United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EPA-450/2-91-008
November 1991
& EPA
THE CLEAN AIR ACT
SECTION I83(d) GUIDANCE
ON COST-EFFECTIVENESS
-------
-------
The Clean Air Act Section 183fd) Guidance
on Cost-Effectiveness. 1991
OMISSION
EPA has published the following guidance on the application of the Urban Airshed
Model for SIP attainment demonstration:
Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model, EPA-450/4-91-013, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC, 1991. Contact: Cindy Baines, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. (919) 541-5690 or FTS 629-5690.
-------
-------
EPA-450/2-91-008
THE CLEAN AIR ACT
SECTION I83(d) GUIDANCE
ON COST-EFFECTIVENESS
By
Ambient Standards Branch
Air Quality Management Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
November 1991
-------
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and has been approved for publication. Any mention of trade names or commercial
products is not intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
EPA-450/2-91-008
11
-------
-------
PREFACE
This guidance document was prepared by the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711. The principal authors are Frank Bunyard and Allyson Siwik under the supervision of
Allen Basala. In addition, the following individuals provided valuable technical assistance in
preparing the final guidance:
Kent Berry, Barry Gilbert, Doug Grano, Gretchen May, Nancy Mayer, David
Misenheimer, Brock Nicholson, Donna Nickerson, John Silvasi, Jill Vitas, and Susan
Wyatt of OAQPS;
Jane Armstrong, Joanne Goldhand, Peter OkurowsM, and Rich Wilcox of the Office
of Mobile Sources;
Richard Ossias and Jan Tierney of the Office of General Counsel;
Lynn Hamjian and Robert Judge of Region I;
Tom Hansen and Kay Prince of Region IV;
Candy Garret, Robin Sullivan, Lucinda Watson, and Becky Weber of Region VI;
David Jesson and Rebecca Tudor of Region IX;
Maricruz McGowan of the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation;
Kathy Kaufman of the Office of Policy Analysis and Review.
Questions and comments should be directed to Frank Bunyard at (919) 541-5297 or FTS 629-
•j^y t.
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Purpose 1
Status of Nonattainment of Ozone Air Quality 1
Fundamentals of Cost-Effectiveness 5
Role of Cost-Effectiveness
in State Implementation Plans 7
Important Considerations for
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 11
Estimation of Emission Reductions 11
Rule Effectiveness 12
Rule Penetration 14
Cost-Effectiveness Threshold Values
and Geographical Variability 14
Multiple Pollutant Considerations
and Assignment of Costs 19
Applications of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 21
Modeling NOx and VOC 21
ERCAM-PC Software Capability 21
Conclusion 22
Endnotes 23
Bibliography of Cross References 25
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
On November 15, 1990, the President signed into law the new Clean Air Act (Act),
which was passed by an overwhelming majority in the Congress, P.L. 101-549, codified at 42
U.S.C. sections 7401-7671q (1991). The passage of the Act was in part an endorsement of
market-based principles-innovative mechanisms through which cleaner air and better health
for the Nation's citizens can be attained. One type of market-based principle is cost-effective,
emission-reduction strategies. Cost-effectiveness is encouraged in Tide I, Subpart 2, section
183(d) of the Act, which states "[w]ithin 1 year after the date of the enactment of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990, the Administrator shall provide guidance to the States to be
used in evaluating the relative cost-effectiveness of various options for the control of
emissions from existing stationary sources of air pollutants which contribute to nonattainment
of the national ambient air quality standards for ozone."
In keeping with the Act's endorsement of market-based principles, this document is
aimed at achieving, at lower cost, the compliance milestones for emission reductions to attain
and maintain the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone. This document
provides illustrative guidance on how to compare various types of control measures (i.e.,
process changes, add-on controls). In addition, it provides a list of references that can serve
as cost-analysis guidance. The illustrative guidance and cross references are helpful in
designing cost-effective strategies for State implementation plans written to fulfill section 110
and Title I, Part D requirements of the 1990 Act.
Furthermore, it should be made clear that this document focuses primarily on
determining the cost-effectiveness of stationary source "strategies. However, EPA recognizes
that States will also need to consider mobile and area sources when designing their overall
control strategies. Consequently, EPA has included some information on mobile sources, but
this information is meant to be used only as an illustration and is not the focus of this
document.
**•
STATUS OF NONATTAINMENT OF OZONE AIR QUALITY
As of October 26, 1991, there were 98 areas in violation of the ozone ambient air
quality standard.1 Table 1 gives a listing of those nonattainment areas, their respective design
values, and classifications. Except as noted in the table, the areas comprise consolidated
metropolitan statistical areas (CMSA's) or metropolitan statistical areas (MSA's), as defined
by the U. S. Department of Commerce. The areas are ranked according to ozone design
values based on monitoring data over the 1988-1990 time period. In addition, the table lists
the classification status of each area based on two factors-current design values and the area
classifications referenced in Subpart 2, section 181(a) of the new Act. This table gives
insight into the level of control for which individual States should strive in designing their
State implementation plans. More specifically, classification indicates the need for emission
reductions~i.e.,ein general, increased severity of nonattainment requires greater emission
reductions.
