, the amount of emission reductions is limited. If they are too stringent, the cost of overall emission reductions is high.
|
From page 436... ...
Methodological Issues in Mobile Source Cost-Effectiveness Calculations Cost-effectiveness, presented in dollars per ton of emissions reduced, for emission control measures is often used by regulatory agencies, industries, and public interest groups in determining which control measures to adopt to meet given air quality goals. In fact, estima tion of cost-effectiveness is usually required by law.
|
From page 437... ...
To summarize different studies and compare them meaningfully, methodological differences among them need to be reconciled. On the other hand, different studies with a similar, if not the same, methodological basis may have different parametric assumptions concerning the costs and emission reductions of the control meas ures under evaluation.
|
From page 438... ...
estimated versus actual emission reductions. Determination of Baseline Emissions and Emission Reductions of Control Measures Calculation of emission reductions by a given control measure re quires determination of baseline emissions from which the control TABLE F-11 Nine Methodological Issues for Mobile Source Cost-Effectiveness How the Issue Should How the Issue Is Issue Be Addressed Addressed in This Study Baseline emission determination Considering already adopted Considering already adopted control measures control measures Multiple air pollutants reduced to be Yes Yes included?
|
From page 439... ...
For example, past studies that evaluated RFG emission reductions assumed Tier 1 vehicles, Tier 2 vehicles, or California LEV types as baseline vehicles. On the other hand, in esti mating the cost-effectiveness of vehicle emission standards, past studies assumed CG or RFG to determine emission reductions of vehicle standards.
|
From page 440... ...
tested control measures could be different from adopted control measures. Multiple-Pollutant Emission Reductions Most mobile source control measures usually reduce emissions for more than one pollutant.
|
From page 441... ...
This means that CO emission reductions are discarded in the adjust TABLE F-12 Weighting Factors of Three Pollutants to Combine Their Emissions VOC CO NOx Base case weighting factors 1 0 4 Equal weighting factors 1 0 1 NOx-important weighting factors 1 0 8
|
From page 442... ...
The second approach to multiple-pollutant emission reductions is to allocate the total cost of a control measure to each pollutant affected. To do so correctly, engineering analysis of the effort spent to control each pollutant could be conducted, and the total cost could be allo cated according to the control effort for each pollutant.
|
From page 443... ...
One way or another, emission reductions of all pollutants affected should be taken into account in calculating cost-effectiveness. Ignoring emission reductions for some pollutants results in upward biased control costs.
|
From page 444... ...
However, discounting of mobile source emissions is usually applica ble for the lifetime of a motor vehicle, which is about 15 years. Intergenerational inequity rarely exists over a 15-year period.
|
From page 445... ...
0660-12/Appendix F 6/12/02 4:39 PM Page 445 ) 7,096 4,059 3,428 3,044 2,265 1,869 1,636 1,487 1,387 1,320 1,274 1,245 1,227 1,220 1,219 1,227 1,240 1,258 continued( Annualized Costs ($/ton)
|
From page 446... ...
0660-12/Appendix F 6/12/02 4:39 PM Page 446 1,281 1,308 1,340 1,376 1,415 1,461 Annualized Costs ($/ton) 40.4 37.3 34.3 31.6 28.9 26.4 Discounted 1144.1 of Discounted Emissions (lb/year)
|
From page 447... ...
The cost-effectiveness of some mobile source control measures is calculated on the basis of annual rather than lifetime emission reductions. Such measures include I&M programs and RFG require ments.
|
From page 448... ...
Whether to include emission reductions in attain ment areas is especially important in comparing mobile source con trol measures, because some measures (such as vehicle emission standards) may inevitably be applied to both nonattainment and attainment areas.
|
From page 449... ...
Thus, emis sions in attainment areas cannot be ignored completely, although they may be assigned lower values. Furthermore, because emissions can be transported for a long distance from attainment to nonattain ment areas, emission reductions in attainment areas could benefit attainment goals for nonattainment areas.
|
From page 450... ...
