EPA-460/3-74-(/04-a/
January 1974
MEDIUM DUTY VEHICLE
EMISSION CONTROL COST
EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISONS
VOLUME I - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
-------
EPA-460/3-74-004-a
MEDIUM DUTY VEHICLE
EMISSION CONTROL
COST EFFECTIVENESS
COMPARISONS
VOLUME I - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Prepared by
The Environmental Programs Group
The Aerospace Corporation
El Segundo, California 90245
Contract No. 68-01-0417
EPA Project Officers: J. L. Bascunana and P.P. Hutchins
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
January 1974
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are available
free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and grantees,
and nonprofit organizations - as supplies permit - from the Air Pollution
Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, or from the National Technical Information
Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by The
Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, California, in fulfillment of Contract.
No, 68-01-0417. The contents of this report are reproduced herein as
received from The Aerospace Corporation. The opinions, findings, and
conclusions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those
of the Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of company or product
names is not to be considered as an endorsement by the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA-460/3-74~004a
11
-------
FOREWORD
This report, prepared by The Aerospace Corporation for the
Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Emission Control Technology,
presents the results of a comparative analysis of the cost effectiveness of
medium-duty vehicle [6, 000 to 14, 000-lb gross vehicle weight (GVW)]
emission control systems.
The study results are presented in two volumes. Volume I,
Executive Summary, presents a concise review of important findings and
conclusions in the Highlights and Executive Summary sections. Volume II,
Technical Discussion, provides a detailed discussion of each study topic
and is of interest primarily to the technical specialist. In Volume II, the
light-duty vehicles (LDVs -- under 6, 000-lb GVW) and medium-duty vehicles
(MDVs) selected to form the basis of cost factor comparisons are charac-
terized and delineated in Section 2. The specific emission control systems
used in LDV and MDV cost calculations, the characteristic or baseline
emission levels prior to incorporation of emission control systems, and the
lifetime costs attributable to emission control for the LDV and MDV cases
considered are presented in Section 3. A comparison and discussion of
LDV and MDV cost factors (expressed as dollars expended per ton of
pollutant removed) as a function of emission control system type and as a
function of percent reduction in emission rate are summarized in Section 4.
A brief summary is given in Section 5 of the heavy-duty vehicle (HDV --
over 14, 000-lb GVW) cases examined, including baseline emission assump-
tions and resultant emission control cost factors. A summary overview of
emission control cost factors associated with power plants and other
stationary sources is presented in Section 6. Section 7 contains a summary
presentation and comparison of LDV, MDV, HDV, and stationary source
emission control cost factors. A review of numerous transportation planning
studies for selected air quality control regions (AQCRs), with emphasis on
111
-------
vehicle class distribution (LDV, MDV, and HDV) and annual mileage
contributions is presented in Section 8. Section 9 includes emission inven-
tories for LDVs, MDVs, and HDVs for the New York City, Los Angeles,
and Phoenix/Tucson AQCRs. These inventories reflect the effects of various
possible MDV control strategies. Appendix A contains a listing of the
companies and agencies contacted in the data acquisition activity.
Appendixes B through E contain backup information relative to the study.
IV
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Appreciation is acknowledged for the guidance and assistance
provided by Dr. Jose Bascunana and Mr. F. P. Hutchins of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Division of Emission Control Technology, who
served as EPA Technical and Contract Project Officers, respectively, for
this study.
The following technical personnel of The Aerospace Corpora-
tion made valuable contributions to the examination and analyses performed
under this contract.
J. A. Drake
L. Forrest
B. Siegel
C. Speisman
H. M. White
Merrill G. Hinton, Director
Office of Mobile Source Pollution
Approved by:
Toru lura, Associate GroupTTirector J>6s«ph/Tvfeltzer, Gro\ip Director
Environmental Programs / Environmental Programs
Group Directorate (^^^ Group Directorate
v
-------
HIGHLIGHTS
An analysis was made that compared the emission control
cost factors (expressed as dollars expended per ton of pollutant removed)
of medium-duty vehicles with other major mobile sources and with avail-
able stationary source cost data. The LDVs and HDVs, utility power plants,
and a number of other stationary sources were considered in the cost factor
comparisons. The results indicate that, in the mobile source area, exhaust
emission control cost factors ($/ton) in general decrease in numerical value
as the vehicle weight increases (i.e. , MDVs are more cost-effective than
LDVs and HDVs are more cost-effective than MDVs). This same size effect
•was noted in stationary source cost factor comparisons, where the emission
control cost factors decreased in numerical value as the system size (or
flow rate of the product being controlled) increased. Further, the station-
ary sources have lower emission control cost factors (for the same pollu-
tant specie) than the smaller mobile sources; therefore, they are the most
cost-effective in terms of emission reduction.
The absolute values of the cost factors reported herein for
mobile sources are the result of (and proportional to) necessarily assump-
tive characteristics in three primary areas: (a) the specific emission con-
trol systems (ECSs) considered, (b) the baseline vehicle emission levels
used, and (c) the method of apportioning costs between pollutant species
(HC, CO, and NOx).
Three vehicle categories are used in this report: light-duty vehicles
(LDVs--under 6000-lb GVW), medium-duty vehicles (MDVs--6,000 to
14, 000-lb GVW), and heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs--over 14, 000-lb GVW).
The distinction between LDVs and light-duty trucks (LDTs) (regulated as
per Federal Register; Vol. 38, No. 151, of 7 August 1973, after the
decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals) has not been considered in this
report. If the general category of MDVs was defined to include LDTs,
the relative impact of MDVs on emission inventories would be larger
than is indicated in this report.
VII
-------
With regard to the first area, seven different ECSs were
considered encompassing the range of potentially available ECSs. They have
considerable variance in emission reduction capability (HC, CO, and NO )
and in overall system costs. As a consequence, they also exhibit widely
varying emission control cost factors.
In the second area, the baseline emission levels (i.e. , the
characteristic emissions of the MDV prior to the incorporation of a given
ECS) have a marked effect on the absolute level of cost factor values, since
all pollutant reductions are computed as a fixed percentage of the original or
baseline emission level for any given ECS. Thus, the higher the baseline
emission, the greater the tons of emission reduction and consequently the
lower the cost factor ($/ton) for a given ECS with fixed total costs. Two
emission baselines were used to encompass the spectrum of reasonably
anticipated MDV engine emission characteristics. The first (and higher)
emission baseline is based on tests of 1970 to 1973 model year trucks; it is
treated herein as an earlier technology baseline inasmuch as MDV engines
will be undergoing further modifications to meet the more stringent require-
ments of the California 1975 HDV emission standards. The second (and
lower) MDV emission baseline is based on extrapolations of emission char-
acteristics exhibited by engines used in 197Z model year LDVs.
With regard to the third area, the numerical cost factor value
for any given pollutant specie is directly related to the manner of allocating
costs to HC, CO, and NO . In this study, those component, maintenance,
5C
and operating costs traceable to NO control were first segregated (princi-
x 2
pally EGR-related and fuel costs); all other costs were then equally divided
between HC and CO. If other apportionment techniques are desired, the indi-
vidual cost factors developed herein can be easily recalculated. However,
2
More explicit allocations would require additional analysis and computa-
tions. Evaporative costs, for instance, should be allocated exclusively
to HC control.
Vlll
-------
in terms of comparing the mobile sources, this variability in assumptive
technique is not very important, since the same assumptions were made
for all mobile sources considered (LDVs, MDVs, and HDVs).
To supplement the analysis, vehicle distributions and annual
mileage contributions by class (LDV, MDV, and HDV) were determined, and
emission inventories were calculated for the New York City, Los Angeles,
and Phoenix-Tucson Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs). These inven-
tories were structured to reflect the effects of various possible MDV con-
trol strategies.
The comparative analyses and supplementary examination of
vehicle location, use characteristics, and emission inventories in the AQCRs
of interest resulted in the following findings.
I. MOBILE SOURCE COMPARISONS
A. Effect of Emission Control System Type and Baseline Emissions
1. The cost factor variability with ECS type is wide; therefore, caution
should be observed when comparing on the basis of discrete cost fac-
tors. This variability is illustrated in Table 1 for an MDV (at 6000-lb
inertia test weight) as equipped with the seven different ECS consid-
ered in this study.
2. For a given baseline emission level, these cost factor variations
between ECS result from the combined interactions of different emis-
sion reduction characteristics, different total system costs, and the
method of apportionment of costs between HC, CO, and NO .
3. The higher HC and CO cost factors shown for the catalytic converter
ECS in Table 1 are principally the result of converter replacements
at approximately 25,000-mi intervals. Extending this replacement
interval would result in commensurately lower cost factors.
4. The higher NOX cost factors shown in Table 1 for the reduction catalyst
system are due to converter replacements at 25,000-mi intervals;
whereas the higher NOX cost factors for the rich thermal reactor ECS
are due to very high fuel economy losses (25 percent).
5. Two emission baselines were used in the study because MDV engines
are in a state of transition, undergoing modifications to meet the
IX
-------
Table 1. Cost Factor Variability with Emission Control System
Type and Emission Baseline--MDV at 6000-lb Inertia
Test Weight
EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM
TYPE"'
No. 2 -- IMPROVED CARBURETION
No 3 -- OXIDATION CATALYST
No. 4 -- OXIDATION AND
REDUCTION CATALYSTS
No. 5 -- ELECTRONIC FUEL
INJECTION PLUS
TRICOMPONENT
CATALYST
No. 6 -- LEAN THERMAL
REACTOR
No. 7 -- RICH THERMAL
REACTOR
No. 8 -- ADVANCED LEAN
CARBURETION
COST FACTOR, S/ton(2)(31
EARLIER TECHNOLOGY
EMISSIONS BASELINE
HC
328
553
553
469
195
137
298
CO
23
48
48
40
13
17
22
NOX
690
690
1260
364
655
1400
288
HC + CO +
NO,
103
148
215
106
88
199
65
1972 LDV TECHNOLOGY
EMISSIONS BASELINE
HC
978
1660
1660
1403
585
412
892
CO
67
141
141
120
40
52
67
NOX
1282
1282
2340
675
1220
2600
534
HC + CO +
NOX
291
342
600
295
249
555
185
TOTAL
LIFETIME
SYSTEM
COSTS, S(3)(4)
415
871
1682
825
518
1267
414
,u,u. CORRESPONDS TO THAT ASSIGNED BY CALSPAN CORPORATION IN REPORT
3-k-1: THE NAME REFERS TO THE PRINCIPAL OR DIFFERENTIATING FEATURE - ALL SYSTEMS
HAVE EOR
(2)
(3)
(4)
MD^M PRESENTED IN THIS TABLE *RE BASED ON INCOMPLETE DATA AND SHOULD
NOT BE TAKEN AS CONCLUSIVE. DATA FOR SYSTEMS Nos. 2 AND 3 ARE RELATIVELY BETTER
THIS TABLE ASSUMES, IN ALL CASES, A DURABILITY FACTOR OF 1
COST FACTOR = DOLLARS EXPENDED PER TON OF POLLUTANT REMOVED OVER VEHICLE LIFETIME
CATALYSTS WERE CHANGED AT 25,000 me INTERVALS
INITIAL PLUS MAINTENANCE PLUS FUEL COSTS: COSTS ARE ASSUMED TO BE INDEPENDENT OF
BASELINE EMISSION LEVEL ASSUMPTIONS
X
-------
increasingly lower levels of emission standards as prescribed by the
federal government and the State of California for engines used in
vehicles over 6000-Ib GVW. These two baselines were selected to
encompass the spectrum of reasonably anticipated MDV engine emis-
sion characteristics prior to the addition of the seven specific ECSs
evaluated; they are depicted in Figure 1 for HC. The CO and NOX
baselines have different absolute levels, but their slopes are similar
to those shown for HC.