1
-------
-------
TABLE 1. THE STATUS OF NONATTAINMENT OF OZONE AIR QUALITY
LOCATION
Los Angeles-South Coast Basin
Southeast Desert Modified CA
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria TX
New York NJ-NY-CT CSMA
Baltimore MD
San Diego CA
Chicago-Gary-Lake CO, IL-IN
Philadelphia-Wilm-TrentonPA-NJ-DE-MD
Milwaukee-Racine WI
Muskegon MI
Sheboygan WI
Greater Connecticut
Ventura Co. CA
San Joaquin Valley CA
El Paso TX
Manitowoc Co, WI**
Springfield (Western MA) MA
Boston-Lawrence-Worcester MA
Washington, DC-MD-VA
Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester NH
Huntington-Ashland WV-KY-OH
Baton Rouge LA
Providence RI (all RI)
Atlanta, GA
Beaumont-Port Arthur TX
Sacramento Metro CA
Charlotte-Gastonia NC
Knox & Lincoln Cos. ME
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain OH
Cincinnati-Hamilton OH
St. Louis MO-IL
Portland ME
Parkersburg WV
Greensboro-WS-H Point NC
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PA
Kewaunee Co. WI
Louisville KY-IN
Atlantic City NJ
Detroit-Ann Arbor MI
DESIGN VALUE
0.330
0.240
0.220
0.201
0.194
0.190
0.190
0.187
0.183
0.181
0.176
0.172
0.170
0.170
0.170
0.167
0,167
0.165
0.165
0.165
0.164
0.164
0.162
0.162
0.160
0.160
0.158
0.158
0.157
0.157
-, 0.156
0.156
0.152
0.151
0.149
0.147
0.149
0.145
0.144
CLASS
Extreme
Severe-17
Severe-17
Severe-17
Severe-15
Severe-15
Severe-17
Severe-15
Severe-17
Serious*
Serious
Serious
Severe-15*
Serious
Serious
Moderate*
Serious '
Serious
Serious
Serious
Moderate*
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Moderate
Moderate*
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
SOURCE: Designations-Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes, 56 FR 56694, U.S. EPA, November 6, 1991.
* Indicates 5% classification change. ** Indicates an area not a CMSA/MSA.
-------
-------
TABLE 1. THE STATUS OF NONATTAINMENT OrOZONE AIR QUALITY (cont'd)
LOCATION
Grand Rapids MI
Salt Lake City UT
Jefferson Co NY
Salt Lake City UT
Dayton-Springfield OH
Richmond-Petersburg VA
Phoenix AZ
Reading PA
Raleigh-Durham NC
San Francisco-Bay Area CA
Dallas-Fort Worth TX
Edmonson Co KY**
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc CA
Memphis TN-AR-MS
Toledo OH
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-W. Palm Beach EL
Monterey Bay CA
Charleston WV
Nashville TN
Lewiston-Auburn ME
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton PA-NJ
Owensboro KY
Harrisburg-Carlisle-Lebanon PA
Canton OH
Knoxville TN
Poughkeepsie NY
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon OH-PA
Birmingham AL
Hancock & Waldo Cos. ME**
Johnstown PA •
Cherokee Co SC**
Buffalo-Niagara Falls
Columbus OH
Kent & Queen Anne's Co MD**
Lake Charles LA
RenoNV
Seattle-Tacoma WA
Norfolk- Virg. Beach-Newport N VA
Sussex Co DE**
DESIGN VALUE
0.143
0.143
0.143
0.143
0.143
. 0.142
0.141
0.141
0.141
0.140
0.140
0.140
0.140
0.140
0.140
0.138
0.138
0.138
0.138
0.137
0.137
0.137
0.136
0.135
0.135
0.134
0.134
0.133
0.133
0.133
0.132
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.130
0.130
CLASS
Moderate
Moderate
Marginal*
• Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Marginal*
Moderate
Marginal*
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal -
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
SOURCE: Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes, 56 FR 56694, U.S. EPA, November 6, 1991.
* Indicates 5% classification change. ** Indicates an area not a CMSA/MSA.
-------
-------
TABLE 1. THE STATUS OF NONATTAINMENT OF OZONE AIR QUALITY (cont'd)
LOCATION
York PA
Tampa-St Petersburg-Clear FL
Walworth Co W*
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre PA
Altoona, PA MSA
Erie PA
Portland-Vancouver OR-WA
Manchester-Nashua NH
Albany-Schenectady-Troy NY
Jersey Co IL**
Essex Co NY**
Door Co WI**
Lexington-Fayette KY
Lancaster PA
Smyth Co VA**
Evansville IN
Paducah CO KY**
Indianapolis IN
South Bend-Elkhart IN
Kansas City MO-KA
DESIGN VALUE
0.129
0.129
0.129
0.129
0.129
0.129
0.128
0.128
0.128
0.128
0.127
0.126
0.126
0.125
0.125
0.124
0.124
0.121
0.121
0.120
CLASS
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Submarginal
SOURCE: Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes, 56 FR 56694, U.S. EPA, November 6, 1991.
* Indicates 5% classification change. ** Indicates an area not a CMSA/MSA.
-------
-------
FUNDAMENTALS OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Cost-effectiveness analysis is one of many tools available to analysts and decision
makers involved in environmental quality management. In the broadest sense, cost-
effectiveness analysis is used to rank a set of least-cost alternatives which achieve differing
degrees of air quality improvement or health risk reductions. As used in this guidance, cost-
effectiveness analysis is a procedure for evaluating alternatives to minimize the cost of
attaining and maintaining the ozone NAAQS in accordance with Tide I and other related Act
requirements. These air quality or health risk reduction goals are pre-determined policy
objectives. For more information on concepts and definitions of cost-effectiveness, refer to
the paper by Walton and Basala, "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Environmental Quality
Management," listed in the bibliography.