Transportation control measures can reduce emissions by decreasing vehicle miles traveled, which also reduces the demand for further expansion of transportation infrastructure in the long run. Costs avoided in infrastructure expansion because of reduced vehicle miles traveled may need to be subtracted from the costs of the measures.
|
From page 451... ...
Costs at the consumer level, not the manufacturer level, should be used in calcu lating cost-effectiveness values. Estimated Versus Actual On-Road Emissions Virtually all past studies relied on EPA's MOBILE or CARB's EMFAC model to estimate emission reductions.
|
From page 452... ...
They showed that adjusting on road emissions could improve mobile source cost-effectiveness significantly. Summary Among the nine methodological issues, some affect completeness and others reflect scope.
|
From page 453... ...
However, when the results of different studies are compared, scope-related issues need to be adjusted so that the results can be compared on the basis of similar scopes. Review of Past Studies: Key Assumptions in Individual Studies and Adjustments Applied to Them A review of studies on mobile source control cost-effectiveness com pleted in the past several years is presented in this section.
|
From page 454... ...
incremental costs of evaluated control measures, (b) emission reductions for each of the affected pollutants, (c)
|
From page 455... ...
Table F-17 shows EPA estimated incremental costs for the lower-sulfur gasoline. EPA cal culated emission reductions of the Tier 2 program with a modified
|
From page 456... ...
For the latter, emission reductions by non-Tier 2 vehicles due to use of LS gasoline were taken into account. TABLE F-16 Cost-Effectiveness of Tier 2 Vehicles (1997 dollars)
|
From page 457... ...
While reductions in NMHC, CO, NOx, and PM TABLE F-18 Emission Reductions of the Tier 2 Program (tons per year)
|
From page 458... ...
the amount of CO emission reductions is, in general, small (the Tier 2 program focuses mainly on NMHC and NOx emissions)
|
From page 459... ...
Tables F-20 and F-21 present EPA's estimates of the costs and cost-effectiveness, respectively, of diesel and gasoline HDEs that will meet Phase 1 HDE emission standards. In this study, four adjustments were applied to EPA's original estimates: 1.
|
From page 460... ...
. Federal Phase 2 HDE Emission Standards and the LS Diesel Fuel Requirement EPA (2000c)
|
From page 461... ...
. CARB estimated emission reductions for VOC, CO, and NOx on the basis of the equations developed by the Auto/Oil program and TABLE F-23 Emission Reductions by EPA's Phase 2 HDE Emission Standards (thousands of tons per year)
|
From page 462... ...
VOC evaporative emission reductions were calculated with the CARB-developed evaporative emission formula. SOx emissions were calculated with the sulfur content of CARFG2.
|
From page 463... ...
CARB excluded emission reductions by MY 1996 and on vehi cles, and (c) CARB excluded emission reductions in ozone attain ment areas.
|
From page 464... ...
Table F-28 presents Sierra's cost-effectiveness values for CARFG2. The high dollar-per-ton costs estimated by Sierra are mainly due to exclusion of emission reductions of CO and SOx, and no cost allocation to air toxic reductions.
|
From page 465... ...
2. Dollar-per-ton amounts for NOx emission reductions were con verted to dollar-per-ton amounts for VOC-equivalent emission reductions with three sets of weighting factors (Table F-12)
|
From page 466... ...
Table F-31 presents Sierra's cost-effectiveness values for FRFG2. The high dollar-per-ton costs estimated by Sierra are mainly due to exclusion of emission reductions of CO and SOx, no cost allocation to air toxic reductions, and high RFG costs.
|
From page 467... ...
Table F-32 gives NPC's estimates of cost-effectiveness for FRFG2. NPC did not consider emission reductions of CO, SOx, or air toxics in its cost-effectiveness calculations.
|
From page 468... ...
Table F-34 presents Harrington et al.'s estimates of emission reductions achieved by the Arizona program. Harrington et al.
|
From page 469... ...
2000) HC CO NOx Emission reductions (tons/1,000 vehicles)
|
From page 470... ...