6. Coat factors based on the 1972 LDV technology emissions baseline
are from two to three times higher than similar cost factors based
on the earlier (1970 to 1973 MDVs) technology emissions baseline
(Table 1). This reflects the fact that the 1972 LDV technology emis-
sions, prior to adding any of the seven ECS, are two to three times
lower than the earlier technology baseline emissions, thus giving
lower values for emission reductions over the vehicle lifetime. Since
the total system costs are assumed to be independent of the baseline
emission levels, the cost factors vary directly and inversely with
baseline emission values.
B. Effect of Vehicle Weight
1. As illustrated in Table 2, both HC and CO cost factors decrease as
the vehicle inertia test weight increases. Although Table 2 is based
on a single ECS (1975-type passenger car oxidation catalyst system)
and the 1972 LDV technology emission baseline, similar trends with
vehicle weight occur for all ECS examined, and for both emission
baselines examined.
2. This result of decreasing HC and CO cost factor with increasing vehi-
cle weight results from the fact that the baseline emissions increase
in level as the vehicle weight increases (shown in Figure 1). Since
pollutant reductions for a given ECS were computed as a fixed per-
centage of the baseline emission level, as the vehicle weight increases
the tons of emission reduction increase commensurately, thus giving
lower cost factors ($/ton), since the HC and CO related costs were
independent of vehicle weight for the cases considered in Table 2.
3. On the other hand, NOX cost factor variation with vehicle weight is
strongly influenced by the baseline emission level selected for com-
parison. As shown in Table 2, based on the 1972 LDV technology
baseline, the NOX cost factors increase in numerical value as vehicle
weight increases until approximately 11,000 Ib, where the trend is
reversed. This occurs because all fuel economy losses were attrib-
uted to NOX control. The variation of fuel economy with vehicle weight
used in the analysis has a continually decreasing rate of loss of fuel
economy with increasing weight (e.g. , less change in fuel economy
XI
-------
10
en
O
m
8
QL
a
EARLIER TECHNOLOGY
EMISSION BASELINE
(1970 to 1973 MDVs)
1972 LDV TECHNOLOGY
EMISSION BASELINE
6789
INERTIA WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
10
11
Figure 1. Variation in Baseline Emission Level with Vehicle
Test Weight--HC Emissions
C.
1.
from 13,000 to 14,000 Ib than from 9,000 to 10,000 Ib). The interaction
of the fuel economy characteristic line and the NOX baseline emission
level slope thus results in the NO cost factor shown in Table 2.
However, when comparing with the earlier technology NOX baseline
emission (Table 2), the higher absolute value and steeper slope of the
NOX emission line overrides the fuel economy characteristic noted
above and results in NOX cost factor variations which decrease as
vehicle weight increases, as for the case of HC and CO mentioned
previously.
Gasoline Versus Diesel Powered HDVs
Comparison of gasoline- and diesel-powered HDVs on a simple cost
factor basis can be misleading because of their inherently different
Xll
-------
Table 2. Cost Factor Variability with Vehicle Weight--1972
LDV Technology Emission Baseline (Oxidation
Catalyst and EGR Control System)
VEHICLE INERTIA
TEST WEIGHT, Ib
4,500
6,000
9,000
11,000
14,000
EMISSION CONTROL COST
FACTOR, $/ton
HC
1810
1660
1060
850
654
CO
180
141
60
43
30
NOX
1215 (1117)
1282 (690)
1350 (643)
1360(617)
1300 (560)
II.
VALUES IN PARENTHESES ARE BASED ON
EARLIER TECHNOLOGY NOX EMISSIONS
fuel economy characteristics. If the diesel fuel economy advantage is
not considered in the cost equation, diesel-powered HDV HC and CO
cost factors are in the same general range as those for a gasoline-
powered HDV with an oxidation catalyst plus EGR ECS, $243/ton and
$20/ton, respectively. If the diesel fuel economy advantage is included,
diesel HC and CO cost factors become negative, -$921/ton and -$76/
ton, respectively. With EGR, the direct-injection diesel-powered HDV
has a NOX cost factor (approximately $210/ton) in the same general
range as gasoline-powered HDV NOX cost factors.
MOBILE AND STATIONARY SOURCE COST FACTOR
COMPARISONS
1. Mobile source NOX control cost factors are appreciably higher than
stationary source NOX cost factors, with typical values of $500 to
$1300/ton. Comparable stationary source NOX cost factors are
generally less than $100/ton.
2. Mobile source CO control cost factors, although relatively low in
numerical value ($30 to $200/ton), are still considerably higher than
the single value of less than $2/ton obtained for the stationary source
CO boiler.
Xlll
-------
3. Mobile source HC control cost factors ($400 to $1800/ton) are much
higher than cost factors for stationary source bulk treatment methods
for HC control (e.g., storage tanks, bulk loading facilities, and ser-
vice station holding tank methods with cost factors of $15 to $119/ton).
However, service station refueling HC control systems have cost fac-
tors in the same general range as mobile source values ($200 to
$1400/ton).
4. In all cases permitting comparisons, mobile or stationary source, it
is observed that emission control cost factors ($/ton) decrease in
value as the system or vehicle size and/or throughput (flow rate of
product being controlled) increases. Size effects alone indicate that,
in general, stationary source emission control is more cost-effective
than mobile source emission control.
III. VEHICLE LOCATION CHARACTERISTICS
1. Recent vehicle location surveys for three AQCRs (New York City,
Los Angeles, Phoenix-Tucson) depict the characteristic that trucks
decrease as a percentage of total vehicles as the area involved
increases in population density (Table 3). This trend is reversed
in very small, highly populated, traffic-congested areas such as
Manhattan, New York. Here, the percent of trucks increases, appar-
ently because of the need to provide goods and services for the many
people in the area and the concurrent difficulty of owning, storing,
and/or operating passenger cars in such areas.
Table 3. Vehicle Registration Breakdown by
Location--! July 1972
Based on 1 July 1972 cars in operation and trucks
in operation surveys by R. L. Polk Company.
PARAMETER
TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES
PERCENT AUTOMOBILES
PERCENT TRUCKS
PERCENT OF TOTAL TRUCKS
BY WEIGHT CLASS
OTO 6,000-lb GVW
6,000 TO 14,000-lb GVW
OVER 14,000-lb GVW
LOCATIONS
NATION
106,211,895
81.38
18.62
64.79
19.09
16.12
NEW YORK CITY AREAS
NEW YORK
CITY AQCR
6, 637, 845
92.1
7 91
51 20
18 89
29.91
NEW YORK
CITY (Five
Borous^s)
1,772,355
93.47
6 53
40.22
19 91
39.87
MANHATTAN
(New York
County)
220,614
86.09
13.91
32.74
18.86
48.40
SOUTH COAST
AIR BASIN
AQCR
(Los Angeles)
5, 802, 658
83.75
16.25
59.55
29.70
10.75
PHOENIX-
TUCSON
AQCR
941,697
75.91
24.09
73.40
18.50
8.10
XIV
-------
2. The distribution of LDTs appears to vary uniformly and inversely
with population density.
3. Except for the Los Angeles AQCR, the MDV distribution as percent
of total trucks appears not to be strongly affected by population den-
sity, but rather to remain near the national average of approximately
19 percent. In the Los Angeles case, where the MDV percentage of
total trucks is approximately 30 percent, this anomaly may be the
result of the widespread use of heavier campers and motor homes
for recreational purposes.
4. The HDVs increase in distribution as percent of total trucks in accor-
dance with increasing population density. This may be the logical
result of the need for heavy trucks to move goods into the densely
populated areas in accordance with the number of inhabitants involved.
IV. EMISSION INVENTORY EFFECTS
1. Four cases or possible strategies for MDV and HDV emission control
were examined to calculate emission inventories from 1970 to 1990 for
the three AQCRs considered. The principal features of these emission
control strategies and their corresponding LDV, MDV, and HDV emis-
sion levels are summarized in Table 4.
2. With no further emission control beyond the presently established LDV
regulations (including the 1976 LDV regulations) and the 1974 Federal
HDV standards (for all vehicles over 6000-Ib GVW), emissions in the
1985 to 1990 period are reduced to approximately 25 to 30 percent of
1970 levels. This is illustrated for the HC inventory in the New York
City AQCR as Strategy No. 1 in Figure 2. Similar trends occur for
CO and NO , and for the Los Angeles and Phoenix-Tucson AQCRs.
x'
Implementation of MDV and HDV emission standards equivalent to the
California 1975 HDV standards in the 1975 to 1977 period (Strategy
No. 2) results in a further sizeable reduction for all three pollutants.
This is illustrated in Figure 2 where the 1990 HC inventory is approxi-
mately 15 percent of the 1970 value. This assumes, although it may well
not be the case, that emission reductions for the current nine mode
HDV engine dynomometer procedure are representative of actual vehi-
cle emission reductions.