Ozone is a secondarily-generated air pollutant. It is the product of nitrogen oxides
(NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC's) in the presence of sunlight. Consequently,
this guidance illustrates the evaluation of measures to control these ozone precursors. Given
the emission reductions required to attain and maintain the ozone NAAQS over some period,
the costs of achieving these emission reductions are estimated and compared among
alternative strategies.
Costs for alternative measures may not occur evenly across the time period of
evaluation. For example, investment costs tend to occur prior to outlays for operation and
maintenance. There are two common ways for the estimation and evaluation of costs over
time: (1) the levelized method, and (2) the present value method. The levelized method
adjusts investment and operation and maintenance costs so that they are equivalent to a yearly
payment that remains the same over the analyzed time period. The present value method
adjusts investment and operation and maintenance costs so that they are equivalent to a given
sum expended today. The California Clean Air Act Cost-Effectiveness Guidance discusses
both methods and is referenced in the bibliography. The OAQPS Control Cost Manual is also
referenced in the bibliography and presents the levelized method, as well as engineering
approaches to cost estimation.
Care should be taken in defining "cost" Cost is a measure of worth assigned to inputs
(e.g., materials, fuel, ducting) and activities (e.g., design, fabrication, operation) used to
provide emission reductions. Most of these costs are explicit or are costs for which one could
produce an expense voucher. However, other costs are implicit. Although we cannot produce
a voucher for these costs, they are not any less real. For example, if additional down time at
a production facility is required to install a pollution control system, the foregone output
should be valued and included as part of the cost of pollution control.
Cost may include purchase and installation of control equipment, as well as the annual
cost of operating, maintaining, and insuring the equipment. In addition, there may be costs
ancillary to the equipment or its operation such as operating permits, monitoring, and
compliance certification. Under certain circumstances, control requirements may result in
-------
-------
higher product prices and concomitant reductions in output and employment These output
and employment adjustments may also be considered costs. Although such adjustments are
not reflected in the cost-effectiveness calculations described in this document, in some
instances, these costs may be important.
An important consideration in addressing the costs of control alternatives is the
identification of the baseline. Within a given time frame, if certain pollution controls are
already in place or already required under federally-enforceable provisions at the emission
source, then the costs of these controls represent the baseline.* In such a situation, it is the
incremental costs of installing and operating additional technologies~i.e., the difference in
total control costs before and after a new technology is installed—that are relevant for cost-
effectiveness analyses.
Application of cost-effectiveness analysis provides insight into the potential savings
from lower-cost measures implemented to achieve the ozone NAAQS in accordance with
Tide I and related requirements. Figure 1 provides an illustration of strategies for achieving a
desired level of air quality. Strategy A is the dominant control strategy because it represents
the least-cost method of attaining the 0.12 ppm ozone NAAQS. A hypothetical dominant
control strategy could be based on the following: (1) various lower-cost, add-on controls for
stationary sources; (2) enhanced inspection and maintenance; or (3) economic incentive rules
(outlined in section 183(g)(4) of the Act) such as marketable permits. In Figure 1, Strategies
B and C are inferior strategies.
53
a
4-
8-
o
Figure 1. Illustrative Concept of Control Strategy Dominance
I
1
a C
n B
Inferior Strategics
• Dominant Strategy
0.12 ppm <
Air Quality
* In other words, if a source is required to comply with pre-existing (prior to Act Amendments) requirements-cither
adopted or not yet adopted by the State ~ then the costs of those controls should be placed in the baseline, and not in
the additional costs of control for the purpose of cost-effectiveness determination.
-------
-------
Figure 2 provides an illustration of two alternative strategies that might be
implemented in a nonattainment area. Path A and Path B have overlapping, well-defined and
low-cost control measures. When these control measures are implemented, divergence in
costs occurs as Path A pursues process control opportunities (e.g., substitution of high solids
or waterborne coatings for spray booths in specialty coating operations) and Path B pursues
add-on controls for sources. Path A becomes the dominant strategy because it reduces
emissions at less cost per ton than Path B. Path B therefore becomes the inferior strategy.
CO
6
Figure 2. Impact of Control Strategy Selection
on Emission Reduction Costs
PathB
"3 •• % ^
g ^v -.% \% s v- <^v^ i%54
Paths A, B
Path A
Total Emissions Reduction
ROLE OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS IN STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
After the EPA promulgates national ambient air quality standards, the Act requires
States to develop and submit implementation plans for EPA approval. State implementation
plans (SIP's) contain enforceable regulations that provide for attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS.
-------
-------
To select a control strategy, States must initially identify mandatory control measures
that are required by the Act, such as the reasonable further progress requirements, reasonably
available control technology (RACT) for stationary sources, volatility rules for fuels, and
inspection and maintenance (1/M) for mobile sources. In addition, the amended Act requires
that control measures adopted or required to be adopted under the pre-amended Act remain in
effect [section 193]. Therefore, these mandatory control measures must be adopted and
retained for certain nonattainment areas. Beyond these constraints, States may select cost-
effective, discretionary measures to attain and maintain the ozone NAAQS.
