EPA-460/3-74-004-b
January 1974
MEDIUM DUTY VEHICLE
EMISSION CONTROL COST
EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISONS
VOLUME II - TECHNICAL
DISCUSSION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Aulk Arbor, Michigan 48105
-------
EPA-460/3-74-004-b
MEDIUM DUTY VEHICLE
EMISSION CONTROL COST
EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISONS
VOLUME II - TECHNICAL
DISCUSSION
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-460/3-74-004b
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 Group "Director
Environmental Programs
Group Directorate
J&seph/*Meltzer,^rro\ip Director
Environmental Prog^&ms
' Group Directorate
-------
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 NO ).
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.
vn
-------
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 )
3C
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 1972 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,
X.
and operating costs traceable to NO control were first segregated (princi-
X 2
pall, 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,
Mere explicit allocations would require additional analysis and computa-
tions. Evaporative costs, for instance, should be allocated exclusively
L 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, $/ton(2)(3)
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 +
NOX
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
51S
1267
414
(1)
12)
(3)
(4)
THE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER CORRESPONDS TO THAT ASSIGNED BY CALSPAN CORPORATION IN REPORT
ZP-5223-k-1; THE NAME REFERS TO THE PRINCIPAL OR DIFFERENTIATING FEATURE -- ALL SYSTEMS
HAVE EGR
SOME OF THE VALUES PRESENTED IN THIS TABLE ARE BASED ON INCOMPLETE DATA AND SHOULD
NOT BE TAKEN AS CONCLUSIVE. DATA FOR SYSTEMS Nos. 2 AND 3 ARE RELATIVELY BETTER
DOCUMENTED
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 mi INTERVALS
INITIAL PLUS MAINTENANCE PLUS FUEL COSTS; COSTS ARE ASSUMED TO BE INDEPENDENT OF
BASELINE EMISSION LEVEL ASSUMPTIONS
-------
increasingly lower levels of emission standards as prescribed by the
federal government and the State of California for engines used in
vehicles over 6000-lb 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 NO
baselines have different absolute levels, but their slopes are similar
to those shown for HC.
6. Cost 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
Dt
, 6
O
CD
8 4
cc
O
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
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 NOX 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
xu
-------
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)
VALUES IN PARENTHESES ARE BASED ON
EARLIER TECHNOLOGY NOy EMISSIONS
BASELINE x
II.
2.
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
bl
generally less than $100/ton.
$1300/ton. Comparable stationary source NOV cost factors are
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
"ERCENT TRUCKS
PERCENT OF TOTAL TRUCKS
BY WEIGHT CLASS
OTO 6,000-lb GVW
6,000 TOI4,000-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 AOCR
6,637,845
92.1
7.91
51.20
18.89
29.91
NEW YORK
CITY (Five
Boroughs)
1,772,355
93.47
6.53
40.22
19.91
39.87
MANHATTAN
(New York
Countyl
220,614
86.09
13.91
32.74
18.86
48.40
SOUTH COAST
AIR BASIN
AOCR
(Los Angeles)
5,802,658
83.75
16.25
59.55
29.70
10.75
PHOENIX-
TUCSON
AOCR
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.
3. 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.
4. 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
2(2)
3 (3 1(4)
4(4)(5)
EMISSION LEVEL ASSUMPTION
LDVs
CURRENT
FEDERAL
LDV REGU-
LATIONS
(including
the 1976
LDV
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, (11
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,
REMAIN AT 1975 CALIFORNIA HDV STANDARD LEVELS
(5) IMPLEMENTED IN CALIFORNIA IN 1980; REST OF UNITED STATES IN 1982
.e. HDVs
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
70
60
O
a
>-
ui
ui
V)
50
40
u.
O
UI
ui
a.
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
J I
j l 1 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,
i
2
111
111
u
tt
O
i/>
lu
|
_i
<
O
u
u
K
UJ
a
O LDVs
D MDVs
A HDVs
CONTROL STRATEGY No.
CONTROL STRATEGY No. 2
CONTROL STRATEGY Nos. 3 AND 4
(D
100 PERCENT REPRESENTS A DIFFERENT
EMISSION INVENTORY VALUE IN EACH YEAR
1975
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.
" Combined MDV and HDV emissions (vehicles over 6000-lb 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
L
ALL F
STRA1
HAVE
BASEL
VALU
MDV
4
HDV
11
OUR
FEGIES
SAME 1970
.INE
ES
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
^IMPLEMENTED IN 1977 IN NEW YORK CITY AQCR
^'IMPLEMENTED IN 1979 IN NEW YORK CITY AQCR
'-^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
v.
FOREWORD ., iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v
HIGHLIGHTS vii
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . v. " 1-1
1. 1 Background, Objectives, And Scope 1-1
1. 2 Acquisition of Relevant Data 1-2
1. 3 Organization of This Report 1-4
2. SELECTION OF MDVs AND LDVs"FOR COST
FACTOR COMPARISONS 2-1
2. 1 Gross Vehicle Weight and Test Weight
Correlations 2-1
2. 2 Fuel Economy Characteristics 2-4
2. 3 Cases for Cost Factor Comparisons 2-4
REFERENCES 2-8
3. CANDIDATE EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS AND
BASELINE EMISSION LEVELS 3-1
3. 1 Candidate Emission Control Systems 3-1
3. 2 Baseline Emission Levels 3_4
3. 2. 1 Calspan Corporation MDV
Correlations 3_4
3.2.2- Environmental Protection Agency MDV
Correlations by Model Year 3-6
3. 2. 3 The 1972 LDV Technology Trends 3-9
3.2.4 HDV Emission Factors 3-11
3. 2. 5 Final Emission Baseline Selections 3-29
3. 3 Emission Control System Costs 3-31
3. 3. 1 Vehicle Average Lifetime 3-32
3. 3. 2 Cost Summaries 3-35
xxi
-------
3. 4 Effect of Emission Control on Gasoline
Consumption 3-42
REFERENCES , 3-45
4. MEDIUM-DUTY VEHICLE EMISSION CONTROL
COST FACTORS 4-1
4. 1 The MDV and LDV Cost Factor Comparisons 4-2
4. 1. 1 Compared by Emission Control
System Type 4-2
4. 1. 2 Compared as a Function of Percent
Reduction in Emission Rate . 4-5
4. 1. 3 The MDV and LDV Cost Factor Summary 4-8
4.2 The MDV and LDV Cost Factor Correlations 4-10
4. 3 Sensitivity of Cost Factor Values to Assumptions 4-13
5. HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE COST COMPARISONS 5-1
5. 1 Cases Examined 5-1
5. 2 Emission Control Costs 5-2
5. 3 Baseline Emissions 5-5
5.4 Cost Factor Comparisons 5-6
5. 5 Cost Factor Summary 5-9
REFERENCES 5-15
6. STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSION CONTROL COSTS ....'.... 6-1
6. 1 Control of NO from Utility Steam Boilers 6-1
6. 1. 1 The NO Control Costs for Utility
Steam Boilers 6-1
6. 1. 2 Implementation Time for NO Control
Systems 6-6
6.2 Other Stationary Source Cost Factors 6-10
6.2. 1 Control of NO from Nitric Acid Plants 6-10
6.2.2 Control of CO from Refinery Cracking Units .... 6-11
6. 2. 3 Control of HC in Bulk Gasoline Loading 6-12
xxii
-------
6. 2. 4 Control of HC in Service Station Tank
Filling Operations 6-13
6. 2. 5 Control of HC in Automobile Refueling 6-13
6. 2. 6 Control of HC from Petroleum Storage Tanks ... 6-14
6. 3 Summary 6-14
REFERENCES 6-16
7. MOBILE AND STATIONARY SOURCE COST
FACTOR SUMMARY 7-1
7. 1 Mobile Source Cost Factor Comparisons 7-3
7. 2 Medium-Duty Vehicle and Stationary Source
Cost Factoj>-Comparisons 7-3
8. VEHICLE LOCATION AND TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS .... 8-1
8. 1 Vehicle Transportation and Planning Study Results 8-1
8. 1. 1 Phoenix-Tucson AQCR 8-3
8. 1. 2 California SCAB 8-4
8. 1. 3 New York Area 8-5
8. 1.4 Nationwide Data 8-14
8. 2 Impact of Vehicle Registration Data on Location
and Travel Characteristics 8-17
8. 2. 1 Method of Registration Sampling 8-17
8.2.2 Trucks in Operation Report Results 8-18
8. 3 Summary 8-26
REFERENCES 8-28
9. EMISSION INVENTORIES 9-1
9. 1 Emission Level Assumptions 9-1
9. 1. 1 Light-Duty Vehicles 9-1
9. 1.2 Medium-Duty Vehicles 9-1
9. 1. 3 Heavy-Duty Vehicles ' 9-5
9. 2 Growth Rate Assumptions 9-5
9. 3 Inventory Results 9-7
xxiii
-------
9. 3. 1 New York City AQCR 9-7
9.3.2 Los Angeles AQCR 9-11
9. 3. 3 Phoenix-Tucson AQCR 9-20
REFERENCES 9-27
10. APPENDIXES
A. Significant Visits or Communications A-l
B. Medium-Duty Baseline Emissions Test Data B-l
C. Medium-Duty Vehicles Tested at EPA and Exhaust
Emission Test Results C-l
D. Driving Cycle Data D-1
E. Emission Inventory.Calculations E-l
GLOSSARY F- 1
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA G-1
XXIV
-------
FIGURES
2-1. Correlation of MDV GVW and I 2-2
2-2. Correlation of GVW and Test Weight 2-3
2-3. Fuel Economy Characteristics 2-5
3-1. Comparison of HC Emissions of Trucks and
Motor Homes with Regression Line for
Trucks Only 3-5
3-2. Comparison of CO Emissions of Trucks and
Motor Homes with Regression Line for
Trucks Only 3-6
3-3. Comparison of NOX Emissions of Trucks and
Motor Homes with Regression Line for
Trucks Only 3-7
3-4. Hydrocarbon Emission Rate Variation as a
Function of Inertia Test Weight 3-11
3-5. Carbon Monoxide Emission Rate Variation as
a Function of Inertia Test Weight 3-12
3-6. Oxides of Nitrogen Emission Rate Variation as
a Function of Inertia Test Weight 3-14
3-7. The EPA Urban Driving Cycle Power Requirement 3-17
3-8. San Antonio Route Cycle Power Requirement--Based
on Test of IHC Truck at 19, 000-lb GVW and 14, 450-lb
Test Weight 3-18
3-9. Comparison of Truck Energy Requirements for
Various Driving Cycles 3-19
3-10. The DLA and SARR Cycle Composites 3-20
3-11. Federal Test Procedure to Road Load Hydrocarbon
Correlation 3-22
xxv
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
3-12. Federal Test Procedure to Road Load Carbon
Monoxide Correlation 3-23
3-13. Federal Test Procedure to Road Load Oxides
of Nitrogen Correlation 3-24
3-14. The DLA and SARR Correction Factors Relative
to EPA Driving Cycle Energy Requirements 3-25
3-15. Hydrocarbon Emission Variations with Inertia Test
Weight--Federal Driving Cycle 3-28
3-16. Carbon Monoxide Emission Variations with Inertia
Test Weight--Federal Driving Cycle 3-29
3-17. Oxides of Nitrogen Variations with Inertia Test
Weight--Federal Driving Cycle 3-30
3-18. Hydrocarbon Emission Baselines Used for Cost
Comparisons 3-32
3-J9. Carbon Monoxide Emission Baselines Used for
Cost Comparisons 3-33
3-20. Oxides of Nitrogen Emission Baselines Used
for Cost Comparisons 3-34
3-21. Average Truck Lifetime Years and Mileage 3-35
3-22. Effect of Emission Control Fuel Economy Reduction
on Gasoline Consumption--! yr only 3-43
3-23. Effect of Emission Control Fuel Economy Reduction
on Gasoline Consumption 3-44
4-' , Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 2--
1972 LDV Technology Baseline 4-3
4-2, Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 3--
1972 LDV Technology Baseline 4-4
%-3. Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 4--
1972 LDV Technology Baseline 4-5
xxvi
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
4-4. Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 5--
1972 LDV Technology Baseline 4-6
4-5. Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 6--
1972 LDV Technology Baseline 4-7
4-6. Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 7--
1972 LDV Technology Baseline 4-8
4-7. Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 8--
1972 LDV Technology Baseline 4-9
4-8. Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 2--
Earlier Technology Baseline 4-10
4-9. Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 3--
Earlier Technology Baseline 4-11
4-10. Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 4--
Earlier Technology Baseline 4-12
4-11. Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 5--
Earlier Technology Baseline 4-13
4-12. Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 6--
Earlier Technology Baseline 4-14
4-13. Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 7--
Earlier Technology Baseline 4-15
4-14. Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 8--
Earlier Technology Baseline 4-16
4-15. The MDV/LDV HC Cost Factor Comparison--
1972 LDV Technology Baseline 4-17
4-16. The MDV/LDV CO Cost Factor Comparison--
1972 LDV Technology Baseline 4-17
4-17. The MDV/LDV NOX Cost Factor Comparison--
1972 LDV Technology Baseline 4-18
XXVll
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
4-18. The MDV/LDV HC + CO + NOX Cost Factor
Comparison--1972 LDV Technology Baseline 4-18
4-19. The MDV/LDV HC Cost Factor Comparison--
Early Technology Baseline 4-19
4-20. The MDV/LDV CO Cost Factor Comparison--
Early Technology Baseline 4-19
4-21. The MDV/LDV NOX Cost Factor Comparison--
Early Technology Baseline 4-20
4-22. The MDV/LDV HC Cost Factor Comparison with
Evaporative Control System Costs Deleted--1972
LDV Technology Baseline 4-20
4-23. The LDV Emission Control Cost Factors for CO,
HC + CO, and HC + CO 4- NOX--1972 LDV Technology
Baseline 4-21
4-24. The LDV Emission Control Cost Factors for HC
and NOX--1972 LDV Technology Baseline 4-22
4-25. The MDV Emission Control Cost Factors for
CO, HC + CO, and HC + CO + NOX--1972 LDV
Technology Baseline 4-23
4-26. The MDV Emission Control Cost Factors for HC
and NC-X--1972 LDV Technology Baseline 4-24
4-27. The MDV Emission Control Cost Factors for CO,
HC + CO, and HC + CO + NOX--1972 LDV Technology
Baseline 4-25
4-18. The MDV Emission Control Cost Factors for HC
and NOX--1972 LDV Technology Baseline 4-26
5-1. The HC Cost Factor Comparison--HDV 5-10
5-?. The CO Cost Factor Comparison--HDV 5-11
5-3. The NO Cost Factor Comparison--HDV 5-12
xxviu
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
5-4.
6-1.
6-2.
6-3.
6-4.
8-1.
8-2.
8-3.
9-1.
9-2.
9-3.
9-4.
9-5.
9-6.
Cost Factor Index Comparison- -HDV
NOX Reduction Cost as a Function of Boiler
Size--Gas Fired
NOX Reduction Cost as a Function of Boiler
Size--Oil Fired
Incremental Cost Per Ton for NOX Abatement- -
1980 U.S. Power Boilers; Minimum Cost
Control Approach
Average Cost Per Ton for NOX Abatement-- 1980
U.S. Power Boilers; Minimum Cost Control
Approach
Variation of Curb Weight with Gross Vehicle
Weight
Truck Registration Percentage as a Function
of Year
National Truck Sales Distribution by Weight
Class--1962 to 1970
New York City AQCR- -Mobile Source HC
Inventory
New York City AQCR- -Mobile Source CO
Inventory
New York City AQCR- -Mobile Source NO
Inventory
New York City AQCR- -Mobile Source HC
Inventory
New York City AQCR- -Mobile Source CO
Inventory
New York City AQCR- -Mobile Source NO
Inventory
5-14
6-4
6-5
6-7
6-8
8-6
8-15
8-16
, , 9-8
9-9
9-10
9-12
9-13
. . . 9-14
XXIX
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
9-7.
9-8.
9-9.
9-10.
9-11.
9-12.
9-13.
9-14.
9-15.
9-16.
9-17.
9-18.
9-19.
9-20.
9-21.
New York City AQCR--HC Percentage Contribution
of Vehicle Classes
New York City AQCR--CO Percentage Contribution
of Vehicle Classes
New York City AQCR--NO Percentage Contribution
of Vehicle Classes x.
Los Angeles AQCR--Mobile Source HC Inventory
Los Angeles AQCR- -Mobile Source CO Inventory
Los Angeles AQCR--Mobile Source NO
Inventory x
Los Angeles AQCR--HC Percentage Contribution
of Vehicle Classes
Los Angeles AQCR- -CO Percentage Contribution
of Vehicle Classes
Los Angeles AQCR- -NO Percentage Contribution
of Vehicle Classes . . . .x
Phoenix- Tucson AQCR-.- Mobile Source HC
Inventory
Phoenix-Tucson AQCR- -Mobile Source CO
Inventory
Phoenix- Tucson AQCR- -Mobile Source NO
Inventory x . .
Phoenix-Tucson AQCR--HC Percentage Contribution
of Vehicle Classes
Phoenix-Tucson AQCR- -CO Percentage Contribution
of Vehicle Classes
Phoenix-Tucson AQCR--NO Percentage Contribution
of Vehicle Classes
9-15
9-15
9-16
. . 9-17
9-18
9-19
9-20
9-21
9-21
9-22
9-23
9-24
9-25
9-25
9-26
XXX
-------
TABLES
1-1.
2-1.
3-1.
3-2.
3-3.
3-4.
3-5.
3-6.
3-7.
3-8.
3-9.
3-10.
3-11.
3-12.
3-13.
3-14.
3-15.
3-16.
Data Sources
Cases for Emission Control Cost Factor Comparisons
Candidate Emission Control Systems -- Principal
Features
Candidate Emission Control Systems -- Characteristics-
Emission Values by Category and Model Year
Sales-Weighted MDV Emission Values
Results of SwRI Comparison of 25-Truck Group
Results of Ethyl Corporation Comparison
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Standards -- >6000-lb GVW
Emission Control System Initial Cost Summary --
LDV and MDV; 350-CID Engine
Emission Control System Maintenance Costs --
LDV; 350-CID Engine
Emission Control System Maintenance Costs --
MDV; 350-CID Engine
Fuel-Cost Summary -- Over Vehicle Lifetime
Cost Summary for LDV -- I = 4500 Ib; 350-CID Engine . . .
Cost Summary for MDV No. 1 -- I = 6000 Ib;
350-CID Engine .W.
Cost Summary for MDV No. 2 -- I = 9000 Ib;
350-CID Engine .w.
Cost Summary for MDV No. 3 -- I =11, 000 Ib;
350-CID Engine -W.
Cost Summary for MDV No. 4 -- I = 14, 000 Ib;
350-CID Engine .W.
1-3
2-6
3-2
3-3
3-8
3-9
3-21
3-22
3-27
3-36
3-37
3-38
3-38
3-39
3-40
3-40
3-41
3-41
xxxi
-------
TABL,ES (Continued)
5-1. ECS Initial Cost Summary -- HDV; 454-CID Engine 5-3
5-2. Maintenance Costs -- Gasoline HDV; 454-CID Engine 5-4
5-3. Diesel Engine Cost Summary -- HDV; 680-CID
Engine 5-5
5-4. Fuel Costs -- HDV 5-6
5-5. Maintenance Costs -- Diesel HDV 5-7
5-6. Cost Summary -- HDV 5-8
5-7. Baseline Emissions for Cost Factor
Comparisons -- HDV 5-9
5-8. Cost Summary; Cost Factor Index -- HDV 5-13
6-1. Fossil Fuel Boilers -- 1980 6-2
6-2. Control Costs of NOX for Utility Steam Boiler --
250 MW Boiler at 3942 hr/year 6-3
6-3. Summary of Emission Control Costs for Stationary
Sources 6-15
Summary of Emission Control Cost Factors 7-2
Preliminary Vehicle Registration and VMT Summary --
1970 8-2
Phoenix Truck Distribution '8-4
Truck Distribution by Weight in California and South
Coast Air Basin 8-6
P- Truck Distribution by Weight in New York City 8-8
8-5. New York City Data -- Summary of Urban Truck
Travel Characteristics by GVW Category 8-10
{ -6. Truck Distribution by Weight -- Nine County Area 8-13
8-7. Total Truck Registration -- Phoenix-Tucson AQCR 8-19
xxxii
-------
TABLES (Continued)
8-8. Total Truck Registration -- South Coast Air Basin AQCR . . . 8-20
8-9. Total Truck Registration -- Tri-State AQCR 8-21
8-10. Total Truck Registration -- New York City 8-23
8-11. Vehicle Registration Breakdown by Location --
1 July 1972 8-25
8-12. Vehicle Miles Traveled Data Summary -- Circa 1970 8-27
9-1. Light-Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emission Factors at Low
Mileage -- Model Year 1975 ." 9-2
9-2. Light-Duty Vehicle Deterioration Factors --
Model Year 1975 9-2
9-3. Medium-Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emission Factors
for All AQCRs -- Model Year 1973 9-3
9-4. Medium-Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emission Factors --
Model Year 1974 and Later 9-4
9-5. Heavy-Duty Exhaust Emission Factors --To Model
Year 1974 9.5
9-6. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emission Factors --
Model Year 1974 and Later . 9_6
9-7. Mobile Source Annual Growth Rates 9-7
xxxi 11
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1. 1 BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES. AND SCOPE
Motor vehicles over 6000 Ib gross vehicle weight (GVW) are
currently regulated as heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs) with regard to exhaust
emission control. The HDV engine manufacturers are required to certifi-
cation-test the engine only (plus any associated emission control equipment)
in accordance with a prescribed engine dynamometer test procedure. The
HDV, per se, is not certification-tested as a complete vehicle unit, as are
light-duty vehicles (LDVs) (less than 6000-lb GVW).
These dynamometer tests are at steady-load conditions and do
not include transient load effects. Surveillance tests of HDVs in on-the-road
operation indicate extreme vehicle-to-vehicle variability when attempting to
correlate on-the-road emissions with engine dynamometer test results.
Because of this correlation difficulty, it would be desirable, in the absence of
feasibility restrictions, to certification-test as many HDV models as possible
over representative vehicle transient test cycles rather than continuing with
the current engine-only, fixed-mode tests.
The group of HDVs between 6, 000 and 14, 000-lb GVW has
characteristics that appear to permit certification testing of the complete
vehicle over the same Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule and using the
same constant volume sampling (CVS) mass measurement techniques used for
LDV certification testing. This group of vehicles (tentatively 6,000 to 14,000-
..b GVW) are termed medium-duty vehicles (MDVs). Test programs were
See, for example, "New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines
Control of Air Pollution," Federal Register, Vol. 37, No. 221, 24279,
15 November 1972.
1-1
-------
implemented by EPA to characterize the MDV emission levels when tested on
the Federal LDV CVS procedure. In addition, EPA has funded studies to
determine: feasible exhaust emission reductions for MDVs as a function of
lead times required and the cost and performance penalties (if any) associated
with various levels of emission reduction.
This study was initiated with two objectives: (a) to identify,
quantify, and summarize those factors impacting on the cost-effectiveness of
MDV emission standards and (b) to present analyses and significant results to
EPA for their evaluation and consideration in future courses of action with
regard to MDV emission standards.
In meeting these objectives, evaluations were to be structured
and directed to identifying critical factors in the key areas of:
a. Determining MDV emission control cost effects
b. Comparing MDV cost factors with those associated with control-
ling other emission sources
c. Estimating the impact of MDV emission control on the air
quality of metropolitan areas with severe pollution problems.
With regard to cost factor comparisons, the study scope was
restricted to comparisons of MDVs with LDVs, HDVs, and various stationary
sources. In the area of air quality impact, the study scope was confined to
the determination of mobile source emission inventories in the following Air
Quality Control Regions (AQCRs):
a. New York City
b. South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles, California)
c. Phoenix/Tucson
1. 2 ACQUISITION OF RELEVANT DATA
Nearly all data reported herein were acquired and developed
be^vveen 1 May and 20 July 1973 from technical reports and technical discus-
sions held with representatives of companies engaged in MDV-related
activities and with agencies responsible for local transportation planning
studies or regional air quality criteria. Table 1-1 summarizes the companies
1-2
-------
Table 1-1. Data Sources
Cost and Emissions Effects
Air Quality Effects
Calspan Corporation MDV Report
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
Association (MVMA) Data
Southwest Research Institute (SwRI)
Automotive Environmental Systems,
Inc.
Research Triangle Institute (RTI)
EPA/Ann Arbor
Ethyl Corporation
Tri-state Planning Commission
TRW Systems/GCA Corporation
(TRW/GCA) Studies
State Implementation Plans
Los Angeles Regional Transpor-
tation Study (LARTS)
Tucson Area Transportation
Planning Agency
EPA/Research Triangle Park/
Ann Arbor
Wilbur Smith and Associates/
Heavy Duty Truck Studies in
New York City and Los Angeles
Local Air Pollution Control
Agencies
The Calspan Corporation performed a technical evaluation of various
emission control systems (ECSs).
The SwRI and AESI participated in the recent EPA MDV emission level
characterization test program.
1-3
-------
and agencies from whom data were acquired. Appendix A contains a listing
of significant visits or communications, including date of contact, company/
agency contacted, and personnel involved.
To provide a consistent data base for vehicle population location
and effects determination, truck registration data as a function of GVW were
obtained from the R. L. Polk Company for the AQCRs of interest. Similar
registration data for passenger cars were available from a study recently
completed for EPA by Aerospace. Many other documents of related interest
were reviewed during the study and are referenced herein where they are of
particular relevance.
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
Section 2 identifies the LDVs and MDVs selected to form the
basis of cost factor comparisons. [Cost factor is defined as the dollars
expended per ton of pollutant removed over the vehicle and/or control system
lifetime ($/ton).] It also correlates inertia test weight and GVW in the MDV
weight range and identifies fuel consumption variability with inertia test weight
as used in succeeding cost calculations.
Section 3 contains delineation and description of ECSs used in
LDV and MDV cost calculations, the rationale for and the selection of baseline
MDV emission levels prior to the incorporation of specific ECS, and the
development of lifetime costs attributable to emission control for the LDV and
MDV cases considered.
The MDV and LDV cost factors are compared in Section 4 as a
function of ECS type and as a function of percent reduction in emission rate.
Alio illustrated are correlations of MDV and LDV cost factors based on
en ission rate and with selected ECS types used to shape the correlation
curves. Section 5 includes a brief summary of HDV cases examined, including
Examination of Issues Related to Two-Car Regional Emission Control
Strategies, Report ATR-73(7324)-1, Vols. I and II, The Aerospace Corpora-
lion, El Segundo, California (30 April 1973).
1-4
-------
baseline emission assumptions and resultant emission control costs. The
cost factor comparisons shown also include the effect of diesel engine usage.
Section 6 includes an overview of the cost factors associated
with emission control in power plants and other stationary sources. Also
illustrated is the effect of power plant size on emission control cost factor.
Section 7 contains a brief summary and comparison of LDV, MDV, HDV, and
stationary source emission control cost factors.
Section 8 reviews numerous transportation planning studies for
the AQCRs of interest with emphasis on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) distri-
bution by vehicle class (LDV, MDV, and HDV). It also includes the results
of a recent R. L. Polk Company truck registration survey as a function of
GVW classification. Section 9 includes emission inventories for LDVs,
MDVs, and HDVs for the New York City, Los Angeles, and Phoenix/Tucson
AQCRs; the effects of various MDV control strategies are illustrated.
1-5
-------
SECTION 2
SELECTION OF MDVs AND LDVs FOR
COST FACTOR COMPARISONS
The MDV inertia test weight as a function of GVW
characteristics and fuel economy as a function of weight characteristics were
examined to select representative MDVs for comparison with LDVs on a cost-
effectiveness basis. This section summarizes the significant results of these
examinations and the resultant selection of comparison cases.
2. 1 GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT AND TEST WEIGHT
CORRELATIONS
There is extreme variability in truck curb weight or unloaded
weight W within a single GVW category because of the diverse number of
truck types, models, etc. Coupled with the curb weight variability is the
variability in payload actually carried. For example, many light pickup
trucks may be used primarily for personal transporation, with useful payload
other than passengers only occasionally being transported. Conversely,
trucks principally in commercial use would be expected to be used for trans-
porting some level of useful payload, either as cargo (e.g., parcel delivery
trucks) or as parts, tools, and equipment (e.g., utility service trucks).