The addition of oxidation catalysts (in 1977 to 1979) and reduction
catalysts (in 1980 to 1982) to MDVs has relatively little effect on total
emissions by 1990; this is illustrated as Strategies No. 3 and 4,
respectively, in Figure 2 for HC. This minimal effect occurs
because only MDVs (and not HDVs) are equipped with the catalysts,
xv
-------
Table 4. Control Strategy Emission Levels
STRATEGY
NUMBER
1
212)
3(3)(4)
4(4)(5)
EMISSION LEVEL ASSUMPTION
LDVs
CURRENT
FFDFRAI
LDV REGU-
LATIONS
(including
the 1976
i nv
regulation),
ALL FOUR
STRATEGIES
MDVs
BASIC
FEATURE
1974 FED-
ERAL HDV
STANDARDS
1975 CALI-
FORNIA
HDV STAND-
ARDS
OXIDATION
CATALYST
ADDED
REDUCTION
CATALYST
ADDED
EMISSION LEVEL,"1
gm/mi
HC
4.25
1.33
0.40
0.40
CO
62.08
38.08
4.20
4.20
NOX
6.57
2.06
2.06
0.45
HDVs
BASIC
FEATURE
1974 FED-
ERAL HDV
STANDARDS
1975 CALI-
FORNIA
HDV STAND-
ARDS
1975 CALI-
FORNIA
HDV STAND-
ARDS
1975 CALI-
FORNIA
HDV STAND-
ARDS
EMISSION LEVEL, (1'
gm/mi
HC
17.9
5.6
5.6
5.6
CO
179
112
112
112
NOX
12.6
3.94
3.94
3.94
(1) VALUES IN gm/mi EITHER BASED ON TEST RESULTS, ON CONVERSION FROM gm/bhp-hr
STANDARDS, OR ON ESTIMATES OF CATALYTIC CONVERTER EFFICIENCY
(2) IMPLEMENTED IN CALIFORNIA IN 1975; REST OF UNITED STATES IN 1977
(3) IMPLEMENTED IN CALIFORNIA IN 1977; REST OF UNITED STATES IN 1979
(4) ONLY MDVs ARE REGULATED TO LOWER LEVELS IN STRATEGIES 3 AND 4, i.e. HDV«
REMAIN AT 1975 CALIFORNIA HDV STANDARD LEVELS
(5) IMPLEMENTED IN CALIFORNIA IN 1980; REST OF UNITED STATES IN 1982
and they represent a relatively small percent of the total number of
vehicles in an AQCR (e.g. , MDVs are only 1. 5 percent of total vehi-
cles in New York City AQCR), and contribute only a small amount of
the total VMT (e.g. , MDVs contribute 3. 15 percent of the total daily
VMT in the New York City AQCR).
5. The various control strategies examined do have a marked effect on
the relative percentage contributions of the LDV, MDV, and HDV
vehicle classes (shown in Figure 3 and Table 5 for HC in the New
York City AQCR). Under Strategy No. 1, HDVs would be contribu-
ting as much emissions as LDVs by 1985. Strategy No. 2 would
appreciably reduce the HDV contribution, but it would still be approx-
imately three times higher in 1990 than in 1970. Strategies No. 3 and
4 do not further reduce HDV emission levels (apply only to MDV
xvi
-------
100
90
80
ro
60
o
Q.
Of
2 50
ui
li
UJ
!/>
£ •
u.
o
H
Z
30
20
10
NOTE: THE EMISSION INVENTORY FOR ANY YEAR
IS THAT EXISTING AT THE END OF THE
CALENDAR YEAR
(1)
1970 HC (MOBILE) = 835,311 tons/yr
I
I i I I
1970
1975
1980
CALENDAR YEAR
1985
1990
Figure 2. New York City AQCR Mobile Source HC Inventory
(Determined Using Anticipated Normal Growth
Rates)
xvn
-------
O 100,
8
O LDVs
D MDVs
A HDVs
CONTROL STRATEGY No. 1
CONTROL STRATEGY No. 2
CONTROL STRATEGY Nos. 3 AND 4
(1) 100 PERCENT REPRESENTS A DIFFERENT
EMISSION INVENTORY VALUE IN EACH YEAR
1980
CALENDAR YEAR
1985
1990
Figure 3. New York AQCR--HC Percentage Contribution of
Vehicle Classes (Normal Growth Rates)
emission levels); they would have to be expanded to include HDVs to
significantly alter the HDV percentage contribution.
6. In the case of MDVs, their percentage contribution rises steadily from
1970 to 1990 under Strategy No. 1, increasing from 4 to 9 percent as
shown in Table 5. This is about 23 percent of the LDV emissions in
1990. Strategy No. 2 reduces 1990 MDV contributions to approximately
6 percent, while Strategies No. 3 and 4 (oxidizing and reducing catalyst
in MDVs only) reduce 1990 MDV values to slightly below (approximately
3 percent) 1970 percentage levels.
7. Combined MDV and HDV emissions (vehicles over 6000-Ib GVW) exceed
LDV HC emissions by approximately 50 percent in 1990 under Strategy
No. 1 (Table 5). Under all other strategies examined, the combined
percentage of MDV and HDV emissions in 1990 are approximately two
times their 1970 percentage levels.
With regard to mobile source emission control, the emission
control cost factors clearly illustrate that MDV emission control is cost-
effective when compared with LDVs equipped with similar control systems.
XVlll
-------
Table 5. New York City AQCR Mobile Source HC Distribution
by Vehicle Class--1970 and 1990
CONTROL
STRATEGY
NUMBER
1
2(D
3(2)
4(3)
PERCENT OF TOTAL MOBILE SOURCE HC INVENTORY
1970
LDV
85
MDV
4
HDV
11
ALL FOUR
STRATEGIES
HAVE SAME 1970
BASELINE
VALUES
MDV
AND
HDV
15
15
15
15
1990
LDV
40
64
66
66
MDV
9
6
3
3
HDV
51
30
31
31
MDV
AND
HDV
60
36
34
34
(1'IMPLEMENTED IN 1977 IN NEW YORK CITY AQCR
^IMPLEMENTED IN 1979 IN NEW YORK CITY AQCR
(3)IMPLEMENTED IN 1982 IN NEW YORK CITY AQCR
Further, it is also clear that HDV emission control is even more cost-
effective, on a dollars per ton of pollutant removed basis.
Currently, the MDV category is a relatively small contributor
of emissions. However, if no additional control beyond that regulated for
1974 is added to MDVs, these vehicles would be large emission contributors.
For instance, in the New York City AQCR, MDVs in 1970 emitted an amount
of HC which was about 5 percent of the amount emitted by LDVs; however,
in 1990 the percentage would grow to about 23 percent of the amount emitted
by LDVs.
The HDV emissions are a significant portion of the total emis-
sion inventory (e.g. , approximately 36 percent of HC inventory in New York
XIX
-------
City AQCR in 1990) if emission standards no more severe than the 1975
California HDV standards are implemented. If current Federal 1974 HDV
standards persist to 1990, the HDV HC percentage contribution in the New
York City AQCR would be approximately 60 percent. Therefore, it would
appear that advanced HDV emission control strategies would be also most
fruitful to pursue, both on the basis of cost effectiveness and emission
inventory reduction potential.
xx
-------
CONTENTS
FOREWORD iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v
HIGHLIGHTS vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Introduction 1
2. Selection of Medium-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty
Vehicles for Cost Factor Comparisons 2
3. Candidate Emission Control Systems and
Baseline Emission Levels 3
3. 1 Candidate Emission Control Systems 4
3. 2 Baseline Emission Levels 4
3. 3 Emission Control System Costs 8
4. Medium-Duty Vehicle and Light-Duty Vehicle
Cost Factor Comparisons 11
4. 1 Comparisons by Emission Control System
Type 12
4. 2 Medium-Duty Vehicle and Light-Duty
Vehicle Cost Factor Comparisons 16
5. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Cost Comparisons 18
6. Stationary Source Emission Control Costs 19
6. 1 Control Costs for NO 19
X.
6. 2 Control Cost for CO from Refinery
Cracking Units 19
6. 3 Control Costs for HC 20
7. Mobile and Stationary Source Cost Factor
Summary 20
8. Vehicle Location and Travel Characteristics 22
9- Emission Inventories 24
xxi
-------
FIGURES
1. Hydrocarbon Emission Baselines Used for Cost
Comparisons 6
2. Cost Factors for ECS No. 2 -- 1972 LDV Technology
Baseline 13
3. Cost Factors for ECS No. 3 -- 1972 LDV Technology
Baseline 14
4. Cost Factors for ECS No. 2 -- Earlier Technology
Baseline 15
5. Cost Factors for ECS No. 3 -- Earlier Technology
Baseline 16
6. New York City AQCR -- Mobile Source HC Inventory 27
7. New York City AQCR -- Mobile Source CO Inventory 28
8. New York City AQCR -- Mobile Source NO Inventory 29
9. New York City AQCR HC Inventory Contribution by
Vehicle Class -- Control Strategy No". 1 30
10. New York City AQCR -- HC Percentage Contribution
of Vehicle Class 32
11. New York City AQCR -- CO Percentage Contribution
of Vehicle Class 32
12. New York City AQCR -- NO Percentage Contribution
of Vehicle Class X . 33
xxi i
-------
TABLES
1. Cases for Cost Factor Comparisons 2
2. Candidate Emission Control Systems 5
3. Emission Control System Initial Cost Summary --
LDV or MDV 9
4. Maintenance Costs for ECS -- LDV with 350-CID
Engine 10
5. Maintenance Costs for ECS -- MDV with 350-CID
Engine 11
6. Fuel Cost Summary for Vehicle Lifetime 12
7. Summary of Emission Control Cost Factors 21
8. Vehicle Miles Traveled Data Summary -- Circa 1970 23
9. Control Strategy Emission Levels 26
10. New York City AQCR Mobile Source HC Distribution
of Vehicle Class 33
xxiu
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a cost-effectiveness
comparative analysis of medium-duty vehicle [MDV -- 6,000 to 14,000-lb
gross vehicle weight (GVW)j emission control systems (ECSs).
The MDVs are currently regulated as heavy-duty vehicles
(HDVs -- over 6000-lb GVW) with regard to exhaust emission control (i.e.,
engine-only dynamometer test procedures). However, they have characteris-
tics that appear to permit certification testing of the complete vehicle over
the same driving cycle and using the same emission mass measurement
techniques used for LDV (less than 6000-lb GVW) certification testing.