Sierra assumed scrappage of vehicles 3 years before the end of the vehicle's natural lifetime. Using CARB's EMFAC model, it estimated emission reductions of scrapping 5 percent of the available vehicle population (Table F-37)
|
From page 471... ...
They used emission-testing results from scrapped cars to TABLE F-38 Cost-Effectiveness of Scrapping Old Passenger Vehicles ($/ton, 1998 dollars, Based on NOx Emission Reductions Only) (Sierra Research 1998)
|
From page 472... ...
evaluated cost-effectiveness of a remote sensing program in conjunction with a follow-up enhanced I&M test for failed vehicles. The cost for the integrated program included remote-sensing costs, I&M tests (for vehicles failing remote TABLE F-40 Emission Reductions of Old Car Scrappage (Alberini et al.
|
From page 473... ...
Table F-42 shows their cost assumptions. Table F-43 presents their estimates of emission reductions.
|
From page 474... ...
6.5 11.0 TABLE F-43 AFV Emission Reductions (Pounds per Lifetime)
|
From page 475... ...
3. Air toxic emission reductions of AFVs were excluded.
|
From page 476... ...
Sierra Research (1994) estimated cost-effectiveness of CNG cars and electric cars, together with many other mobile source control measures, for the American Automobile Manufacturers Associa tion.
|
From page 477... ...
2. VOC and NOx emissions were combined with three sets of weighting factors (Table F-12)
|
From page 478... ...
evaluated the economics of HEVs. HEVs have been promoted for their fuel economy benefits and resultant GHG emission reductions.
|
From page 479... ...
bEmission reductions were discounted emissions over bus lifetime. cCost-effectiveness was calculated for CNG and hybrid buses by allocating total costs between NOx and PM emis sion reductions evenly.
|
From page 480... ...
This implies that CO emission reduction benefits are excluded in this study, which results in increased dollar-per-ton results. However, since many of the reviewed studies gave little or no value to CO emission reductions in their original estimates, increases in dollar per-ton results attributable to the use of the zero CO weighting factor are small.
|
From page 481... ...
0660-12/Appendix F 6/12/02 4:39 PM Page 481 ) x 74- 74- 66- 62- 64 Change (%)
|
From page 482... ...
0660-12/Appendix F 6/12/02 4:39 PM Page 482 x 90- 87- 30- 11 87- 14 12 82 85 79- 21- 87- 11- 43- 14 87- 35 Change (%) 1,600 2,500 4,700 4,100 2,700 1,600 9,700 VOC:CO:NO Median ($)
|
From page 483... ...
The purpose of the table is to show the differences between original and adjusted estimates. The cost-effectiveness of various mobile source control measures can now be compared according to the adjusted cost-effectiveness estimates.
|
From page 484... ...
0660-12/Appendix F 6/12/02 4:39 PM Page 484 (1) Vehicles EtOH (1)
|
From page 485... ...
vehicles (1) 05-F 1 2 LDV emission scrappage 2 LEV gasoline Phase Phase vehicles Phase sensing Program electric vehicles vehicles number emission Phase Phase Tier vehicle programs vehicle vehicles vehicles The ABLE EPA EPA EPA California California Federal California I&M Remote Old CNG Methanol Hybrid Electric LPG Ethanol T Control Vehicle Reformulated In-use Alternative-fueled Note:
|
From page 486... ...
Although precise quantitative conclusions cannot be drawn from Figure F-1, some general conclusions about the relative cost-effective ness of various control measures can be drawn. On the basis of medi an cost-effectiveness values, in general, the most cost-effective meas ures are EPA's Phase 1 and 2 HDE emission standards, EPA's Tier 2 LDV emission standards, California's LEV II program, California's Phase 3 RFG, I&M programs, remote sensing programs, and old vehi cle scrappage.
|
From page 487... ...
Conclusions Calculating the cost-effectiveness of mobile source control measures involves dealing with both methodological and technical issues. Technical issues are related to values assumed for costs and emission reductions, whereas methodological issues are related to which costs are accounted for, how emission reductions are calculated, and which pollutants are included.
|
From page 488... ...