Figure 3 illustrates the process of selecting a cost-effective control strategy. As. the
chart shows, the first step in the selection of discretionary control measures is the
determination of required emission reductions. Two inputs for determining these reductions
are the following:
o A well-defined emission inventory that includes (1) an understanding of
the relationships between emission factors (e.g., amount or rate of
emissions) and the parameters (i.e., inputs used in the production
process such as labor and materials) affecting production of marketable
goods and services in the economy, (2) speciation of VOC's in terms of
photochemical reactivity, (3) the implications of economic growth on
projection of quantities, and (4) the implications of geographical
distribution of future emissions for a nonattainment area. For further
information, see EPA's guidance, Procedures for Preparing Emissions
Projections.
o Air quality modeling for the relevant emissions inventory. Modeling
tropospheric ozone as a criteria pollutant involves a complex set of
relationships. These relationships characterize the atmospheric chemical
reactions that occur between those emissions that function as precursors,
primarily YOC's and nitrogen oxides. When the linkage between the emissions
inventory-and air quality (design value) has been defined, the emission
reductions required to meet attainment can be determined. The result is an
environmental objective or target. The Urban Airshed Model is available to
States to calculate the spatial and temporal concentrations of ground level
ozone within urbanized areas or regional urbanized areas, such as the
Northeastern United States (See Yocke, et al., listed in the bibliography).
The second step in the process of selecting a cost-effective control strategy is to
catalog all the control possibilities by some measure of cost versus environmental
improvement. The proxy of cost-per-ton ratio is widely used in EPA analyses for developing
regulations for individual source categories. The required inputs for this measurement call for
the development of (1) a measurement that tracks control performance such as control
efficiency or emission reductions per unit of time or production, and (2) cost (engineering
cost) algorithms-mathematical expressions of the relationships between capital and operating
-------
-------
costs and engineering parameters, such as size and production rates. Based on a technical
assessment of performance and costs, costs per ton of emissions reduction are calculated for
each control measure.
The third step is to identify several control strategy options, including the least-cost
control strategy for the target emission reductions. Identification of control strategy options is
performed by combining various control measures and evaluating the emission reductions and
incremental cost for each measure to derive a total incremental cost for implementation of the
entire strategy. Different strategies are developed iteratively in this manner to ensure that the
least-cost strategy is identified. Mathematical programming techniques are sometimes
appropriate to make this, determination. It is important to note that the cost-effectiveness of a
given control strategy may be sensitive to the order in which individual control measures are
applied. For example, if add-on control measures controlling 90 percent of emissions are
applied to a stationary source before, after, or simultaneously with reformulated production
inputs, the cost per ton of emissions reduced would vary between the three scenarios.
To this point, the process of identifying the least-cost control strategy is
straightforward. However, there are policy (growth versus environmental tradeoffs) and
socio-economic issues (employment dislocation and household sector impacts) that may not
be quantifiable, or not readily quantifiable, in a least-cost mathematical programming
structure. In addition, there may be implementation and enforcement issues, including the
division of certain monitoring and certification responsibilities among various governmental
entities and the regulated sources, that may not be quantifiable in this context. Control
strategy selection is therefore a multi-attribute decision. In addition to costs, policy, socio-
economic effects, and certain implementation and enforcement considerations may also factor-
into the decision. . • .
As a further caveat, there are other issues affecting cost-effectiveness that have yet to
be mentioned in this guidance. Baseline emission level, specification of emission reductions,
rule effectiveness, and rule penetration are important factors that may influence the cost-
effectiveness calculation and possibly the outcome of the control strategy selection. A
discussion of these concepts is presented further in this document. Additionally, speciation
may be important in the reactivity of various compounds and how those reactive compounds
relate to ozone formation. The Agency position on reactivity is that all volatile organic
compounds, except for those designated in the Federal Register as being negligibly reactive2,
are of equal importance insofar as the mandatory 15 percent reductions for aU nonattainment'
areas classified as moderate or above. Reactivity, however, becomes important in modeling"
for demonstration of attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. There is more discussion
on reactivity and its impact on cost-effectiveness in the California Clean Air Act Cost-
Effectiveness Guidance (See Bibliography at the end of this document.)
-------
-------
Figure 3. Process for Selection of Cost-Effective Control Strategy
Emissions
Inventory
Develop Control Measures
Socio-
Economic
-, Issnes
Determine
Emission
Reductions
Rank By
Cost per Ton
Identify
Least Cost
Control Strategy
Select
Control
Strategy
Develop Cost Functions
Implementation'
Enforcement
Issues
10
-------
-------
IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS FOR COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
Estimation of Emission Reductions
The manner in which reduced emissions are derived can affect the cost-effectiveness
value. To be consistent with EPA guidance for the development of emission inventories,
projections of emissions, and other guidance related to tracking emission reductions3, the
estimation of emission reductions is based on the following:
o determination of baseline emission level
Baseline emissions reflect actual emissions in the nonattainment area [sections
182(a)(l) and 182(b)(l)(B)]. Emissions are to be based on conditions that exist
during the peak ozone season of the year of enactment of the Clean Air Act
Amendments, i.e., 1990. Reasonable further progress (RFP) requirements
must use actual emissions, with certain exceptions as specified in the Act
section 182(b)(l)(D). Refer to the upcoming guidance on estimation of
emission reductions for RFP planning due out in the spring of 1992.
o specification of emission reductions
Emission reductions are calculated using the baseline emission level as
described above as the reference point from which expected emission
reductions are derived. Emission reductions are either actual or allowable
depending upon the methods used to determine post-control emissions within
the attainment plan. If the post-control emissions are based on an enforceable
emission rate, some allowable operating, capacity and an anticipated operating
schedule, then the emission reductions are construed to be allowable emission
reductions. Conversely, if post-control emissions are determined based on
actual operating conditions (verified by compliance certification), then the
emission reductions are considered actual emission reductions. According to
the EPA guidance, Procedures for Preparing Emissions Projections, States
must identify whether the emission projections are allowable or actual. For the
purpose of identifying control strategy options, the emission reduction
calculation should be modified for the following: (1) nondiscretionary
emissions limitations that will apply in the future [e.g., maximum achievable
• control technology (MACT) regulations], (2) anticipated regulations that will
provide sources with additional operational flexibility (e.g., marketable
permits).