The main topic discussed is the development of emission
control cost factors for MDVs [expressed as dollars expended per ton of
pollutant removed ($/ton)] and the comparison of these with similarly-
developed cost factors for light-duty vehicles (LDVs), HDVs, and various
stationary sources. Also included is a review of transportation planning
information for the New York City, Los Angeles, and Phoenix-Tucson Air
Quality Control Regions (AQCRs), with emphasis on vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) distribution by vehicle class (LDV, MDV, and HDV). The effects of
various MDV control strategies are illustrated with emission inventories
for LDVs, MDVs1, and HDVs for these three AQCRs.
This volume summarizes the more pertinent information from
these analyses; Volume II provides further details about the comparative
analysis.
The distinction between LDVs and light-duty trucks (LDTs)(regulated as
per Federal Register, Vol. 38, No. 151, of 7 August 1973, after the deci-
sion of the U. S. Court of Appeals) has not been considered in this report.
If the general category of MDVs was defined to include LDTs, the relative
impact of MDVs on emission inventories would be larger than is indicated
in this report.
-------
2. SELECTION OF MEDIUM-DUTY VEHICLES
AND LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES
FOR COST FACTOR COMPARISONS
The individual cases or characteristic vehicles selected for
examination of MDV and LDV emission control cost factors are shown in
Table 1. A single vehicle, weighing 4500 Ib loaded [inertia test weight (Iw)],
was selected to represent the LDV class. Four MDV class vehicles were
selected:
a. Truck A -- representing the average GVW (8000 Ib)
of the 6, 000 to 10, 000-lb GVW class
Table 1. Cases for Cost Factor Comparisons
CHARACTERISTICS
GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT, Ib
GCW -i- f(GVW-GCW), Ib
lw, Ib
ENGINE, CID
FUEL ECONOMY, mpg
(over Federal Driving
Cycle)
VEHICLES
LDV
<6000
4500
4500(1)
350'1'
12.0
MDV
TRUCK 'A'
8000 (ave. )
of 6-10,000)
6200
6000
350
10.0
TRUCK "B1
12,000 (ave.
of 10-14,000)
8700
9000
350
7.25
MOTOR
HOME
13,000
11,050
11,000
350
6.2
TRUCK 'C'
14,000
14,000
(fully loaded)
14,000(21
350
5.4
'SALES-WEIGHTED VALUES FOR 1972 STANDARD SIZE CAR ARE: lw = 4800 Ib;
CID = 371.4 cu in.
(2)
REPRESENTS A FULLY-LOADED MDV OR A PARTIALLY-LOADED HDV
-------
b. Truck B -- representing the average GVW (12, 000 Ib)
of the 10, 000 to 14, 000-lb GVW class
c. Motor Home -- at 13, 000-lb GVW representing the
class of larger motor homes becoming increasingly
popular in recent years
d. Truck C -- at 14, 000-lb Iw representing a fully loaded
upper GVW •weight class MDV; at this Iw value it also
represents partially-loaded lower GVW range HDVs
(e. g. , 16, 000 to 19, 500-lb GVW HDV class)
The inertia test weight of trucks A and B and the motor home
were determined from a correlation of GVW as a function of Iw relationships
of vehicles tested in the MDV baseline emission characterization program
recently conducted by EPA.
A single engine size [350-cu in. displacement (CID)j was
selected for all five vehicles to remove instances of engine-size-related
variability in the cost factor calculations. This engine size is frequently
used in both the MDV and LDV classes.
The fuel economy characteristics (mpg) for the five vehicles
in Table 1 are based on a consistently varying fuel economy versus Iw char-
acteristic for a 350-CID engine.
In summary, the cases selected (Table 1) represent "reason-
able" vehicles for the LDV class and the MDV GVW spectrum (6, 000 to
14, 000 Ib). In addition, the motor home at Iw = 1 1, 000 Ib and truck C at
Iw = 14, 000 Ib may also characterize a portion of the HDV class (GVW over
14, 000 Ib) at small or intermediate payload weights.
3. CANDIDATE EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
AND BASELINE EMISSION LEVELS
The determination of cost factors resulting from the incorpora-
tion of emission control systems (ECS) to reduce exhaust emissions requires the
examination of several important variables. These cost factors, expressed
as dollars expended per ton of pollutant removed ($/ton), depend not only on
-------
the particular ECS employed, but also on the "baseline" vehicle emission
level (i. e. , the characteristic emissions of the vehicle prior to the incor-
poration of a given ECS).
3. 1 CANDIDATE EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
A technical evaluation of various emission control approaches
for MDVs was recently completed for EPA by the Calspan Corporation. The
Calspan report describes in detail the characteristics of eight ECSs for
possible application to MDVs. Seven of these ECS -were selected for cost
factor comparisons in the present study (ECS No. 2 through No. 8); the com-
ponents involved and the principal or differentiating feature of each are des-
cribed in Table 2. The characteristics of these ECSs in terms of resultant
exhaust emissions and postulated attendant fuel economy reductions are also
shown in the table. Some of the values presented in this table are based on
incomplete data and should not be regarded as conclusive. Data for systems
Nos. 2 and 3 are relatively better documented.
3. 2 BASELINE EMISSION LEVELS
The selection of a meaningful baseline emission level (or
levels) is of extreme importance. Pollutant reductions attributed to a given
ECS are measured directly from baseline values; therefore, resulting cost
factors ($/ton pollutant removed) are directly proportional to the baseline
emission level. Because of this relationship, the widest possible data base
•was examined and analyzed prior to selecting baseline emission levels.
Several discrete data sources were available, as discussed below.
3. 2. 1 Calspan MDV Correlations
Calspan performed correlation analyses of the emission data
generated in the recently conducted EPA MDV emission characterization
program. Regression analyses of 76 1970 to 1973 model year truck emis-
sion data samples resulted in the truck HC correlation line shown in
Figure 1. The CO and NO correlations exhibited slope characteristics
similar to those shown for HC, but with different absolute levels (omitted
-------
Table 2. Candidate Emission Control Systems
No.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
DESCRIPTION
El + 1C + QHI + Al + EGR
El * 1C + QHI + EGR + Al + OC
El + 1C + QHI + EGR + RC +
AI/CAI + OC
El + EPIC + EGR + RC/OC
El + 1C + QHI + EGR + LTR
El + FC + EGR + Al + RTR
El + FIC + IQHI + Al + EGR
EMISSION
FACTOR'" "R"
HC
0.65
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.50
0.08
0.40
CO
0.55
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.35
0.35
0.30
N0x
0.60
0.60
0.10
0.10
0.375
0.17
0 35
FUEL
DEDUCTION
ECONOMY,
PERCENT
5<3> ,
12
3
8
25
3
PRINCIPAL FEATURE12'
IMPROVED CARBURETION
OXIDATION CATALYST
OXIDATION AND REDUCTION CATALYSTS
ELECTRONIC FUEL INJECTION WITH
TRICOMPONENT CATALYST
LEAN THERMAL REACTOR
RICH THERMAL REACTOR
ADVANCED LEAN CARBURETION
(1)
(2)
(3)
"R"
EMISSIONS AFTER CONTROL SYSTEM ADDED
BASELINE EMISSIONS BEFORE CONTROL SYSTEM ADDED
SOME VALUES PRESENTED IN THIS TABLE ARE BASED ON INCOMPLETE DATA AND SHOULD NOT
BE REGARDED AS CONCLUSIVE. DATA FOR SYSTEMS NOS. 2 AND 3 ARE RELATIVELY BETTER
DOCUMENTED
ALL SYSTEMS HAVE EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION SYSTEMS
DIFFERS FROM 8 PERCENT USED BY CALSPAN CORPORATION
El = ELECTRONIC IGNITION OC
1C = IMPROVED CARBURETION RC
QHI = FAST WARM-UP INTAKE MANIFOLD RC/OC
IQHI = ADVANCED INTAKE MANIFOLD FC
Al = AIR INJECTION FIC
CAI = AIR INJECTION INTO OXIDATION CATALYST LTR
EGR = EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION RTR
OXIDATION CATALYST
REDUCTION CATALYST
TRICOMPONENT CATALYST (TRI)
FAST CHOKE
ADVANCED LEAN CARBURETION
LEAN THERMAL REACTOR
RICH THERMAL REACTOR
-------
10 i—
^
«/?
s
ffi
DL
a
REGRESSION LINE
FOR TRUCKS (1970 to 1973 MDVs]
1968 LDV
1972 LDV
I
EXTRAPOLATED 1972 LDV TECHNOLOGY
I
10
11
56789
INERTIA WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
Figure 1. Hydrocarbon Emission Baselines
Used for Cost Comparisons
here for brevity). These 76 trucks encompassed the Iw range from 4, 500 Ib
to 10, 000 Ib, with an average Iw of approximately 5, 740 Ib. They consisted
of a composite of tuned and untuned vehicle tests.
3. 2. 2
The 1972 LDV Technology Trends
Another emissions data base examined is that characteristic
of 1972 LDV engines. In this regard, Calspan reported the following values
(corrected for the 1975 Federal Test Procedure) for a large sample of LDVs.
HC = 1. 70 gm/mi
CO = 16. 50 gm/mi
NX) = 4. 00 gm/mi
.X
-------
Of interest was the variation in emission rate that would occur if LDV engines
with these emission certification characteristics were used in MDVs, on the
basis or assumption that such engines probably represent the best available
engine technology prior to the incorporation of specific ECS components as
exemplified by ECS No. 2 through No. 8. Data from a ten-truck test pro-
gram conducted by EPA in June through Augu,st 1972 were used to provide
this variation of emission rate with I characteristic.
Each of the ten trucks was tested at inertia weights corres-
ponding to 0, 25, 50, and 100 percent load. From these data, the average
rate of change of emission rate with a change of Iw was determined. A hypo-
thetical "1972 LDV technology baseline" variation of emission rate with Iw
was constructed (see Figure 1) which consisted of the 1972 LDV emission
certification level up to Iw = 5500 Ib plus a variation with I above 5500 Ib
per the delta emission/delta Iw slope factor as determined from the EPA
ten-truck test series. It is estimated that this characteristic would repre-
sent the lowest obtainable emissions with MDV engines incorporating the
types of engine modifications made to date for LDVs (e. g. , combustion
chamber, ignition timing, and spark retard) and without the incorporation
of emission control systems as illustrated in Table 2.