One data source for GVW and test weight correlation purposes
is the MDV baseline emission characterization program recently conducted
by EPA. In this program, 175 MDVs were tested by the Federal CVS
procedure. Fifty vehicles were tested by SwRI, 50 vehicles were tested by
AESI, and 75 vehicles were tested by the EPA Motor Vehicle Emissions
Laboratory, Ann Arbor, Michigan. The payload incorporated in each vehicle
tested was prescribed by the following schedule based on the difference
between GVW and W . Therefore, the inertia test weight I was the curb
weight plus the payload added. Appendix B summarizes significant test para-
meters and emissions results for a majority of the vehicles tested.
2-1
-------
GVW - W , Ib
less than 2000
2000 to 4000
greater than 4000
Payload Added to W , Ib
500
1000
1500
Figure 2-1 illustrates the variability of I as a function of
GVW for trucks and motor homes based on Appendix B data. Also shown is
the truck correlation selected for gross sizing purposes in the present study.
Although the number of motor homes represented is not large, the value of
I =0.85 GVW was considered sufficiently accurate for gross sizing purposes,
12
11
£ 10
£ 7
O
$
t-
U)
U
Ul
fc 5
BASED ON EPA, AESi, AND SwRI TEST DATA IN APPENDIX B
OTRUCK
A MOTOR HOME
o
TRUCK CORRELATION
LINE USED FOR GROSS
SIZING IN PRESENT STUDY
(MOTOR HOME 1 = 85% GVW)
NOTE: SOME POINTS REPRESENT A MULTIPLICITY OF VEHICLES
I I I I I I I I I
7 8 9 10 11
GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT, Ib
12
13
14
Figure 2-1. Correlation of MDV GVW and I
w
2-2
-------
Another source of GVW and test weight correlation is the truck
exhaust emission analysis and mode cycle development study performed by
the Ethyl Corporation for the U. S. Public Health Service (Division of Air
Pollution) in 1967 (Ref. 2-1). Most of these trucks were tested at one-half
their payload capacity. Figure 2-2 shows the resultant correlation of GVW
and test weight W, ,
on the one-half payload capacity basis. It also shows
the MDV I as a function of GVW correlation selected in Figure 2- 1 on the
w
basis of the more recent MDV test program and payload assumptions. The
correlations are nearly the same in the GVW range of interest (6, 000 to
14,000 Ib).
60 i
50
<5 40
O
ui
5
UJ
30
UJ
8
g
20
10
test c 1/2 (GVW * Wc
w = w
= 1/2 Wc + 1/2 GVW
O
A
MDV
CORRELATION
OETHYL APPENDIX )
A ETHYL TABLE 111-1 I
Ref. 2-1
1
10 15 20 25
TEST WEIGHT, Wtegt, 1000 Ib
30
35
Figure 2-2. Correlation of GVW and Test Weight
2-3
-------
2.2 FUEL ECONOMY-CHARACTERISTICS
The variation of fuel economy with vehicle weight is an impor-
tant parameter when determining cost differences between vehicle classes.
Such data for passenger cars driven over the Federal Driving Cycle (FDC)
are available from Ref. 2-2, and are illustrated in Figure 2-3. Similar data
for MDVs with 350-cu-in. displacement (CID) engines are presented in a
recent study made by Calspan Corporation (Ref. 2-3). As shown in Figure
2-3, the Calspan MDV fuel economy data are in reasonable agreement with
the EPA passenger car data in the region of overlap (approximately 5000 Ib
I ). Also, the Calspan data exhibit a decreasing rate of loss of fuel economy
with increasing test weight, which would be expected since trucks generally
have an increasingly higher number of gear-box speed changes with increasing
GVW. This characteristic tends to offset to some extent the inverse variance
of fuel economy with vehicle weight.
For the present study, the 350-CID engine fuel economy line
in Figure 2-3 was used for all cases of comparison of LDVs and MDVs. The
single engine size of 350-CID was selected because it is in popular use in all
vehicle classes: LDV, MDV, and HDV.
2.3 CASES FOR COST FACTOR COMPARISONS
The individual cases or characteristic vehicles selected for
examination of emission control cost factors are shown in Table 2-1. A
single vehicle, weighing 4500 Ib loaded, was selected to represent the LDV
class. As noted in the table, based on later-acquired data, this 4500-lb
value is somewhat lower than the sales-weighted average value of I = 4800
for the 1972 model standard-size car; however, it is somewhat higher than
the sales-weighted average of 3945 Ib for all 1972 passenger cars (Ref.
£-**.!. Thus, the choice of 4500 Ib appears to be a reasonable selection for
cotr arison purposes.
2-4
-------
25
20
1973 CARS
15
10
PRECONTROLLEO CARS
»EPA LDV DATA (Ref.?-2)
CALSPAN DATA
FOR 350-CID ENGINE (Ref.2-3)
USED IN PRESENT ANALYSIS
FOR 350-CID ENGINE
EXTENSION OF EPA
DATA WHERE MPG ~
w
6 8 10
INERTIA WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
12
14
16
Figure 2-3. Fuel Economy Characteristics
In the MDV class, four vehicles were selected:
Truck A -- representing the average GVW (8000 Ib) of the
6, 000 to 10, 000-Ib GVW class
Truck B -- representing the average GVW (12,000 Ib) of the
10, 000 to 14, 000- Ib GVW class
Motor Home -- at 13,000-lb GVW representing the class of
larger motor homes becoming increasingly popular in recent
years
Truck C -- at 14,000-lb I representing a fully-loaded upper
GVW weight class MDV; at this I value it also represents
partially-loaded lower GVW range HDVs (e.g. , 16,000 to
19, 500-lb GVW HDV class, etc. )
2-5
-------
Table 2-1. Cases for Emission Control
Cost Factor Comparisons
CHARACTERISTICS
GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT, Ib
GCW + f(GVW-GCW), Ib
lw, Ib
ENGINE, CID
FUEL ECONOMY, mpg
(over Federal Driving
Cycle)
VEHICLES
LDV
<6000
4500
4500'"
350*1*
12.0
MDV
TRUCK 'A'
8000 (ave. )
of 6-10,000)
6200
6000
350
10.0
TRUCK *B'
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(2>
350
5.4
1 "SALES-WEIGHTED VALUES FOR 1972 STANDARD SIZE CAR ARE: lw = 4800 Ib;
CID = 371.4 cu in. (Ret. 2-4)
(2)REPRESENTS A FULLY-LOADED MDV OR A PARTIALLY-LOADED HDV
The loaded or test weight of trucks A and B and the motor
home were determined from the GVW as a function of I relationship of
Ji^ure 2-1. The I value shown in Table 2-1 represents rounding off the
loaded weight to the nearest 1000 Ib.
A single engine size, 350-CID, was selected for all five
veiiicles to remove instances of engine-size-related variability in the cost
f u tor calculations. This engine size range is one of the most frequently
user In the MDV class (Ref. 2-3). In the LDV class, the sales-weighted
aveid. e engine displacement for the 1972 standard-size passenger car was
371. / cu in. (Ref. 2-4); for all domestic 1972 passenger cars the sales-
weighted average engine displacement was 319 cu in. (Ref. 2-4). Therefore,
the choice of 350-CID for the LDV class is also a reasonable selection.
2-6
-------
Since fuel economy characteristics (mpg) for the five vehicles
in Table 2-1 are based on the 350-CID line of Figure 2-3, they are based on a
consistently varying fuel economy as a function of I characteristic.
In summary, the cases selected (Table 2-1) represent reason-
able vehicles for the LDV class and the MDV GVW spectrum (6,000 to 14,000
Ib). In addition, the motor home (I = 11,000 Ib) and truck C (I = 14,000 Ib)
may also characterize a portion of the HDV class (GVW greater than 14,000
Ib) at small or intermediate payload values. The I versus GVW correlations
used to grossly size these vehicles (Figures 2-1 and 2-2) are of course not
exact because of the previously mentioned wide variability in truck curb
weights. However, they should be more than adequate to describe the candi-
date cases for cost comparison purposes.
2-7
-------
REFERENCES
2-1 Exhaust Emission Analysis and Mode Cycle Development for
Gasoline-powered Trucks, Report GR 67-41, The Ethyl Corporation,
Detroit, Michigan (September 1967).
2-2 Fuel Economy and Emission Control, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air and Water Programs, Mobile Source Pollution
Control Program (November 1972).
2-3 Research Study Involving (A) Technical Evaluation of Emission Con-
trol Approaches and (Bj_ Economics of Emission Reduction Require-
ments for Vehicles Between 6000 and 14,000 Pounds GVW, Report
ZP-5223-K-1, Calspan~Corporation, Buffalo, New~York"~('3l May 1973),
2-4 Passenger Car Weight Trend Analysis, The Aerospace Corporation,
El Segundo, California (to be published).
2-8
-------
SECTION 3
CANDIDATE EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS AND BASELINE
EMISSION LEVELS
The determination of cost factors resulting from the incor-
poration of control systems 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 emission control system (ECS) employed, but also on
the "baseline", vehicle emission level (i.e., the characteristic vehicle
emissions prior to the incorporation of a given ECS).
This section summarizes the significant results of exami-
nations and analyses of candidate ECS and their characteristic costs, base-
line emission level selections, and the effects of ECS selection on gasoline
consumption.
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 (Ref. 3-1) describes in detail the characteristics of
eight ECS for possible application to MDVs; seven (ECS No. 2 through
ECS No. 8) were selected for cost factor comparisons in the present study.
The eighth system (ECS No. 1) was not considered herein because of lack
of hydrocarbon (HC) control effectivity.
The components involved and the principal or differentiating
feature of each of the seven selected systems are described in Table 3-1.
Reference 3-1 contains more comprehensive system descriptions, details,
and background information. For convenience of reference between the
results of the present study and the Calspan report (Ref. 3-1), the ECS
numbers match those given in the Calspan report.
3-1
-------
Table 3-1. Candidate Emission Control Systems--Principal Features
(Based on Ref. 3-1)
CALSPAN
No.
\
DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL FEATURE
(D
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
EI+IC-»OHI+AI+EGR
EI+IC+QHI+EGR+AI+OC
EI+IC-tQHI+EGR+RC+AI/CAI+OC
EI+EFIC+EGR+RC/OC
EI+IC-tOHI+EGR+LTR
EI+FC+EGR+AI+RTR
EI+FIC+IQHUAI+EGR
IMPROVED CARBURETION
OXIDATION CATALYST
OXIDATION AND REDUCTION CATALYSTS
ELECTRONIC FUEL INJECTION WITH
TR[COMPONENT CATALYST
LEAN THERMAL REACTOR
RICH THERMAL REACTOR
ADVANCED LEAN CAR8URATIGN
El = ELECTRONIC IGNITION
1C = IMPROVED CARBURATION
QHI = FAST WARM-UP INTAKE MANIFOLD
IQHI = ADVANCED INTAKE MANIFOLD
Al = AIR INJECTION
CAI = AIR INJECTION INTO OXIDATION
CATALYST
EGR = EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION
OC = OXIDATION CATALYST
RC = REDUCTION CATALYST
RC/OC = TRICOMPONENT CATALYST (TRI)
FC = FAST CHOKE
FIC = ADVANCED LEAN CARBURETION
LTR = LEAN THERMAL REACTOR
RTR = RICH THERMAL REACTOR
(1) ALL SYSTEMS HAVE EGR
The ECS characteristics are given in Table 3-2 in terms of
resultant exhaust emissions and postulated attendant fuel economy reductions.
The values are those from Ref. 3-1, except for the fuel economy reduction
value for ECS No. 3. This was stated to be 8 percent in Ref. 3-1, but .
5 percent was selected in the present study. Based on previous studies
Ref. 3-2), the fuel economy loss of noncatalytic ECS is primarily a function
of ehp air-fuel ratio employed and the percent exhaust gas recirculation
(} "-R) flow rate used for oxides of nitrogen (NO ) control. Since both ECS
ji
Noe, 2 and 3 employ EGR for the same amount of NO control, both should
have similar fuel economy reductions. In this case, it was determined that
"> percent was the more appropriate value to use (Ref. 3-2).
3-2
-------
Table 3-2. Candidate Emission Control Systems -- Characteristics
(Based on Ref. 3-1)
CALSPAN
NO.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
DESCRIPTION
El -i- 1C +QHI + Al +EGR
El + 1C + OHI + EGR + Al + OC
El + 1C + QHI + EGR + RC +
AI/CAI + OC
El + EF1C + EGR + RC/OC
El +IC+OHI + EGR +LTR
El + FC + EGR -t-AI +RTR
El -i- FIC + IQHI + Al + EGR
EMISSION FACTOR "R"(1 '
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
NOX
0.60
0.60
0.10
0.10
0.375
0.17
0.35
FUEL ECONOMY
REDUCTION, %
5
5 '2)
12
3
8
25
3
M ) "» = EMISSIONS AFTER CONTROL SYSTEM ADDED
' ' BASELINE EMISSIONS BEFORE CONTROL SYSTEM ADDED
(2) DIFFERS FROM 8% USED BY CALSPAN
The emission factor "R" in Table 3-2 is defined by Calspan
as:
R" =
emissions after control system is added
baseline emissions before the control system is added
In the present study, the "R" values as depicted in Table
3-2 were treated as invariant with vehicle age or mileage [i. e. , emission
degradation or deterioration-with-age factors (DF) were equal to 1 for
these "R" values]. Substantive comparative durability test data are not
available for all seven systems; when such comparative data are available
the emission control cost factors based on these "R" value assumptions
(presented in Section 4) can be readily adjusted to account for the appropriate
emissions degradation factor (DF). In the case of ECSs containing catalysts,
3-3
-------
however, it was assumed that catalysts would require replacements at
approximately 25, 000 mi intervals, and the replacement costs are included
in subsequent cost factor calculations. In effect, then, by incorporating
converter replacement costs, the catalyst-containing systems were adjusted
to account partially for emission degradation in calculating dollars per
ton values.
Some of the values shown in Table 3-2 are based on incomplete
data and are not conclusive. Data for ECS Nos. 2 and 3 are relatively more
documented.
These seven rJCbs (Tables j. - i and 3-2) arc uaed hereafter
in computing cost factors for LDVs, MDVs, and some examples of HDVs.
All further references to them will be made by ECS number (No. 2 through
No. 8).
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, and each is discussed
separately.
3. 2. 1 Calspan Corporation MDV Correlations
Calspan (Ref. 3-1) performed correlation analyses of the
emission data generated in the recently conducted EPA MDV emission
c aracterization program. Regression analyses of seventy-six 1970 to
19 < 3 model year truck emission data samples resulted in the following
regression line equations for HC, CO, and NO emissions:
3-4
-------
= (0. 526 Iw + 2. 38) gm/mi
= (7. 09 I + 19. 8) gm/mi
MNQ =(1.02 Iw+ 1.61) gm/mi
x
where the "M" denotes emission mass flow in gm/mi based on Federal LDV
driving cycle CVS tests. The I of these 76 trucks ranged from 4, 500 to
10, 000 Ib, with an average I of approximately 5, 740 Ib. They consisted of
a composite of tuned and untuned vehicle tests. The regression lines are
shown in Figures 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3.
10
-------
120
110
100
I 9°
I 80
g 70
| 60
\ a
m 40
cc.
o 30
20
10
0
REGRESSION LINE FOR TRUCKS
(1970 to 1973)
-TRUCKS AMD MOTOR HOMtS
(1970 to 1973)
I
6789
INERTIA WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
10
11
Figure 3-2. Comparison of CO Emissions of Trucks and Motor
Homes with Regression Line for Trucks Only
(Based on Ref. 3-1)
Test data for motor homes tested in the same program were
not originally included in the regression correlations because of apparent
data scatter. A later correlation of 135 test data points, including both trucks
and motor homes, produced the dotted-line correlations in Figures 3-1,
3-2, and 3-3. Thus, the sensitivity of MDV emission line correlations
t i excluded or included data samples is clearly evident.
3. 2 Environmental Protection Agency MDV Correlations
by Model Year
Personnel in the Division of Emission Control Technology
( 3EGT), EPA, Ann Arbor, Michigan have further analyzed the data from
3-6
-------
the MDV emission characterization program (Ref. 3-3). Their analysis
results for MDVs as a function of vehicle category and model year are
given in Table 3-3. By combining Table 3-3 results with sales data, the
composite or sales-weighted MDV emission characteristics as a function
of model year are as shown in Table 3-4.
It is estimated that the average I for the pickups, vans,
and panel truck class was approximately 5650 Ib, and for the composite
overall MDV class it was approximately 6900 Ib. Comparison of the
emission values of Tables 3-3 and 3-4 at these I values in Figures 3-1
through 3-3 indicates good agreement with the generalized Calspan emission
correlations. This is as expected since both analyses were based on data
from the same overall MDV emissions characterization program.
14 i
12
1"
Ol
z
UJ
8 8
at
z
111
Q
X
O 4
REGRESSION LINE
FOR TRUCKS (1970 to 1973)
TRUCKS AND MOTOR HOMES
(1970to 1973)
I
6789
INERTIA WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
10
11
Figure 3-3. Comparison of NOX Emissions of Trucks and Motor
Homes with Regression Line for Trucks Only
(Based on Ref. 3-1)
3-7
-------
Table 3-3. Emission Values by Category and Model Year
(Ref, 3-3)
Model Year
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1970 to 1973
Pre-1970
1970 to 1973
Pre-1970
Emissions
HC
Pickups,
CO
Vans, and Panel
N0y
.A.
Trucks
(6? 000 to 10, 000 GVW)
4. 25
4.46
5.87
5.93
7.31
10.58
11.07
12.40
10. 62
i Conv
49. 1?
51- "A.
65. 52
71. 78
93.59
125. 35
126. 15
110.95
75.51
entional Motor Ho
i 9^
/.49
8. 17
7.63
6. 37
5. 61
5.20
5.75
6.49
mes
(6, 000 to 14,000 GVW)
8.91
Che
116.27
Insufficient Data
12. 57
is sis and Other MDV
(6,000 to 14,000 GVW)
6.78
12.20
72. 05
113.82
8. 52
9.43
3-8
-------
Table 3-4. Sales-Weighted MDV Emission Values
(Ref. 3-3)
Model Year
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
Emissions
HC
5. 30
5. 31
6.29
6. 38
8. 64
10.98
11.41
12.46
12. 32
CO
62. 08
61.87
70.90
75.43
99.07
122.47
122.40
110.22
97.77
NOX
6.57
8. 21
8. 60
8.23
7.20
6.56
6.49
6.30
6. 11
3.2.3 The 1972 LDV Technology Trends
Another emissions data base examined is that characteristic
of 1972 LDV engines. In this regard, Calspan (Ref. 3-1) reported the
following values [corrected for the 1975 Federal Test Procedure (FTP)]
for a large sample of LDVsr.
HC = 1. 70 gm/mi
CO = 16. 50 gm/mi
NO = 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. It was assumed 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 in Tables 3-1 and
3-2. Data from a ten-truck test program conducted by EPA in June through
3-9
-------
August 1972 were used to provide this variation of emission rate with
I characteristic. Of the ten trucks tested (Ref. 3-4), seven to eight
w . '
were 1972 's and from two to three were 1971 !s. Prior to test, each
was checked for exhaust leaks, ignition timing, dwell angJe, and idle rpm.
If necessary, each was set to manufacturer's specifications in the four
areas.
Each of the ten trucks was tested at inertia weights
corresponding to 0 percent load (curb weight), 25 percent load, 50 percent
load, and 100 percent load (GVW). The resulting emissions test data for
each truck are tabulated in Appendix C, and tho var-< <
-------
spark retard, etc. ) made to date for LDVs and without the incorporation
of ECSs illustrated in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 (ECS No. 2 through No. 8).
12
11
10
_ 9
t»
* 7
Q£
1 5
f\ A
$
3
2
1
0
TRUCK ENGINE
NO.
o 1
a 2
0 3
A. 4
V 5
6
7
8
A 9
T 11
4> Motor Home
d. Box Van
CIO
350
225
360
318
232
300
350
240
400
350
318 "1
350 J
MHC/d Iw)ave = 0.363 x 10'3 (Based on 10 EPA trucks only)
EPA TESTS
OFTEN
TRUCKS
ISWRI TESTS
MOTOR HOME
TECHNOLOGY
BASELINE 1972 LDV
I
7 8 9 10
INERTIA WEIGHT, 1 1000 Ib
11
12
13
14
3.2.4
Figure 3-4. Hydrocarbon Emission Rate Variation as a
Function of Inertia Test Weight
HDV Emission Factors
Federal HDV engine emission standards have been expressed
in terms of concentration [ppm or mole (M) percent] since model year 1969.
For 1974, these standards are expressed on a mass basis [i.e. , in terms
of brake specific emissions (gm/bhp-hr)] . The HDV engines are certified
3-11
-------
190
180
170
160
150
140
I 130
01 120
Q 110
§ 100
2 90
ffl 80
a:
U 70
60
50
40
30
20
10
TRUCK rtO, ENGINE C!D '
0
D
O
A
V
A
V
d
^
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
Motor Home
Box Van
350
225
360
318
232
300
350
240
400 i
350 j
318 1
?30 11
EPA TESTS
'OF TEN
TRUCKS
(JCO/3!wjave .= 9,658 x 1C'3 (Based on
trucks
only)
BOX VAN
TECHNOLOGY
BASELINE 1972 LDV
I
' 8 9 10
INERTIA WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
11
12
13
14
Figure 3-5. Carbon Monoxide Emission Rate Variation as a
Function of Inertia Test Weight
to these standards by a prescribed dynamometer test cycle that does not
nclude transient load effects (steady rpm and load conditions only).
Since emission inventories are computed on the basis of
gi., mi emission rates, it has been necessary in the past to either actually
me iSure HDV emissions on a mass basis during on-the-road operation, or
to Attempt to correlate analytically between concentrations (ppm or M percent)
or brake specific emissions (gm/bhp-hr) and gm/mi rates. Sigworth (Ref. 3-5)
anu Bascom and Hass (Ref. 3-6) have used a conversion factor for this purpose
3-12
-------
that is the bhp-hr/mi expenditure equivalent of the road route or driving
cycle over which the vehicle is driven or tested. Thus,
. bhp-hr ,. gm . A .
=___-_ (3-1)
where
,, " , = either emissions standards expressed as brake specific
"~ emissions (or concentration equivalent) or actual
measured brake specific emission rate
bhP:hr = CF = conversion factor =
mi
HP = average horsepower expended over driving cycle or
route
V = average velocity in mph over driving cycle or route
Using this technique (Equation 3-1), we can determine the gm/mi emission
rate by the energy demand of the driving cycle or route (*--:).
However, both the Ethyl Corporation (Ref. 3-7) and SwRI
(Ref. 3-8) have reported difficulty in correlating emission mass measure-
ments from on-the-road operation with mass measurements obtained from
the steady-state load conditions of the engine dynamometer test cycle --
FTP. Presumably, this lack of correlation results because the dynamometer
test cycle does not include the transient load effects (accelerations, de-
celerations) experienced in actual driving.
Because of this correlation difficulty, a brief examination
and analysis of driving cycle energy requirements and FTP to road load
correlations were made. If the correlation anomalies could be resolved,
the same predictive techniques could be applied to MDVs, which incorporate
HDV engines.
3-13
-------
O)
*
oc
z
u.
O
Ul
O
g
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
TRUCK ENGINE
NO.
o' i
D 2
O 3
A 4
V 5
6
7
8
A 9
V 11
(J) Motor Home
A Box Van
CiD
350
225
360
318
232
300
350
240
400
350
318
350
EPA TESTS
OFTEN
TRUCKS
' MOTOR KOMi-:
TECHNOLOGY
BASELINE-1972 LDV
_, = 0.3643 x 10"3 (Based on
ave 10 EPA trucka only)
i
I
J
7 8 9 10
INERTIA WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
11
12
13
14
Figure 3-6. Oxides of Nitrogen Emission Rate Variation as a
Function of Inertia Test Weight
3.2.4. 1
Driving Cycle Energy Correlations
A number of driving cycle energy requirements were deter-
rVned by computer simulation using the relationship
Engine Power Output = £(HPArr + HP 4- HP )
ACC
3-14
-------
where
y
HP A ~~ = acceleration power = K X W x A x -s---^
ACC 375
V3
HPD = drag power = 0. 00227 CDX S X ^
V r W 300 V
HPR = road friction power = [ ( 10 + - + 0. 07 --
and
W = vehicle weight, Ib
A = acceleration, g's
V = velocity, mph
S = vehicle cross-sectional area, sq ft
P = tire pressure, psi
K = rotational inertia constant
C_ = drag coefficient
The driving cycles or road routes simulated included:
a. EPA Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (as prescribed
in Federal Register) -- also referred to herein as LA-4.
b. Chassis dynamometer cycles developed by the Ethyl Corporation
(Ref. 3-7) using road routes in Detroit to simulate Los Angeles
driving patterns for three truck weight classes. The DLA
routes are referred to herein as:
DLA-1 -- for 6, 000 to 10, 000-lb GVW class
DLA-2 -- for 10, 000 to 19, 500-lb GVW class
DLA-3 -- for greater than 19, 500-lb GVW class
c. Actual velocity as a function of time profiles for three trucks
driven on the San Antonio Road Route (SARR) by SwRI
(Ref. 3-9). The SARR tests are referred to herein as:
3-15
-------
SARR-1 -- 1970 Ford van, 300-CID 1-6, 10, 000-lb
GVW, 9, 740 Ib test weight
SARR-2 -- 1969 Dodge, 318-CID V-8, 16, 000-lb
GVW, 12, 800 Ib test weight
SARR-3 -- 1972 International Harvester Company (IHC),
304-CID V-8, 19, 000-lb GVW, 14,450 Ib test weight
d. New York City driving cycle (Ref. 3-10)
Appendix D contains illustrations of velocity as a function of time profiles
for items (a) and (d) above, and mode as a function of speed and time tables
for item (b) above. Also shown is a layout of the SAPR over \"bic^. the
three trucks in (c) above were driven,
The variation of the conversion factor HP/V as a function of
vehicle weight is shown in Figure 3-7 for the Urban Driving Cycle. It
also shows the variables and their values that were simulated. In the
truck case, the frontal area, drag coefficient, wheel diameter, and
rear axle ratio were varied in three discrete steps in accordance with
meaningful variations in these parameters as truck GVW increases. Then
a single truck "composite" characteristic was selected by connecting the
end-points of the 6, 000 to 18, 000 loaded weight results.
A similar plot of truck-only results for the SARR-3 test
truck is given in Figure 3-8. A summary comparison of truck energy
requirements for all the cycles examined (on a truck composite basis) is
s.iown in Figure 3-9.
It should be noted that the DLA and SARR lines of Figures 3-8
and 3-9 are based on a single chassis dynamometer cycle (DLA) or a single
i-'-uck test (SARR). Therefore, these lines depict energy as a function of vehicle
ei^ht characteristic trends that apply only to vehicles driven on the same
tir as a function of velocity profile. A more accurate representation of
the c /erall DLA and SARR composite cycle requirements is illustrated in
Figure 3-10, where the discrete individual points on which each characteris-
t'c "ne was based are connected or averaged to arrive at a road-route
3-16
-------
composite that depicts the variation in cycle characteristics and accompanying
cycle energy requirements as the truck weight increases. With increasing
truck weight, the rate of increase of HP/V decreases. In subsequent discus-
sions of DLA and SARR road routes, the composite cycle curves of
Figure 3-10 are referred to.
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
V = AVERAGE VELOCITY = 19.549mph
HP = AVERAGE HORSEPOWER
EXPENDED AT WHEELS
S = FRONTAL AREA, sq ft
CD = DRAG COEFFICIENT
LA-4
TRUCK
COMPOSITE
TRUCK (S = 45, C = 0.75)
WHEEL 0. D. = 38.25 In.
AXLE RATIO = 6.5:1
TRUCK (S = 40,
0.65)
WHEEL 0. D. = 36. 5 In.
AXLE RATIO = 6:1
TRUCK (S = 40, CD = 0.55)
WHEEL O. D. = 31 In.