11
-------
-------
Rule Effectiveness
Expected costs and emission reductions for a given control strategy to attain and
maintain the ozone NAAQS may not be the same as the realized costs and emission
reductions. More often than not, when the expectations for a control strategy are not realized,
the emission reductions are less than anticipated.
Rule effectiveness reflects the ability, or lack thereof, of a regulatory program to
achieve all the emission reductions possible through full compliance by all sources all the
time. For stationary sources, the EPA presumes a rule effectiveness of 80 percent for State
implementation plan rules unless the State demonstrates a higher figure is appropriate for a
source category.
By calculating cost-effectiveness numbers assuming 100 percent rule effectiveness
when rule effectiveness is less, the amount of emissions reduced will be overestimated,
resulting in an underestimate of the cost per ton of emissions reduced. This potential effect is
illustrated in Table 2.
As an example, suppose a control agency determines that a particular source category
has uncontrolled emissions of 2500 tons per year. The agency believes that an objective of
90 percent emissions reduction is possible and specifies some allowable rate based on some
output parameter, such as pounds of VOC emitted per pound of high solids coating applied.
The source category installs control devices that are supposed to control at 95 percent control
efficiency. With 100 percent rule effectiveness, emissions are reduced by 2375 tons per year
(2500 tons/year x 0.95). However, rule effectiveness of less than 100 percent may result for a
variety of reasons, including equipment leaks and failure to maintain specified operating
conditions (e.g., flame temperature). Using EPA's default value of 80 percent rule
effectiveness, the estimated emissions reductions are only 1900 tons per year (2500 tons/year
x (0.95 x 0.80)). Improved monitoring and enforcement of presently regulated sources, more
inspections, improved record keeping and reporting, and corrective actions should be
examined for enhancement of rule effectiveness, emission reduction potential and cost-
effectiveness.6 This is not to say that rule effectiveness is the only way in which to achieve
additional emission reductions. Enhanced rule effectiveness should be compared to other
methods of achieving reductions.
12
-------
-------
CN
a
Pf
||f
Emissions
Reductions
(tons/yr)
q> O '"^
(4-1
w
S I ^
hi .2 tg
s a
O tCj v_^
° w
CO
\O
t— H
§
8
ON
•
8
CO
CO
CO
1— 4
c*
§
8
§
•
ON
§
CO
ON
c-
•
•— t
o
CO
ON
-------
-------
Rule Penetration
Rule penetration is closely related to the rule effectiveness concept. The term is
defined as the extent to which a regulation may cover emissions from a source category. For
example, a rule promulgated for Stage I vapor recovery at gasoline stations and bulk
terminals might exempt some sources from the vapor recovery requirement if the gasoline is
delivered from 6ut-of-state. In this case, the rule would not cover all emissions from this
source category. Exemptions from a given rule may decrease the rule penetration and
therefore result in less emission reductions from a source category. -Authorities may therefore
wish to regulate additional sources of emissions in an attempt to achieve emission reduction
progress requirements. Cost-effectiveness considerations may be one of the factors decision,.
makers must consider in determining the degree of penetration for a given rule.
Cost-Effectiveness Threshold Values and Geographical Variability
Cost-effectiveness should be used with caution in making decisions for implementing
control strategies. Decisions based on one universally-applied ceiling value ($/ton) may leave
some nonattainment areas short of target emission reduction requirements and cause other
areas to overshoot their targets. For example, nonattainment areas classified as severe or
extreme may need more expensive controls at the margin-foreach additional unit of emission
reduction—than marginal or moderate nonattainment areas. Similarly, variability in the
average cost of control among nonattainment areas is likely to be the norm. Figure 4 presents
the modeling results of a control strategy study of 81 nonattainment areas using 1987 to 1989
ozone monitoring data and illustrates this variability.7 It is important to recognize that the
incremental costs of control at the margin may not reflect the average cost-effectiveness
across these areas.
The marginal cost per ton of reduced emissions is likely to vary for the following
reasons:
o sources available and selected for control
The marginal cost of control for a nonattainment area depends upon the mix of
sources available for control and the various control measures needed to reduce
emissions within and across source categories. The potential variability in
emission reductions from source categories across nonattainment areas is
displayed in Figure 5. The graphic represents the lower cost measures
available to the selected nonattainment areas for attainment and maintenance of
the ozone NAAQS. Within a given nonattainment area, there may be more
reductions available from mobile sources rather than large point sources.
14
-------
-------
03
C/3
8
-
•w
Figure 4. Cost-Effectiveness for Nonattainment Areas
A profile of CMSA's/MSA's by Avg. Cost per Ton
Projection Year-2010
>S2000/ton
$1000 to
$2000Aon
-------
-------
co
§70
TJ
S 60
13
a
•55 40
co
Figure 5. Percentage of Emission Reductions
by Source Category
for Selected Nonattainment Areas
30
"20
gp
| 10
I °
PL,
•
A
severe
Source
Category
B
serious
Nonattainment Areas
c
serious
Mobile
Area
Large
point
SOURCE: "Ozone Nonattainment Analysis
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990"
By EH. Pechan, Inc. for US EPA, Sept. 1991.