3. 2. 3 Final Emission Baseline Selections
The truck emission correlation developed by Calspan from
the EPA MDV emissions characterization program was used to represent
the MDV class prior to the addition of specific ECSs. It is treated herein
as an "earlier" technology baseline inasmuch as HDV engines will be modi-
fied to meet the more stringent requirements of the California 1975 HDV
standards. A second emission level baseline was also used -- the extrap-
olated 1972 LDV technology emission characteristics. It is considered that
these two baselines encompass the spectrum of MDV emission characteris-
tics that can be reasonably expected of MDVs that do not have the specific
ECSs of Table 2 applied to them. Hence, by computing cost factors based
-------
on these two baselines, the range of reasonably expected cost factors will
be obtained.
The two selected emissions baselines are summarized in
Figure 1 for HC. Also shown, for comparison purposes, are characteristic
1968 LDV HC emission values, which can be considered representative of
"earlier" technology LDVs.
3. 3 EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM COSTS
In developing the ECS costs reported herein, the initial hard-
ware costs and maintenance cost assumptions as reported by Calspan were
used. These ECSs and their costs were applied to both the LDV and MDV
cases of Table 1.
Since cost factor determination is based on emission reduc-
tion, it was necessary to compute both costs and emission reductions over
the complete vehicle lifetime to amortize the effects of initial hardware
costs. The average lifetime of passenger cars has been previously reported
as 8. 4 years and 85, 000 mi. For the MDV, or truck case, similar data
were not available; therefore, an analysis of average truck lifetime values
was performed. The average truck lifetime was found to be approximately
12. 6 years and the average single-unit truck lifetime mileage was computed
to be approximately 110, 000 mi.
3. 3. 1 Cost Summaries
A summary of ECS initial costs is given in Table 3. They apply
for both the LDV and MDV cases examined, bince all LDVs and MDVs use a
350-CID engine. To determine cost factors ($/ton pollutant removed) for each
exhaust species (HC, CO, and NO ), it was necessary to apportion costs on
this basis. The following assumptions were made in this regard.
a. One-third of the costs of electronic ignition, testing
or inspection^ and tricomponent catalysts was
allocated to each constituent (HC, CO, and NOX).
^Testing or inspection may or may not be required; if required, costs may
be different from those assumed.
-------
Table 3. Emission Control System Initial Cost
Summary -- LDV or MDV (350-CID
Engine)
COMPONENTS
ELECTRONIC IGNITION (El)(1)
FAST CHOKE (FC)
QUICK HEAT INTAKE (QHI)
IMPROVED CARB. (1C)
ADVANCED CARB. (AC)
ELECTRONIC FUEL INJ. (EFI), .
EXHAUST GAS RECIRC - (EGR)(2)
THERMAL REACTOR (LTR/RTR)
AIR INJECTION (Al)
OXIDIZING CATALYST (OC)
REDUCING CATALYST (RC)
TRICOMPONENT CATALYST (TRI)
CATALYST BYPASS
EVAPORATIVE CONTROL SYSTEM
(EVAP. CS) .,.,,,
TESTING OR INSPECTION!1 )*3)
TOTAL
HC/CO RELATED
NOX RELATED
CALSPAN No.
2
20
5
10
30
38
14
7
124
85
39
3
20
5
10
30
39
69
to
14
7
204
165
39
4
20
5
10
30
39
70.,.
90(2)
10
14
7
295
166
129
5
20
100
30
67(D
10
14
7
248
187
61
6
20
5
10
30
59
14
7
145
106
39
7
20
5
30
59
38
14
7
173
134
39
8
20
5
30
30
38
14
7
144
105
39
(1) 1/3 COST ALLOCATED TO EACH CONSTITUENT (HC, CO, NOX)
(2) COST ALLOCATED TO NOX CONTROL ONLY
(3) MAY OR MAY NOT BE REQUIRED; COSTS MAY BE DIFFERENT THAN THOSE ASSUMED
b. Exhaust gas recirculation system and reducing
catalyst costs were allocated to NOX control
only.
c. All other costs were allocated to HC/CO control
and were divided equally between HC and CO.
Maintenance costs are summarized in Table 4 for the LDV and
in Table 5 for the MDV. The maintenance assumptions are the same fo*- both
cases and are based on the Calspan report. The resulting LDV and MDV cost
differences are related to the different average lifetime values, as shown.
The assumptions made in apportioning maintenance costs to HC, CO, and
-------
Table 4. Maintenance Costs for ECS -- LDV
with 350-CID Engine (8. 4 years and
85, 000 mi)
MAINTENANCE
ASSUMPTIONS, $/mi
-60/50, 000(1)
NONE REQUIRED
NONE REQUIRED
15/50,000
45/50,000
28/50,000 ,_,
4/10,000 w
NONE REQUIRED
10/25,000
107/25,000 3)
143/25,000 3)
110/25,000 3)
5/10,000
12.50/25,000 ,.,
3/YEAR (l)
COMPONENT
El
FC
QHI
1C
AC
EFI
EGR
LTR/RTR
Al
OC
RC
TRI
BYPASS
EVAP. C5
INSPECTION
TOTAL
HC/CO RELATED
NOX RELATED
CALSPAN No.
2
-102
26
34
34
42
25
59
51
8
3
-102
26
34
34
214
42
42
25
315
307
8
4
-102
26
34
34
214 .
286 (2)
42
42
25
601
307
294
5
-102
48
34
42
42
25
309
228
81
6
-102
26
34
42
25
25
17
8
7
-102
34
34
42
25
33
25
8
8
-102
77
34
34
42
25
110
102
8
(1) 1/3 OF COST OR SAVINGS ALLOCATED TO EACH CONSTITUENT (HC, CO, NOX
(2) COST ALLOCATED TO NOX CONTROL ONLY
(3) CONVERTERS CHANGED AT 25,000 AND 50,000 mi ONLY
NO were similar to the initial cost allocations. The maintenance costs for
x
catalytic converter replacements were based on the replacement intervals
stated in the tables.
The lifetime fuel costs for the LDV and MDV cases are
summarized in Table 6. The fuel economy values shown conform to Table 1
and the fuel economy penalties attributed to emission control are based on
Table 2. The basic fuel cost used, 38^/gallon, is considered a nominal
value. In all cases, all fuel cost penalties were allocated to NOx control.
10
-------
Table 5. Maintenance Costs for ECS -- MDV
with 350-CID Engine (12.6 years
and 110, 000 mi)
MAINTENANCE
ASSUMPTIONS, $/mi
-60/50,000(1)
NONE REQUIRED
NONE REQUIRED
15/50,000
45/50,000
28/50,000
4/10,000(2)
NONE REQUIRED
10/25,000
107/25,000 3)
143/25,000 3
110/25,000 3
5/10,000
12.50/25,000
3/YEAR
TOTAL
COMPONENT
El
FC
QHI
1C
AC
EFI
EGR
LTR/RTR
Al
OC
RC
TRI
BY.PAS5
EVAP. CS
INSPECTION
HC/CO RELATED
NOX RELATED
CALSPAN No.
2
-132
33
44
44
55
38
82
69
13
3
-132
33
44
44
321
55
55
33
458
445
13
4
-132
33
44
44
321, .
429^1
55
55
38
887
445
442
5
-132
62
44
Ml
330!"
55
55
38
452
329
123
6
-132
33
44
55
38
38
25
13
7
-132
44
44
55
38
49
36
13
8
-132
99
44
44
55
38
148
135
13
(1) 1/3 COST OR SAVINGS ALLOCATED TO EACH CONSTITUENT (HC, CO, NOX)
(2) COST ALLOCATED TO NOX CONTROL ONLY
(3) CONVERTERS CHANGED AT 25,000; 50,000; AND 75,000 mi ONLY
In summary, the MDV costs are the same as the LDV costs,
except for maintenance and fuel cost differentials occasioned by the differ-
ences in: average lifetimes, average lifetime mileages, and fuel economy.
4. MEDIUM-DUTY VEHICLE AND LIGHT-DUTY
VEHICLE COST FACTOR COMPARISONS
The comparison parameter selected to determine the relative
cost effectiveness between emission controls for LDVs, MDVs, HDVs, and
11
-------
Table 6. Fuel Cost Summary for Vehicle
Lifetime (85, 000 mi for LDV and
110, 000 mi for MDV)
PARAMETER
FUEL ECONOMY, mpg
GALLONS USED
FUEL COST iff 38 «/ gal
FUEL PENALTY COST.S
ECS NO. 2 (5%)
ECS NO. 3 (5%)
ECS NO. 4 (12%)
ECS NO. 5 (3?)
ECS NO. 6 (8%t
ECS NO. 7 (25%)
ECS NO. 8 (3%)
LDV
12.0
7090
$2700
135
135
324
81
216
675
81
MDV
NO. 1
TRUCK "A"
liw=e,ooo)
10.0
11,000
$4185
209
209
500
125
335
1045
125
NO. 2
TRUCK "B"
tlw=9,000)
7.25
15,170
$5760
288
288
690
173
461
1440
173
NO. 3
MOTOR HOME
(lw=t 1,000)
6.20
17,720
$6740
337
337
810
202
540
1685
202
NO. 4
TRUCK "C"
(lw-14,000)
5.40
20,350
$7740
387
387
929
232
619
1935
232
stationary sources is the $/ton of pollutant removed over the vehicle and/or
control system lifetime. In the case of mobile sources, cost factors were
determined for the following pollutants and combinations: HC, CO, NO ,
X
and HC + CO + NO .
x
4. 1 COMPARISONS BY EMISSION CONTROL
SYSTEM TYPE
Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the variance of emission control
3
cost factor with MDV I for ECS No. 2 and No. 3 when applied to engines
Similar data for ECS No. 4 through No. 8 are not displayed here for pur-
poses of brevity; their trend results are generally similar to Figures 2
and 3.