AXLE RATIO = 4.1:1
STANDARD SIZE CAR (S = 25, CD = 0.45)
0.2^ - COMPACT SIZE CAR (S = 18, CD = 0.45)
I I J^ I L
I
6 8 10 12 14
VEHICLE LOADED WEIGHT, 1000 Ib
16
18
Figure 3-7. The EPA Urban Driving Cycle
Power Requirement (LA-4)
3-17
-------
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
E
\
% 1-0
ft
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
V = AVERAGE VELOCITY = 15.851 mph
HP = AVERAGE HORSEPOWER EXPENDED
AT WHEELS
5 = FRONTAL AREA, sq ft
C = DRAG COEFFICIENT
- i,
--. Q..T5
WHEEL O. D. = 38.25 in.
AXLE RATIO = 6.5:1
TRUCK
COMPOSITE OF
SARR
\
S = 40, CD = 0. 65
WHEEL 0. D. = 36.5 In.
AXLE RATIO = 6:1
S = 40, Cn = 0.55
WHEEL O. D, = 31 in.
AXLE RATIO = 4.1:1
I
1
I
6 8 10 12 14
VEHICLE LOADED WEIGHT, 1000 Ib
16
18
Figure 3-8. San Antonio Route Cycle Power Requirement -
Based on Test of IHC Truck at 19, 000-lb GVW
and 14,450-lb Test Weight
3-18
-------
X.
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
*
11 1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
NEW YORK CITY
DLA-1
BASED ON AVERAGE VELOCITY, mph
WHERE V = DISTANCE TRAVELLED
TOTAL ELAPSED TIME
I 1 I I I I
6 8 10 12 14
VEHICLE LOADED WEIGHT, 1000 Ib
16 18
Figure 3-9. Comparison of Truck Energy Requirements
for Various Driving Cycles
3-19
-------
f
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
r-V
DLA TEST POINTS
A SARR TEST POINTS
DLA-1
R COMPOSITE
I
I
I
I
10 12 14 16 18 20
VEHICLE LOADED WEIGHT, 1000 Ib
22
24
Figure 3-10. The DLA and SARR Cycle Composites
3.2.4.2 The FTP to Road Load Correlations
The SwRI recently compared the emissions from a 25-truck
group when operated over the SARR to the emissions from tests of a CVS
version of the HDV FTP (Ref. 3-8). They reported the following as
. /erages for the 25-truck group.
Ratio Federal Warm Start FTP/SARR
HC (FIA) = 0.83
CO = 0.69
NO = 1.20
3-20
-------
These results indicate that, on the average, the FTP produces less HC
and CO than road testing, and that the FTP produces more NO than road
!X
tests. Similar effects were reported by the Ethyl Corporation when
correlating road test results with the California heavy-duty engine test
cycle (basically the same test as the FTP) (Ref. 3-7).
By segregating the 25-truck fleet into various combinations by
weight class, the results in Table 3-5 were obtained (Ref. 3-8). Similar
data for the Ethyl Corporation DLA test fleet (Ref. 3-7) are shown in Table
3-6.
Table 3-5. Results of SwRI Comparison of 25-Truck Group
Grouping
MVMA Weight Classes
6,001 to 10,000-lb GVW
16,001 to 19,500-lb GVW
19,501 to 26, 000-lb GVW
26, 001 to 33, 000-lb GVW
Size and Type
Small: 10, 000-lb GVW vans
Intermediate: 16, 000 to 32, 000-
lb GVW vans and stakes
Large: 24, 000 to 32, 500-lb
GVW truck tractors
Ratio Federal Warm Start FTP/SARR
HC
1.21
0.85
0.75
0. 73
1.21
0.80
0. 73
CO
0.40
0.72
0.61
0. 87
0.40
0.64
0. 80
NOX
1.40
1. 11
1.44
0.99
1.40
1.24
1. 04
The test correlation data in Tables 3-5 and 3-6 are plotted in Figures 3-11,
3-12, and 3-13 for HC, CO, and NO , respectively. The solid lines in
J\.
these figures are a best-estimate fit of the data. All data are plotted at the
I value corresponding to the average GVW of the class or grouping and the
3-21
-------
Table 3-6. Results of Ethyl Corporation Comparison
Weight Class
No. 2 (6, 000 to 10, 000-
Ib GVW)
No. 3 (10, 000 to 19,500-
Ib GVW)
No. 4 (greater than
19,500-lb GVW)
Ratio California Test Procedure /Road Results
HC
0.38
0. 37
0.50
CO
0.59
0.48
0. 68
NOX
1.65
1. 18
0.96
1.6
1.5
p 1.4
5 1.3
ui
1.2
3 1.1
2 i.o
o
x 0.9
O
0.7
a 0.6
a.
£ °-5
S 0.4
O
P 0.3
DATA POINT EXCLUDED
VEHICLES LOADED TO
FULL GVW
O ETHYL DLA TESTS
D SARR DATA BY SMALL,
INTERMEDIATE, AND
LARGE WEIGHT GROUPS
A SARR DATA BY MVMA
WEIGHT CLASS GROUPS
MODIFIED DATA POINT (to correspond to 50% load)
MODIFIED SARR
SARR
DLA
MODIFIED DLA
0.2
0.1
0
1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1
10 12 14
INERTIA WEIGHT, I,
1000 Ib
Figure 3-ii. Federal Test Procedure to Road Load
Hydrocarbon Correlation
3-22
-------
I as a function of GVW correlation of Figure 2-2. Attention is drawn to
w
the SARR data point at 9740 Ib I in all three figures. These data are based
on 10, 000-lb GVW vans that were tested at essentially full GVW due to the
weight of the trailer instrument package needed for measuring and recording
purposes. All other data (both SARR and DLA) are based on a payload of
50 percent of capacity. However, a similar Ford 10, 000-lb GVW van with
a 300-CID engine and automatic transmission had been tested at EPA under
both 50 and 100 percent load conditions (vehicle No. 6 in Appendix C-l).
Therefore, the emission data for this SARR vehicle group were adjusted by
the ratio of the 50 to 100 percent emission values of the EPA test, and plotted
1.3
a 1.-
tx.
H 1.0
" 0.9
Q
g 0.8
oc.
O 0.7
fL 0.6
_i
2 0.5
tu
" 0.4
Lu
O
O
I-
<
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
O ETHYL DLA TESTS
D SARR DATA BY SMALL,
INTERMEDIATE, AND LARGE
WEIGHT GROUPS
A SARR DATA BY MVMA
WEIGHT CLASS GROUPS
SARR
DLA
MODIFIED SARR
MODIFIED DLA
DATA POINT EXCLUDED VEHICLES LOADED TO FULL GVW
MODIFIED DATA POINT (to correspond to 50% load)
I I I I I I I I 1
8 10 12 14 16 18
INERTIA WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
20
24
Figure 3-12. Federal Test Procedure to Road Load
Carbon Monoxide Correlation
3-23
-------
2.0
1.9
2 1.8
_i
=> i.r
13
* 1.6
1.5
Ill
cc 1.0
a
t 0.9
O 0.8
O
H 0.7
<
* 0.6
0.5
ETHYL DLA TESTS
SARR DATA BY SMALL,
INTERMEDIATE, AND LARGE
WEIGHT GROUPS
A SARR DATA BY MVMA
WEIGHT CLASS GROUPS
DATA POINT EXLUDED -
VEHICLES LOADED TO FULL GVW
MODIFIED DATA POINT (to correspond to 50% load)
MODIFIED SARR
MODIFIED DLA
I
10 12 14 16 18
INTERIA WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
20
22
24
Figure 3-13. Federal Test Procedure to Road Load
Oxides of Nitrogen Correlation
at the 50 percent load I value for a 10, 000-lb GVW vehicle. These
iata are denoted at the "modified" data point in the three figures. The
:( suiting best-fit curves (solid lines) are in fair agreement for CO and
I , but are considerably at variance for HC.
Since the composite cycle energy requirements of the SARR
an*-1 DLA routes are considerably different (see Figure 3-10), the emissions
~G. relations of Figures 3-11, 3-12, and 3-13 were normalized with the Urban
Driving Cycle (LA-4) used as the basis for normalization. Figure 3-14
3-24
-------
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
_i
5 1.0
v.
u.
0 0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
SARR -COMPOSITE
10
12
14
16
18
20
INERTIA WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
24
Figure 3-14. The DLA and SARR Correction Factors Relative
to EPA Driving Cycle Energy Requirements
illustrates the correction factor ratio of the DLA and SARR routes as
compared with the LA-4 route. The correlation lines of Figures 3-11,
3-12, and 3-13 were adjusted by these ratios, with the results shown as
dotted lines in the figures and labeled "modified SARR" and "modified DLA. "
Again, the normalized SARR and DLA values are at variance.
The HC values (Figure 3-11) seem to be converging at I values above
24, 000 Ib. The CO values (Figure 3-12) converge in the 12, 000-lb I range,
3-25
-------
but diverge above and below this value. The NO values (Figure 3-13)
X
converge at the higher I values, as in the case of HC.
It is difficult to determine the reason for the different charac-
teristics exhibited by the DLA and SARR data. The DLA trucks were older
and their engines not subject to emission control; whereas the SARR trucks
were newer and subject to the first level of heavy-duty engine emission
control. It is possible that engine modifications made to comply with emissions
standards (combustion chamber, ignition timing, spark retard, etc. ) could
account for some of these variances.
3.2.4.3 Overall Emissions Correlations.
The foregoing FTP to road emissions correlations suggest
that the predictive technique of Eq. (3-i) should be modified to account
for this demonstrated effect. Then brake specific emissions could be
converted to gm/mi on the FDC as follows.
, . ,,, , bhp-hr Road Load ,-, . /six
gm/mi = gm/bhp-hr X £. X q.mode FTP Ratio (3-2)
where
Road Load
Ratio _ ,"modified SARR" curves in Figures 3-11,
9-mode FTP ^.12, and 3-13
bh?-hr = values for LA-4 route in Figure 3-10
mi
gm/bhp-hr = assigned values to be converted; e. g. ,
Federal or California standards, certi-
fication test values, etc.
Table 3-7 summarizes the applicable HDV emissions
standard for 1969 through 1975 for both California and the rest of the nation.
\i indicated by the footnote on the table, the change in test procedures in
1973 in California to brake specific emission measurements did not, by
3-26
-------
Table 3-7. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Standards -- >6000-lb GVW
EMISSION
HC
NOX
CO
TEST PROCEDURES (Engine Dynamometer)
CONCENTRATION (ppm or M%)
MASS (gm/bhp-hr)
YEAR
1969
CALIF. /FED.
275(1 * NR
NR
1.5(5) NR
1970 TO 71
CALIF. /FED.
275
NR
1.5
1972
CALIF./FED.
180(2) 275
NR
1.0<6> 1.5
1973
FED.
275
NR
1.5
1973 TO 74 1974
CALIF. FED.
16<3>
40
1975
CALIF.
5(4)
25
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
EQUIVALENT TO 7.65 gm/bhp-hr
EQUIVALENT TO 5.0 gm/bhp-hr
PER CALIF. AIR RESOURCES BOARD, NO INTENTION TO REDUCE HC LEVEL BUT TO
._ ..*», > >*. M^*. jM^Nfc.ivn4>M . nnpciifcjpn e /i 1 cm IT lo**t *s 1 f 1
prr K V^ML-lr* r*II\ f\S.»*WWIX^^w wrti^v, i^** m **n i iwi« . ** ., -.
BRING NOX UNDER CONTROL; PRESUMED 5/11 SPLIT (Ref. 3-11 i
PER (3), WOULD BE 1.56/3.44 SPLIT
EQUIVALENT TO 60.0 gm/bhp-hr
'EQUIVALENT TO 40.0 gm/bhp-hr
design or intention, include a reduction in allowable HC. The intent was to
keep the HC level at 5. 0 gm/bhp-hr and bring NO under control for the first
2C
time at approximately 11. 0 gm/bhp-hr.. However, the two species (HC and
NO ) were combined for flexibility purposes. In the following correlations,
ji
the ratio of HC to NO of 5 to 11 is maintained for years 1973 to 1975, to
j£
display the two species separately.
Figures 3-15, 3-16, and 3-17 give the results of using
Eq. (3-2) to predict the variation of emission rate with I on the FDC for
HC, CO, and NO , respectively. Both Federal and California HDV emis-
sion standards were used as inputs, as well as 1973 HDV certification
test averages (Ref. 3-12).
For comparison purposes, the 1973 model year EPA test
values for pickups, vans, and panel trucks and the overall sales-weighted
3-27
-------
22
20
18
E >6
1 14
5
g
12
10
8
4
2
0
O 1973 AVERAGE FOR PICKUPS, VANS, PANEL TRUCKS (Ref.3-3)
1973 MDV SALES-WEIGHTED AVERAGE (Ref.3-3)
CALSPAN TRUCK
CORRELATION
-(FI93-1)
EXTRAPOLATED 1972 LDV
TECHNOLOGY (Fig 3-4)
8 9 10 11
INERTIA WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
12 13 14
Figure 3-15. Hydrocarbon Emission Variations with Inertia Test
Weight Federal Driving Cycle (LA-4)
1973 MDV values are shown. In addition, the Calspan truck correlations
(Figures 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3) and the extrapolated 1972 LDV technology
correlations (Figures 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6) are similarly displayed.
In the case of HC (Figure 3-15), the predicted characteristic
has a steeper slope than the Calspan truck correlation. The EPA 1973
track test averages shown agree reasonably well in terms of slope, but
are higher in absolute value than that predicted by 1973 certification test
averages for HDV engines.
For CO and NO (Figures 3-16 and 3-17, respectively, the
JC
predi ted characteristics have a slope very similar to the Calspan truck
corr -tion line. The EPA 1973 truck test averages shown again agree
-easo^ably well with the slope, but are higher in absolute value than that
mediated by 1973 certification test averages for HDV engines.
3-28
-------
In all cases, there is a lack of data to confirm the predicted
emission levels at I values above approximately 7000 Ib. Therefore,
the overall validity of this promising emission prediction technique cannot
be firmly established until data at higher I values are available and until
the variance between road measured emission values and HDV engine
certification test levels can be satisfactorily accounted for.
3.2.5
Final Emission Baseline Selections
Because of the uncertainties in the foregoing emission pre-
diction technique, the truck emission correlation developed by Calspan
from the EPA MDV emissions characterization program was used as repre-
sentative of the MDV class prior to the addition of specific ECSs. It is
220
200
._ 180
I 16°
§ 12°
o 100
8
ffi
Of
80
60
40
20
0
O 1973 AVERAGE FOR PICKUPS, VANS, PANEL TRUCKS (Ref.3-3)
1973 MDV SALES-WEIGHTED AVERAGE (Ref.3-3)
CALSPAN TRUCK
CORRELATION
(Figure 3-2)
CO = 25 gm/bhp-hr
(1975 Calif standards)
EXTRAPOLATED 1972 LDV TECHNOLOGY (Fig 3-5)
I I I I I
7 8 9 10 11
INERTIA TEST WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
12
13
14
Figure 3-16. Carbon Monoxide Emission Variations with Inertia Test
Weight -- Federal Driving Cycle (LA-4)
3-29
-------
t»
UJ
8
S
«/>
X
O
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
O 1973 AVERAGE FOR PICKUPS, VANS, PANEL TRUCKS (Ret 3-3}
1973 MDV SALES-WEIGHTED AVERAGE (Ret.3-3)
CALSPAN TRUCK
COR!?El.A
(Fig. 3-3)-
EXTRAPOLATED 1972 LDV
TECHNOLOGY (Fig. 3-6)
I
7 8 9 10 11
INERTIA TEST WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
12
13
14
Figure 3-17. Oxides of Nitrogen Variations with Inertia Test
Weight -- Federal Driving Cycle (LA-4)
3-30
-------
treated herein as an "earlier" technology baseline inasmuch as HDV
engines will be modified to meet the more stringent requirements of the
California 1975 HDV standards.
Since, as mentioned earlier, cost factors ($>/ton of pollutant
removed) are directly proportional to baseline emission assumptions, a
second emission level baseline was also used -- the extrapolated 1972 LDV
technology emission characteristics. It is considered that these two base-
lines encompass the spectrum of MDV emission characteristics that can
be reasonably expected of MDVs that do not have the specific ECSs of
Table 3-i applied to them. Hence, by computing cost factors based on
these two baselines, the range of reasonably anticipated cost factors will be
obtained.
The two selected emissions baselines are summarized in
Figures 3-18, 3-19. and 3-20. Also shown, for comparison purposes, are
characteristic 1968 LDV emission values, which can be considered repre-
sentative of "earlier" technology LDVs (from Kircher and Armstrong,
Ref. 3-13). Because of the rather steep slope of the extrapolated 1972
LDV technology characteristic for CO (Figure 3-19), an alternate baseline
was arbitrarily selected to test the line slope sensitivity.
3. 3 EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM COSTS
In developing the ECS casts reported herein, the initial
hardware costs and maintenance cost assumptions as reported by Calspan
(Ref. 3-1) for ECS No. 2 through No. 8 were used. These ECSs and their
costs were applied to both the LDV and MDV cases of Table 2-1.
Since cost factor determination is based on emission reduction,
it was necessary to compute both costs and emission reductions over the
complete vehicle lifetime to amortize the effects of initial hardware costs.
The analysis and assumptions relative to average vehicle lifetimes are
presented below, followed by a summary of resultant ECS costs.
3-31
-------
101
.£
CQ
a.
<
8
a:
a
REGRESSfON LINE
fOR TRUCKS {1970 to 1973 MDVs)
(CALSPAN)
1968 LDV
1972 LDV
EXTRAPOLATED 1972 LDV TECHNOLOGY
I
I
6789
INERTIA WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
10
11
3. 3. i
Figure 3-18. Hydrocarbon Emission Baselines Used
for Cost Comparisons
Vehicle Average Lifetime
Reference 3-2 has reported the average lifetime of passenger
cars as 8.4 years and 85, 000 mi. These values were used herein for the
LDV case. For the MDV, or truck case, similar data were not available.
aerefore, an analysis of average truck lifetime values was performed,
as ndlcated in Figure 3-21. The R. L. Polk Company truck registration
.a "referred to in the figure are those presented in various issues of
Ref. 3-14.
The variation of annual truck mileage with model year used
> as that given by Kircher and Armstrong in Table 16 of Ref. 3-13. The
3-32
-------
100
90
E 80
*
Q 60
50
o
40
£ 30
5 20
10
REGRESSION LINE FOR
TRUCKS (1970to 1973 MDVs)
(CALSPAN)
EXTRAPOLATED 1972 LDV
TECHNOLOGY
ALTERNATE BASELINE'
6789
INERTIA WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
10
11
Figure 3-19.
Carbon Monoxide Emission Baselines
Used for Cost Comparisons
average lifetime truck mileage on this basis for all trucks was computed to
be approximately 130, 000 mi. Since MDVs are single-unit trucks, the
ratio of miles traveled by single-unit trucks compared with total trucks
(9, 871/11, 565 as reported in Ref. 3-14 for the year 1969) was used to
arrive at the 110, 000 mi average shown in Figure 3-21.
There was no similar basis for differentiating between MDVs
and all trucks on the basis of average age; therefore, the truck average
age of 12. 6 years was used for both MDVs and HDVs in the present cost
analysis.
3-33
-------
14
12
1 10
o>
k
u 8
8
U.
u.
o
U
o
§ 4
REGRESSION LINE FOR TRUCKS (1970 to 1973 MDVs)
(CALSPAN)
O1968 LDV
1972 LDV
EXTRAPOLATED
1972 LDV TECHNOLOGY
I I
I I
6 78 9
INERTIA WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
10
11
Figure 3-20. Oxides of Nitrogen Emission Baselines
Used for Cost Comparisons
3-34
-------
100
90
«/>
Of
<
80
70
< 60
O
> 50
1 40
1-
5 30
at
" 20
10
0
TRUCK
( %d ) = % DYING IN YEARS n = % SURVIVING
J n AT BEGINNING OF YEAR MINUS
% SURVIVING AT END OF YEAR
AVERAGE AGE =
x (
.,].
12. 6 YR
= n
AVERAGE MILEAGE
I I
n = 1
I I I I
(ml/yr) |"| = 110,000 FOR
J SINGLE UNI1
SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS
1 I I I I I
I I
1
9 10
N YEARS
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Figure 3-21. Average Truck Lifetime -- Years and Mileage
3.3.2
Cost Summaries
,1
A summary of ECS initial costs is given in Table 3-8 .
These costs apply to both the LDV and MDV cases examined, since all
LDVs and MDVs use the same 350-CID engine. To determine cost factors
($/ton pollutant removed) for each exhaust species (HC, CO, and NO ), it
3C
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 inspec
tion, 2 and tricomponent catalysts was allocated to each con-
stituent (HC, CO, and NO ).
1
Certification costs are not included. It was assumed that they would be
similar to current LDV and HDV engine certification costs.
>
"Testing or inspection may or may not be required; if required, costs may be
different from those assumed.
3-35
-------
Table 3-8. Emission Control System Initial Cost Summary --
LDV or MDV; 350-CID Engine
COMPONENTS
ELECTRONIC IGNITION (EI)(I)
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'i
REDUCING CATALYST (RC)
TRICOMPONENT CATALYST (TRI)
CATALYST BYPASS
EVAPORATIVE CONTROL SYSTEM
(EVAP. CS) nH,v
TESTING OR INSPECTION!1 )(3'
TOTAL
HC/CO RELATED
NOX RELATED
20
5
10
30
38
14
7
124
85
39
20
5
10
30
39
69
10
14
7
204
165
39
CALSPAN No.
20
5
10
30
39
ro/,i
90(2)
10
14
7
295
166
129
20
100
30
670)
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. The EGR and reducing catalyst costs were allocated to NO
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 3-9 for the LDV
and in Table 3-10 for the MDV. The maintenance assumptions are the same
' >r bo*h cases and are based on the Calspan report (Ref. 3-1). The resulting
LT r and MDV cost differences are related to the different average lifetime
/an :s, as shown. Again, the assumptions made in apportioning costs to HC,
CO; and NO were as follows.
"X.
a. One-third of the costs or savings of electronic ignition,
tricomponent catalysts, and inspections was allocated to
each constituent (HC, CO, and NO ).
3-36
-------
b. The EGR and reducing catalyst costs were allocated to NO
control only. x
c. All other costs were allocated to HC/CO control and were
divided equally between HC and CO.
The maintenance costs for 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 3-11. The fuel economy values shown conform to
Figure 2-3, and the fuel economy penalties attributed to emission control
are based on Table 3-2. The basic fuel cost used, 38^/gal, is considered
a nominal value.
Table 3-9. Emission Control System Maintenance Costs --
LDV; 350-CID Engine (8.4 years and 85,000 mi)
MAINTENANCE
ASSUMPTIONS
-60/50, 000^ '
, $/mi
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
(1)
COMPONENT
El
FC
QHI
1C
AC
EFI
EGR
LTR/RTR
Al
OC
RC
TRI
BYPASS
EVAP. CS
INSPECTION
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
220'"
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
14
42
25
110
102
8
(1) 1/3 OF COST OR SAVINGS ALLOCATED TO EACH CONSTITUENT (HC, CO, NO
(2) COST ALLOCATED TO NOX CONTROL ONLY *
(3) CONVERTERS CHANGED AT 25,000 AND 50,000 mi ONLY
3-37
-------
Table 3-10. Emission Control System Maintenance Costs -- MDV,
350-CID Engine (12. 6 years and i 1 0, OC-C- mi;
MAINTENANCE
ASSUMPTION;!. ;/,w
-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
5/10.0CO
12.50/25,000
3/YEAR
TOTAL
ii]
COMPONENT
c
E! | -132
FC
QHI
1C
AC
EFI
EGR
LTR/RTR
33
44
Al 44
OC j
RC I
T"; !
BYPAis
£VAP. CS
INSPECTION
HC/CO RELATED
NOX RELATED
Sb
38
82
69
13
L 3
CALSPAN to,
., p T-~ .
-132 -112
33
44
44
321
33
-13*?
62
44 i 44
|
44
321. ,,, |
*»o'l! j
-132
33
44
r 1
.132
44
44
K
-532
99
44
44
} '.'1" 1 I I
55 ,::.- ." ;
55
38
458
445
13
56
38
887
445
442
55 | j^
38 36
329
123
38
25
13
55
58
49
36
13
55
38
148
135
13
(1) 1/3 COST OR SAVINGS ALLOCATED TO EACH CONSTIfUtNT !HC CO,
(2) COST ALLOCATED TO Nt>K CONTROL ONLY
|3) CONVERTERS CHANCED AT 25,000; 50,000; AND 75,000 mi ONLY
Table 3-11. Fuel Cost Summary -- Over Vehicle Lifetime
(85,000 mi for LDV; 110, 000 mi tor MDV)
PARAMETER
FUEL ECONOMY, mpg
GALLONS USED
FUEL COST @38
-------
The foregoing costs are summarized for the LDV in
Table 3-12, and for the MDV cases in Tables 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, and 3-16.
In all cases, all fuel cost penalties were allocated to NO control.
3C
Table 3-12. Cost Summary for LDV -- I = 4500 Ib;
350-CID Engine
w
COST CATEGORY
OVERALL SYSTEM
INITIAL COST
MAINTENANCE^)
4 FUEL COST (1)
TOTAL
HC/CO RELATED
INITIAL COST
MAINTENANCE [A]
A FUEL COST (1)
TOTAL
NOX RELATED
INITIAL COST
MAINTENANCE (4)
4FUEL COST (1)
TOTAL
CALSPAN No.
2
IC/AI/EGR
124
59
135
318
85
51
0
136
39
8
135
182
3
OC/EGR
204
315
135
654
165
307
0
472
39
8
135
182
4
OC/RC
295
601
324
1220
166
307
0
473
129
294
324
747
5
EFI/TRI
248
309
81
638
187
228
0
415
61
81
81
223
6
LTR
145
25
216
386
106
17
0
123
39
8
216
263
7
RTR
173
33
675
881
134
25
0
159
39
8
675
722
8
AC
144
110
81
335
105
102
0
207
39
8
81
128
(1) ALL FUEL COSTS ALLOCATED TO NOX CONTROL
The costs shown are total delta system costs in order to
fully account for the total cost of each ECS to the consumer. The one cost
not included, certification costs, was assumed to be the same as current
costs for LDV and HDV engine certification. Being total ECS costs, they
also include the costs of the evaporative control system in all ECS. Since
the evaporative control system was in all ECS systems it could have been
omitted as a cost, however, the overall results would show similar trends.
In summary, the MDV costs are the same as the LDV costs,
except for maintenance and fuel cost differentials occasioned by the
different average lifetimes and average lifetime mileages. The MDV total
3-39
-------
Table 3-13. Cost Summary for MDV No. 1 -- I = 6000 Ib;
350-CID Engine w
I
COST CATEGORY
OVERALL SYSTEM
INITIAL COST
MAINTENANCE^)
4 FUEL COST "'
TOTAL
HC/CO RELATED
INITIAL COST
MAiNTENANCE'
A FUEL COST ifl
TOTAL
NOX RELATED
INITIAL
MAINTENANCE!4.)
4 FUEL COST (}>
TOTAL
' _
IC/AI/EGR
124
82
209
415
85
SJ
0
154
39
13
209
261
3
OC/EGR
204
458
209
871
!f-r
,-;
0
610
39
13
209
261
CAl
|L-±-
OC/RC
295
887
500
1682
cvS
V-'i
Lo
611
129
442
500
1071
>5FAf; No.
j
EFI/TRI
248
452
125
825
!'-Ji't
5:6 1
61
123
125
309
->
^ __£,__
L'iR
545
38
335
518
< i'),',.
lt
rriT"i
JC
13
335
387
es-sasffi MBKWSW
.-.JL.-
RTR
173
49
1045
1267
i "i s
!#:)
1_^^ 1
:9
13
1045
1097
,;
^
AC
144
148
125
414
,,-, -
i". i
j '"»
i?4C
35
13
125
177
(1) ALL FUEL COSTS ALLOCATED TO NOX CONTROL
Table 3-14. Cost Summary for MDV No. 2 -- I = 9000 Ib;
350-CID Engine W
COST CATEGORY
OVERALL SYSTEM
INITIAL COST
MAINTENANCES)
& FUEL COST (1)
TOTAL
HC/CO RELATED
INITIAL COST
MAINTENANCE (4)
4 FUEL COST (1)
TOTAL
NOX RELATED
INITIAL COST
MAINTENANCES)
d FUEL COST (1)
TOTAL
CALSPAN No.