Although precise quantitative conclusions cannot be drawn from the adjusted cost-effectiveness results, the results show general trends in the relative cost-effectiveness of various mobile source control measures. In general, among the mobile source control measures eval uated, the most cost-effective measures are EPA's Phase 1 and 2 HDE emission standards, EPA's Tier 2 vehicle emission standards, the California LEV II program, California Phase 3 RFG, I&M programs, remote sensing programs, and old vehicle scrappage.
|
From page 489... ...
Single-pollutant reduction measures are applicable to stationary source emission control, since stationary control measures can be designed to reduce emissions of one pollu tant. Thus, estimation of stationary source control cost-effectiveness did not face the issue of multiple-pollutant emission reductions, as mobile source control measures usually do.
|
From page 490... ...
degreasing 100 100 100 Stage I control in gasoline stations 0 100 200 CARB Tier 2 standard for reformulated aerosols 400 400 400 RACT for oil and NG production fields 400 400 400 New CGT control for SOCMI reactor processes 500 500 500 Low VOC coatings for rubber and plastic manufacture 1,200 1,200 1,300 Incineration at bakeries 1,800 1,800 1,800 RACT for leather products 1,900 1,900 1,900 RACT for organic acid manufacture 1,900 1,900 1,900 Incineration for charcoal manufacture 2,100 2,100 2,100 CARB limit on consumer solvents 2,200 2,500 3,000 Limits on traffic marking paints 4,600 4,700 4,900 Carbon adsorption for letterpress printing 300 1,200 5,400 Limits for mach/electr/railroad coatings 3,400 4,700 6,500 Low VOC for misc. electronic surface coating 7,200 8,300 8,800 Stripper and equipment for vegetable oil manufacture -200 1,000 9,000 Flare for carbon black manufacture 1,100 2,000 9,200 New CGT control for SOCMI distillation 1,000 3,300 9,700 Incineration for fabric coating 9,900 9,900 9,900 Incineration for plastic parts coating 10,700 10,800 10,800 Incineration for wood furniture coating 10,700 10,800 10,800 Incineration for aircraft surface coating 10,600 10,800 10,900 Incineration for marine surface coating 10,000 10,800 11,000 Incineration for metal coil and can coating 10,500 10,800 11,100 Incineration for motor vehicle surface coating 10,500 10,800 11,100 Incineration for beverage can coating 9,500 10,800 11,500 Limits for metal furn/appli/parts coatings 3,100 5,600 11,800 Content limit for industrial adhesives 2,400 5,600 11,900 Incineration for terephthalic acid manufacture 1,100 7,000 12,900 RACT for urea resins 1,100 7,000 12,900 CA reformulation of pesticides 9,700 11,200 13,400 Limits for ind.
|
From page 491... ...
0660-12/Appendix F 6/12/02 4:39 PM Page 491 Cost-Effectiveness of Mobile Source Non-CMAQ Control Measures 491 TABLE F-53 Stationary Source NOx Control Costs: NOx Tons ($/ton, 2000 dollars) Control Measure Low High Average Low-emission combustion for NG-fired IC engines 0 15,500 200 Low-NOx burners for NG-fired ICI boilers 0 1,700 400 Low-NOx burners for iron and steel mills 400 400 400 Low-NOx burners for NG gas turbines 300 6,700 600 Mid-kiln firing for wet cement manufacture 600 600 600 Ignition timing retard for oil-fired IC engines 200 700 600 Low-NOx burners for oil process heater 600 600 600 Ignition timing retard for NG, diesel, LPG-fired IC engines 600 1,000 700 Mid-kiln firing for dry cement manufacture 700 700 700 Mid-kiln firing for lime kilns 700 700 700 O2 trim and water injection for NG reformers in ammonia plants 900 900 900 Low-NOx burners for LPG process heater 900 900 900 O2 trim + water injection for NG space heater 900 1,000 900 Low-NOx burners for industrial NG combustion 800 1,100 900 Low-NOx burners for oil reformers in ammonia plants 1,200 1,200 1,200 Low-NOx burners for industrial oil combustion 100 2,500 1,200 SNCR for coke-fired ICI boilers 400 3,300 1,400 O2 trim + water injection for NG-fired ICI boilers 0 14,900 1,400 Urea-based