12
-------
•t
u
1400
1300
120°
1100
1000
900
8 800
u
_i 700
O
o:
£ 600
O
<-> 500
300
200
100
0
LOV
MDV
EMMISSION
FACTOR "R"
HC = 0.65
CO = 0. 55
NOX = 0.60
FUEL
ECONOMY
REDUCTION
= 5%
EFFECTS OF LOWER SLOPE
CO AS A FUNCTION OF I BASELINE
14
INERTIA TEST WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
Figure 2. Cost Factors for ECS No. 2 --
1972 LDV Technology Baseline
(El + 1C f QH1 + AI + EGR)
conforming to 1972 LDV technology baseline characteristics. The symboled
points represent the MDV cases of Table 1; the comparison LDV case at
Iw = 4500 Ib. is also shown. The HC, CO, and HC + CO + NO cost factors
decrease with increasing I and are less than the LDV cost factors of the
same type. These cost factors would be expected to decrease as Iw in-
creases, since the costs involved are nearly independent of I and the
emission reductions increase in numerical value as I increases. This is
vV
because of the positive slope (relative to I ) of the baseline emissions
assumptions (Figure 1). The effects of an "alternate" 1972 LDV technology
13
-------
2600 |—
HT
£2000
I-
^ 1800
ll_
H- 1600
O
U1400
_!
o
K. 1200
l-
O 1000
g 800
-------
as a function of I characteristic (decreasing rate of change of fuel economy
as I increases).
w
Similar cost factor results are shown in Figures 4 and 5 for
ECS No. 2 and No. 3 when applied to engines conforming to the earlier tech-
nology emissions baseline. On this basis of comparison, even the NO cost
.X
factor for MDVs is below the LDV value. This is because the MDV NO
x
baseline emissions are considerably higher than the LDV NO emission rate
5C
selected as comparable in terms of technology level, thus giving greater
NO reductions (for the same ECS type and NO "R" factor) and concomitant
.X jV
lower NO cost factors.
x
1200
cIlOO
^1000
8 900
O
< 800
gTOO
" 600
O
£ 500
§ 400
O 300
S
2 200
uj
100
— UDV
•MDV
EMISSION
FACTOR "R"
HC = 0.65
CO = 0.55
NOX = 0. 60
FUEL
ECONOMY
REDUCTION
= 5%
NO.,
-HC
- v
k 1 -&- 1 V \- 1
/
L T^ 1
:° ^HC + CO+NOX
A 1 1
^
10
INERTIA TEST WEIGHT, lw> 1000 Ib
11
12
13
14
Figure 4. Cost Factors for ECS No. 2
Earlier Technology Baseline
(El + 1C + QHI + AI + EGR)
15
-------
1400
1300
§ 1200
^1100
*
g
u
1000
2 900
g 800
u
_j TOO
O
oc.
£ 600
O
O 500
| .
^ 300
200
100
0
— LDV
MDV
EMMISSION
FACTOR "R"
HC = 0. 18
CO = 0. 15
NOX = 0.60
FUEL
ECONOMY
REDUCTION
= 5%
1 -°- i
'4 5
V —
O—
1
6
i 9
789
INERTIA TEST WEIGHT,
x^H
C + CO +• NOX
10 11 12 13 1
w, 1000 Ib
Figure 5. Cost Factors for ECS No. 3 --
Earlier Technology Baseline
(El + 1C + QHI + EGR + AI + OC]
4.2 . MEDIUM-DUTY VEHICLE AND LIGHT-DUTY
VEHICLE COST FACTOR COMPARISONS
As illustrated in the previous four figures, for the same ECS,
MDVs have HC, CO, and HC + CO -I- NO cost factors that can range from
X
approximately equal to LDV cost factors at the I = 6000 Ib level to consider-
ably less than LDV values at the I = 14, 000 Ib level. The MDVs have NO
' w ' x
cost factors that can be somewhat above LDV NO cost factors when comparing
.X
on the 1972 LDV technology baseline, but that are substantially below LDV
values when compared on the earlier technology baseline.
16
-------
Cost factor numerical values vary considerably with ECS type;
therefore, caution should be observed when attempting to compare ECS on
the basis of discrete cost factor characteristics (HC, CO, or NO ).
•rC
It should be recognized that the numerical level of any cost
factor is a simple reflection of the values selected initially for baseline
emissions and ECS cost characteristics. As discussed previously, two
emission level baselines were used in the present analysis to bound the
problem. Cost factors based on the earlier technology baseline may be
reasonably characteristic of applying ECS to the MDVs with HDV engines
as modified to meet the first level of emission control (1969 to 1974 heavy-
duty engine requirements). Cost factors based on the 1972 LDV extrapolated
technology baseline may be reasonably characteristic of applying ECS to
MDVs incorporating engines as modified to meet 1972 LDV certification
levels (assuming emission variations due to differences in drive train,
aerodynamic drag, etc. , are relatively small). Assuming that control sys-
tem costs are the same for both emission baselines may be an oversimpli-
fication. The exact cost factor for a given MDV engine combination would
depend on the specific engine involved and the modifications made to it
(e. g. , combustion chamber, ignition timing, and spark retard) prior to
the addition of specific ECSs of the types examined herein (ECS No. 2 through
No. 8).
Regardless of the basis of emission baseline comparison, it
is clear that emission control of MDVs in terms of HC, CO, and
HC + CO + NO cost factors is more cost effective than when applying
.X
similar controls to LDVs. This result occurs principally because of the
higher MDV emission levels prior to adding a given ECS, and also results
in the lower cost factors as I (or MDV GVW size) increases because the
baseline emissions are greater with increasing I .
17
-------
5. HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE COST COMPARISONS
A brief analysis of HDV emission control cost factors was
made to compare cost factors for all of the principal sources in the mobile
source spectrum (LDVs, MDVs, and HDVs). A single MDV size (22, 600-lb
GVW) was selected for analysis.
A gasoline engine and direct-injection and prechamber diesel
engines were considered as power plants for the HDV case. The ECS Nos. 2,
3, 6, and 8 (as described in Table 2) were selected for addition to the gaso-
line engine. The only ECS considered for the diesel engine was EGR; the
diesel engine itself has low HC and CO emission rates, when compared with
an uncontrolled gasoline engine.
Gasoline engine lifetime values of 12. 6 years and 130, 000 mi
were used for cost amortization purposes. For the diesel, an engine life-
time of 12. 6 years and 475, 000 mi was selected.
Cost factor analysis indicated that comparison of gasoline-
and diesel-powered HDVs on a simple cost factor basis can be misleading be-
cause of their inherently different fuel economy characteristics; the diesel
fuel economy (mpg) is approximately 1.5 times the gasoline engine mpg value.
If the diesel fuel economy advantage is not considered in the cost equation, the
diesel-powered HDV HC and CO cost factors are in the same general range as
those for a. gasoline-powered HDV with an oxidation catalyst plus EGR ECS
($243/ton and $20/ton, respectively). If the diesel fuel economy advantage is
included, diesel HC and CO cost factors become negative (-$921/ton and
-$76/ton, respectively).
With EGR, the direct-injection diesel has an NO cost factor
J\.
(approximately $210/ton) in the same general range as gasoline-powered
HDV NO cost factors. However, the prechamber diesel can have NO cost
x x
factors as high as $540/ton because of lower uncontrolled NO emission rates.
18
-------
6. STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSION CONTROL COSTS
This section summarizes emission control cost factors ($/ton
pollutant reduced) for several categories of stationary sources. Several
combustion modification approaches to NO reduction in utility steam boilers
.X
•were considered since this is an important source of the pollutant. In addi-
tion, cost factors were determined for the following sources: (a) nitric acid
plant (NO ), (b) refinery cracking unit (CO), (c) bulk gasoline loading (HC),
jC
(d) service station tank filling (HC), (e) automobile refueling (HC), and
(f) petroleum storage tanks (HC).
6. 1 CONTROL COSTS FOR NO
x
The NO control cost factors for a utility power plant boiler
j\.
of a 250-MW size vary from -$29/ton to $43/ton, depending upon the specific
emission control technique and the fuel type used. Low excess air firing
alone generally results in cost savings (due to fuel savings) and permits NO
X\
reductions of 25 to 30 percent. Low excess air firing plus either two-stage
combustion or flue gas recirculation can provide a 50 to 60 percent reduction
in NO at costs in the $3 to $43/ton range.
X.
Available data indicate that the NO cost factors of utility
X,
boilers rise sharply as the size of the boiler decreases (e. g. , values of $150
to $180/ton for gas-fired units and $50 to $90/ton for oil-fired units at a
115-MW rating, compared to the -$29/ton to $43/ton range for the 250-MW
size).
A comparable value for a nitric acid plant with catalyst reduc-
tion for NO control is $69/ton.
X.
6. 2 CONTROL COST FOR CO FROM REFINERY CRACKING
UNITS
The single stationary source CO cost factor determined was
less than $2/ton for a CO boiler in a refinery cracking unit. Since CO is
19
-------
usually controlled to low levels in stationary sources by good design and
operating practices, there are very few examples of specific CO control
systems.
6. 3 CONTROL COSTS FOR HC
Stationary source HC control cost factors vary widely; how-
ever, they are characterized by increasing cost factor values as the size,
quantity, or flow rate of the controlled product decreases. For example,
petroleum storage tanks with floating roofs for HC control have a cost factor
of $15/ton, vapor recovery units in gasoline bulk loading installations have a
cost factor of $33/ton, and vapor recovery units in service station holding
tank filling operations have a cost factor of $119/ton.
Vapor recovery systems for use in service stations to control
automobile refueling losses are reported by various sources to be between
$200 and $1400/ton, depending upon the system complexity. Based on actual
service station tests, analyses conducted by the San Diego County Air Pollu-
tion Control District estimate these cost factors between $200 and $480/ton.
7. MOBILE AND STATIONARY SOURCE COST
FACTOR SUMMARY
Representative emission control cost factors developed for
LDVs and MDVs (Section 4. 1), HDVs (Section 5), and various stationary
sources (Section 6) are all summarized in this section to permit an overview
comparison.