2
IC/AI/EGR
124
82
288
494
85
69
0
154
39
13
288
1^340
3
OC/EGR
204
458
288
950
165
445
0
610
39
13
208
340
4
OC/RC
295
887
690
1872
166
445
0
611
129
442
690
1261
5
EFI/TRI
248
452
173
873
187
329
0
516
61
123
173
357
i 6
LTR
145
38
461
(44
106
25
0
13t
.1?
13
461
513
i
,
RTR
173
49
1440
1662
134
36
0
170
?5
13
1440
1492
e
AC
144
148
173
465
105
135
0
240
K
13
173
225
[I) ALL FUEL COSTS ALLOCATED TO NO. CONTROL
3-40
-------
Table 3-15.
Cost Summary for MDV No.
350-CTD Engine
3 --
I = 11. 000 Ib;
COST CATEGORY
OVERALL SYSTEM
INITIAL COST
MAINTENANCE^)
4FUEL COST 0)
TOTAL
HC/CO RELATED
INITIAL COST , ,
MAINTENANCE 4'
4FUEL COST n)
TOTAL
N0y RELATED
INITIAL COST
MAINTENANCE^)
A FUEL COST (')
TOTAL
CALSPAN No.
2
IC/AI/EGR
124
82
337
543
85
69
0
154
39
13
337
389
3
OC/EGR
204
458
337
999
165
445
0
610
39
13
337
389
4
OC/RC
295
887
810
1992
166
445
0
611
129
442
810
1381
5
EFI/TRI
248
452
202
902
187
329
0
516
61
123
202
386
6
LTR
145
38
540
723
106
25
0
131
39
13
540
592
7
RTR
173
49
1685
1907
134
36
0
170
39
13
1685
1737
8
AC
144
148
202
494
105
135
0
240
39
13
202
254
(1) ALL FUEL COSTS ALLOCATED TO NOX CONTROL
Table 3-16.
Cost Summary for MDV No.
350-CID Engine
4 I = 14, 000 Ib;
COST CATEGORY
OVERALL SYSTEM
INITIAL COST
MAINTENANCE 14)
4 FUEL COSTS (1)
TOTAL
HC/CO RELATED
INITIAL
MAINTENANCE (4)
& FUEL COST (1)
TOTAL
NOX RELATED
INITIAL
MAINTENANCE M)
4FUEL COST (1)
TOTAL
2
IC/AI/EGR
124
82
387
593
85
69
0
154
39
13
387
439
CALSPAN No.
3
OC/EGR
204
458
387
1049
165
445
0
610
39
13
387
439
4
OC/RC
295
887
929
2111
166
445
0
611
129
442
929
1500
5
EFI/TRI
248
452
232
932
187
329
0
516
61
123
232
416
6
LTR
145
38
619
802
106
25
0
131
39
13
619
671
7
RTR
173
49
1935
2157
134
36
0
170
39
13
1935
1987
8
AC
144
148
232
524
105
135
0
240
39
13
232
284
(1) ALL FUEL COSTS ALLOCATED TO NOX CONTROL
3-41
-------
costs increase with increasing I in accordance with the fuel economy
versus I characteristics of Figure 2-3 (fuel economy ts^crease.; v/ith
w
increasing \r.';.
3, 4 EFFECT OF EMISSION CONTROL OlNUACOLINE
CONSUMPTION
To illustrate the relative effect of erni.<-si'ovi control fuel
penalties when incorporated on LDVs and MDVs, a simple calculation
was performed based en 1'T?J ,sa''es characteristic <3.
Figure 3-i-:. *>.'..&<:':*'."j the tc-t"!.! %-;-\<..> s ..I'.c-'i 10 ,«« V'a r b>
both LDVs and MDVs, based on the sales volume and fuel economy charac-
teristics (mpg) shown. Also shown is the impact of powering al- MDVs
with diesel engines having a 50 percent fuel economy improvement over
gasoline engines. While this is not considered a reasonable likelihood,
it is shown merely to illustrate the relative effect. -As can b-f seen, the
consumption of gasoline by LDVs far overshadows ,MT>V <7a,;'.-in> coT^ump-
tion. Emission control fuel economy penalties for .LDVs wouicl theretore
be far more significant than corresponding MDV emission control fuel
economy penalties.
Figure 3-23 shows the same information as Figure 3-22, but
is plotted in terms of A gal used per year.
Reference 3-i is referred to for an analysis of total gasoline
fuel consumption requirements as affected by the introduction of various
ECSs and/or diesel engines in the MDV class on a scheduled basis.
3-42
-------
Si
°2 6
I
cc
0£.
UJ
Q.
Q 4
UJ
3
<
o
LDV AT 1970 SALES (7,466,049)
[w = 3900 Ib; MPG = 13
W
MDV AT 1970 SALES
DIESEL-POWERED
= 6000 Ib; MPG = 15
DIESEL WITH EGR
-MDV AT 1970 SALES (380,105)
GASOLINE-POWERED
I = 6000 Ib; MPG = 10
I
25
0 5 10 15 20
FUEL ECONOMY PENALTY DUE TO
EMISSION CONTROL DEVICES - PERCENT
Figure 3-22. Effect of Emission Control Fuel Economy Reduction
on Gasoline Consumption -- 1 yr only
3-43
-------
lw = 6000 fb; MPG = 10
DIESEL WITH EGR
LDV AT 1970 SALES (7,466,049)
lw = 3900 Ib- MPG = 13
MDV AT 1970 SALES (380,105)
plESEJ^POWERED MDV AT 1970 SALES (380,105)
II
I 1 I I
lw = 6000 Ib; MPG = 15
5 10 15 20
FUEL ECONOMY PENALTY - PERCENT
25
Figure 3-23. Effect of Emission Control Fuel Economy Reduction
on Gasoline Consumption
3-44
-------
REFERENCES
3-1. Research Study Involving (A) Technical Evaluation of Emission
Control Approaches and (B) Economics of Emission Reduction
Requirements for Vehicles Between 6000 and 14, OOP Pound's"
GVW, Report ZP-5223-K-1, Calspan Corporation (31 May 1973).
3-2. An Assessment of the Effects of Lead Additives in Gasoline on
Emission Control Systems Which Might be Used to Meet the
1975-76 Motor Vehicle Emission Standards, Report TOR-0172
(2787)-2, The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, California
(15 November 1971).
3-3. Private communication with Curtis E. Fett, DECT/EPA
(7 June 1973).
3-4. Private communication with Marty Reineman, DECT/EPA
(July 1973).
3-5. H. W. Sigworth, Jr. , Estimates of Motor Vehicle Emission
Rates, unpublished EPA report (15 March 1971).
3-6. R. C. Bascom and G. C. Hass, "A Status Report on the Develop-
ment of the 1973 California Diesel Emissions Standards, " SAE
Paper No. 700671 (August 1970).
3-7. Exhaust Emission Analysis and Mode Cycle Development for
Gasoline-powered Trucks, Report GR 67-41, The Ethyl Corpora-
tion (September 1967).
3-8. In-use Heavy Duty Gasoline Truck Emissions; Part 1 - Mass
Emissions From Trucks Operated over a Road Course, Report
AR-874, Southwest Research Institute (February 1973).
3-9. Private communication with Melvin N. Ingalls, Southwest Research
Institute (July 1973).
3-10. Hybrid Heat Engine/Electric Systems Study, Report TOR-0059
(6769-01)-2, The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, California
(June 1971).
3-11. Report to the State of California Air Resources Board by the
Technical Advisory Committee (16 September 1970).
3-45
-------
3-12. Private communication with Joseph HL Scmers^ DECT/.EPA
(July 1973).
3-13. D. S. Kirchfcr and L. P. Armstrong, An, _Intv;-;;t. .-: ope.:'L on Motor
Vehicle Emission Estimation, EPA (October 19T2j.
3_14. Motor Truck Facts, Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc.
(for years 1971, 1970, 1969, 1968, 1967, 1966, 1965, 1964, 1962,
1961, I960).
3-46
-------
SECTION 4
MEDIUM-DUTY VEHICLE EMISSION CONTROL
COST FACTORS
The comparison parameter selected to determine the relative
cost-effectiveness between emission controls for LDVs, MDVs, HDVs, and
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 , and
HC + CO + NO . As noted previously, mobile source pollutant reductions
.X
are based on two initial or baseline emission characteristics (prior to instal-
lation of ECS No. 2 through No. 8) for both LDVs and MDVs. In the case of
LDVs, these baselines were:
a. The 1972 technology levels as evidenced by 1972 LDV certifi-
cation averages.
b. The earlier, or 1968, technology levels as evidenced by 1968
passenger car emission levels.
For MDVs, these baselines were:
a. The 1972 LDV technology levels extrapolated over MDV I
range. w
b. The earlier technology level as evidenced by the Calspan truck
regression characteristics.
All of the above baselines were previously graphically illustrated in Fig-
ures 3-18, 3-19, 3-20. The following sections summarize and compare the
resultant cost factors for LDVs and MDVs by various display techniques.
D. S. Kircher and D. P. Armstrong, Interim Report on Motor Vehicle
Emission Estimation, EPA (October 1972).
4-1
-------
4. 1 THE MDV AND LDV COST FACTOR
COMPARISONS
4. 1. 1 Compared by Emission Control System Tvpe
Figures 4-1 through 4-7 illustrate the variance of emission
control cost factor with MDV I for ECS No. 2 through ECS No. 8, when
applied to engines conforming to 1972 LDV technology baseline character-
istics. The symboled points represent the MDV cases of Table 2-1; the
comparison LDV case at I f = 4500 Ib is also shown. The HC, CO, and
HC + CO + NO cost factors decrease with increasing I and are less than
x ' w
the LDV cost factors of the same type. These cost f^c:^! -i wwul.' <>t ex-
pected to decrease as I increases, since the costs involved are nearly
independent of I and the emission reductions increase in numerical value
as I increases. This is because of the positive slope (relative to I ) of the
baseline emissions assumptions (Figures 3-18, 3-19, and 3-20). The effects
of the "alternate" 1972 LDV technology CO baseline slope of Figure 3-19 are
depicted in Figure 4-1. The absolute value of the cost factor (CO, HC +
CO + NO ) is higher (due to the lower slope of the alternate CO baseline);
.X,
however, the MDV cost factors are still lower than for the LDV case. The
NO cost factors, however, vary with MDV I discretely with ECS type and
vary in absolute value from slightly below LDV values to slightly above LDV
values. The shape of the NO cost factor curves is a result of the combined
J\.
interactions of NO baseline emission level slope (Figure 3-20), variations
2t
i~ NO emission factor "R, " and the shape of the fuel economy as a function
X.
of I characteristic selected in Figure 2-3 (decreasing rate of change of fuel
economy as I increases).
Similar cost factor results are shown in Figures 4-8 through
thro1 'h 4-14 for ECS No. 2 through No. 8 when applied to engines conform-
n^ to he earlier technology emissions baseline of Figures 3-18, 3-19, and
-20. On this basis of comparison, even the NO cost factor for MDVs is
Jt
:Jov, the LDV value. This is because the MDV NO baseline emissions
3£
'I'igure 3-20) are considerable higher than the LDV NO emission rate
4-2
-------
EMMISSION
FACTOR "R"
HC = 0. 65
CO = 0. 55
NOX = 0. 60
FUEL
ECONOMY
REDUCTION
= 5%
14
INERTIA TEST WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
Figure 4-1. Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 2 --
1972 LDV Technology Baseline (El + 1C + QHI +
AI + EGR)
selected as comparable in terms of technology level, thus giving greater
NO reductions (for the same ECS type and NO "R" factor) and concomitant
3C -X-
lower NO cost factors.
x
It should be recognized that the absolute level of any cost
factor is a simple reflection of the values selected initially for baseline
emissions and ECS cost characteristics. As discussed in Section 3. 2. 5,
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
4-3
-------
2600
c2400
e
^2200
5^2000
^1800
u.
U1400
° 1200
§ 1000
| 800
^ 600
LJ
400
200
0
- -o-
HC + CO + NOV
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
INERTIA TEST WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
14
Figure 4-2. Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 3 --
1972 LDV Technology Baseline (El + 1C + QHI +
AI + EGR + OC)
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
I IDVs incorporating engines as modified to meet 1972 LDV certification
levels. The exact cost factor for a given MDV engine combination would
d iend on the specific engine involved and the modifications made to it (com-
ti on chamber, ignition timing, spark retard, etc. ) prior to the addition of
.T 3> "ic ECSs of the types examined herein (ECS No. 2 through No. 8).
Regardless of the basis of emission baseline comparison,
uowe\ er, it is clear that emission control of MDVs in terms of HC, CO,
cii i. I Z + CO + NO cost factors, is more cost effective than when applying
4-4
-------
2600
2400
|2200
^J
.2000
8
£,800
"- 1600
I-
8 1400
o
1200
1000
800
3 600
w 400
200
0
LDV-*
HC + CO + NO,
EMISSION
FACTOR "R"
HC = 0. 10
CO = 0. 15
NOX = 0. 10
FUEL
ECONOMY
REDUCTION
= 12%
HC
4 5
INERTIA TEST WEIGHT, !,, 1000 Ib
w
10 11 12 13
14
Figure 4-3. Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 4 --
1972 LDV Technology Baseline (El + 1C + QHI +
RC + AI/CAI + OC)
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 .
4. 1. 2 Compared as a Function of Percent
Reduction in Emission Rate
Figures 4-15 through 4-18 redisplay the data of Figures 4-1
through 4-7 in terms of the variation of HC, CO, NO , and HC + CO + NO
X X
cost factors with percent reduction in emission rate when applying ECS
No. 2 through ECS No. 8 to LDVs and MDVs characterized by the 1972 LDV
technology baseline. These displays also allow comparisons between ECS
4-5
-------
1600
1500
1400
1300
11200
oT 1100
0 1000
u.
I- 900
8
U 800
i TOO
^-
O 600
o
g m
!2 400
* 300
200
100
0
EMISSION
FACTOR "R"
HC = 0. 18
CO - 0. i5
NOX = 0. 10
FUEL
ECONOMY
REDUCTION
- 3%
LDV-*
-O-
+ CO + NO.
4 5
6 7 8 9 10
INERTIA TEST WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
11
12
13
14
Figure 4-4. Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 5 --
1972 LDV Technology Baseline (El + EFIC +
EGR + RC/OC)
types based on the emission reduction level afforded and resultant cost
factor. Again, in all cases, except NO (Figure 4-17), the MDV cost factors
X. ,
are lower than those for LDVs with the same ECS. It should be noted that
*SCS No. 8 (advanced lean carburetion with EGR) and ECS No. S (electronic
ael injection with tricomponent catalyst) are shown as a separate family of
M s in Figure 4-17 because of their uniquely low NO cost factors that are,
ji
in t.,rn, due primarily to low fuel economy losses (approximately 3 percent),
couoled with relatively high NO reductions. Figure 4-17 also illustrates
A.
Jhc MDV NO cost factors can be higher or lower than LDV NO cost factors.
x 6 x '
depending on the MDV I value and/or the specific ECS installed.
4-6
-------
1400
1300
1200
$1100
glOOO
!^ 900
K800
0 700
° 600
§ 500
O 400
I 300
LJ
200
100
0
K LDV -
-*- MDV
EMISSION
FACTOR "R"
HC = 0.50
CO = 0. 35
NOX = 0.375
FUEL
ECONOMY
REDUCTION
= 8%
13
14
INERTIA TEST WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
Figure 4-5. Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 6 --
1972 LDV Technology Baseline (El + 1C + QHI +
EGR + LTR)
Figures 4-19, 4.-ZO, and 4-21 similarly redisplay the data of
Figures 4-8 through 4-14 (earlier technplogy baseline emissions) for HC,
CO, and NO cost factors. Here, as mentioned previously, all MDV cost
IX
factors (including NO ) are lower than the correspondingly equipped LDV.
j£
Attention is redrawn at this point to the method of apportion-
ment of ECS costs to HC, CO, and NO (see Section 3. 3. 2). All emission
control cost factors are directly proportional to the costs assigned to each
emission constituent. Therefore, the cost factor variations between ECSs
shown in Figures 4-15 through 4-21 are reflections of the original cost
apportionment assumptions. Different assumptions -would result in slightly
different cost factor variation patterns between the various ECSs. For
example, if the evaporative control system costs were excluded from the
4-7
-------
3000
2800
2600
12400
£2200
H-
"2000
u.
1-1800
8
01600
_i
§1400
I-
01200
O
§1000
S 800
W 600
400
200
0
LDV
MDV
EMISSION
FACTOR "R"
HC = 0.08
CO = 0. 35
NOX = 0. 17
FUEL
ECONOMY
REDUCTION
= 25%
HC + CO + NO,
78 9 10 11
INERTIA TEST WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
12
13
14
Figure 4-6. Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 7 --
1972 LDV Technology Baseline (El + FC + EGR +
Al + RTR)
coot factor calculations, all HC and CO cost factors for all ECSs in Fig-
ures 4-15 through 4-21 would be lower (by a constant amount) than those
values shown; however, the relative relationship between the HC and CO
cost factors for the various ECSs would remain as illustrated. This is
si- wn in Figure 4-22, which is similar to Figure 4-15 (HC cost factor,
, "2 LDV Technology Baseline) except for lower cost factor values occa-
^ ,1. 1 by the deletion of evaporative control system costs.
1, 1. ? The MDV and LDV Cost Factor Summary
As graphically illustrated in Figures 4-1 through 4-21, for
the same ECS, MDVs have HC, CO, and HC + CO + NO cost factors that
4-8
-------
1200
1100
$1000
g 900
5 800
groo
« 600
i 500
§ «°°
O 300
V)
§ 200
UJ
100
0
LDV
-Q-
-MDV
HC + CO + NO,
EMISSION
FACTOR "R"
HC = 0.40
CO = 0.30
NOX = 0.35
FUEL
ECONOMY
REDUCTION
= 3%
7 8 9 10 11
INERTIA TEST WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
12
13
Q
14
Figure 4-7. Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 8 --
1972 LDV Technology Baseline (El + FIC + IQHI +
AI + EGR)
can range from approximately equal to LDV cost factors at the I = 6000 Ib
level to considerably less than LDV values at the I = 14, 000 Ib level.
The MDVs have NO cost factors that can be somewhat above
X
LDV NO cost factors when comparing on the 1972 LDV technology baseline,
2C
but that are substantially below LDV values when compared on the earlier
technology baseline.
The cost factor variability with ECS type is wide (Fig-
ures 4-15 through 4-21); therefore, caution should be observed when attempt-
ing to compare ECS on the basis of discrete cost factor characteristics (HC,
CO, or NO ).
' x
4-9
-------
1200
1100
8
900
O
< 800
7 00
600
£ 500
8 400
I 300
V)
I 200
u
100
0
LDV-
-MDV
EMISSION
FACTOR "R"
HC = 0.65
CO = 0. 55
NOX = 0.60
FUEL
ECONOMY
REDUCTION
= 5%
NOV
,,-HC
/ HC + CO + NOX
6 7 8 9 10 11
INERTIA TEST WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
12
13
14
4. 2
Figure 4-8. Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 2 --
Earlier Technology Baseline (El + 1C + QHI +
AI + EGR)
THE MDV AND LDV COST FACTOR
CORRELATIONS
A brief examination and analysis were made to determine if
the cost factors developed in Section 4. 1 would further correlate. The cor-
relation parameter selected was the emission rate, in gm/mi, which resulted
after applying an ECS to an LDV or MDV. The emission baseline selected1
isr this correlation exercise was the extrapolated 19?2 LDV technology
oseline.
The results are shown in Figures 4-23 and 4-24 for the LDV,
. n^ i Figures 4-25 through 4-28 for the MDV at I values of 6000 and
900n Ib. These cost factors are not simple functions of emission rates for
diff rent control systems. For example, the points shown for ECS No. 2
c.o not lie on the correlation curves drawn, as would be expected by anom-
aUe ; previously shown in Figures 4-15 through 4-21. As shown in
4-10
-------
1400
1300
£ 1200
^1100
£ 1000
u
2 900
8 800
u
_j roo
o
K
£ 600
O
O 500
300
200
100
LDV
MOV
EMMI5SION
FACTOR "R"
HC = 0. 18
CO = 0. 15
NOX = 0.60
FUEL
ECONOMY
REDUCTION
= 5%
HC + CO + NO.,
O-
co
6 7 8 9 10 11
INERTIA TEST WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
12
13
14
Figure 4-9. Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 3 --
Earlier Technology Baseline (El + 1C + QHI +
EGR + AI + OC)
Figure 4-23, correlation lines (lines drawn from the uncontrolled emission
rate point through the ECS cost factor data points on a best-fit basis) for CO
and HC + CO reasonably encompass the spectrum of ECSs shown. In the
case of HC 4- CO + NO , two deviations or anomalies from a single charac-
teristic are present. First, ECS No. 7 (rich thermal reactor) does not
correlate, presumably because of its very high fuel economy penalty for
NO control (approximately 25 percent). Second, ECS No. 5 (electronic
j£.
fuel injection with tricomponent catalyst) and ECS No. 8 (advanced lean
carburetion with EGR) require a distinct correlation line. This character-
istic was previously described in terms of their very low cost factors for
NO control (Figures 4-17 and 4-21).
X.
4-11
-------
2600
2400
J5 2200
^ 2000
§ 1800
U
2 1600
I-
8 1400
o
i 120°
t 1000
2
111
800
600
400
200
0
- LDV
MDV
EMIiSION
FACTOR "R"
HC = 0. 18
CO = 0. 15
NOX = 0. 10
FUEL
ECONOMY
REDUCTION
= 12%
NO..
HC
6 7 8 9 10 11
INERTIA TEST WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
12
13
14
Figure 4-10. Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 4 --
Earlier Technology Baseline (El + 1C + QHI + EGR +
RC + AI/CAI + OC)
As shown in Figure 4-24, this same characteristic of ECS
No. 5 and No. 8 requires dual correlation lines for NO control. Here,
however, ECS No. 7 does correlate fairly well in terms of NO . For the
A.
FC case, a good single correlation line is observed, except for the single
instance of ECS No. 7 whose extremely high capability for HC reduction
(92 percent) requires that it represent a second correlation characteristic.
Similar characteristic correlation lines for MDVs at
I = 000 and 9000 Ib are developed in Figures 4-25 through 4-28. In all
ases ,LDV and MDV), the same ECS types are used as the basis for con-
lrucL ng the correlation lines. The general shape and degree of correla-
..o'1 f- r the MDVs are similar to the LDV case, as would be expected in
the absence of unforeseen anomalies.
4-12
-------
§ 1000
* 900
O
£ TOO
8 600
u
j 500
cc
z *°
O
0 300
1 100
0
LDV
MDV
EMISSION
F ACTOR "R"
HC = 0. 18
CO = 0. 15
NOX = 0. 10
FUEL
ECONOMY
REDUCTION
- 3%
_^
1 -°- I 9 1 1 0
^^ -D
^-HC + CO + NOY
j 6-^9 J 6
'4 567 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
INERTIA TEST WEIGHT, 1 , 1000 Ib
Figure 4-11. Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 5 --
Earlier Technology Baseline (El + EFIC +
EGR + RC/OC)
The correlations attempted and shown in the figures are
general, but they do characterize useful trend information. Thus, compari-
sons made between LDVs and MDVs using the same ECS data points for cor-
relation curves should be reasonable.
4.3
SENSITIVITY OF COST FACTOR VALUES
TO ASSUMPTIONS
As outlined in previous sections, both a variety and a large
number of assumptions were required to compute LDV and MDV emission
control cost factors. Obviously, the two principal assumptive areas were
control system related costs and baseline or prior-to-control-addition
emission level characteristics.
4-13
-------
1200
gllOO
^ 1000
t
IK
g 900
if 800
8 70°
j 600
O
H 500
S 400
1 300
1 200
UJ
100
0
LDV
-MDV
O
EMISSION
FACTOR "R"
HC = 0.50
CO = 0. 35
NOX = 0.375
FUEL
ECONOMY
REDUCTION
= 8%
HC + CO + NO,,
6 7 8 9 10
INERTIA TEST WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
11
12
13
14
Figure 4-12. Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 6 --
Earlier Technology Baseline (El + 1C + QHI +
EGR + LTR)
With regard to the ECS costs, the resultant cost factors shown
are directly proportional to ECS assumptions in terms of absolute value. For
comparison purposes, however, the same discrete cost assumptions were
used in building up total ECS costs for both LDVs and MDVs. The two sub-
areas of dissimilarity (fuel economy as a function of I , and total vehicle
.lifetime) are based on the best available data, and also have a lesser effect
on the resultant cost factor values.
In the area of baseline emission level characterization, it
Wc,s shown (Section 3. 2) that selecting a single such characteristic for MDVs
-.-af 'ery difficult due to the fact that MDVs incorporate HDV engines which
are ragulated as to emission control levels by test procedures which have
not been adequately correlated to on-the-road emissions (gm/mi). There-
t\ :e, two emission baselines were selected to encompass the spectrum of
reasonably-anticipated MDV engine characteristics. One baseline
4-14
-------
2200
§ 2000
^ 1800
t
at
£ 1600
O
£ 1400
g 1200
O
_, 1000
o
£ 800
§
O 600 -
200
-a-
-MDV
EMIJ.6ION
FACTOR "R"
HC = 0.08
CO = 0,35
NOX = 0. 17
FUEL
ECONOMY
REDUCTION
= 25%
'HC + CO + NO..
>HC
.CO
6 7 8 9 10 11
INERTIA TEST WEIGHT, lw> 1000 Ib
12
13
14
Figure 4-13. Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 7 --
Earlier Technology Baseline (El + FC + EGR -t-
AI + RTR)
corresponded to the recent MDV truck correlation developed by Calspan for
EPA. The second corresponded to the projected situation where MDV engines
had reached the same technological status as 1972 LDV engines with combus-
tion chamber modifications, ignition timing changes, and retarded spark.
The baseline emission level used has a marked effect on the absolute cost
factor values; therefore, unless other technical realities dictate otherwise,
one should use the same technological basis when comparing LDVs to MDVs.
In this latter context, for example, it may be perfectly valid or better to
compare MDV cost factors based on the earlier technology baseline with
LDV cost factors based on 1972 LDV certification levels. This follows from
the fact that the LDV case is an accomplished reality; whereas the MDV
engine progression to 1972 LDV technology capability is an assumptive and
as yet unrealized condition. Thus, comparisons on this latter basis may
4-15
-------
g
600
500
400
8
0 300
o
a:
t-
o
o
200
LDV
MDV
EMISSION
FACTOR "R"
HC = 0.40
CO = 0.30
NOX = 0.35
FUEL
ECONOMY
REDUCTION
= 3%
NO.,
= IUU
111
0
n
. i "^ i 9 1
^~HC
+ CO + NOX
s
7 8 9 10
INERTIA TEST WEIGHT, lw, 1000 Ib
11
12
13
14
Figure 4-14.
Cost Factors for Emission Control System No. 8 --
Earlier Technology Baseline (El + FIC + IQHI +
AI + EGR)
more properly represent the cost of attaining specified emission level
reductions with LDVs vs. MDVs, starting with presently demonstrated
capabilities.
The specific values attributed to HC, CO, and NO are
.ei
uniquely and directly related to the manner of allocating costs to HC, CO,
3 ! NO as described in Section 3. 3. 2. When better techniques are devel-
.X
oped ror apportioning ECS costs to individual exhaust emission constituents,
;L) ... Dividual cost factors developed herein should be recalculated. However,
n terms of comparing LDVs to MDVs, this variability is of lesser impor-
tance since the same assumptions were made for both LDVs and MDVs.
4-16
-------
c 1800
8
vH600
§1400
1000
800
600
400
O 200
3? 0
LDV-lw = 4500
MDV-IW = 6000
MDV-IW = 9000
MDV-IW = 11000
MDV-IW = 14000
o
A
D
V
A
ECS
ECS
ECS
ECS
ECS
ECS
ECS
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
PERCENT REDUCTION IN EMISSION RATE
80
90
!00
Figure 4-15. The MDV/LDV HC Cost Factor Comparison --
1972 LDV Technology Baseline
w 200
u.
v> 160
gl40
ii2°
i100
0 80
a 60
O 40
^ 20
i °
Ul
LDV-IW = 4500
MDV-IW = 6000
MDV-IW = 9000
MDV-IW= 11000
MDV-IW= 14000
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
PERCENT REDUCTION IN EMISSION RATE
80
100
Figure 4- 16.