Notes:
o Large point sources are defined as those sources emitting greater than 100 tons per year for VOC.
o Area sources are those emitting less than 100 tons per year.
o The mobile source category does not include off-highway vehicles such as construction equipment, aircraft
agricultural and forestry equipment, locomotives, and vessels.
o Projection Year-2010
16
-------
-------
o baseline control levels
Some nonattainment areas may have already achieved the lower cost emission
reductions available. Higher cost control measures might be required to reduce
any additional units of emissions.
o degree of control required
The amount of emissions reductions necessary to achieve attainment varies
across nonattainment areas and therefore affects the relative marginal costs of
control. These varying amounts of control are explained by differences in such
factors as size and location of sources as well as daily and seasonal fluctuations
in temperature, emission rates, and wind patterns.
o control techniques
The marginal cost of control is dependent upon the control measure selected to
achieve additional emission reductions. In some instances, process change may
be less costly than add-on controls, or rule-effectiveness enhancement less
costly than greater rule penetration.
Table 3 illustrates various VOC control measures and relative cost-effectiveness.
These costs are national averages and represent current estimates.8 Again, it should be noted .
that the marginal costs of VOC control measures for a given nonattainment area may differ
from the national averages for these source categories. It should also be emphasized that
some of these measures are mandatory while others may be discretionary in terms of
combining various measures for an overall control strategy. In general, process changes are
lower in cost than end-of-pipe incineration controls on small sources (including small marine
vessels). Rule effectiveness has been added as a "source category" to the table because
improving rule effectiveness may help to achieve emission reductions. More inspections,
improved record keeping and reporting, and corrective actions represent some of the elements
identified in the March 31 Rule Effectiveness Study Protocol.9 It should be noted that
emission reductions resulting from rule effectiveness improvements occurring before 1990 and
that are built into the emission inventory baseline are not creditable to the 15 percent progress
requirements. Additionally, rule effectiveness is not without costs. Greater enforcement
and/or inspection and maintenance procedures cost resources. Finally, transportation control
measures that achieve actual emission reductions are also available, such as employer-based,
ride-sharing programs, mass public (rail or bus) transit, van pooling, and parking restriction
ordinances in centralized business sections of metropolitan areas. A more comprehensive list
is included in section 108(b) of the Act.
17
-------
-------
TABLE 3. ILLUSTRATIVE VOC CONTROL MEASURES AND COST-
EFFECTIVENESS*
Source Category
Architectural Coatings
Stage II Refueling
Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities (RCRA)
air emissions
Enhanced Inspection and
Maintenance
Volatility rules
Marine Vessel
Loading/Unloading
Small Source Coating
Operation
Rule Effectiveness
Consumer Products
Control Measure
Application of High Solids
Coating Technology
Vapor Balance Fuel Recovery
Tank covers, controls on
aerated treatment and storage
tanks
Higher performance standards
Reid Vapor Pressure 7.8 psi
Ventilation System and
Incineration
Ventilation System and
Incineration
More inspections, Corrective
Actions
Substitute stick applicators
for aerosol propellants
Cost-Effectiveness
($ per ton)
Savings
770 to 1350
190
1400 to 5300b
140
1000 to 50,000
10,000 to 20,000
May lower the cost of
control0
400 and higher
E. H. Pechan. and Associates, under contract with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Ozone
Nonattainment Analysis Clean Air Amendments of 1990", September 1991.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, Enhanced Inspection & Maintenance Briefing,
October 1991.
c Refer to Table 2.
18
-------
-------
The control measures listed for NOx emission reductions in Table 4 represent an
illustration of various combustion sources to which process changes, such as low NOx
burners, staged air combustion, and add-on controls, namely selective catalytic reduction,
could apply. The range in costs per ton is due to factors such as flue gas flow rates, fuel,
boiler configuration (tangential, wall), and application. More information on these types of
controls can be found in the July 22, 1991 draft report entitled, "Cost Effectiveness of
Stationary Sources for VOC and NOx Controls," prepared by E.H. Pechan and Associates for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
As described above, control requirement needs and marginal costs and the anticipated
environmental quality improvements vary across nonattainment areas; therefore, setting
control limits based on single $/ton values may not be appropriate.
Multiple Pollutant Considerations and Assignment of Costs
In an unencumbered world, a control strategy would target a single pollutant for
achieving an environmental objective. This eliminates problems of double counting—paying
for the same controls twice for two separate environmental objectives. In addition, such an
approach eliminates biases in the process of developing the least-cost envelope of dominant
controls. Unfortunately, there are pragmatic problems with attempting to assign single .
pollutant ($/ton) values to control measures. Oftentimes, control measures being considered
reduce several pollutants. An example is certain types of catalytic controls on combustion
sources (e.g., mobile source tailpipe controls) that reduce carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides,
and VOC's. If the environmental objective in a State implementation plan is to reduce ozone,
apportioning higher weights to nitrogen oxides and VOC's relative to carbon monoxide may
be appropriate in transportation control measures, such as employee trip reductions. In
another example, some controls (e.g., Stage n refueling) designed for a State implementation
plan may reduce toxic pollutants that may be subject to Title IE. The cost-effectiveness
computation should include reductions in the ozone precursors. However, the incidental
reduction in toxics may be considered as a secondary benefit and should be noted.