Mobile and stationary source emission control cost factors are
listed in Table 7, by emission constituent, to facilitate the comparison. The
cost factors for LDVs and MDVs are those derived from 1972 LDV technology
emission baseline assumptions. The ranges of mobile source cost factor
values (Table 7) include ECS No. 2 through No. 8 for LDVs and MDVs;
20
-------
Table 7. Summary of Emission Control Cost Factors
EMISSION SOURCE
MOBILE
SOURCES
STATIONARY
SOURCES
LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES (4500 Ib
inertia test weight)
MEDIUM DUTY VEHICLES
6000 Ib INERTIA TEST
WEIGHT
9000 Ib INERTIA TEST
WEIGHT
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES
; 15, 000 Ib test weight)
GASOLINE-POWERED
DIESEL-POWERED
UTILITY BOILERS (250 MW)
LEA
LEA + TWO STAGE
LEA + FGR
NITRIC ACID PLANT
(catalyst reduction)
REFINERY CRACKING UNIT
(CO boiler)
PETROLEUM STORAGE TANKS
(floating roof)
GASOLINE BULK LOADING
(vapor recovery)
SERVICE STATION-TANK
FILLING (vafw recovery)
SERVICE STATION -AUTO
FILLING (vapor recovery)
COST FACTORS, $/ton REMOVED^)
HC
550 to 1800(2)
(I800)(3)
400 to 1650(2>
(1650)(3)
280 to 850(2)
(850)(3)
100 to 350(2)
(350)(31
240 to 360(4)
-921 to -1375(5)
--
--
--
15
33
119
200 to 1400
CO
60 to 180(2)
(180)(3)
40 to 140*2'
(140)(3)
18 to 6o'2'
(60)<3'
6 to 27'2>
(27)I3>
20 to 21(4)
-76 to -80(5)
--
--
1.67
--
--
--
--
NOX
500 to 2300(2>
(1200)(3)
500 to 2600(2)
(1280)(3)
500 to 2800'2'
(1350)(3)
200 to 550(2)
(550)(3)
200 to 850
0 to -29(6)
3 to 43<6>
6 to 35<6>
69
--
--
--
--
--
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
THE VALUES SHOWN IN THIS TABLE ARE BASED ON A NUMBER OF ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
AS INDICATED IN THE TEXT OF THE REPORT
FUNCTION OF SPECIFIC EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM EMPLOYED
VALUES IN PARENTHESES ARE FOR 1975-TYPE CATALYST CONTROL SYSTEM
FUEL ECONOMY IMPROVEMENT OVER GASOLINE ENGINE NOT INCLUDED
FUEL ECONOMY IMPROVEMENT OVER GASOLINE ENGINE ALLOCATED TO HC AND CO CONTROL
VARIES WITH FUEL TYPE (gas, oil, coal)
21
-------
ECS No. 2, 3, 6, and 8 for gasoline-powered HDVs; and EGR for
diesel-powered HDVs. However, for each LDV, MDV, and gasoline-
powered HDV case, the cost factor based on ECS No. 3 (1975-type passen-
ger car oxidation catalyst plus EGR) is shown in parentheses for a common
baseline of comparison.
Two types of cost factors are shown in the table for diesel-
powered HDV HC and CO control. The positive-valued cost factors are com-
puted without regard to the fuel economy advantage of the diesel, as discussed
in Section 5. The negative-valued cost factors (relative to gasoline engine
baseline emission levels) are the result of including diesel fuel cost advantages
in the cost factor equation.
8. VEHICLE LOCATION AND TRAVEL
CHARACTERISTICS
Numerous transportation planning studies were reviewed, and
both passenger car and truck registration surveys were used to develop the
characteristics of vehicle distribution by type and size (GVW), and the vehicle
miles travelled (VMT) by each vehicle class in the New York City, Los Angeles,
and Phoenix-Tucson AQCRs.
Table 8 lists the results of this examination. It summarizes
the human and vehicle populations, including percent breakdown values for
autos and trucks in the above AQCRs and selected metropolitan subdivisions
of the New York City AQCR, and, in the case of trucks, gives the percent
breakdown by GVW.
Based on this registration-by-county-derived data base, the
characteristic of decreasing percent of trucks as the area increases in popu-
lation density is clearly shown by the Phoenix-Tucson, Los Angeles, and
New York City AQCRs. The anomaly of Manhattan logically infers that in
such smaller, highly populated, traffic-congested areas, the percent of
22
-------
Table 8. Vehicle Miles Traveled Data Summary --
Circa 1970
PARAMETER
POPULATION
TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES1"
PERCENT AUTOMOBILES121
PERCENT TRUCKS12'
TRUCK GVW BREAKDOWN121
(P«rc«m)
0 TO 6.000 Ib ILDT)
6,000 TO 14.000 Ib (MOV)
OVER 14.000 Ib |HDV)
TOTAL DAILY VMT11'
PERCENT VMT BY TRUCKS'1'
TRUCK VMT BREAKDOWN131 (P.rceml
0 TO 6,000 Ib
6,000 TO 14,000 Ib
OVER 14,000 Ib
VMT/ VEHICLE11 >
VMT/TRUCK1'1
PERCENT VMT
LDV (Automobile! » LOTI
MDV
HDV
NATION
—
106.211.895
81 38
16 62
64.79
19.09
16 12
PHOENIX-
TUCSON
AOCR
1.429.000
821,000
75 91
24.09
TJ.4
19 5
8.1
17,000,000
17 3
73.4
18.5
8. 1
20 7
14.87
95 4
3 2
1 4
SOUTH COAST
AIR BASIN
AOCR
|LM AnoalM)
9,700,000
5,600,000
83 75
I6.2S
59.55
29.70
10.75
150,000,000
13.5
59 55
29 70
10.75
26.8
22.25
94.54
4 0
1.46
AREA
NEW YORK CITY AREAS
TRI-STATC
(New York City
AOCRI
17,402.249
6.793,490
92 1
7.9
51.20
18.89
29.91
169,369,470
16 7
51.20
18.89
29.91
25 0
52.7
91 85
3.15
5.0
NINE
COUNTIES
11,560,000
3.659,000
92.86
7 14
45.59
22.47
31.94
99,000,000
..
45 59
22 47
31.94
27.3
-
--
NEW YORK CITY
IFIn
Bornuotul
7,890.000
1,762.000
93 47
6.53
40 22
19 91
39 87
34,146.000
10 2
40 22
19.91
39.87
19 3
30 27
93.9
2 03
4 07
MANHATTAN
INew York
CountYl
1.590,000
231,000
86.09
13.91
3Z.74
16. 86
48.40
6.035.000
17.3
32.74
18.86
49.40
26 1
32 49
88.19
3 26
9.55
DOWNTOWN
MANHATTAN
42 0
32 74
18.86
49.40
71.4
7 9
207
ID FROM VARIOUS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIES
121 BASED ON I JULY 1972 REGISTRATION DATA FOR BOTH PASSENGER CARS AND TRUCKS PROVIDED BY R L. POLK COMPANY
(31 ASSUMED TO BE THE SAME AS GVW BREAKDOWN
trucks increases because of: (a) the continued need to provide goods and
services for the people in the area, and (b) the concurrent difficulty of owning,
storing, and/or operating passenger cars in such areas.
The distribution of LDTs (under 6000-lb GVW) appears (Table 8)
to uniformly vary inversely with population density, decreasing in percentage
of total trucks as the population density increases. Except for Los Angeles,
the MDV distribution appears not to be affected by population density, but
23
-------
rather to remain near the national average. In Los Angeles this anomaly
may be the result of the widespread use of heavier camper bodies and motor
homes used for recreational purposes. Thus, the distribution between LDTs
and MDVs may be a logical result of region-peculiar use characteristics in
Los Angeles.
The HDVs, on the other hand, increase in distribution as the
percent of total trucks in accordance with increasing population density.
Again, this may be the logical result of the need for heavy trucks to move
goods into the heavily populated areas in accordance with the number of
inhabitants involved.
The "total daily VMT" and "percent VMT by trucks" values
shown are those derived from transportation planning studies for the area in
question. The truck GVW breakdown was applied to these VMT values to
arrive at the percent VMT values by vehicle class (LDV, MDV, and HDV)
given at the bottom of the table. It should be noted that the LDV class includes
both autos and LDTs (under 6000-lb GVW).
Except for downtown Manhattan, the MDV contribution to VMT
ranges from 2 to 4 percent. On the other hand, HDV VMT contributions
steadily increase from 1.4 percent for the lightly-populated Phoenix-Tucson
AQCR to 20. 7 percent for downtown Manhattan. Vehicles above 6000-lb GVW
(MDVs and HDVs) contribute from 5 percent to 28 percent of the daily VMT,
with the percentage increasing as population density increases.
9. EMISSION INVENTORIES
Inventories of mobile source emissions were calculated for the
New York City, Los Angeles, and Phoenix-Tucson AQCRs. These inventories
included a breakdown by vehicle class (LDV, MDV, and HDV), and were pro-
jected to the year 1990 to reflect the effects of various possible MDV control
strategies.
24
-------
All control strategies assumed that the presently in force LDV
exhaust emission regulations (including the 1976 LDV regulations) would
remain unchanged. Strategy No. 1 further assumed that present Federal 1974
HDV emission standards would stay in effect through 1990. Strategy No. 2
assumed that MDV and HDV emission standards similar to California 1975
HDV standards would be implemented in the 1975 to 1977 period. Strategy
No. 3 assumed that oxidation catalyst plus EGR systems would be added to
MDVs only in the 1977 to 1979 period. Strategy No. 4 assumed that reduction
catalysts would be added to MDVs only in the 1980 to 1982 period. The prin-
cipal features of these emission control strategies and their corresponding
LDV, MDV, and HDV emission levels are summarized in Table 9.
Figures 6, 7, and 8 illustrate typical results, in this case the
HC, CO, and NO inventories, respectively, for the New York City AQCR.
X.
The overall trends are similar for the Los Angeles and Phoenix-Tucson
AQCRs; only the absolute values vary somewhat.
With no further emission control beyond the presently estab-
lished LDV regulations and the 1974 Federal HDV standards (for all vehicles
over 6000-lb GVW), emissions in the 1985 to 1990 period are reduced to
approximately 25 to 30 percent of 1970 levels. This is illustrated as Strategy
No. 1 in Figures 6, 7, and 8.
Implementation of MDV and HDV emission standards equivalent
to the California 1975 HDV standards in the 1975 to 1977 period (Strategy No. 2)
results in a further sizeable reduction for all three pollutants. For example,
as shown in Figure 6 the 1990 HC inventory is approximately 15 percent of
1970 values. This assumes, although it may well be not the case, that emis-
sion reductions for the current nine-mode HDV engine dynamometer procedure
are representative of actual vehicle emission reductions.