SNCR for dry cement manufacture 1,500 1,500 1,500 Water injection for oil-fired gas turbines 1,500 1,500 1,500 SNCR for lime kilns 1,500 1,500 1,500 SCR for coal-fired utility boilers 1,100 3,200 1,500 Low-NOx burners for oil-fired ICI boilers 100 44,000 1,600 Low-NOx burner + flue gas recirculation for iron and steel mills 1,600 1,700 1,600 Low-NOx burners for industrial coal combustion 800 2,600 1,600 Low-NOx burners for diesel process heater 400 3,700 1,700 Low-NOx burners for NG process heater 0 17,000 1,900 Low-NOx burners for LPG-fired ICI boilers 0 8,900 2,400 SCR for NG, diesel, LPG-fired IC engines 1,400 2,900 2,500 SCR for oil-fired IC engines 1,400 6,000 2,600 SNCR for coal-fired ICI boilers 400 14,500 3,100 SCR for container glass manufacture 2,100 6,400 3,200 SNCR for commercial/institutional incinerators 3,400 3,400 3,400 SNCR for industrial and medical incinerators 2,900 15,200 3,400 SNCR for municipal waste combustion 3,400 3,400 3,400 NG reburn for coal-fired ICI boilers 3,600 3,600 3,600 Low-NOx burners for coke-fired ICI boilers 2,900 4,800 3,800 Low-NOx burners + flue gas recirculation for oil-fired ICI boilers 1,300 6,100 3,900 Low-NOx burners for coal-fired ICI boilers 400 57,600 4,000 Low-NOx burners for diesel-fired ICI boilers 300 61,100 5,200 SCR for wet cement manufacture 5,900 5,900 5,900 SCR for oil reformers in ammonia plants 6,200 6,200 6,200 SCR for NG reformers in ammonia plants 0 27,500 9,500 Low-NOx burners + flue gas recirculation for LPG-fired ICI boilers 8,700 11,300 10,000 (continued)
|
From page 492... ...
Control Measure Low High Average Extended absorption for nitric acid manufacture 10,400 10,400 10,400 Low-NOx burners + SCR for iron and steel mills 11,000 12,300 11,600 SCR for dry cement manufacture 11,700 11,900 11,900 SCR for lime kilns 11,800 11,900 11,900 Low-NOx burners + flue gas recirculation for NG-fired ICI boilers 4,000 13,600 12,200 NSCR for nitric acid manufacture 10,300 24,900 12,400 SCR for coke-fired ICI boilers 5,000 44,900 13,200 SCR for oil-fired ICI boilers 100 397,900 14,700 SCR for NG-fired ICI boilers 0 2,089,500 17,400 Low-NOx burners + SNCR for oil process heater 17,600 23,900 19,700 SCR for flat glass manufacture 1,700 76,800 20,500 Low-NOx burners + SCR for oil process heater 21,100 27,300 22,300 SCR + water injection for oil-fired gas turbines 21,100 29,200 23,700 SCR for LPG-fired ICI boilers 200 140,100 26,900 SCR for NG space heater 100 392,900 28,600 NSCR for NG-fired IC engines 100 765,800 29,600 SCR + low-NOx burners for NG gas turbines 8,200 86,500 34,000 Low-NOx burners + SNCR for NG process heater 4,900 4,982,000 36,700 Low-NOx burners + SCR for LPG process heater 36,600 37,200 36,900 O2 firing for container glass manufacture 18,900 115,900 38,900 SCR for diesel fuel space heater 3,400 302,600 41,000 O2 firing for pressed/blown glass manufacture 21,700 122,700 41,500 Low-NOx burners + SCR for diesel process heater 6,700 390,800 47,400 SCR + water injections for NG gas turbines 39,400 58,300 48,900 SCR for oil- and gas-fired utility boiler 1,300 233,100 52,700 O2 firing for flat glass manufacture 12,200 642,600 53,600 Low-NOx burners + SNCR for diesel process heater 6,400 281,700 55,800 SCR for coal-fired ICE boilers 100 1,567,700 59,100 SCR for diesel-fired ICI boilers 100 12,439,800 59,900 Low-NOx burners + SCR for NG process heater 5,400 19,133,700 91,400 Low-NOx burners + flue gas recirculation for diesel-fired ICI boilers 5,900 4,976,400 176,100 SCR + steam injection for NG gas turbines 800 3,282,900 287,400 Note: IC = internal combustion; ICI = industrial, commercial, and institutional; NG = natural gas; NSCR = nonse lective catalyst reduction; SCR = selective catalyst reduction; SNCR = selective noncatalyst reduction. Tables F-53 through F-55 with the results in that section, since the tonnage in each of the tables here is not the same as in that section, except for VOC emission controls in Table F-52.