The MDV/LDV CO Cost Factor Comparison
1972 LDV Technology Baseline
4-17
-------
o"
u.
o
1
n
§
U
<
u.
t-
8
(J
J
3000
2800
2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
"
~~
-
-
-
O
A
D
V
A
-
-
_
ECS
ECS
ECS
ECS
ECS
ECS
ECS
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
MDV - lw = 11000
MDV - lw = 9000
MDV - lw = 14000
iPS=s
s~ ~
1000 -
800
600
400
200
0
= 6000
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
PERCENT REDUCTION IN EMISSION RATE
BO
90
100
Figure 4- 17.
The MDV/LDV NOX Cost Factor Comparison
1972 LDV Technology Baseline
x TOO
8 600
500
8
u
400
300
8
U
o
ce.
i
o
fi
UJ
200
100
MDV - lw = 9000
MDV - lw = 11000
MDV - lw = 14000 O
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
PERCENT REDUCTION IN EMISSION RATE
80
90
100
Figure 4-18. The MDV/LDV HC + CO + NOX Cost
Factor Comparison -- 1972 LDV
Technology Baseline
4-18
-------
TOO
600
b.
O
500
8
O 400
u.
8
O 300
6 zoo
u
g
I 100
111
MOV - lw = 9000
MDV - lw = 11000
MDV - lw = 14000
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
PERCENT REDUCTION IN EMISSION RATE
80
90
100
Figure 4-19.
The MDV/LDV HC Cost Factor
Comparison -- Early Technology
Baseline
70
o
°60
;* so
g
£40
b.
8
30
20
Ul
LDV-IW=4500
MDV - lw = 6000
MDV - lw = 9000
MDV - lw = 11000
MDV - lw = 14000
10
30 40 SO 60 70
PERCENT REDUCTION IN EMISSION RATE
80
90
100
Figure 4-20.
The MDV/LDV CO Cost Factor
Comparison -- Early Technology
Baseline
4-19
-------
A^D
/ yfr-^
30 40 50 60 70
PERCENT REDUCTION IN EMISSION RATE
LDV-IW = 4500
MDV-IW = 6000
MDV-IW = 9000
MDV-IW= 11000
MDV-IW = 14000
LOV-I w = 4500
MDV-lw = 6000
MDV-IW = 9000
= 11000
WDV-iw - 14000
Figure 4-21.
The MDV/LDV NOX Cost Factor
Comparison -- Early Technology
Baseline
u.
o
o
u
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
H 600
u 400
- JP
'"' 200
k °
Ul
THIS FIGURE SIMILAR TO FIGURE 4-15 EXCEPT FOR DELETION
OF EVAPORATIVE CONTROL SYSTEM COSTS
LDV-IW = 4500
MDV-IW = 6000
MDV-IW = 9000
MDV-IW = 11000
MDV-IW = 14000
O ECS No. 2
A ECS No. 3
D ECS No. 4
V ECS No. 5
ECS No. 6
A ECS No. 7
ECS No. 8
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
PERCENT REDUCTION IN EMISSION RATE
80
90
100
Figure 4-22. The MDV/LDV HC Cost Factor Comparison
with Evaporative Control System Costs
Deleted -- 1972 LDV Technology Baseline
4-20
-------
o
A
D
V
A
ECS
ECS
ECS
ECS
ECS
ECS
ECS
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
2
3
4
5
6
r
8
HC-fCO+NO.
8 10 12 14 16
EMISSION RATE, gm/mi
18 20 22 24
Figure 4-23.
The LDV Emission Control Cost Factors for
CO, HC + CO, and HC + CO + NOX ~- 1972
LDV Technology Baseline (I_ - 4500 Ib)
w
4-21
-------
EMISSION CONTROL COST FACTOR, $/ton
^
DO
OP
0
hi
(I
N)
(D
S 0-D
01
o ,
w
a
g.
i en
01
"^ »-
- vO O
H *-
« ?
cr o
I"
|?
^ rt-
w°
i"
? o5
cn
fi fn in m m ni ro
ooonoo o
tn tsusun in in tn
ro
-------
O ECS NO.
A ECS NO.
D ECS HO.
V ECS NO.
ECS NO.
A ECS NO.
ECS NO.
10 12 14 16 18 20
EMISSION RATE, gm/mi
2
3
4
5
6
T
8
22 24 26 28
Figure 4-25.
The MDV Emission Control Cost Factors for
CO, HC + CO, and HC + CO + NOX -- 1972
LDV Technology Baseline (I = 6000 Ib)
4-23
-------
EMISSION CONTROL COST FACTOR, $/ton
TO
£
a>
*.
3 Q
*"
ii 3
^ O-»
ii !2j
o" «
§:|
V O
o ^
»
o '^J
o
H
O
8
ro
>*'
8
m
5»
CO
H
m
ro
c*>
en
1*1 m m ni in n rn
oonoooo
C/> C/> C^ CA /> ro
-------
400
O ECS NO.
A ECS NO.
D ECS NO.
V ECS NO.
« ECS NO.
A ECS NO.
ECS NO.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
HC + CO + NO.
10
20 30 40
EMISSION RATE, gm/mi
50
60
Figure 4-27.
The MDV Emission Control Cost Factors for
CO, HC + CO, and HC + CO + NOX ~- 1972
LDV Technology Baseline (I = 9000 Ib)
4-25
-------
NO.
o
A
a
V
A
ECS
ECS
ECS
ECS
ECS
ECS
ECS
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
234
EMISSION RATE, gm/mf
Figure 4-28. The MDV Emission Control Cost Factors for
HC and NOX -- 1972 LDV Technology Base-
line (Iw = 9000 Ib)
4-26
-------
SECTION 5
HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE COST COMPARISONS
A brief analysis of HDV emission control cost factors was
made to be able to compare cost factors for the principal sources in the
mobile source spectrum (LDVs, MDVs, and HDVs). The following sections
summarize the cases examined, costs, assumptions made, and significant
results.
5. 1 CASES EXAMINED
A single HDV size (22, 600-lb GVW) was selected for analysis.
This GVW is the approximate sales-weighted average for trucks with GVWs
above 14, 000 Ib (based on 1970 truck sales distribution by GVW from
Ref. 5-1, trucks above 33, 000-lb GVW were averaged at 35, QQO-lb GVW
value). Based on the GVW as a function of Iw correlation of Figure 2-2, at
one-half payload capacity, the l^ of this 22, 600-lb GVW vehicle is approxi-
mately 15, 000 Ib.
A gasoline and a diesel engine were considered as power
plants for the HDV case. The gasoline engine selected was a 454-CID,
which was considered sufficiently representative of HDV engines for com-
parison purposes. The ECS Nos. 2, 3, 6, and 8 (as described in Tables 3-1
and 3-2) were selected for addition to the baseline 454-CID engine for emis-
sion control cost factor calculations.
Both direct injection and prechamber diesel engines were
considered for a 680-CID engine. Although the displacement of diesel
engines compared with gasoline engines for the same power application vary
somewhat depending upon the type and vehicle application, the 1. 5 ratio used
herein (diesel CID = 1. 5 X gasoline CID) is considered adequate for compar-
ative purposes. The only ECS considered for the diesel engine was an EGR;
5-1
-------
the diesel engine itself has low HC and CO emission rates, when compared
with an uncontrolled gasoline engine.
The previously developed (Section 3, 3. 1 and Figure 3-21)
gasoline engine lifetime values of 12. 6 years and 130,000 mi were used
for cost amortization. For the diesel, an engine lifetime of 12. 6 years and
475,000 mi was selected.
5. 2 EMISSION CONTROL COSTS
A summary is presented in Tables 5-1 and 5-2 of initial hard-
ware costs and lifetime rnc.lnr^r. incc; cojts fur IV,c ga suline-powered HDV.
These costs are based ou the same characteristics and assumptions as prev-
iously shown and developed for the LDV and MDV cases presented in Sec-
tion 3. 3. 2. Therefore, cost differences between HDV and MDV cases are a
result of either the difference in lifetime mileage (130, 000 and 110, 000,
respectively) or the difference in CID-related ECS costs (thermal reactor
costs and catalytic converter costs), which are a function of engine displace-
ment (Ref. 5-2).
Three different methods were considered in estimating the
cost differences between the HDV gasoline and diesel engines, as summar-
ized in Table 5-3. In method 1, delta cost increments were summed (as
shown) to arrive at a total delta cost of the diesel engine. The structure,
brrkes, and power steering delta costs are from Ref. 5-2, and the $800
(:ost delta of 680-CID diesel over 680-CID gasoline engine) and $700 (cost
delta of 680-CID gasoline engine over 454-CID gasoline engine) cost deltas
ari based on extrapolations of characteristics developed in Ref. 5-2, as
3 _ ed in the table. This method resulted in a total cost delta of $1725.
In method 2, characteristic $/hp values from Ref. 5-3 were
used to develop a delta cost value of $1670 for the diesel engine only (no
allowances for vehicle structure or accessory changes). In method 3, list
pr'cf differentials from Ref. 5-4 were used as characteristic of the HDV
class under investigation. The three cases listed in Table 5-3, resulted in
5-2
-------
Table 5-1. ECS Initial Cost Summary -- HDV; 454-CID Engine
/"*4"tLJDftkJdklTC
ELECTRONIC IGNITION (El)(1)
QUICK HEAT INTAKE (QHI)
IMPROVED CARBURETION (1C)
ADVANCED CARBURETION (AC)
EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION (EGR)(2)
THERMAL REACTOR (TR)
AIR INJECTION (Al)
OXIDIZING CATALYST (OC)
CATALYST BYPASS
EVAPORATIVE CONTROL SYSTEM
(EVAP. CS)
TESTING OR INSPECTION'1"3'
TOTAL
HC/CO RELATED
NOX RELATED
CALSPAN No. j
2
20
5
10
30
36
14
7
124
85
39
3
20
5
10
30
39
84
:o
6
20
5
10
30
73
14 | 14
7
219
180
39
7
159
120
39
3|
?
20
S
30
30
38
i
1
54 1
7
144
105
39
(2)
(3)
1/3 COST ALLOCATED TO EACH CONSTITUENT (HC, CO, NO)
COST ALLOCATED TO NOX CONTROL ONLY
MAY OR MAY NOT BE REQUIRED; COSTS MAY BE DIFFERENT THAN THOSE ASSUMED
a delta cost average of $2800 for the diesel engine plus HDV vehicle modifi-
cations incorporated in typical diesel-powered HDVs.
Finally, a delta cost of $2500 was selected as a "representa-
tive" value for the diesel-powered HDV. As noted, the only emission con-
trol device considered for the diesel engine was EGR, at a $30 initial cost
(same as gasoline engine EGR cost).
The HDV fuel costs used are summarized in Table 5-4 for
both cases. The 5. 0 mpg fuel economy was selected for the 454-CID gaso-
line engine based on extrapolations of the fuel economy characteristics of
Figure 2-3 (Section 2. 2) and Figure 2. 11 of Ref. 5-2 (a correlation of 350-
and 450-CID fuel economies up to I values of 10, 000 Ib). The diesel
5-3
-------
Table 5-2. Maintenance. Costs -- Gasoline HDV; 454-CID
Engine (12. 6 years and 130, 000 mi)
MAINTENANCE
ASSUMPTIONS,
S/mi
-eo/so.ooo'1'
NONE REQ'D
15/50,000
45/50,000
4/10,OOo'2'
NONE REQ'D
10/25,000
127/25,0000)
5/10,000
3/YEAR
12.50/25,000
TOTAL
HC/CO RELATED
NOX RELATED
COMPONENT
El
OHI
1C
AC
ECR
TR
Al
OC
BYPASS
INSPECTIONS
EVAP. CS
CALSPAN No.
2
-156
39
52
52
38
65
90
77
13
3
-156
39
52
6
-156
39
52
;
52
508
65
38
65
663
650
13
38
65
38
25
13
8
-156
117
52
52
38
65
168
155
13
(1) 1/3 OF SAVINGS ALLOCATED TO EACH CONSTITUENT (HC,CO, NOX)
(2i COST ALLOCATED TO NOX CONTROL ONLY
(3, CONVERTERS CHANGED AT 25,000; 50,000; 75,000; AND 100,000 mi
baseline fuel economy of 7. 5 mpg is based on the brake specific fuel con-
sai option values of Table 2. 21 of Ref. 5-2; they indicate the diesel mpg is
c pproximately 1. 5 times the gasoline engine mpg value. The 4 percent fuel
economy penalty shown for the diesel engine EGR case is again based on -
va'ues reported in Ref. 5-2.
The only diesel engine maintenance cost considered is that asso-
-'1'. ' with EGR maintenance. Based on the same assumptions used for
gaso.xie engine EGR maintenance, Table 5-5 shows a lifetime maintenance
ost ^.f $190. Also shown in Table 5-5 are the total lifetime costs for the
.J s< engine with EGR (includes initial, maintenance, and fuel cost
pe i
5-4
-------
Table 5-3. Diesel Engine Cost Summary -- HDV;
680-CID Engine
METHOD 1
$ 800 = COST 40F 680-CID DIESEL m
OVER 680-CID GASOLINE (1)
100 = 4OF STRUCTURE AND
BRAKES
125 = 4OF POWER STEERING
700 = 4OF 680-CID GASOLINE (2l
OVER 454-C1D GASOLINE121
$1725 = TOTAL 4INITIAL
COST OF DIESEL
VS GASOLINE ENGINE
FOR SAME TRUCK
APPLICATION
METHOD 2
IN 300 to 400 bhp RANGE:
$/hp DIESEL-11
$/hp GASOLINE-3
RATIO = 3.67
454-CID GASOLINE = S 630
DIESEL = $2300
4 COST
= $1670
FOR SAME POWER
RATING (ENGINE ONLY)
METHOD 3
LIST PRICE DIFFERENTIALS:
A. CHEV. GVW = 16000 !b
GASOLINE = $ 3500
DIESEL = S 6056
4 = $ 2556
B. CHEV. GVW = 23000 Ib
GASOLINE = $ 8128
DIESEL =|U126
A = $ 2998
C. DIAMOND REO
GVW = 42000 "u
GASOLINE - $12465
DIESEL = SI 5325
A -= S
,(31
AAVO.
$ 2800
/JCOST OF $2500 SELECTED AS "REPRESENTATIVE"
ONLY EMISSION CONTROL DEVICE CONSIDERED IS EGR AT $30
INITIAL COST
'"EXTRAPOLATED FROM FIGURE 3.15, CALSPAN REPORT (Ref. 5-2)
(2)EXTRAPOLATED FROM FIGURE 3.13, CALSPAN REPORT (Ref. 5-2)
(3>BRANHAM AUTOMOBILE REFERENCE BOOK (Ref. 5-4)
The total HDV overall lifetime gasoline and dies el engine
costs are summarized in Table 5-6.
5. 3
BASELINE EMISSIONS
The gasoline and diesel engine baseline emissions (prior to
adding specific ECSs) used for cost factor analysis are shown in Table 5-7;
the HC, CO, and NO values were extrapolated from characteristics devel-
XI
oped in Ref. 5-2. For comparative purposes in cost factor determination,
the gasoline engine baseline emissions were used as the reference base from
which to compute emission reductions over the vehicle lifetime. In this man-
ner, the diesel engine perse can be considered as an ECS because its base-
line emissions are lower than the gasoline engine baseline emissions (except
for the direct injection NO value).
5-5
-------
Table 5-4. Fuel Co.sts -- HDV (GVW = 22, 600 Ib;
l = 15,000 Ib)
PARAMETER
FUEL ECONOMY, mpg
GALLONS USED
FUEL COST AT 38 cents/gal
FUEL PENALTY COST
FOR EMISSION CONTROL
DEVICE, $
ECS No. 2 (5%)
ECS No. 3 (5%)
ECS No. 6 (8%)
ECS No. 8 (3%)
EGR (DIESEL ONLY)
GASOLINE
(454-CID
engine)
5.0
26,00o'3'
$9,900
495
495
790
295
DIESEL (680-CID engine)
BASELINE
7.5<1>
«,300W
$24,000
WITH EGR
7.2'2>
66,00o'4)
$25S000
1000
(1)BASED ON Ib/bhp-hr RATIOS, TABLE 2.21, CALSPAN REPORT (Ref. 5-2)
(2)4% FUEL PENALTY FOR EGR
(3) OVER 130,000 mi
(4) OVER 475,000 mi
5 4 COST FACTOR COMPARISONS
The resultant HDV cost factors are shown in Figures 5-1, 5-2,,
anc, 5-3 for HC, CO, and NO , respectively. In Figures 5-1 and 5-2, the
DC
d^esel values are entered at their baseline emission rates since no additional
HC or CO control devices other than the diesel engine per se are involved..
The resultant positive-valued cost factors shown are based on the delta cost
of he diesel engine being an emission control cost. However, if the inherent
faej. ' avings of. the diesel engine (over the gasoline engine) are included in
L ' rt factor equation, the diesel cost factors become negative as compared
with the gasoline engine used as the baseline for comparison.
As shown in Figure 5-3, other anomalies result in the case of
KC/ control. Here, the diesel points shown are entered at their NO
5-6
-------
Table 5-5. Maintenance Costs -- Diesel HDV
(12.6 years and 475,000 mi)
AT $4/10,000 mi = 4 x 47.5 = $190.00 OVER LIFETIME
TOTAL LIFETIME A COSTS - - DIESEL
BASELINE (NO EGR) - - $2500
WITH EGR
INITIAL 2500 + 30 FOR EGR 2530
MAINTENANCE 190
4 FUEL COST 1000
TOTAL $3720
emission rate with EGR added to the diesel engine (see Table 5-7 for
nonEGR rates of 25 gm/mi for direct injection and 10 gm/mi for precham-
ber diesel). The nonprimed values shown for the diesel are based on the
reductions from the gasoline engine baseline NO emission rate. This
3t
results in a very high NO cost factor (greater than $800/ton) for the direct
X,
injection diesel with EGR, since its baseline emissions were very high
(25 gm/mi). The prechamber diesel with EGR has a much lower cost fac-
tor ($210/ton) because of its lower baseline NO emission rate (10 gm/mi).
J*V
If the diesel NO cost factors are based on reductions from diesel engine
baseline values, the direct injection cost factor is greatly reduced (approxi-
mately $200/ton) and the prechamber cost factor is greatly increased
(approximately $540/ton).
5-7
-------
Table 5-6. Cost Summary -- HDV (GVW = 22, 600 Ib;
I = 15, 000 Ib)
w
COST CATEGORY
OVERALL SYSTEM
INITIAL COST
MAINTENANCE COST
4 FUEL COSTfl)
TOTAL
HC/CO RELATED
INITIAL COST
MAINTENANCE
4 FUEL COST (1)
TOTAL
NOX RELATED
INITIAL COST
MAINTENANCE
4 FUEL COSTfl)
TOTAL
GASOLINE (454-CID engine)
CALSPAN No.
2
124
90
495
709
85
77
0
162
39
13
495
547
3
219
663
495
1377
idtl
650
0
830
39
13
495
547
6
159
38
790
987
120
25
0
145
39
13
790
842
8
144
168
295
607
105
155
0
260
39
13
295
347
DIESEL
(680-CID engine)
BASELINE
2500
2500
2500
2500
0
EGR
2530
190
1000
3720
2500
2500
30
190
1000
1220
(1) ALL GASOLINE ENGINES FUEL COSTS ALLOCATED TO NOX CONTROL
It is apparent, therefore, that comparing diesel and gasoline
engine cost factors using one or the other as a baseline for comparison can
be much like comparing apples and oranges unless the basis for comparison
a_id the assumptions made in the comparison are constantly held in mind and
considered in the interpretive answer.
Because of this inherent difficulty, one further comparison
paia ^eisr -- the cost factor index -- was developed. It combines total fuel
x 3t ver the vehicle life (Table 5-4) with the total ECS related costs devel-
oped ^arlier (Table 5-6). A summary is given in Table 5-8 of the resulting
t ,tal 1 ifetime costs, lifetime emission reductions (from gasoline engine base-
lit j values), and cost factor index values. The cost factor index values are
5-8
-------
Table 5-7. Baseline Emissions for Cost Factor
Comparisons -- HDV
ENGINE
GASOLINE(1)
DIESEL*2*
DIRECT INJECTION
PRECHAMBER
EMISSIONS, gm/ml |
HC
10.2
3.6
0.35
CO
126.0
13.5
6.0
^^J^l
1
17.Q I
__J
25.0
10.0
(1) EXTRAPOLATED FROM CALSPAN MDV REPORT,
FIGURES 2.7, 2.8, AND 2.9 (Ref. 5-2)
(2) EXTRAPOLATED FROM CALSPAN MDV REPORT,
FIGURE 2.18 (Ref. 5-2)
graphically displayed in Figure 5-4. Although not a true cost factor compari-
son, the cost factor index comparison clearly illustrates that the diesel engine
with EGR can produce lower emission rates (HC + CO or HC + CO + NO )
at lower overall costs per ton of pollutant removed than a gasoline HDV
engine with an oxidation catalyst plus EGR (ECS No. 3), if the inherent fuel
economy advantage of the diesel engine is given full consideration.
5. 5
COST FACTOR SUMMARY
As previously discussed, it is very difficult to compare gaso-
line and diesel powered HDVs on a simple cost factor basis because of their
5-9
-------
+500
+400
+300
S +200
g
u
+ 100
I-
o -800
2 -900
O
O -1000
z
o
in -1100
W -1200
-1300
-1*00
O GASOLINE ENGINE-ECS No. 2
A GASOLINE ENGINE-ECS No. 3
GASOLINE ENGINE-ECS No. 6
GASOLINE ENGINE-ECS No. 8
C DIESEL (DIRECT INJECTION)
DIESEL (PRECHAM6ER)
NOTE: DIESEL COST FACTORS BASED ON A COST OF
DIESEL ENGINE. DIESEL EMISSION RATES
SHOWN ARE BASELINE VALUES. COST FACTORS
BASED ON REDUCTIONS FROM GASOLINE ENGINE
BASELINE EMISSIONS. IF DIESEL FUEL SAVINGS
ARE INCLUDED, THE DIESEL COST FACTORS
BECOME NEGATIVE
rDIESEL COST FACTOR WITH
FUEL SAVINGS INCLUDED
O
I
I
34567
EMISSION RATE, gm/mi
10 11
Figure 5-1. The HC Cost Factor Comparison -- HDV
(GVW = ZZ, 600 Ib; I = 15, 000 Ib)
5-10
-------
+30
+25
+20
§ +15
§ +10
t-
O
J +5
8 o
o ^
O -60
o:
h-
§ -65
O -70
to
-80
-85
O GASOLINE ENGINE-ECS No, 3
A GASOLINE ENGINE-ECS No. 3
GASOLINE ENGINE-ECS No. 6
GASOLINE ENGINE-ECS No, 8
O DIESEL (DIRECT INJECTION)
DIESEL (PRECHAMBER)
NOTE: DIESEL COST FACTORS BASED ON A COST
OF DIESEL ENGINE. DIESEL EMISSION RATES
SHOWN ARE BASELINE VALUES, COST FACTORS
BASED ON REDUCTIONS FROM GASOLINE
ENGINE BASELINE EMISSIONS, IF DIESEL
FUEL SAVINGS ARE INCLUDED, THE DIESEL
COST FACTORS BECOME NEGATIVE.
DIESEL COST FACTOR WITH
FUEL SAVINGS INCLUDED
I
10 20 30
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
EMISSION RATE, gm/mi
Figure 5-2. The CO Cost Factor Comparison -- HDV
(GVW = 22, 600 Ib; I = 15, 000 Ib)
5-11
-------
g
u
8
u
o
on
I
o
ui
8001-
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
GASOLINE ENGINE-ECS NO. 2
GASOLINE ENGINE-ECS NO. 3
GASOLINE ENGINE-ECS NO 6
GASOLINE ENGINE-ECS NO. 8
DIESEL (DIRECT INJECTION)
WITH EGR
DIESEL (PRECHAMBER)
WITH EGR
NOTE: PRIMED VALUES (£M) ARE BASED ON DIESEL ENGINE^
VALUES WITHOUT EGR. OTHER DIESEL VALUES ARE BASED
FROM GASOLINE BASELINE NO EMISSION RATE.
BASELINE
ON REDUCTIONS
6 8 10 12
EMISSION RATE, gm/ml
14
16
18
Figure 5-3.
The NOX Cost Factor Comparison -- HDV
(GVW = 22,600 Ib; l = 15,000 Ib)
inherently different fuel economy characteristics. However, the following
significant points are made:
a. If the diesel engine inherent fuel economy advantage is
included, diesel cost factors for HC and CO are negative when
compared with positive cost factors for gasoline engines.
b. If the diesel engine fuel economy advantage is not considered,
diesel HC and CO cost factors are somewhat comparable to a
gasoline engine with oxidation catalyst and EGR (ECS No. 3)
cost factors.
c. With EGR, direct-injection diesel engines and gasoline
engines have NOX cost factors in the same general range.
However, the prechamber diesel can be higher in NO cost
factor because of lower uncontrolled NOX rates.
d. The cost factor index comparison clearly illustrates the over-
all advantage of diesel systems in terms of combined emission
reductions and total costs.
5-12
-------
Table 5-8. Cost Summary; Cost Factor Index -- HDV
(GVW = 22, 000 Ib; 1^. = 15, 000 Ib)
Cost factor index combines total fuel costs with
emission control device costs to portray eco-
nomic impact of higher inherent fuel economy
of dies el engine.
COST CATEGORY
INITIAL COST, $
MAINTENANCE A COST, $
TOTAL FUEL COST, $
TOTAL
LIFETIME COSTS, $
TOTAL EMISSION
REDUCTIONS, (1) tons
(HC + CO + NOX)
COST FACTOR INDEX
$/ton
HC PLUS CO
REDUCTIONS,"' tons
COST FACTOR INDEX,
$/ton
GASOLINE (454-CID ENGINE)
CALSPAN No.
IC/AI/EGR
124
9C
10,395
10,609
9.604
1103
8.631
1230
OC/EGR
219
663
10,395
11,277
17.523
642
16.550
680
6
LTR
159
38
10,690
10,887
13.975
779
12.450
875
8
__A£S
144
16" 4
iO,195
10,507
15.107
696
13.525
777
DIESEL (680-CID ENGiNS"."?
BASELINE
i<&
24S000
26,500
(2)
58.26
454
62.45
409
(3)
71,51
370
67.85
377
f j
EGR j
?s.r. \
~> i" i
25,000 |
27 ,720
(2)
63.89
414
62.45
444
(3)
73.76
359
67,85
408
(1) REDUCTIONS FROM GASOLINE ENGINE BASELINE VALUES
(2) DIRECT INJECTION
(3) PRECHAMBER
5-13
-------
c
I
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
x
Ul
i 700
600
COST FACTOR INDEX COMBINES TOTAL FUEL COSTS WITH
EMISSION CONTROL DEVICE COSTS.
HC+CO+NOV
>HC+CO
U
* 500
8
U 400
300
200
100
0
- *4t ~"~
HC+CO+NOX
1 1 1 1
O GASOLINE ENGINE-ECS NO. 2
A GASOLINE ENGINE-ECS NO. 3
GASOLINE ENGINE-ECS NO. 6
GASOLINE ENGINE-ECS NO. 8
O DIESEL (DIRECT INJECTION)
d DIESEL (DIRECT INJECTION)
WITH EGR
DIESEL(PRECHAMBER)
4 DIESEL(PRECHAMBER)WITH EGR
1 1 1 1
10
30 40 50
EMISSION RATE, gm/mi
60
70
80
90
Figure 5-4. Cost Factor Index Comparison -- HDV
(GVW = 22, 600; 1^ = 15, 000 Ib)
5-14
-------
REFERENCES
5-1. Motor Truck Facts, Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc.
' (1971).
5-2. Research Study Involving (A) Technical Evaluation of Emission
Control Approaches and (B) Economics of Emission Reduction"
Requirements for Vehicles Between 6000 and 14,000 pounds GVW,
Report ZP-5223-K-1, Calspan Corporation, (31 May 1973).
5-3. Hybrid Heat Engine/Electric Systems Study, Report TOR-0059
(6769-01 )-2, Vol. I, The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo,
California (1 June 1971).