Discussion on various ways to apportion weights per pollutant for assignment of cost-
effectiveness is presented in the California Clean Air Act Cost-Effectiveness Guidance. The
EPA has no preferred option for assigning costs for multiple pollutants, as the method used
would vary with the control scenario.
19
-------
-------
CO
«3
Ed
I
O
o
CA
Ed
S
o
o
2
I
CO
Tf
Ed
ea
If
« £
^ «9
•1~
CJ
1
S
•o
3
VC
S
S
ex
0
oo
g
Selective Catalytic Reducti
U4
4)
Natural-Gas Fired Boil
**
5*
5
o
oo
CO
2
'I
oo
\o
CO
CO
taged Combustion or Low E
Air
oo
o
m
3
3
b
o
3
1
2
S
•*
ff-H
CO
Flue Gas Recirculation
O
3
3
1
05
3
O
^
8
2
8
-^
f-H
CO
Flue Gas Recirculation
o
3
a
I
S
s
8
A
II
1
O
i
03
1
"o
OO
o
3
3
a
3 '
05
2s
S
"v
CN
CO
2
g
?3
o
oo
g
Selective Catalytic Reducti
o
1
a
3
S
^^
O
A
t-
2
?
•-
o
1
t
B
as
3
2
3
O
8
CO
2
8
0$
^
*"
c
!<=
55 o
O< "-J3
0 ^
1
oo
Gas Turbines
o
o\
2
f
^
O
i
u
1
6
1
w
W
o
3
2
3
3
3
1—1
0
c
I
^
00
g
Selective Catalytic Reductil
i
w
3
o
3
2
1
3
^
1—1
_C
£
"*
Staged Combustion Air
5rocess Heaters
^M
o
o
V)
2
'
^^
ON
-
g
Selective Catalytic Reductil
s Heaters (Oil Fired)
S
J
H
<
•o
•
35
[ij
CJ
o
oo
-------
-------
APPLICATIONS OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
Modeling NOX and VQC
Modeling of control strategies that combine NOx and VOC controls to attain the
ozone standard may be a difficult problem. As an example, a nonattainment area may
employ the Urban Airshed Model (UAM) to estimate the spatial relationships of ozone
concentration changes to determine optimal control strategies by applying a mix of NOX and
VOC controls. Such a model may produce several control strategies that are equivalent in
terms of attaining and maintaining the ozone standard. For example, preliminary UAM
modeling in the Ventura County portion of the South Central Coast Air Basin District has
demonstrated that attainment can be achieved by reducing 55 percent of either VOC or NOX,
or a combined strategy of 40 percent emission reduction from both VOC and NOx.10 Cos1>
effectiveness analysis can play a useful role in the selection of the least-cost strategy from
three equivalent strategies. The analysis involves a two-staged process with the following
elements:
o to ensure efficiency, selection of the dominant controls across source categories
(e.g., low NOX burners on industrial boilers) in a cost per ton iterative process
for each of the three strategies, and
o selection of the least-cost strategy from total annual costs perspective for the
area.
ERCAM-PC Software Capability
Under a contract with E. H. Pechan and Associates, Inc., EPA developed a model to
provide States 'and local agencies with the capability to analyze emission control strategies
and costs of emission reductions needed to attain the ozone NAAQS. The model, known as
the Emission Reduction and Cost Analysis Model (ERCAM), was developed from a national
model used to analyze the various legislative initiatives during the debates over the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments. The ERCAM was developed for a single State, but the model
readily adapts to other States by inserting State-specific emission factors derived from mobile
source emission factor models11 and the Aerometric Information and Retrieval System (AIRS)
for stationary sources. In addition, EPA has developed a cost-effectiveness model (CEM) for
inspection and maintenance programs that can be used in conjunction with ERCAM. The
model is programmed in dBASEHI Plus and operates on a PC.
21
-------
-------
CONCLUSION
Cost-effectiveness analysis is a tool designed to identify the least-cost means of
achieving an environmental objective. However, other factors may warrant consideration
prior to adoption of a control strategy. With respect to cost-effectiveness analysis, several
considerations are important including rule effectiveness, rule penetration, threshold values,
and multiple pollutants. A model, ERCAM, when used in conjunction with other models,
does exist to enable States to consider cost-effectiveness. The application of ERCAM,
although not mandated, should prove useful in designing lower-cost control strategies.
22
-------
-------
ENDNOTES
1 Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes, 56 FR 56694, November 6,
1991, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
2 Requirements For Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans, 56
FR 11387, March 18, 1991, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
3 Emission Inventory Requirements for Ozone State Implementation Plans, EPA-450/4-
91-010, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, March, 1991.
Procedures for Preparing Emissions Projections, EPA-450/4-91-019, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1991.
Guidance on Reasonable Further Progress Requirements will be available in the
spring of 1992.
4 Emission Inventory Requirements for Ozone State Implementation Plans, March 1991,
•pp. 10 and 13.
Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and
Precursors of Ozone, Volume I: General Guidance for Stationary Sources, EPA-
450/4-91-016, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1991.
5 Workshop for Implementation of Clean Air Act Provisions Relating to Ozone, and
Carbon Monoxide Emission Inventories, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air .Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 4-6
1991. •
6 Memorandum from John Seitz, Director of Stationary Source Compliance Division,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to U.S. EPA Regional Directors,
"Implementation of Rule-Effectiveness Studies," March 31, 1988.
7 Ozone Nonattainment Analysis Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Draft Report, E.
H. Pechan and Associates, Inc., prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC,
September, 1991.