The addition of oxidation catalysts (in 1977 to 1979) and reduc-
tion catalysts (in 1980 to 1982) to MDVs has relatively little effect on total
emissions by 1990; this is illustrated as Strategies Nos. 3 and 4, respectively,
in Figures 6, 7, and 8. This minimal effect occurs because only MDVs (and
25
-------
Table 9. Control Strategy Emission Levels
STRATEGY
NUMBER
1
2<2)
3(3)(4)
4(4)(5|
EMISSION LEVEL ASSUMPTION
LDVs
CURRENT
LDV REGU-
LATIONS
(including
the 1976
LDV
regulation),
ALL FOUR
STRATEGIES
MDVs
BASIC
FEATURE
1974 FED-
ERAL HOV
STANDARDS
1975 CALI-
FORNIA
HDV STAND-
ARDS
OXIDATION
CATALYST
ADDED
REDUCTION
CATALYST
ADDED
EMISSION LEVEL, (1>
gm/ml
HC
4.25
1.33
0.40
0.40
CO
62.08
38.08
4.20
4.20
NOX
6.57
2.06
2.06
0.45
HDVs
BASIC
FEATURE
1974 FED-
ERAL HDV
STANDARDS
1975 CALI-
FORNIA
HDV STAND-
ARDS
1975 CALI-
FORNIA
HDV STAND-
ARDS
1975 CALI-
FORNIA
HDV STAND-
ARDS
EMISSION LEVEL, (1)
gm/mi
fit
17.9
5.6
5.6
5.6
CO
179
112
112
112
NOX
12.6
3.94
3.94
3.94
(1) VALUES IN gm/mi EITHER BASED ON TEST RESULTS, ON CONVERSION FROM gm/bhp-hr
STANDARDS, OR ON ESTIMATES OF CATALYTIC CONVERTER EFFICIENCY
(2) IMPLEMENTED IN CALIFORNIA IN 1975; REST OF UNITED STATES IN 1977
(3) IMPLEMENTED IN CALIFORNIA IN 1977; REST OF UNITED STATES IN 1979
(4) ONLY MDVs ARE REGULATED TO LOWER LEVELS IN STRATEGIES 3 AND 4, I.e. HDVi
REMAIN AT 1975 CALIFORNIA HDV STANDARD LEVELS
(5) IMPLEMENTED IN CALIFORNIA IN 1980; REST OF UNITED STATES IN 1982
not HDVs) are equipped with the catalysts and they represent a relatively
small percent of the total number of vehicles in an AQCR (e. g. , MDVs are
only 1. 5 percent of total vehicles in New York City AQCR), and contribute
only a small amount of the total VMT (e. g. , MDVs contribute 3. 15 percent
of the total daily VMT in the New York City AQCR).
The various control strategies examined do have a marked
effect on the relative percentage contribution of the LDV, MDV, and HDV
vehicle classes. Figure 9 illustrates the variation of LDV, MDV, and HDV
26
-------
100
90
80
70
Z
<
O
Q.
UJ
z
60
50
Z
Ul
u
LU
Q.
40
30
20
10
NOTE: THE EMISSION INVENTORY FOR ANY YEAR
IS THAT EXISTING AT THE END OF THE
CALENDAR YEAR
(1)
1970 HC (MOBILE) = 835,311 tons/yr
I I I
I i I
I I I I I
1970
1975
1980
CALENDAR YEAR
1985
1990
Figure 6. New York City AQCR -- Mobile Source
HC Inventory (Determined using antici-
pated noimal growth rates)
27
-------
100 pr-
90
80
|70
Q
D 60
O
a
ui
ui
m
U.
o
z
UI
UJ
a.
50
40
30
20
NOTE: THE EMISSION INVENTORY FOR ANY YEAR
IS THAT EXISTING AT THE END OF THE
CALENDAR YEAR
Nos. 3 AND 4
10
(1)
1970 CO (MOBILE) = 5,643,937 tons/yr
I i I I
I I I
i I i i
1970
1975
1980
CALENDAR YEAR
1985
1990
Figure 7. New York City AQCR -- Mobile Source
CO Inventory (Determined using antici-
pated normal growth rate)
28
-------
120
110
100
90
80
NOTE: THE EMISSION INVENTORY FOR
ANY YEAR IS THAT EXISTING AT
THE END OF THE CALENDAR YEAR
I-
z
70
O
Q.
60
g SO
l-
z
ui
O 40
LJ
O.
30
20
10
(1)
1970 NOX (MOBILE) = 341,005 tons/yr
I I I I
I I I I I
1970
1975
1980
CALENDAR YEAR
1985
1990
Figure 8. New York City AQCR -- Mobile Source
NO Inventory (Determined using
anticipated normal growth fate)
29
-------
1970 HC (mobile) = 835,311 tons/yr
NOTE: THE EMISSION INVENTORY FOR ANY YEAR
IS THAT EXISTING AT THE END OF THE
CALENDAR YEAR
19TO
1975
1980
CALENDAR YEAR
1985
1990
Figure 9. New York City AQCR HC Inventory
Contribution by Vehicle Class --
Control Strategy No. 1 (Determined by
using anticipated normal growth rates)
30
-------
HC percentage contribution from 1970 to 1990 for Strategy No. 1 based on the
1970 total HC inventory representing 100 percent. Figure 10 is a replot of
Figure 9 and similar plots of the other control strategies that expresses per-
centage HC contribution variation where 100 percent represents a different
total HC emission inventory value each year. Figures 11 and 12 are similar
plots for CO and NO , respectively. Table 10 compares 1990 and 1970 HC
3C
values for all four emission control strategies.
Under Strategy No. 1, HDVs would be contributing as much
emissions as LDVs by 1985. Strategy No. 2 would appreciably reduce the
HDV contribution, but it would still be several times higher in 1990 than in
1970. Strategies Nos. 3 and 4 do not further reduce HDV emission levels
(apply only to MDV emissions levels); thus these strategies would have to be
expanded to include HDVs to significantly alter the HDV percentage contribution.
In the case of MDVs, their percentage contribution of total
emissions rises steadily from 1970 to 1990 under Strategy No. 1. For example,
HC increases from 4 percent to 9 percent as shown in Table 10. Strategy
No. 2 reduces 1990 MDV contributions to approximately 6 percent, while
Strategies Nos. 3 and 4 (oxidizing and reducing catalyst in MDVs only) reduce
1990 MDV HC values to slightly below (about 3 percent) 1970 percentage levels.
Combined MDV and HDV emissions (vehicles above 6000-lb
GVW) exceed L.DV HC emissions by approximately 50 percent in 1990 under
Strategy No. 1 (See Table 10). Under all other strategies examined, the com-
bined percentage of MDV and HDV emissions in 1990 are approximately two
times their 1970 percentage levels.
31
-------
O LDVs
D MDVs
A HDVs
CONTROL STRATEGY No. 1
CONTROL STRATEGY No. 2
CONTROL STRATEGY Nos. 3 AND 4
1980
CALENDAR YEAR
1985
1990
Figure 10. New York City AQCR - HC Percentage Contribution
of Vehicle Class (Normal Growth Rates)
O LDVs
D MDVs
A HDVs
CONTROL STRATEGY No. f
CONTROL STRATEGY No. 2
CONTROL STRATEGY Nos. 3 AND 4
CONTROL STRATEGY
Nos. Z, 3, AND 4 FOR LDVs
1980
CALENDAR YEAR
1985
1990
Figure 11. New York City AQCR - CO Percentage Contribution
of Vehicle Class (Normal Growth Rates)
32
-------
TJ -0 TJ
I- I" I-
fn rn rn
2 2 2
n m ni
rn rn n
o o o
SO
m
m
m
m
(jo
OJ
o Q o
o
o
o
n
^
CO
< CO
r~ "*
c "i
CO
ro
r\>
— •
I CO >
> rj r
< 2 r
m >
co = co m o
m | 2 £<
"i CJ
_
-^
o
k
01
ON
CO
CO
CO
01
ON
ON
CO
CO
>
01
s
ON
CO
O
CO
ON
— ^
CD
01
*
-
cn
°
NO
cn
S
Z^oO
CHQ
^ ^ Z
QJ^H
3m§
r-
o
o
X
o
OZD
r~
O
2
a
<
D
OZo
NO
O
3
o
T)
m
TO
O
m
H
H
O
H
I-
O
03
m
CO
O
m
i
n
NVENTC
H
P
cr
0)
tr
0)
0)
o o
cr
1-1
n
rn
n
o
cn
cf-
I-!
H--
cr
O
D
OQ
C
^
(D
<; ^
S-^
«' °
n H
CD
01
>-( ^
I:
S TJ
n
o
3
<-f
H
H"
cr
O
3
PERCENT OF TOTAL MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS
ro « o go g
o O O O o
— o
•o
> D O
I 2 r-
o o o
o o o
o o o
z z z
H ^ H
30 » »
O O O
n r~ i~
CM en en
H H H
70 70 TO
m m
O O
O
z
A
«l
ro
>
D
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-460/3-74-004-a
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Medium Duty Vehicle Emission
Control Cost Effectiveness Comparisons
Volume I - Executive Summary
5. REPORT DATE
January 1974
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
AUTHOR(S)
M. G. Hinton, J. Meltzer, T. lura, J. A. Drake,
L. Forrest, B. Siegel, C. Speisman, H. M. White
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
ATR-74(7327)-l, Vol. I
PERFORMING ORG "VNIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
The Environmental Programs Group
Urban Programs Division
The Aerospace Corporation
El Segundo, California 90245
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-0417
2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
6. ABSTRACT
A comparative analysis was made of the emission control cost factors (expressed
as dollars expended per ton of pollutant removed) of medium duty vehicles (MDVs--
6000 to 14000-lb GVW), light duty vehicles (LDVs--less than 6000-lb GVW), heavy
duty vehicles (HDVs--greater than 14000-lb GVW), utility power plants, and a
number of other stationary sources. Mobile .source emission inventories were cal-
culated for the New York City, Los Angeles, and Phoenix-Tucson Air Quality
Control Regions. The results indicate that, in the mobile source area, emission
control cost factors ($/ton) in general decrease in numerical value as the vehicle
weight increases; i.e., MDVs are more cost-effective than LDVs, and HDVs are
more cost-effective than MDVs. This same size effect was noted in stationary
source cost factor comparisons, where the cost factors decreased in numerical
value as the system size (or flow rate of the product being controlled) increased.
Further, stationary sources have lower control cost factors (for the same
pollutant specie) than the smaller mobile sources.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATl Field/Group
Air Pollution
Automobiles
Trucks
Boilers
Utilities
Costs
Air Pollution Control
Mobile Sources
Stationary Sources
Emission Inventories
Emission Control
Systems
Control Cost Effectivene
13B
13F
14A
21G
BS
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
55
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
34
------- |