5-4. Branham Automobile Reference Book, BranhamPublishing Company.
Santa Monica, California
5-15
-------
SECTION 6
STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSION CONTROL COSTS
This section presents emission control cost factors ($/ton
pollutant reduced) for several categories of stationary sources for compari-
son with mobile cost estimates. Several combustion modification approacl.es
to NO reduction in utility steam boilers received major attention since this
.X.
is an important source of the pollutant and conptderaMa cost./operatic -^ta
were available in the literature. In addition, cost factor.-, ^r«= i^ciiuka i,.,i
the following sources: (a) nitric acid plant (NO ), (b) refinery cracking
Ji
unit (CO), (c) bulk gasoline loading (HC), (d) service station tank filling
(HC), (e) automobile refueling (HC), and (f) petroleum storage tanks (HC),
As with most cost data, disagreements are to be expected
among authorities, especially when general or "average" figures are quoted
or when sufficient actual operating data have not yet been accumulated. With
this caveat, the data presented below are intended to illustrate the wide range
of stationary sources emission control costs that have been reported and
some trends with plant size or amount of pollutant being controlled. For
each example, data references are provided to enable the reader to investi-
gate in greater depth the source and assumptions behind the cost figures.
6. 1 ' CONTROL OF NO FROM UTILITY STEAM
x
BOILERS
6. 1. 1 The NOjc Control Costs for Utility Steam Boilers
The most comprehensive study to date on NO control costs
Ji
for large utility steam boilers was conducted by Esso Research and Engineer-
ing Company (Ref. 6-1). An assessment of available and potential control
technology was made on the basis of cost effectiveness. Technically attrac-
tive combustion modification techniques included: low excess air firing,
two-stage combustion, flue gas recirculation, steam or water injection, and
6-1
-------
combinations of techniques. Data for various types and sizes of power
boilers in several sections of the country were used to select a set of 15 "com-
posite" boilers to represent all United States boilers operating in the year
1980. These boilers had average net 1000, 750, 500, 250, andlZOMW
capacities and burned gas, oil, and coal. The assumed breakdown of the
number and sizes of these boilers by fuel used is shown in Table 6-1.
Control costs for a 250 MW boiler are shown in Table 6-2;
similar data are presented for the other four boiler sizes in Ref. 6-1. Low
excess air firing can result in a net saving due to increased boiler efficiency;
in general, this is the cheapest combustion control method (Ref. 6-2).
To obtain an indication of the effect of boiler size on control
costs, the data in Ref. 6-1 were cross-plotted in Figures 6-1 and 6-2 for
gas- and oil-fired boilers, respectively. Three control methods are shown
to illustrate the trend of higher cost factors associated with the smaller
boilers. This results from a number of factors: (a) engineering costs are
not very dependent on size, (b) smaller units are less flexible and require
more upgrading than larger units, (c) material and fabrication costs are not
proportional to size (Ref. 6-2).
Table 6-1. Fossil Fuel Boilers -- 1980
(Ref. 6-1)
' CAPACITY
1 RANGE, MW
1 LESS THAN 200
. 200 TO 400
I )0 TO 600
)0 TO 800
800 AND OVER
AVERAGE
NET
GENERATING
CAPACITY
120
250
500
750
1000
TOTALS
NUMBER OF BOILERS BY FUEL
GAS
155
40
27
23
20
265
OIL
71
18
12
11
9
121
COAL
474
122
81
71
61
809
TOTAL
700
180
120
105
90
1195
6-2
-------
Table 6-2. Control Costs of NOX for Utility Steam Boiler --
250 MW Boiler at 3942 hr/year (Ref. 6-1)
1
Control Method
Uncontrolled
(Base Case)
1. Low Excess
Air (1)
2. Two Stage
Combustion
3. Low Excess Air
Plus Two-Stage
Combustion
4. Flue Gas
Recirculation
5. Low Excess Air
Plus Flue Gas
Recirculation
6. Water
Injection
%NOX
Reduction
0
0
0
33
30
25
45
35
30
60
55
50
30
30
30
60
55
50
10
10
10
Fuel
Used
Gas
Oil
Coal
Gas
Oil
Coal
Gas
Oil
Coal
Gas
Oil
Coal
Gas
Oil
Coal
Gas
Oil
Coal
Gas
Oil
Coal
Cost
Per Year
$1000
0
0
0
A
NOX
Reduction,
1000'sof
tons/yr
2.44 (2)
4.83 (2)
4.88 (2)
0.81
-44 I U 5
0
52
52
103
49
9
104
58
58
58
55
15
59
29
36
29
!,2
1.1
2.2
1.5
1.5
2.9
2.4
0.73
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.7
2.4
0.24
0.49
0.49
s.
Con*- oi
Costs,
$/ton NOX
0
0
0
-5
-29
0
47
24
69
33
3
43
80
39
39
37
6
24
121
74
59
(1) INCLUDES 1% REDUCTION IN GAS FUEL, 2% REDUCTION IN OIL FUEL,
1.5% REDUCTION IN COAL FUEL DUE TO HIGHER EFFICIENCY
(2) 1000's OF TONS OF NOX EMITTED FROM AN UNCONTROLLED BOILER
6-3
-------
2401
230
220
210
, 200
190
180
170
2 160
0 150
ui
O
z
8
o
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
WATER INJECTION
LEA + FOR
GLEA + 2-sTAGE
200 400 600 800
BOILER SIZE, MW
1000
1200
Figure 6-1. NO Reduction Cost as a Function of
Boiler Size--Gas Fired (Ref. 6-1)
6-4
-------
100
90
80
70
2 60
tt
ox 50
z
u. 40
O
30
V* 20
8 10
u
0
-10
-20
WATER INJECTION
LEA + FOR
LEA + 2-STAGE
200 400 600 800
BOILER SIZE, MW
1000 1200
Figure 6-2. NO Reduction Cost as a Function of
Boifer Size--Oil Fired (Ref. 6-1)
Water injection is significantly more expensive than the other
approaches because of boiler efficiency losses (1 to 6 percent reported) and
the resulting increased fuel usage. Esso (Ref. 6-1) assumed that water
injection would be economically unfeasible if injected in quantities sufficient
to cause losses in efficiency greater than 1 percent. At this injection rate,
it estimated that a 10 percent reduction in NO emissions would result.
X.
6-5
-------
Using their estimated 1980 inventory of composite boilers and
NO cost factors, Esso developed a minimum cost path for achieving increas-
Jt
ing levels of NO removal. With some mathematical manipulation of the data,
jC
it was shown (Figures 6-3 and 6-4) that the cost for NO abatement increases
i ^^
as the total NO emissions are reduced to lower and lower levels. Figure 6-3
depicts this effect in terms of incremental cost (i. e. , the dollars per ton of
NO removed at each point in the reduction sequence). Only the three most
cost-effective combustion control methods were used in constructing the
curve. Initial NO reductions (right end of curve) are achieved primarily by
3C
low excess air firing with a net cost saving due to increased efficiency, as
previously discussed. As the degree of NO control increases, the less cost-
ji
effective approaches must be involved. After approximately a 35 percent
removal of the NO , all methods that provide cost savings have been used and
3C
further efforts must incur cost penalties.
The same basic data were also plotted in Figure 6-4 to show
the average cost per ton of NO removed in reaching a specific level of con-
J*.
trol. The general shape of the curve is the same as in Figure 6-3, and the
same message is evident. It becomes more and more expensive to remove
the NO as the amount of NO remaining is reduced.
x x
Although specific values of cost or control effectiveness in the
Esso report (Ref. 6-1) may be argumentative, it does represent a compre-
hea. ive and integrated study with results that indicate the relative cost effec-
ti- eness of various NO abatement approaches and the magnitude of the cost
Ji
factors involved.
6. 1 2 Implementation Time for NO Control Systems
1 ' '- ' ""'" "" ' """ X r"'
The preceding discussion has focused on the cost aspects of
jntrol in utility steam boilers in line with the general theme of the study.
lowevor, interest was expressed by EPA personnel in the time involved in
implementing these control techniques. Such information is not readily avail-
ab ;; ^ has not been included in most reports and publications covering the
6-6
-------
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
5 20
2
111 c
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
SO
40
1980 FOSSIL FUEL BOILERS
BOILER GENERATING
CAPACITY, MW
120
250
500
750
1000
NO. OF BOILERS BY FUEL!
GAS
155
40
27
23
20
0|L __J
71
18
12
11
9
COAL I
1
474
122
81
71
6,
CONTROL METHODS INCLUDED:
LOW EXCESS A!R
LOW EXCESS AIR + TWO - STAGE COMBUSTION
LOW EXCESS AIR + FLUE GAS RECiRCULATION
50
60
70
80
90
100
% UNCONTROLLED NOX EMISSIONS
Figure 6-3. Incremental Cost Per Ton for NOX Abatement--
1980 U.S. Power Boilers; Minimum Cost Control
Approach (Ref. 6-1)
6-7
-------
o
ce.
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
.30
-32
1980 FOSSIL FUEL BOILERS
0 ' 30
BOILER GENERATING
CAPACITY, MW
120
250
500
750
1000
NO. OF BOILERS BY FUEL
GAS
155
40
27
23
20
OIL
71
18
12
11
9
COAL
474
122
81
71
61
CONTROL METHODS INCLUDED:
LOW EXCESS AIR
LOW EXCESS AIR + TWO - STAGE COMBUSTION
LOW EXCESS AIR + FLUE GAS RECIRCULATION
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% UNCONTROLLED NOX EMISSIONS
Figure 6-4. Average Cost Per Ton for NOx Abatement--
1980 U. S. Power Boilers; Minimum Cost Control
Approach (Ref. 6-1)
tech deal and economic factors in boiler emission reduction. Fortunately,
snrr. pertinent data were obtained from personal discussions with utility com-
ponies (Ref. 6-3 and 6-4), and are presented below.
6-8
-------
Almost all power boilers operating in the United States are
custom-made (Ref. 6-1) to specifications resulting from a complex set of
interacting construction and operating cost variables (e. g, , unit capacity,
fuel type and quality, and type of firing). The difficulty and time involve ;! L,
modifications for reduced emissions (and the cost-effectiveness of such modi-
fications) are significantly affected by the particular boiler design, operation,
and auxiliary equipment. The following implementation data are connected
with specific installations and can be expected to vary at other facilities.
To set the modification times in proper perspective, the total
period for addition of a new boiler is approximately 6- 1/2 years (P.."4" 6 3}
This encompasses all activities from preliminary engineering through prepara-
tion of specifications, contract award, site preparation and construction, and
startup to commercial operation. This time is representative of a large,
modern boiler plant (Scattergood 3) that includes flue gas recirculation and
two-stage combustion with tangential burners.
Two examples of retrofit operations were obtained from
Ref. 6-3. One was a conversion to low excess air firing. This is a. modifica-
tion of operating conditions requiring primarily installation of sensitive CO
instrumentation. A little less than 1 year was required -- preparation of
specifications (2 months), advertising and award of contract (3 months),
delivery of instrumentation {4 months), installation and checkout (1-1/2
months). For conversion to two-stage operation, approximately 1-1/2 years
were required, from initiation of design to checkout and testing of final oper-
ating conditions. These times do not include feasibility demonstration nor
technique development, but started with a good knowledge of the design
requirements.
A further example was obtained from Ref. 6-4. Four 80-MW
boilers were modified with a flue gas recirculation (FGR) system for NO
X,
reduction; they were already equipped with simple FGR for temperature con-
trol, but required extensive duct rework and equipment additions. From
6-9
-------
go-ahead in July 1971 to initiation of system testing took about 1-3/4 years.
At this point, it was found that the flame detector system necessary for auto-
matic operation was inadequate and a newly developed scanner had to be
ordered with a 6-month delivery time. It is now forecast that the units will
be on automatic operation with FGR by October 1974, a total period of 3-1/3
years. While awaiting delivery and installation of the flame detector equip-
ment, the boilers have been operating without the new FGR system.
6. 2 OTHER STATIONARY SOURCE COST FACTORS
An effort was made to determine cost data for emission con-
trol in other industries and operations to supplement that found for utility
boiler plants. Interest centered on those pollutants of prime importance from
mobile sources; (viz. , NO , CO, and HC) so that cost comparisons could be
jfi
made. Relatively little information was found that allowed calculation of cost
factors on the basis of dollars per ton of pollutant removed; in addition, there
were conflicting cost estimates by different investigators. The following
sections present six of these emission control cost studies covering NO ,
jC
CO, and HC pollutants.
6. 2. 1 Control of NO from Nitric Acid Plants
The tail gas from the NO7-water absorption tower in the nitric
' L*
acid production process typically contains 0. 3 to 0. 5 percent NO? and NO.
These compounds can be reduced to acceptable levels by reaction with hydro-
carbon or hydrogen fuel over a catalyst. It is estimated that by 1977
applying catalytic reduction technology could reduce expected emissions by
8? percent -- 229, 500 tons/year reduced to 25,000 tons/year. Annual expendi-
ti res would be $14 million for a cost factor of $69/ton of NO removed ($14
X,
mi ion divided by 204, 500 tons). Costs include a high-temperature combus-
uor, vaste heat boiler, catalyst, piping, and instrumentation. No credit was
incl ided for the steam generated.
6-10
-------
6. 2. 2 Control of CO from Refinery Cracking Units
In petroleum processing, cracking units employ catalysts in
the form of solid beads, pellets, and powders that become coated with carbon
from coking reactions of the feed materials. To inaintain catalyst actixity,
these carbon deposits must be periodically burned off the catalyst surface at
a controlled temperature, leading to the formation of CO in the regenerator.
There is also a small amount of hydrocarbons in the exit gas (approximately
1. 6 percent of the CO weight).
The CO waste heat boiler affords a means of using the heal of
CO (and hydrocarbons) combustion and the sensible heat of the regeneration
gases. The boiler is similar in design to a utility plant unit with water-
cooled walls and tangential burners. In most cases, supplementary fuel is
required to ensure stable operation (Ref. 6-5). Control is considered to be
100 percent.
Cost factors for CO abatement from this source were derived
in two ways with reasonably good agreement. The Los Angeles Air Pollution
Control District (LAAPCD) quoted an investment cost of $1. 5 million to
eliminate 250 tons/day of CO in a new facility (Ref. 6-6). The relationship
given in Ref. 6-7 for calculating annual cost from investment cost for this
type of unit was then applied
A = 0. 2X0. 5X1
where
A = annual cost, dollars
0. 2 = depreciation and other capital charges of 20 percent per
annum
0. 5 = portion of installed cost chargeable to pollution control,
allowing for steam generated
I = installed cost, dollars
6-11
-------
From this equation, the annual cost is $150, 000 and the cost per ton of CO
reduced is $1. 67/ton.
To verify this factor, the data in Ref. 6-7 were employed in
two calculations. If a catalyst regenerator capacity of 120, 000 bbl/day is
assumed, fifty percent of the installed cost of a CO boiler is $900, 000 (Fig-
ure 4-5 of Ref. 6-7), and the associated annual cost is $180, 000. If an
uncontrolled CO emission factor of 5. 6 tons of CO per 1000 bbl of feed for
fluid catalytic crackers and 1. 2 tons of CO per 1000 bbl for Therm of or units
is used, the cost per ton of CO removed ranges between $0. 74 and $3. 47,
which brackets the previously calculated value.
Another approach was to use the total pollution control cost
and emissions for the entire refinery industry, as presented in Ref. 6-7. A
figure of $73. 3 million annual control cost is given, covering five control
systems. The fraction of this cost attributable to CO boilers is not given,
but it apparently will lie between one-eighth and one-fourth, based upon
sample cost breakdowns presented for a large and small producer, respec-
tively. The amount of CO controlled is given as 12.1 million tons/year. Thus,
the cost factor per ton lies between $0. 76 and $1. 52, which is a reasonable
check considering the assumptions made.
6. 2. 3 Control of HC in Bulk Gasoline Loading
An estimate was made of the cost to control HC vapor emis-
sions during gasoline truck or tank car loading at bulk facilities using data in
I 3f. 6-8. An investment of $3 million by the petroleum industry is given for
Los Angeles County to reduce HC emissions from transfer operations by
more than 90 percent. This amounts to 50 tons/day or one-third of total
facility emissions. Based upon a 20 percent annual charge, a cost of
$0. 6 million, and 18, 000 tons/year reduction, the cost factor is $33/ton of
HC re luced. No allowance was made fo'r the value of recovered products.
A partial confirmation of this figure was obtained from Ref. 6-6.
i1 ? vestment cost for a vapor return system at the loading facility was
6-12
-------
given as $54, 000/ton of HC controlled per day. With a 20 percent annual
cost as before, the cost factor comes to $30/ton of HC reduced. Although
the ultimate source of all these data was the LAAPCD, the fact that the data
were quoted in different terms and at widely different times gives some
justification for assuming a degree of independence arid confirmation.
6.2.4 Control of HC in Service Station Tank Filling
Operations
The next step in gasoline marketing is the transfer to under-
ground tanks at the retail service station. Cost data for control of HC emis-
sions during tank filling operations in Los Angeles County have been recently
published (Ref. 6-9). Submerged fill pipes have been already installed a.s a
result of a 1964 rule. The new requirement involves at least 90 percent
recovery of the displaced vapors by return lines to the delivery truck. The
rule requires that tanks of 6000 gallons capacity or greater be modified by
1 May 1975, and tanks less than 6000 gallons by 1 May 1976. Existing tanks
smaller than 2000 gallons are exempt.
The quoted investment cost for all the tanks (25, 268) falling
under the rule is $6. 3 million for tank modifications and $0. 75 million for
tank truck alterations. The reduction in HC is estimated to be 33 tons/day.
Thus, the cost factor is $119/ton of HC controlled ($7. 05 million X 0. 2/
33 X 360).
6. 2. 5 Control of HC in Automobile Refueling
The last step in gasoline marketing is filling the automobile
tank. Various control systems are feasible, including simple, displacement,
absorption, adsorption, refrigeration, liquefication, and thermal oxidation.
Equipment incorporating one or several of these methods is being built and
installed in San Diego County to meet requirements for at least 90 percent
HC control (Ref. 6-10).
Costs are given as $200 to $480/ton of HC reduced (Ref. 6-10);
savings from the recovered product are not included.
6-13
-------
Other studies have arrived at somewhat higher costs. Thus,
Ref. 6-11 gives a range of $260 to $1080/ton of HC reduced, based upon data
in the APIEF-14 Phase I Interim. Report by Refinery Management Services
Company, dated April 1973, and data from the CAPE-9 Project of the Coordi-
nating Research Council. In Ref. 6-12, a cost range of $470 to $1410/ton is
estimated. Some cost elements given in Section 6. 2. 4 may be included in
these costs, since systems to recover hydrocarbons from auto refueling
usually include equipment to return vapors to tank trucks during bulk filling.
6. 2. 6 Control of HC from Petroleum Storage Tanks
Breathing and filling losses from large petroleum refinery
storage tanks can be an important source of HC emissions. One technique
for eliminating such losses is to install floating roof tanks, as described in
Ref. 6-7. It is estimated in this reference that, on a nationwide basis, the
installation of floating roof tanks would cost $79. 74 million and reduce HC
emissions by 1. 053 million tons/year in FY 1977 (89 percent control). On
the basis of 20 percent annual depreciation and capital charges, the cost
factor is approximately $15/ton of HC controlled. The value of the recovered
vapors has not been included; it should more than offset any operating and
maintenance costs.
6. 3 SUMMARY
These data are summarized in Table 6-3 for the various
f tationary sources. The cost factors range from a savings for low excess
air firing of utility boilers to expenses as high as $1400/ton for automobile
refilling operations. For NO control, a maximum value of $69/ton is shown
.X
f;>i a nitric acid plant; however, this cost can be exceeded somewhat for smal]
size (less than 250 MW) utility boilers and/or by use of the more expensive
contr., 1 techniques.
Control of HC appears to rise as the amount of petroleum/
gaso.i'ne being controlled decreases. This is evident by examining the
6-14
-------
Table 6-3. Summary of Emission Control Costs
for Stationary Sources
EMISSION SOURCE
UTILITY
BOILERS
(250 MW unit)
NITRIC ACID
PLANT
REFINERY
CRACKING UNIT
PETROLEUM
STORAGE TANKS
GASOLINE BULK
LOADING
SERVICE STATION
TANK FILLING
SERVICE STATION
AUTO FILLING
CONTROL TECHNIQUE
LEA
LEA +
TWO
STAGE
LEA +
FOR
GAS
OIL
COAL
GAS
OIL
COAL
GAS
OIL
COAL
CAT-REDUCTION
OF TAIL GAS
CO
BOILER
FLOATING
ROOF
VAPOR
RECOVERY
VAPOR
RECOVERY
VAPOR
RECOVERY
CONTROL
EFFECTIVENESS,
% REDUCTION
33
30
25
60
55
50
60
55
50
89
100
89
>90
>90
>90
COST, $/ton OF POLLUTANT
N0x
-5
-29
0
33
3
43
37
6
24
69
CO
1.67
HC
15
33
119
200 to
1400
gasoline marketing sequence: storage tanks ($15/ton), bulk loading ($33/ton),
service station filling ($119/ton), and automobile filling ($200 to 1400/ton).
Control costs for CO are very low for the one example con-
sidered. Since CO is usually controlled to low levels in stationary sources
by good design and operating practices, it is difficult to find many examples
of specific control systems.
6-15
-------
REFERENCES
6-1. W. Bartok, et al. , Systems Study of Nitrogen Oxide Control Methods
for Stationary Sources, Report GR-2-NOS-69, Esso Research and
Engineering Company (20 November 1969) (Contract PH-22-68-55).
6-2. E. E. Berkau and D. G. Lachapelle, "Status of EPA1 s Combustion
Program for Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Stationary
Sources -- September 1972," Paper presented at the Southeastern
APCA Meeting, Raleigh, North Carolina, 19 September 1972.
6-3. Personal communication from R. Toda, Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power.
6-4. Personal communication from C. Giles, Southern California Edison
Company.
6-5. Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary
Sources, Publication AP-65, National Air Pollution Control Admin-
istration (March 1970).
6-6. Personal communication from Los Angeles Air Pollution Control
District.
6-7. D. A. Le Sourd and F. L. Bungard, eds. , Comprehensive Study of
Specified Air Pollution Sources to Assess the Economic Impact of
Air Quality Standards^ Report FR-41U-649 Research Triangle Insti-
tute (August 1972) [Contract 68-02-0088 (EPA)].
6-8. Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon and Organic Solvent Emissions
from Stationary Sources, Publication AP-68, National Air Pollution
Control Administration (March 1970).
6-9. APCD Digest, Vol. Ill, No. 6, Los Angeles Air Pollution Control
District (June 1973).
6-10. B. R. McEntire and R. Skoff, "Hydrocarbon Vapor Control at Gaso-
line Service Stations, " Paper No. 73-333 presented at the June
APCA meeting.
6-11. Personal communication from R. E. Maxwell, Office of Air and
Water Programs, Environmental Protection Agency.
6-12. K. Hertner, Status Report on Control of Gasoline Vapor Losses from
Station and Vehicle Filling, Memorandum No. 5, California Institute
of Technology, Environmental Quality Laboratory (May 1973).
6-16
-------
SECTION 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 summarized here to permit an overview comparison
and to draw conclusions as to meaningful trends,
Mobile and stationary source emission control cost factors
are listed by emission constituent in Table 7-1 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 shown, as noted in the table, encompass the spectrum of
emission control devices considered: ECS No. 2 through No. 8 for LDVs
and MDVs; 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 passenger
car oxidation catalyst plus EGR) is shown in parentheses for a common
baseline of comparison.
. As discussed in Section 5, two types of cost factors are
shown in Table 7-1 for diesel-powered HDV HC and CO control. The
positive-valued cost factors are computed without regard to the diesel's fuel
economy advantage; the negative-valued cost factors are the result of includ-
ing diesel fuel cost advantages in the cost factor equation.
7-1
-------
Table 7-1. 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 + FOR
NITRIC ACID PLANT
(catalyst reduction)
REFINERY CRACKING UNIT
(CO boiler)
PETROLEUM STORAGE TANKS
(floating roof)
GASOLINE BULK LOADING
(vapor recovery)
SERVICE STATION TANK
FILLING (vapor recovery)
SERVICE STATION --AUTO
FILLING (vapor recovery)
COST FACTORS, $/ton REMOVED^
HC
550 to 1800(2)
|1800)(3>
400 to 1650(2)
(1650)(3)
280 to B50(2)
(850)13)
100 to 350(2)
(350) (3)
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 60(2)
(60)'3'
6 to 27(2)
(27)<3>
20 to 21(4)
-76 to -80(5)
1.67
--
N0x
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
--
--
11' THE VALUES SHOWN IN THIS TABLE ARE BASED ON A NUMBER OF ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
AS INDICATED IN THE TEXT OF THE REPORT
(2) FUNCTION OF SPECIFIC EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM EMPLOYED
!3' VALUES IN PARENTHESES ARE FOR 1975-TYPE CATALYST CONTROL SYSTEM
(4) FUEL ECONOMY IMPROVEMENT OVER GASOLINE ENGINE NOT INCLUDED
(5) FUEL ECONOMY IMPROVEMENT OVER GASOLINE ENGINE ALLOCATED TO HC AND CO CONTROL
(6)
VARIES WITH FUEL TYPE (gas, oil, coal)
7-2
-------
7. 1 MOBILE SOURCE COST FACTOR COMPARISONS
Comparison of the mobile source cost factors in Table 7-1
suggests the following overview remarks:
a. Control of HC -- These cost factors decrease as the vehicle
loaded weight increases, for the same ECS type. In this
regard, MDV HC control can be termed more "cost-effective"
than LDV HC control, and similarly, that HDV HC control is
more cost-effective than MDV HC control. It is observed
that diesel-powered HDVs can have negative cost factors if
the diesel inherent fuel advantage over the gasoline engine is
accredited proportionally to HC and CO control.
b. Control of CO -- These cost factors are an order of magnitude
lower than HC cost factors. This is a direct result of their
relative baseline emission levels. These cost factors also
decrease with increasing vehicle loaded weight. Thus, HDV
and MDV control is more cost-effective than LDV control.
Diesel-powered HDVs can also have negative CO cost factors.
c. Control of NOX -- These cost factors vary across the vehicle
loaded weight spectrum due to the variation in fuel economy
and lyy relationship. With the 1972 LDV engine technology
baseline for comparison, as shown in Table 7-1, the MDV
has NOX cost factors slightly above LDV cost factors. How-
ever, with the "earlier" technology emission baseline for
comparison (Section 4. l),the MDV has lower NOX cost factors
than the LDV. The diesel-powered HDV NOX cost factors are
in the same general range as gasoline-powered HDV NOX cost
factors.
7. 2 MEDIUM-DUTY VEHICLE AND STATIONARY SOURCE
COST FACTOR COMPARISONS
Comparison of the MDV cost factors in Table 7-1 with those
for stationary sources suggests the following overview remarks. However,
it should be noted that many stationary sources were not examined; there-
fore, these comments may not apply across the board to other systems.
a. Control of HC -- The MDV HC cost factors can be orders of
magnitude higher than HC control from some stationary
sources (e.g. , petroleum storage tanks, gasoline bulk load-
ing, and service station tank filling). However, control of
HC during automobile refueling operations at the service
station can result in a cost factor in the same range as MDV
value s.
7-3
-------
b. Control of CO -- The MDV CO cost factors can also be orders
of magnitude higher than cost factors for CO control in a
refinery cracking unit (CO boiler).
c. Control of NO -- The MDV NOX cost factors can be consider-
ably higher than stationary source NOX control; however, the
absolute comparison. values depend on the source compared to:
1. The MDV N<7X cost factor range is from $500 to
2 8 00 /ton. ,
2. The 250 W/tf utility boiler NOX cost factor range is from
-$29 to 4//ton.
3. The nit-/iC acid plant NOX cost factor value is approx-
imate]./ $6 9 /ton,
In addition; as discussed in Section 6, the NO cose factors
for NO control from u^lity boilers vary with power plant size. As shown in
ji. f
Figures 6-1 and 6-2, Aie NOX cost factors for small utility boilers are con-
siderably higher thc/^the value shown in Table 7-1 for the 250 MW size.
/
t
/
57-4
-------
SECTION 8
VEHICLE LOCATION AND TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS
This section addresses a variety of vehicle population and
travel characteristics that relate to the effectivity, desirability, and/or
feasibility of controlling MDVs. The discussion is organized in three parts.