8 Ozone Nonattainment Analysis Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, E. H. Pechan and
Associates, Inc., September, 14991.
23
-------
-------
9 Memorandum from John Seitz, March 31, 1988.
10 Modeling of Preliminary Emission Reduction Estimates for Attainment of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone in Ventura County, submitted as part of
Docket No. 90-CA-VENT-l. Referenced in: Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 12,
January 17, 1991, Proposed Rules, p. 1754.
11 The EPA is presently completing MOBILES, which should be available in the spring
of 1992. The EPA recommends that States use this model if at all possible. In the
mean time, however, MOBILE4.1 is available but does not include the effects of the
Clean Fueled Heets Programs, the Reformulated Gasoline Program, the On-board
Diagnostics Program, and the Evaporative Test Procedure Changes.
24
-------
-------
A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF CROSS REFERENCES
California Clean Air Act Cost-Effectiveness Guidance, California Air Resources Board, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Liaison, September 1990.
This document provides guidance to District agencies implementing the California Clean Air
Act according to requirements for cost-effectiveness (i.e, least-cost envelope to select
dominant control strategies) analysis prior to adoption of rules for attainment of air quality
standards. Appendices provide insight into alternative methods of annualizing costs from a
time value of money perspective.
E.H. Pechan and Associates, Inc., Cost Effectiveness of Stationary Source VOC and NOx
Controls, Draft Report, prepared for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1991.
This report is a compilation of cost-effectiveness values, including parameters for cost
equations used in the ERCAM-VOC for all stationary source control measures to reduce VOC
and NOx emissions. The report also contains references for sources of cost information used
to develop cost equations. Contact: Frank Bunyard, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, (919) 541-5297 or FTS 629-5297.
E. H. Pechan and Associates, Inc., ERCAM-VOC: Description and Applications (Design
Objectives, Structure and Use of the Emission Reduction and Cost Analysis Model for Volatile
Organic Compounds), prepared for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, March 1989.
Although dated with respect to the enactment date of the new Clean Air Act, this paper
provides a fairly comprehensive overview of the national ERCAM. The paper describes the
model objectives and structure, including a description of files used to model controls and
costs for analyzing impacts (i.e., emissions, emission reductions, costs) of base programs and
mandatory measures of the new Clean Air Act for four projection years through 2010.
Contact: Frank Bunyard, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, TSTC, (919) 541-5297 or FTS 629-5297.
E. H. Pechan and Associates, Inc., User's Guide for the Prototype State Emission Reduction
and Cost Analysis Model for Volatile Organic Compounds, prepared for the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC, October 18, 1990.
This document provides information on the model structure, inputs, and outputs. State
ERCAM is in the process of being modified and adapted for all States. A draft User's Guide
of the present model is available. Contact: Frank Bunyard, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, (919) 541-5297 or FTS 629-5297.
25
-------
-------
OAQPS Control Cost Manual, Fourth Edition, EPA 450/3-90-006, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
NC, January 1990.
Provides a standardized engineering approach to develop cost information for control systems
for reducing gaseous and paniculate emissions from stationary point sources. Provides a
good tutorial on the description of types of cost estimates and annualization methods. The
manual employs an engineering design and parameterization method, using plenty of example
problems to developing capital costs. Contact: EPA Regional Offices or William Vatavuk,
U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, (919)
541-5309 or FTS 629-5309.
Procedures for Preparing Emissions Projections, EPA-450/4-91-019, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,,
NC, July 1991.
This document provides guidance for projecting emissions to future years focusing primarily
on procedures for projecting how the combination of future emission controls and changes in
source activity will influence future air pollution emission rates. Contact: EPA Regional
Offices or Keith Baugues, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC, (919) 541-5366 or FTS 629-5366.
Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and Precursors
of Ozone, Volume I: General Guidance for Stationary Sources, EPA-450/4-91-016, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC, May 1991.
This document discusses procedures for preparing inventories of VOC, NOx, and CO for the
purposes of establishing baseline ozone levels in nonattainment areas. Contact: E.L
Martinez, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, (919) 541-5575 or FTS 629-5575.
Users Guide to MOBILE4.1 (Mobile Source Emission Factor Model), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor, MI, July 1991.
The users guides for MOBILES and CEM are presently unavailable, but should be available
in the spring of 1992. Contact: Terry Newell, U.S. EPA, Office of Mobile Sources, Ann
Arbor, MI, (313) 668-4462 or FTS 374-8462.
Walton, Thomas and Allen C. Basala, "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Environmental
Quality Management," U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1981.
A presentation at the 1981 national meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association'. This
paper presents an in-depth primer on definitions, selection of appropriate algorithms for a
cost-effectiveness analysis, and identification of potential pitfalls in the use of cost-
effectiveness analysis. Contact: Allen Basala, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, (919) 541-5622 or FTS 629-5622.
26
-------
-------
Yocke, M. A., et al, "Methodologies for Applying the Urban Airshed Model to Determine the
Effectiveness of Measures to Reduce Ozone Levels in the Los Angeles Air Basin," April 27,
1989.
A presentation at the 82nd Air and Waste Management Association Annual Meeting, June
1989. This paper summarizes UAM modeling results combining VOC and NOX strategies for
the South Coast Air Basin. An overall view of ozone reduction effectiveness as the criterion
for comparison of alternative control strategies is presented. This paper provides an example
of implementation of cost-effectiveness guidance. Contact: Frank Bunyard, U.S. EPA, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, (919) 541-5297 or FTS
629-5297.
27
-------
------- |