|
From page 493... ...
TABLE F-55 Stationary Source SOx Control Costs: SOx Tons ($/ton, 2000 dollars) Control Measure Low High Average FGD scrubbers for pulp and paper industry 1,000 526,000 5,500 FGD scrubbers for chemical manufacture 300 86,200 8,800 FGD scrubbers for ICI boilers 1,300 231,700 27,300 FGD scrubbers for primary metal production 200 437,000 38,500 FGD scrubbers for mineral production -- fuel combustion 1,100 480,400 41,700 FGD scrubbers for petroleum industry 100 552,600 43,100 Note: FGD = flue gas desulfurization.
|
From page 494... ...
Table F-50 shows that 8 of the 16 mobile source control measures have emission control costs below $10,000; 2 have control costs between $10,000 and $20,000; and the remaining 6 have control costs above $20,000. Mobile and stationary control measures are competitive with each other in terms of NOx control costs.
|
From page 495... ...
TABLE F-56 Mobile Source Emission Control Costs ($/ton, 2000 dollars) Control Measure Low High Average Enhanced I&M programs 500 1,000 800 FRFG2 for off-road vehicles 200 32,600 5,300 FRFG2 for on-road vehicles 4,500 30,500 7,700 Off-road HDDV retrofit program 10,000 16,800 11,400 On-road HDDV retrofit program 30,700 30,900 30,700 Fleet ILEV 7,900 91,300 27,000 Tier 2 standards for LDGT 6,800 64,400 42,900 Notes: These control measures reduce emissions of VOC, NOx, and PM10.
|
From page 496... ...
The cost-effectiveness result of a given control measure does not indicate by how much the particular measure can reduce emissions, which is beyond the scope of this study. To provide some hints about the potential magnitude of emission reductions achievable by the control measures evaluated in this study, Table F-57 presents emission inventory data for 1999 in the United States.
|
From page 497... ...
56 445 5,715 221 12,698 Coal 29 239 4,935 194 11,856 Oil 5 18 202 5 657 Natural gas 9 94 385 1 12 Others 1 33 26 7 115 Industrial fuel combustion (total) 178 1,178 3,136 236 2,805 Coal 7 109 542 74 1,317 Oil 8 52 214 43 757 Natural gas 60 342 1,202 43 576 Others 35 341 118 60 135 Other fuel combustion 670 3,699 1,175 568 588 Chemical & allied product manufacturing 395 1,081 131 66 262 Metal processing 77 1,678 88 147 401 Petroleum & related industries 424 366 143 29 341 Other industrial processes 449 599 470 343 418 Solvent utilization 4,825 2 3 6 1 Storage and transportation 1,240 72 16 85 5 Waste disposal & recycling 586 3,792 91 587 37 Transportation (total)
|
From page 498... ...
1998. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons, Proposed Amend ments to California Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks and Medium-Duty Vehi cles "LEV II." Mobile Source Control Division, El Monte, Calif., Sept.
|
From page 499... ...
1999. Regulatory Impact Analysis -- Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements.
|
From page 500... ...
1997. Mobile Source Emission Control Cost-Effectiveness: Issues, Uncertainties, and Results.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.