Section 8. 1 presents the results and supporting analysis of an initial estima-
tion of truck population and travel characteristics based on a consensus of
various surveys, samples, and studies conducted in the three AQCRs of
interest. [Phoenix-Tucson AQCR, the California South Coast Air Basin
(SCAB), and various portions of the New York City area] . Section 8. 2 reex-
amines the travel parameters developed in Section 8. 1 and provides another
quantification of truck population and travel by GVW breakdown based upon
recent R. L. Polk Company registration survey counts in the three AQCRs.
The two estimates given in Sections 8. 1 and 8. 2 are compared in Section 8. 3,
and an evaluation is made of the relative accuracy of each estimate.
8. 1 VEHICLE TRANSPORTATION AND
PLANNING STUDY RESULTS
This section presents the results and supporting analysis of an
initial estimation of MDV registration and travel in three metropolitan areas:
the Phoenix-Tucson AQCR, the California SCAB, and various portions of the
New York City area. The study results are summarized in Table 8-1.
Table 8-1 includes estimates of population and automobiles (obtained from
Refs. 8-1 and 8-2, respectively) and provides comparative data for the total
United States. These results are based on a variety of regional transporta-
tion surveys and studies and should be evaluated in parallel with data pre-
sented in Sections 8. 2 and 8. 3 that were developed from recent R. L. Polk
Company registration survey information.
8-1
-------
Table 8-1. Preliminary Vehicle Registration and
VMT Summary -- 1970
This table is based on a number of transportation and plan-
ning studies. A final estimate of these values is given in
Table 8-12.
PARAMETER
POPULATION
VEHICLES
PERCENT AUTOS
PERCENT TRUCKS
0 TO 6000 Ib
6000 TO 14,000 Ib
14,000+ Ib
TOTAL DAILY VMT
PERCENT VMT
TRUCKS
0 TO 6000 Ib
6000 TO 14, 000 Ib
14,000+ Ib
VMT/VEHICLE
VMT/ TRUCK
PERCENT VMT
LDV
MOV
HDV
PHOENIX-
TUCSON
A OCR
1,429,000
821,000
87.0
13.0
57.6
31.6
10.8
17,000,000
17.3
/ Same as\
1 distrl- 1
\ bution /
20.7
27.3
92.7
5.5
1.8
SOUTH COAST
AIR BASIN
(Los Angeles)
9,700,000
5, 600, 000
86.7
13.3
63.3
27.2
9.5
150,000,000
13.5
(Some as \
distri- I
bution /
26.8
27.3
95 TO 91
3. 7 TO 7.7
1.3
NEW YORK CITY AREA
TRI-STATE
{NY AQCR)
18,700,000
7,300,000
89.5
8.5
/ Same as \
[ nine j
\ counties/
1 82, 000, 000
16.7
/Same as\
( distri- j
\butlon /
25.0
49.0
91.6
3.6
4.8
NINE
COUNTIES
11,560,000
3,659,000
69.5
c.V
49.5
21.6
28.9
99,000,000
(Same as\
distri- j
bution /
27.3
NEW YORK
CITY
7,890,000
1,762,000
89.0
6.7
72.5
6.4
21.1
34,146,000
10.2
72.5
5.5
22.0
19.3
29.5
97.2
0.5 TO 0.6
2.3
MANHATTAN
1,590,000
231,000
76.0
:s.i
/ Same as \
(New York)
\ City /
6,035,000
17.318.8 to
29.0)
(Same as \
New York)
City /
26.1
/ Same as \
I New York 1
V a" /
95.2(95.7
W94.6)
1. 0(0. 5 to
1.6)
3.8
DOWNTOWN
MANHATTAN
/ Same as \
( New York J
\ City /
42.0
/Same as\
(New York)
V City /
88.5
2.3
9.2
UNITED STATES
TOTAL
203,000,000
101,800,000
82.0
18.4
58.5
19.2
22.3
19.3
31.6
URBAN
13.0
15.7
31.3
The results summarized in Table 8-1 indicate the following:
a. The distribution of trucks by GVW and the contribution of
MDVs to total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) differs in the geo-
graphical areas considered.
b. The VMT contribution of MDVs does not exceed 8 percent in
any of the three areas. This result occurs because where the
fraction of VMT provided by trucks was large, the fraction of
8-2
-------
trucks in the MDV class was small. Even if the largest VMT
fraction were combined with the largest MDV truck fraction,
the results would only produce a VMT contribution of
13 percent.
c. The percent by number and VMT contribution of HDVs in the
New York City area is several times greater than correspond-
ing values for the Phoenix-Tucson AQCR or the California SCAB.
8. 1. 1 Phoenix-Tucson AQCR
No direct data were available on the number or distribution by
GVW of trucks in this AQCR for any recent year. The available sources con-
sisted of a 1957 transportation survey in Phoenix (Ref. 8-3) and a detailed
transportation analysis of Tucson covering the years I960 to 1980 (Ref. 8-4).
The Phoenix data showed that in 1957, 15. 3 percent of the vehicles in that
area were trucks, while the Tucson data showed that 13 percent of the vehi-
cles in 1970 were expected to be trucks. Since the differences between
Phoenix 1957 and Tucson 1970 were small and could possibly be explained by
the time difference, the Tucson ratio (13 percent) of trucks to vehicles was
used for this AQCR.
The distribution of trucks by GVW was obtained from a road-
side survey of two locations within the Phoenix metropolitan area that was
conducted by the Arizona Department of Highways in 1970 (Ref. 8-5). This
survey indicated the distribution by truck characteristic shown in the second
column of Table 8-2. It was assumed that all single-unit, two-axle trucks
were MDVs (6, 000 to 14, 000-lb GVW). The distribution by GVW of the pick-
ups was not specified; therefore, it was estimated (based on pickup truck
sales data of Ref. 8-6) that 25 percent of the pickup trucks were also in the
6,000 to 14, 000-lb GVW class. This GVW distribution of trucks is shown in
the last column of Table 8-2 and was used for this AQCR in Table 8-1.
Estimates of total daily VMT were obtained separately for
Phoenix (Ref. 8-7) and Tucson (Ref. 8-8) and were summed to give the total
VMT for that AQCR. The fraction of the total VMT provided by trucks was
assumed to be identical to that of the Phoenix area -- 17. 3 percent (Ref. 8-7).
This area has most of the population and vehicles in the AQCR and the truck
8-3
-------
Table 8-2. Phoenix Truck Distribution (Ref. 8-3)
TYPE
PICKUP
SINGLE UNIT,
TWO AXLE
OTHER
PERCENTAGE OF
TOTAL NUMBER
OF TRUCKS
77
12 2
10.8
GROSS VEHICLE
WEIGHT CLASS,
Ib
0 TO .,
6,000 (75%)"'
6,000 TO m
14,000 (25%)"'
6,000 TO
14,00012'
14,000+
PERCENTAGE OF
TRUCKS IN GROSS
VEHICLE WEIGHT
CLASS
57.6
31.6
10.8
(1) BASED ON SALES
(2) ASSUMED
VMT in Tucson was not too different from Phoenix (13 percent, from
Ref. 8-8).
No data were available on truck VMT by GVW; it was assumed
that the distribution of truck VMT by GVW was identical to the estimate of
distribution by GVW. On this basis, the percentage of total VMT provided
by each truck GVW class may be obtained.from the product of the percentage
VMT provided by all trucks and the fraction of trucks in the GVW weight
class of interest. For MDVs, for example, the product is 17. 3 x 0. 316 or
5. 5 percent.
f. i. 2
California SCAB
A preliminary study of HDV operations in the SCAB was com-
pietec by Wilbur Smith and Associates (Ref. 8-9). This study, while not
directly usable, estimated the number of trucks in the region, and indicated
-hit ihe distribution of trucks by weight in the SCAB would agree with the
statewide distribution of trucks by weight.
8-4
-------
Trucks in California are registered by empty vehicle weight
(EVW). By using registration data (Ref. 8-10) and deleting buses, taxis, and
ambulances, a distribution of trucks by EVW can be obtained. The problem
is to relate EVW and GVW to determine what percentage of trucks are in the
GVW classes of interest. Wilbur Smith and Associates (Ref. 8-11) were
unsuccessful in developing such a correlation. It was decided, therefore, to
use a correlation between "curb weight" (i. e. , EVW plus the driver weight)
and GVW obtained from several truck emission studies. This correlation is
shown in Figure 8-1. Then it was assumed that the curb weight was equal to
the EVW and that in the first approximation an EVW range of 4000 to 8000 Ib
is applicable to the 6, 000 to 14, 000-lb GVW range. This assumption was
combined with the registration information given in Ref. 8-10, and Table 8-3
was developed showing the truck distribution by weight for California and the
SCAB.
Population (Ref. 8-1), automobile (Ref. 8-2), truck (Ref. 8-9),
and total VMT (Refs. 8-12 and 8-13) data for the region were obtained
directly from the sources indicated. The vehicle total was assumed to be the
sum of automobiles and trucks. As a check on the number of trucks and total
VMT, a comparison was made with data derived from the Los Angeles
Regional Transportation Study (LARTS) (Ref. 8-14). While the SCAB is
somewhat larger than the LARTS region, the 1970 estimates of trucks and
total VMT in the SCAB are somewhat lower than would be expected from the
LARTS data.
8. 1. 3 New York Area
Five geographical regions in the New York area are rep-
resented in Table 8-1: New York City (the five boroughs); Manhattan;
selected areas within Manhattan; New York City and Nassau, Rockland, Suf-
folk, and Westchester counties -- the "Nine County Area"; and the Tri-State
Region, which includes counties in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut
and is almost identical to the AQCR.
8-5
-------
10
9
8
xt
i 7
2
S 6
O
5"'
U JL
5 4
m
S 3
O
2
1
0
0
10,000 TO 14,000 Ib GVW = >7400 TO 8200 Ib CW
O
6000 TO 10,000 Ib GVW = 4000 TO 7400 Ib CWJ[ O
A Hi
A T \
A AY A T \
f\ A A £& \
S/A^^ 3 A A 1^^- SELECTED BOUNDARIES
A
_ 0 MOTOR HOMES
A TRUCKS
«^1 1 1
! 1 1
7 8 9 10 11
GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT, GVW, 1000 Ib
12
13
14
Figure 8-1. Variation of Curb Weight with Gross
Vehicle Weight (Data from
Appendix B)
Table 8-3. Truck Distribution by Weight in California
and South Coast Air Basin
EMPTY VEHICLE
WEIGHT, Ib
GROSS VEHICLE
WEIGHT, Ib
PERCENT OF
TOTAL
0 TO 4,000
4,000 TO 8, 000
8,000 +(1)
0 TO 6,000
6,000 TO 14,000
14,000+
63.3
27.2
9.5
(1) MOTOR HOMES CAN HAVE AN EVW OF > 8,000 Ib
AND A GVW OF 10,000 TO 14,000 Ib
8-6
-------
8.1.3.1 New York City
The total VMT in New York City was taken directly from
Refs. 8-15 and 8-16, population was taken from Ref. 8-1, and automobile and
total vehicle population data were obtained from Ref. 8-17.
In developing the information for truck registration and distri-
bution by GVW, it became evident that the data from different sources or
within individual sources were conflicting or inconsistent; therefore, it was
necessary in several instances to rely upon a best deductive judgment in
making the final selection of an appropriate statistic. For example, esti-
mating the number of trucks in New York City was confused by the lack of
correlation between yearly data given in Ref. 8-17 for "commercial vehicles"
and yearly truck registration data given in Ref. 8-11 (Table 2-1, loc. cit. ).
It -was decided to use the values listed in Ref. 8-17, since the data were
developed by the local transportation authority, the Tri-State Transportation
Agency. Therefore, the total number of trucks in New York City in 1970 -was
taken to be 118, 233.
The distribution of trucks by GVW was estimated by comparing
two different data sets. One was a distribution for trucks greater than
6000-lb GVW, which was based on a survey conducted by the Tri-State Trans-
portation Commission in 1963. The other encompassed all trucks and was
based on 1971 motor vehicle registrations in New York City. Both distribu-
tions were provided in Ref. 8-11 (Tables 3-5, 3-6, loc. cit. ). If it is
assumed that the 1963 distribution holds for the year 1970, then a GVW
breakdown for the categories of interest may be developed from these two
data sets (Table 8-4). Note that there is an incompatibility between the num-
bers shown for the two data sets, particularly for the heavier trucks. For
example, each set shows about the same percentage of trucks in the 19,500
to 26, 000-lb GVW range, which is clearly impossible in view of the differ-
ence in the data bases. Since the desired GVW boundaries (0-6, 000; 6, 000
to 14,000; greater than 14,000) were not ascertainable in either single data
set, the data were used for estimation purposes as follows. First, the per-
cent distribution for the 10, 000 to 19, 500-lb GVW class was selected to be
8-7
-------
Table 8-4. Truck Distribution by Weight In
New York City
GROSS VEHICLE
WEIGHT, Ib
0 TO 6,000
6,000 TO 10.000
10,000 TO 14,000
14,000 TO 16,000
16,000 TO 19,500
19,500 TO 26,000
26,000 TO 33,000
33, 000+
DATA SET 1
PERCENTAGE OF
ALL TRUCKS*1)
62.4
i
j- 14.8
13.2
1 9 6
J
DATA SET 2
PERCENTAGE
OF TRUCKS
OVER 6,000 lb(2)
N.A.
5.7
17.5]
10. 4 1.53.9
25.9 j
12.7
10.6
17.2
COMPUTED
PERCENTAGE OF
ALL TRUCKS
72.5
] 6.4
J
\
21. 1
J
14.8
PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS OVER 6,000 Ib = x 100 = 27.5
53.8
PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS LESS THAN 6,000 Ib = 72.5
PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 6,000 TO 14,000 Ib = (5. 7 + 17.5)0.275 = 6.4
PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 14,000+ Ib = 100-(72. 5 + 6. 4) = 21. 1
(1) Ref. 8-11, TABLE 3-6
(2) Ref. 8-11, TABLE 3-4
the broadest area of comparative commonality between the two data sets,
since tin higher GVW data would clearly not correlate. Since data set 2 did
n^t r nsider the 0 to 6000-lb GVW class and data set 1 did, it was assumed,
'or first-order approximation purposes, that the total percent of trucks in
data set 2 above 6000-lb GVW would be approximately equal to the ratio of
Lh< percentage distribution of the 10, 000 to 19, 500-lb GVW class in the two
data sets. This resulted in a value of 27. 5 percent, meaning that the trucks
8-8
-------
counted in data set 2 (trucks greater than 6000-lb GVW) represented only
27. 5 percent of all the trucks, including trucks in the 0 to 6000-lb GVW
class. In other words, then, 72.5 percent of all trucks, on this basis, would
be in the 0 to 6000-lb GVW class. The data in data set 2 can then be used to
determine the trucks in the 6, 000 to 14, 000-lb GVW class by adding the per-
centage values (5. 7 and 17. 5) and multiplying by 0. 275, the conversion fac-
tor determined earlier to convert data set 2 data to data including trucks less
than 6000-lb GVW. Finally, then, the percent trucks above 14, 000-lb GVW
is simply the percent trucks above 6000-lb GVW (27.5) minus the percent
trucks in the 6,000 to 14, 000-lb GVW class (6.4). These computations are
illustrated on Table 8-4 and summarized in the last column. It should be
noted that these rough approximations were not in good agreement with later
acquired R. L. Polk Company registration data.
Total truck daily VMT is estimated in Ref. 8-11 by ratioing
the total miles traveled by the number of trucks sampled in the 1963 Tri-
State survey (1047) to the total number of trucks in New York City in 1963
(124,260). Since the trucks in the Tri-State survey sample were all greater
than 6000-lb GVW, this procedure implicitly assumes that all trucks travel
the same number of miles per day. Table 8-5, which is reproduced from
Ref. 8-11 and is based on the same survey, shows that differences in VMT
by GVW are not large. Since no data were available on daily VMT for trucks
less than 6000-lb GVW, the above technique for estimating total truck VMT
was adopted with a correction made for the fact that the number of trucks in
1970 was assumed to be 118, 233. The total truck VMT was then 118, 233 V
29.5 mi/truck, or 3,450,000 mi. To be consistent with this approach, the
VMT data from Table 8-5 should be ignored and the distribution of VMT by
GVW should be assumed equal to the registration distribution. For compari-
son purposes, however, the data of Table 8-5 were used to compute a VMT
distribution by GVW. As shown in Table 8-1, the difference between these
approaches is not large (0. 5 percent versus 0. 6 percent of total VMT for
MDVs), nor is the contribution of MDVs to the total VMT significant.
8-9
-------
Table 8-5. New York City Data -- Summary of Urban
Truck Travel Characteristics by GVW
Category (Ref. 8-11)
VEHICLE MILES
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL,
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
DAILY TRUCK-TRIPS
TRUCK
POPULATION
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
FROM TRI-STATE SURVEY
AVERAGE MILES
PER TRIP, mi
AVERAGE MILES
PER TRUCK, mi
AVERAGE TRIP
SPEED, mph
AVERAGE NUMBER
TRIPS PER
TRUCK PER DAY
GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT CATEGORY, Ib
6,000
10,000
4.6
r. o
5.5
1.62
25. 1
7.5
15. 1
10,000
14,000
15.0
- , . r«
r.u
17.5
2.18
25.4
8.5
11.7
14,000
16,000
9.3
51
-------
8. 1. 3. 2 Manhattan (New York County)
Population data -were obtained fromRef. 8-3; automobile,
truck, and total vehicle population statistics were obtained from Ref. 8-17;
and total VMT was obtained from Ref. 8-15. No data were available on the
truck distribution or VMT contribution by GVW for Manhattan. It was
assumed that the distribution and VMT contribution by GVW were identical to
those of New York City. Since 30 percent of all New York City trucks are
registered in Manhattan (Refs. 8-11 and 8-17), the total truck VMT in
Manhattan was assumed to be 30 percent of the citywide estimate.
The estimated truck VMT in Manhattan can vary greatly depend-
ing upon the approach used. In Ref. 8-15, two approaches are suggested: one
using truck bridge and tunnel crossings, and the other using trip destinations.
The truck bridge and tunnel crossing approach assumes that the truck VMT
fraction in any borough is identical to the fraction of all crossings contributed
by trucks. According to crossing data provided in Ref. 8-15, only 8.8 percent
of the total VMT in Manhattan was contributed by trucks. However, the concept
of using crossing data to estimate truck VMT appears at variance with data
provided in Ref. 8-11, which indicates that most truck trips are internal to a
given borough.
The trip distribution data provided in Ref. 8-15 indicate that
29 percent of the total Manhattan VMT was contributed by trucks. It may be
noted that the use of trip distribution data is supported by Ref. 8-18, which
shows a correlation between trips per square mile and VMT per square mile.
The total range of MDV contribution to the total VMT by these
various approaches is shown in Table 8-1 and appears to be small regardless
of the approach used. The primary reason for this is that the fraction of
trucks that are MDVs is small in Manhattan.
8. 1. 3. 3 Selected Areas in Manhattan
Reference 8-15 provides data (Table 4-17, loc. cit. ) that
show that in certain areas of Manhattan, particularly below 14th Street, the
fraction of total VMT contribution by trucks could be as high as 42 percent.
1-11
-------
If one assumes that this area has the same distribution and VMT contribution
of trucks by GVW as in Manhattan and the rest of New York City, MDVs
could contribute 2. 3 percent of the total local VMT, as is indicated in
Table 8-1. The referenced data appear to be based on the relationship
between trip destination and VMT discussed previously.
8.1.3.4 The Nine County Area
The primary purpose of considering the nine county area [the
five boroughs (counties) of New York City plus Nassau, Rockland, Suffolk,
and Westchester counties] was to develop truck distribution data by GVW
for New York City and it? suburbs. This distribution := given fo^ trucks over
6000-lb GVW in Ref. 8-11 (Table 3-4, loc. cit. ). When this information is
combined with the distribution set for all trucks provided in Ref. 8-11
(Table 3-6, loc. cit. ), a distribution of trucks for the area can be computed
(Table 8-6). There is a large difference in truck distribution by GVW
between this nine county area and the New York City area represented in
Table 8-4.
No data are available on the contribution by GVW of trucks to
the VMT, and it was assumed that the contribution by GVW was the same as
the distribution estimate. Information on total VMT for the nine counties
may be obtained from Ref. 8-16 for 1963, but no data are available on the
truck VMT or the total number of vehicles or trucks in these counties in that
year. However, data are available on the total number of vehicles and trucks
in the nine counties in 1970 and in the total region in both 1963 and 19*70
(Ref. 8-17). The VMT per vehicle shown in Table 8-1 was obtained by
assuming that the ratio of total vehicles in the nine counties to the vehicles
I i the region would remain unchanged between 1963 and 1970. The total VMT
cl vn in Table 8-1 was based on the 1963 VMT-per-vehicle value.
Population data for the nine county area were obtained from
Ref, 8-3; automobile, truck, and total vehicle data were obtained from
^65 8-17.
8-12
-------
Table 8-6. Truck Distribution by Weight -- Nine
County Area
GROSS VEHICLE
WEIGHT, Ib
0 TO 6,000
6,000 TO 10,000
10,000 TO 14,000
14,000 TO 16,000
16,000 TO 19,500
19,500 TO 26,000
26,000 TO 33,000
33,000+
DATA SET 1
PERCENTAGE OF
ALL TRUCKS^)
] 69.8
12.0
J
10.4
1 -
PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS OVER
DATA SET 2
PERCENTAGE
OF TRUCKS
OVER 6,000 lb(2)
40.8
2- 1 23. 8
10.6
11. 1 J
19.8
7.5
8.1
12
6 (\f\f\ Ik ._ _ v 1
23.8
COMPUTED
PERCENTAGE OF
ALL TRUCKS
49.5
] 21.6
J
28.9
J
00 = 50. 5
PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS LESS THAN 6,000 Ib = 49.5
PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 6,000 TO 14,000 Ib = (40.8 + 2.1)0.505 = 21.6
PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 14,000+ Ib = 100- (49. 5 + 21.6) = 28.9
(1) Ref. 8-11, TABLE 3-6
(2) Ref. 8-11, TABLE 3-4
8. 1.3.5
The Tri-State Region
No direct data are available on the distribution by GVW or the
contribution of trucks by GVW to the total VMT of the Tri-State region
(includes counties in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut). The distri-
bution of trucks by GVW was assumed to be Identical to that of the nine
county area and the contribution to truck VMT was assumed to be identical to
the distribution by weight. The remainder of the data provided in Table 8-1
S-13
-------
was taken from the following references: population, Ref. 8-3; total
vehicles, automobiles, and trucks, Refs. 8-17 and 8-19; and total VMT, with
the exception of truck VMT, Ref. 3-19. The only available data on truck
VMT are for 1963 (Refs. 8-3 and 8-20); this shows that trucks provide
16. 7 percent of the total VMT for an area slightly smaller than the Tri-State
Region. It was assumed that the fraction of total VMT contributed by trucks
was unchanged between 1963 and 1970 and was appropriate for the Tri-State
Region. These assumptions lead to a relatively high value of 49 VMT per
truck (Table 8-1) and to a significant increase in the fraction of total VMT
provided by MDVs over other geographic segments of the- New York area.
8. 1. 4 Nationwide Data
8.1.4.1 Registration and VMT
Nationwide data shown in Table 8-1 are taken from Refs. 8-6,
8-21, 8-22, and 8-23. The distribution of trucks by weight shown in
Table 8-1 is based on 1962 to 1970 truck sales. The percentage of trucks
nationally was computed using 1970 truck registration from Ref. 8-6
(18. 7 million) and auto registration from Ref. 8-23 (83. 1 million).
8.1.4.2 Trends in Truck Registration and Weight
Distribution
Figure 8-2 compares changes in the ratio of trucks to total
vehicles in the AQCRs of interest and in the United States. In general, truck
growth in the United States as a whole is greater than in the AQCRs consid-
ered. There is clearly a wide variation in the rates of change between areas
studied; Tucson actually indicates a decline in the proportion of vehicles that
ara trucks. Figure 8-2 is based on data from Refs. 8-4, 8-6, 8-12, and 8-17.
An estimate of the variation in truck weight class is shown in
Fig ) 8-3, where sales data over the past eight years are presented. This
figure shows the rapid growth of MDVs (i. e. , 6, 000 to 14, 000-lb GVW) rising
irorr about 18 to 24 percent of all new truck sales in five years. Shown also
Is the MDV fraction for the metropolitan areas studied, indicating that for the
SCA ^ and Phoenix-Tucson areas, MDVs are over-represented in comparison
8-14
-------
20
19
18
(1%/yr)
17
16
Ul
_1
o
u 15
< 14
H
O *
o:
l-
12
11
U.S.A.
- TUCSON
CALIFORNIA =
SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN (0.4%/yr)
(-0.55%/yr)
u
O
U
u
o:
TRI-STATE
(0%/yr)
(-0%/yr)
1960
1965
1970
YEAR
1975
1980
1985
Figure 8-2. Truck Registration Percentage as
a Function of Year (Refs. 8-4,
8-6, 8-12, and 8-17)
8-15
-------
OP
c
i-S
(D
oo
i
OO
PERCENTAGE OF TRUCK SALES
ro
o
CO
o
en
O
n
oo
i
vO
0s
oo
h-j
3
cr
3
fD
H-
OQ
ro
m
T?"1
v--S -^c
O-H oO
O Otrt
o> OQ
o~ii 5=z
0}
z
m
O
en
-------
to national sales data, while the New York City area is under-represented.
Figure 8-3 is based on data from Ref. 8-6.
8. 2 IMPACT OF VEHICLE REGISTRATION DATA ON
LOCATION AND TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS
As noted in Section 8. 1, previous estimates of truck popula-
tion, location, and breakdown by GVW classification have been based on a
variety of survey or sampling techniques. Current estimates for the New
York City AQCR, for example, are based on extrapolations of a survey made
in 1963. To quantify as accurately as possible the truck population by GVW
breakdown in the three AQCRs of interest (New York City, Los Angeles,
Phoenix-Tucson), the R. L. Polk Company was commissioned to perform a
truck registration count in these areas, with registrations separated into
eight GVW groups.
8. 2. 1 Method of Registration Sampling
The following is a brief discussion of the procedures used to
develop improved vehicle population statistics from an 80 percent registra-
tion sample taken by R. L. Polk Company. This sample, extended to
100 percent coverage, is the basis for the preparation of the July 1, 1972
Trucks in Operation statistics.
The basic R. L. Polk Company "July 1 Truck Units in Opera-
tion" report, which has been prepared by make and year model since 1933,
has not been tabulated by GVW group. For the past two years, a specialized
report has been compiled into four -weight categories -- light, medium,
heavy, and extra heavy.
This information was processed for eight GVW groups based
on an 80 percent national sample using the ten most current year models.
Assignment to GVW of 85 to 90 percent of the truck registration volume is
based on serial number information received from the manufacturer, and 10
to 15 percent is based on the stated weight group shown on the source regis-
tration document received from the state. The accuracy of the latter group
is not as high as realized through serial number data. Successful application
8-17
-------
of serial number data depends on the manufacturer's serial number patterns
and keys, some are not as complete as others.
The percentage of the sample varies from state to state and
county to county. The reason is that in some states tin-, rei-egistr^tion pro-
cessing with each county is somewhat independent of the state. This does not
cause any distortion in total; however, proportions may vary from one weight
group to another.
A situation exists with mostly heavy truck registrations that
should be noted. A track may be .registered in Los Angeles County because
the legal owner it there, n
-------
Table 8-7. Total Truck Registration -- Phoenix-Tucson AQCR
State and
Counties
Arizona
LDVs
MDVs
HDVs
AQCR
Maricopa
Gila
Final
Pima
Santa Cruz
Total by Class
LDVs
MDVs
HDVs
Population
1, 770, 990
1, 430, 326
967,522
29,255
67,916
351,667
13, 966
Passenger
Cars
R egistered
84Z, 893
714, 849
494, 124
11,517
24, 832
177,473
6,903
Trucks Registered (by GVW Class, Ib)
Less than
6, 000
225,656
16o,451
110,395
6,480
9,933
37,579
2, 064
,300
6, 000 to
10, 000
54, 203
54, 4C
41,883
28,390
1,067
1,831
10, 240
355
42, 05
10,000 to
14, 000
1-99
170
118
2
7
43
' "
14, 000 to
16,000
1,319
1, 054
735
27
36
231
25
16, 000 to
19,500
4,411
1, 450
2, !87
70
198
75 i
42
J
19,500 to
26, 000
9, 159
7, 50«
5,614
165
25 i
1, 402
74
26, 000 to
33,000
1,877
1,^19
1 , 1 1 K
31
97
255
18
Over
3 1, 000
5, 788
4, h!3
3, 740
105
11 1
KOS
40
Total
302,613
226, 847
152,497
7,947
12,466
5 1, 310
2 , 1) i 7
Automobiles t- Trucks - 714,849 + 226,848 = 941,697 Percent Automobile \ MT -- 82.7 (from transportation planning fctudie^)
Percent Automobiles = 75.91 Percent Truck VMT = 17. 3 (from transportation planning studu-^l
Percent Trucks = 24. 09 Percent 0 to 6. 000 Ib Truik VMT = 12 69 (LDT VMT)
Percent 0 to 6, 000 Ib Trucks - 17 68 (73. 37 percent of all trucks) Pe rt ent 6 , 000 to 14, 000 Ib 1 ruck V MT = 3. 2 1 (MDV \ MT)
Percent 6, 000 to 14, 000 Ib Trucks = 4. 47 ( 18. 54 percent of all trucks) Percent over 14, 000 Ib Tru< k MvtT = 1.40(HDVVMri
Percent over 14, 000 Ib Trucks = 1. 95 (8. 09 percent of all trucks) Percent Automobile t LDT VMT 95. 39 (LDV \ MT - Automubilt \ MT t LDT \ M I I
00
-------
Hble 8-8. Total Truck Registration -- South Coast Air Basin AQCR
State- and
Counties
California
LDVb
MDVs
HDVs
AQCR
Los Angch a
X entura
O rang i
San Bernardino
R i\ ers ide
Santa Barbara
Total by Cl.i-s
I.DVS
MLH *
HD\ »
Population
19, 95 J, 000
9, 700, 000
Passenger
Cars
Registered
9, 344, 450
4, SbO, 000
Trucks, Registered (by CVW Class, Ib)
I^eas than
6, 000
1,408,951
56 1, i7>
ii5 S4^
^7, 096
84 389
5Z,,S4b
40.64Z
10, 55K
6, 000 to
10, 000
549,690
552,
^78, 6b7
174, 915
12 152
41, Ib9
it, . Si 1
16,517
6, 77?
279,
10, 000 to
14, 000
2, 84"
1,214
829
75
1 in
-0
5 1
41
IM
14,000 to
16.000
17, 760
8, 760
6, 318
25 1
1, 205
477
305
204
16,000 to
19, 500
31,712
15,711
10, »1L
557
2, 293
8'94
726
169
19,500 to
26, 000
86,455
44, 226
34,61!
1, 167
3, 7t,0
2311
1,487
890
26,000 to
33, 000
iO, 872
10,896
8,625
247
964
536
315
209
1 '
Over
33,000
54, 039
21, 803
15 783
658
2,411
1,438
1,027
486
Total
2, 172, 329
942,658
587, 793
42, 202
136,627
85,4.13
61,091
29,532
Automobiles + Tnu ks - 4, 860, 000 + 942 658 - 5, 802, 658 Percent Automobile VMT Kf, (from transportation planntn. studies)
Percent Automobi es - 83,75 Percent Truck VMT = 13.5 (irom transportation planning studit-,)
Percent Trucks - 16. 25 Percent 0 to 6, 000 Ib Truck YVT = 8 04 (LOT VMT)
Percent Oto6 000 Ib Trucks -9 68(59 55 percent of all trucks) P > ^ t 6 , 000 to 14, 000 Ib T ruck VMT - 4. 00 (MDV VMT)
Percent 6, 000 i 1 -1 , 000 Ib Trucks = 4. 8Z 1 £9. 69 pen cnt uf a 11 trucks I Per..nl r 14, 000 Ib T ru k \ MX - 1,46(HDVV,MT'
Percent over H 000 Ib Trucks = 1.7S 110.76 percent of all triaksl Perc< nt Automobile LD I ,\il -9i54(LD\ V MT = Auton.ob.re VM1 - LOT VMT|
oo
i
-------
Table 8-9. Total Truck Registration -- Tri-State AQCR
States and
Counties
New York
New Jersey
Connecticut
Totals
LDVi
MDVs
HDVs
AQCR
Ne<» York
Bronx
Kings
Na? sau
New York
Queens
R ichmond
Rockland
Suffolk
Westcheater
New Jersey
Bergen
Essex
Hudson
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Passaic
Somerset
Union
Population
18, 236,967
7, 168, 164
3, 031, 709
28,436, 840
17,402, 249
11,571, 899
1, 471, 701
2,602, 012
1,428, 080
1, 539, 233
l,98b,473
295,443
229,903
1, 124, 950
894, 104
5,066, 180
98, 012
929, 986
609, 266
583,813
459, 579
383, 454
460, 782
198, 372
5 13, 116
Passenger
Cars
Registe red
6, 224,601
3, 260,464
1, 378, 000
10, 863, 065
11,495,
b, 112, 907
i,456, 907
258, 349
504, 620
738, 145
189,932
589, 58b
114, 208
108, 970
55], 230
4Z1, 867
2, 310,000
Trucks Registered (by GVW Class, Ib)
Less than
6, 000
373,812
181,540
76, 726
632, 078
1 -I1
l-j 5 -
268, 752
12 1, 094
0, 063
M , 8 1 8
22, 229
10, 045
13 536
j, 055
4, 362
32, 403
15,58!
128, 305
6, 000 to
10,000
163,609
47, 781
20, 194
231,584
235
97, 165
58, 302
2, 864
5, 94K
10, 700
5, 570
6,412
1,455
2, 395
15, 079
7,879
33, 769
10, 000 to
14,000
2,681
718
303
3, 702
1, 975
1, 391
88
217
243
216
225
H
26
198
147
507
14, 000 to
16, 000
25, 753
7,808
3,300
36, 861
20, 240
> 890
817
2, 058
2, 504
2, ,iO«
1, 992
280
238
1,691
1,502
5, 518
16,000 to
19,500
28,513
10,635
4,495
4S, 643
22, 714
14,064
736
1,905
2, 121
2, 329
1, 576
209
284
3,632
1,272
7,516
19,500 to
26, 000
62,612
31,645
13, 375
107,632
-i r.
£7
59,025
!3, 28fa
1, 872
5, 209
6, 887
6, 420
4, 803
424
782
4, 071
2, 818
22, 365
26,000 to
33,000
24,070
17,456
7,377
48,903
L c "" '
25, 125
10, 927
668
1,662
2, 189
1, 980
1, 354
185
263
1, 031
1,595
12, 337
Over
33,000
29, 276
21, 235
8,975
59,486
29,941
12,669
887
2,460
2, 080
1, 314
1,782
387
453
1,526
1, 780
15,008
Total
710,326
318,818
134,745
1, 163, 889
524,939
265,623 '
13, 995
33, 277
48,953
30,682
31,680
6,026
8,803
59,631
32,576
225, 328
00
-------
"£ ble 8-9. Total Truck Registration -- Tri-State AQCR (Continued)
00
1
States and
Counties
AQCR (Cont'd)
Connecticut
Portion
LD\ »
M D V s,
HDVs
Population
7b4, 170
Pas senger
Can
Registered
546,000
Trucks Registered (by GVW Class, Ib)
Less than
b, 000
19, i 5 i
6, 000 to
10,000
5 094
-
10,000 to
14,000
77
14, 000 to
16,000
Ki2
16, 000 to
19,500
1, 134
19, 500 to
26, 000
3, 174
26, 000 to
33, 000
1, 8ol
1
Over
33,000
2, 264
Total
33, 98H
Automobiles+Trucks=6,112,907 ~21,9^ u , o <7 . ft4D Je re c nt Automobile \ MT K , (Iroiilr ins port ation planning stud '-si
Percent Automobiles - 92. 09 PC I t ent Truck \MT- ib. , If i > T tr in-portation planmne studu s )
Percent Trucks = 7.91 percent 0 to 6,000 Ib Truck \N T - c >> (LOT VMT)
Percent 0 to 6 , 000 Ib Trucks = 4. 05 (51.2 percent ol a,! trucks) Pi' re ent 6, 000 to !4, 000 Ib 1 ru, h \MT - *. 15 (MDV VMT)
Percent 6, 000 to 14, 000 Ib Trucks = 1 4« ( 18 80 percent of all trucks) Percent ov, r 14, 000 Ib Track VT r. . 0 (HL>\ VMT)
Percent over 14 . 000 Ib T rue Ks =2 37(29 91 percent of all t rucks) Perc ent Automobile « LDT \ M ."= 91. S5 (LDV VMT = Automobile VMT + LOT VMT)
tN)
-------
Table 8-10. Total Truck Registration -- New York City (Five Boroughs)
State and
City
New York State
LDVs
MDVs
HDVs
AQCR
New York City
Bronx
Kings
New York
Queens
Richmond
LDVs
MDVs
HDVs
Population
18,236,967
7,894,862
1,471,701
2,602, 012
1,539,233
1,986,473
295,443
Passenger
Cars
Registered
6,224,601
6,598,
1,656,695
258, 349
504,620
189,932
589, 586
114, 208
Trucks Registered (by GVW Class, Ib)
Less than
6, 000
373,812
46,517
6,063
13,818
10,045
13,536
3, 055
6, 000 to
10, 000
163, 609
166, i
22,249
2,864
5,948
5,570
6,412
1,455
23, 02
10,000 to
14, 000
2,681
777
88
217
216
225
31
14,000 to
16, 000
25, 753
7,955
817
2, 058
2,808
1,992
280
16,000 to
19, 500
28, 513
6.755
736
1, 905
2,329
1,576
209
19,500 to
26,000
62,612
Ih, 728
1, 872
5, 209
0,420
4.X03
424
26,000 to
33,000
24,070
5,849
668
1,662
1,980
1, 354
185
Over
33,000
29,276
6,830
SK7
2,460
1, 3 14
1, 7M2
387
Total
710,326
115,660
13,995
33,277
30,682
31, 680
6,026
Automobiles + Trucks = V, 656, 695 -t- 115,660 - 1,772,355 Pericnt Automobile VMT = b9. 8 (from transportation planning studios)
Percent Automobiles = 93. 47 Percent Truck VMT = 10. i (from transportation planning studies)
Percent Trucks = 6. 53 Percent 0 to 6, 000 Ib Truck VMT = 4. 10 (LOT VMT)
Percent 0 to 6, 000 Ib Trucks - 1. hi (40. 22 percent of all trucks) Percent 6, 000 to 14, 000 Ib Truck VMT = 2. 05 (MDV VMT)
Percent 6,000 to 14,000 Ib Trucks =: 1. 30 (19. 91 percent of all trucks ) Percent over 14, 000 Ib Truck VMT = 4.07 (HDV VMT)
Percent over 14, 000 Ib Trucks = 2. 60 (39. 87 percent of all trucks) Percent Automobile -1- LOT VMT = 93. 9 (LDV VMT = Automobile \ MT t LOT VMT)
00
I
-------
Subtotal counts of LDVs, MDVs, and HDVs are also shown in
each table, where the LDV class encompasses both passenger cars and
trucks weighing 6000 Ib or less. The percent breakdown of automobiles and
trucks (including GVW breakdown) is also summarized at the bottom of each
table for the AQCR. Similar values for the split of VMT in the AQCR are
provided, based on the basic VMT split between passenger cars and trucks as
given previously in Table 8-1.
The percent breakdown values for automobiles and trucks are
summarized in Table 8-11 for the United States and for the areas previously
depicted in Table 8-i. Based on this registration-by-county-derived data
base, the characteristic of decreasing percent of trucks ^s the aziid Increases
in population 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 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.
As shown in the table, the distribution of light-duty trucks
(less than 6000-lb GVW) appears 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
aff cted by population density, but rather to remain near the national average.
In the Los Angeles case, this anomaly may be the result of the widespread
u;e of heavier camper bodies and motor homes used for recreational pur-
poses. Thus, the distribution between LDTs and MDVs may be a logical
ro ult of region-peculiar use characteristics in Los Angeles.
The HDVs, on the other hand, increase in distribution as per-
~ -' it c total trucks in accordance with increasing population density. Again,
his i.iay be the logical result of the need for heavy trucks to move goods into
>e heavily populated areas in accordance with the number of inhabitants
in ol' ed.
8-24
-------
Table 8-11. Vehicle Registration Breakdown by Location -- 1 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
Truck Percent of Total Vehicles
by GVW Class
0 to 6, 000 Ib
6, 000 to 14, 000 Ib
Over 14,000 Ib
Percent of Total Trucks
by GVW Class
0 to 6,000 Ib
6, 000 to 14, 000 Ib
Over 14, 000 Ib
Area
Nation
106, 211, 895
81.38
18.62
12.06
3.56
3. 00
64. 79
19.09
16. 12
Phoenix-
Tucson
AQCR
941,697
75. 91
24. 09
17. 67
4. 47
1. 95
73. 40
18. 50
8. 10
South Coast
Air Basin
AQCR
(Los Angeles)
5,802,658
83.75
16. 25
9. 68
4. 82
1. 75
59. 55
29. 70
10. 75
New York City Areas
Tri-State
(New York City
AQCR)
6, 637, 845
92. 1
7.91
4. 05
1.49
2. 37
51. 20
.18.89
29.91
Nine Counties
3, 722, 530
92. 86
7. 14
3. 26
1. 60
2. 28
45. 59
22. 47
31. 94
New York City
(Five
Boroughs)
1,772, 355
93. 47
6.53
2. 62
1. 30
2. 61
40. il
19. 91
39. 87
Manhattan
220, 614
86. 09
13. 91
4. 55
2. 63
6. 73
32. 74
18. 86
48. 40
oo
i
IS)
-------
8. 3 SUMMARY
Because of the lack of uniformity in the data bases used in
various transportation planning studies (Section 8, 1), it is felt that the vehi-
cle location and characteristics by GVW breakdown provided by the
R. JL. Polk Company registration surveys (Section 8. 2) is a more consistent
and reliable data base to characterize vehicles located in the AQCRs of inter-
est. However, there is no similar basis for providing VMTs for these
regions. Accordingly, the data of Table 8-1 are revised in Table 8-12 to
retain the previously developed VMTs and to incorporate the vehicle percent-
age distribution vsHes of T^'e 8-1] and the corresponding VMT splits by
vehicle class as described in Tables 8-7 through 8-10. One other change was
also made. The values reported in Table 8-1 for the New York AQCR (Tri-
State) are felt to be for the Tri-State region as defined by the Tri-State
Transportation Planning Commission. The New York AQCR encompasses a
slightly smaller area (17,402,249 people versus 18,700,000 people in
Table 8-1). Therefore, the population, total vehicles, and total daily VMT
for the New York AQCR have been revised downward in Table 8-12 by the
ratio 17,402,249/18,700,000. As shown, Table 8-12 is felt to exemplify the
most accurate available representation of the AQCRs of interest for the
parameters displayed.
8-26
-------
Table 8-12. Vehicle Miles Traveled Data Summary -- Circa 1970
oo
i
Parameter
Population
Total Number of Vehicles*
Percent Automobiles
Percent Trucks
Truck GVW Breakdown13
(Percent)
0 to 6, 000 Ib (LDT)
6, 000 to 14, 000 Ib (MDV)
Over 14, 000 Ib (HDV)
Total Daily VMTa
Percent VMT by Trucks*
Truck VMT BreakdownC(Percent)
0 to 6,000 Ib
6, 000 to 14, 000 Ib
Over 14, 000 Ib
VMT/Vehiclea
VMT/Trucka
Percent VMT
LDV (Automobiles + LDT)
MDV
HDV
Area
Nation
--
106, 211,895
81. 38
18.62
64. 79
19.09
16. 12
Phoenix-
Tucson
AQCR
1, 429, 000
821, 000
75. 91
24. 09
73.4
18. 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
AQCR
(Los Angeles)
9, 700,000
5, 600, 000
83. 75
16. 25
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
New York City Areas
Tri-State
(New York City
AQCR)
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
(Five
Boroughs)
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
(New York
County)
1, 590, 000
231, 000
86.09
13. 91
32. 74
18.86
48. 40
6,035, 000
17. 3
32. 74
18. 86
49. 40
26. 1
32.49
88. 19
3. 26
8. 55
Downtown
Manhattan
42.0
32. 74
18. 86
49.40
71.4
7.9
20. 7
From various transportation planning studies
Based on 1 July 1972 registration data for both passenger cars and trucks provided by R. L. Polk Company
Assumed to be the same as GVW breakdown
-------
REFERENCES
8-1. Number of Inhabitants, United States Summary, Bureau of the
Census 1970.
8-2. R. L. Polk Company.
8-3. Urban Transportation Planning Data, Office of Planning, Bureau of
Public Roads, United States Department of Transportation,
(August 1969).
8-4. Tucson Area Transportation Study, Inventory Forecasts and Plans,
Volumes I and II, Tucson Area Transportation Planning Agency,
Tucson, Arizona (I\<.wrnher 39^5).
8-5. Arizona Highway Department Planning Survey (Phoenix).
8-6. Motor Truck Facts, Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc.
(1971).
8-7. Telephone conversation on 5 June 1973 from Thomas Buick,
Maricopa Association of Governments.
8-8. 1971 Traffic Volumes, Tucson Area, Tucson Area Transportation
Planning Agency, Tucson, Arizona (June 1972).
8 9. Interim Report, Preparation of Data Necessary for the Development
of a Heavy Duty Truck Driving Cycle for Use in Emissions Testing
Programs, Wilbur Smith and Associates for the Environmental
Protection Agency and Coordinating Research Council, (11 August
1972).
8-10. Statistical Record on Motive Power, Body Type, and Weight Division
for Automobiles, Motorcycles, Commercial Trucks and Trailers,
1972 Gross Report, State of California, Department of Motor Vehi-
cles, Sacramento, California.
8-11. Heavy Duty Truck Driving Cycle for Use in Emissions Testing
Programs, Part 1 New York City, Wilbur Smith and Associates
for the Environmental Protection Agency and Coordinating Research
Council (February 1973).
8-12. Can Vehicle Travel Be Reduced 20% in the South Coast Air Basin?
California Department of Public Works (2 February 1973).
8-13. Telephone conversation on 5 June 1973 from John Reeves, Advanced
Planning, District 7, California Division of Highways.
8-28
-------
8-14. 1980 Progress Report, Los Angeles Regional Transportation Study
(1967).
8-15. New York City Metropolitan Data Air Quality Information and
Transportation Controls, New York State Department of Environ-
mental Conservation (April 1973).
8-16. Streets and Highways: A Regional Report, Tri-State Transportation
Commission (January 1968).
8-17. Motor Vehicle Registrations, 1970, Interim Technical Report
4243- 1520, Tri-State Regional Planning Commission (June 1971).
8-18. Projecting Vehicle Miles of Travel in a Metropolitan Region,
Interim Technical Report 4070-8078, Tri-State Transportation
Commission (1972).
8-19. Annual Regional Report, Tri-State Regional Planning Commission
(1972).
8-20. Telephone conversation on 4 June 1973 from E. Lozada, Tri-State
Regional Planning Commission.
8-21. Motor Trucks in the Metropolis, Wilbur Smith and Associates (1969).
8-22. 1971 Automobile Facts and Figures, Automobile Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (1971).
8-23. Examination of Issues Related to Two-Car Regional Emission
Control Strategies, Report ATR-73(7324)-1, Vol. II, The Aerospace
Corporation, El Segundo, California (30 April 1973).
8-29
-------
. SECTION 9
EMISSION INVENTORIES
Inventories of mobile source emissions were calculated for
the New York City, Los Angeles, and Phoenix-Tucson AQCRs. These inven-
tories included a breakdown by vehicle class (LDV, MDV, and HDV) and were
projected to the year 1990 to reflect the effects of various possible MDV con-
trol strategies. The base year in all cases was 1970; the vehicle distribution
and VMT characteristics of Figure 8-12 for 1970 were used for the AQCRs
examined. Details of the calculational procedure are given in Appendix E.
The following sections delineate the major input parameter assumptions and
the inventory results.
9. 1 EMISSION LEVEL ASSUMPTIONS
9. 1. 1 Light-Duty Vehicles
For all model years, except 1975 and 1976, the values as
shown in Ref. 9-1 were used as characteristic of LDV emission rates and
deterioration-with-age factors. For 1975, the changed emission factors and
deterioration factors used are shown in Tables 9-1 and 9-2, respectively.
These values reflect the current difference in LDV exhaust emission regula-
tions between California and the other states. For 1976 (and all later model
years), the values in Ref. 9-1 were used, except for the 1976 NO low mile-
r x
age emission level. This was raised to the 1975 zero mile level of 1. 60 gm/mi
for California and 2. 2 gm/mi for the other AQCRs.
9. 1. 2 Medium-Duty Vehicles
Table 9-3 lists the values of MDV emission factors used
through model year 1973. These values are based on composite sales-
weighted test values (Ref. 9-3); therefore, no deterioration factors should be
applied to them. For model years 1974 and beyond, four scenarios or alterna-
tive MDV control strategy postulates were considered, as shown in Table 9-4.
9-1
-------
Table 9-1. Light-Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emission Factors at
Low Mileage -- Model Year 1975 (Ref. 9-2)
Pollutant
New York City
and
Phoenix-Tucson Rate,
gm/mi
Los Angeles Rate,
gm/mi
Hydrocarbon
Carbon Monoxide
Oxides of Nitrogen
1.3
12.5
2.2
0.33
2.80
1 .60
Table 9-2. Light-Duty Vehicle Deterioration
Factors -- Model Year 1975
Pollutant
New York City
and Phoenix-
Tucson AQCRsa
Hydrocarbon
Carbon Monoxide
Oxides of Nitrogen
Los Angeles AQCRb
Hydrocarbon
Carbon Monoxide
Oxides of Nitrogen
Vehicle Age, years
0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1 .00
1.00
1.00
1
1 .00
1.04
1 .00
1.45
1.34
1.11
2
1.13
1 .30
1.18
1.95
1.77
1 .18
3
1 .22
1.36
1.23
2.40
2.14
1 .20
4
1.29
1.43
1.23
2.76
2.42
1.21
5
1.37
1.44
1.41
3.14
2.73
1.22
6
1.43
1.49
1.45
3.46
2.99
1.23
7
1.50
1.56
1.45
3.79
3.26
1.24
8
1.56
1.63
1.45
4.07
3.48
1.25
9 or
older
1.63
1.69
1.45
4.42
3.77
1.26
a From Ref. 9-2
b From Ref. 9-1 for California
9-2
-------
Table 9-3. Medium-Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emission Factors
for All AQCRs - - ToModel Year 1973 (Ref. 9-3)
Factors represent combined averages of
initial emission rates and deterioration
factors; therefore, no deterioration
factors should be applied.
Model
Year
Pre-1967
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Emission Values, gm/mi
Hydrocarbon
12.39
11.41
10.98
8.64
6.38
6.29
5.31
5.30
Carbon
Monoxide
103.99
122.40
122.47
99.07
75.43
70.90
61.87
62.08
Oxides of
Nitrogen
6.21
6.49
6.56
7.20
8.23
8.60
8.21
6.57
Strategy I represents the situation where the MDV is charac-
terized by HDV engines meeting the 1974 Federal HDV standards, with no
further changes taking place.
Strategy II, in California, further represents the case of the
MDV reflecting the changes in California 1975 HDV engine emission standards
in 1975. This same change is assumed to occur in the rest of the United
States in 1977.
Strategy III depicts the case where oxidation catalyst plus
EGR are added to MDVs, in California in 1977 and the rest of the United
States in 1979.
Strategy IV represents a further case, where a reducing cata-
lyst (or other equivalent) is added to MDVs for ultralow NO emissions, in
X.
California in 1980 and in the rest of the United States in 1982.
9-3
-------
Table 9-4. Medium-.Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emission
Factors -- Model Year 1974 and Later
Strategy
Model Year
Strategy I
1974
1975
1976 and
Later
Strategy II
1974
1975
1976
1977 and
Later
Strategy III
1974
1975
New Yoik City ai.d
Phoenix- Tucson AQCRs
Hydro-
carbon
4.25a
4. 25
4. 25
4. 25
4. 25
4. 25
1. 33b
4. 25
4. 25
1976 ' 4.25
1977 1. 33b
1978
1979 and
Later
Strategy IV
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982 and
Later
1. 33
0. 40e
4. 25
4. 25
4. 25
1. 33b
1. 33
0. 40C
0. 40
0. 40
0. 40
Carbon
Monoxide
62. 08a
b2. 08
62. 08
t>2. OS
62. 08
62. 08
38. 8C
62. 08
62. 08
Oxides of
Nitrogen
6. 57a
6. 57
6. 57
...
Los Angeles AQCR
Hydro-
carbon
4. 25a
4. 25
4. 25
Carbon
Monoxide
62. 08a
62. 08
62. 08
". ''" | -1. 25 62. 08
6. 57
6. 57
2. 06d
6. 57
6. 57
62. 08 ! 6. 57
38. 8C | 2. 06d'
38. 8
4. 20e
62. 08
62. 08
62. 08
38. 8C
38. 8
4. 206
4. 20
4. 20
4. 20
2. Ob
2. 06
6. 57
(>. 57
6. 57
2. 06d
2. 06
2. 06
2. 06
2. 06
0. 45e
1. JJb
1. 33
1. 33
4. 25
1.33b
1. 33
0. 40e
0. 40
0. 40
4. 25
1. 33b
1. 33
0. 40°
0. 40
0. 40
0. 40
0. 40
0. 40
38. 81-
38. 8
38. 8
62. 08
38. 8C
38. 8
4. 20e
4. 20
4. 20
62. 08
38. 8C
38. 8
4. 20e
4. 20
4. 20
4. 20
4. 20
4. 20
Oxides of
Nitrogen
6. 57a
6. 57
6. 57
|
6. 57
2. 06d
2. 06
2. 06
6. 57
2.06d
2. 06
2. 06
2. 06
2. 06
6. 57
2. 06d
2. 06
2. 06
2. 06
2. 06
0. 45e
0. 45
0. 45
aTh- 1974 levels are assumed the same as 1973 levels (Table 9-3) except for HC, which was estimated to
be reduced 20 percent from 1973 level (Ref. 9-4'
bl. 33 = 5/16 x 4. 25
c i 8 - 25/40 x 62 08 Reduced values determined by applying ratio of California 1975 HDV
," ' ' standards/Federal 1974 standards to prior values (see Table 3-5)
d2. 06 = 5/16 x 6. 57
Estimated values based on predictive techniques developed in Section 3
9-4
-------
9. 1. 3
Heavy-Duty Vehicles
Table 9-5 lists the values of HDV emission factors used
through model year 1974. These values are composite average values
(Ref. 9-4); therefore, no deterioration factors should be applied to them.
For model years 1974 and beyond, two scenarios or alternative HDV control
strategy postulates were also considered, as shown in Table 9-6.
Strategy I represents the case where there is no further change
in HDV emission regulations (Federal 1974 HDV standards stay in effect).
Strategy II represents the case where the California 1975 HDV
standards are implemented, in California in 1975 and in the rest of the United
States in 1977.
Strategy I was used with MDV Strategy I and Strategy II was
used with MDV Strategies II, III, and IV.
9.2
GROWTH RATE ASSUMPTIONS
Anticipated mobile source growth rates for all vehicle classes
were chosen equal to the forecasted adult population increase (18 years or
older) reduced to a yearly basis (Ref. 9-5). In the case of passenger cars,
Table 9-5. Heavy-Duty Exhaust Emission Factors
To Model Year 1974 (Ref. 9-4)
Factors represent combined averages of
initial emission rates and deterioration
factors; therefore, no deterioration factors
should be applied.
Model
Year
Pre-1970
1970 to 1973
1974
Emission Values, gm/mi
Hydrocarbon
23. 4
22. 0
17. 9
Carbon
Monoxide
192
179
179
Oxides of
Nitrogen
12.9
12. 6
12. 6
9-5
-------
Table 9-6. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emission
Factors -- Model Year 1974 and Later
Strategy
and
Model Year
Strategy I
1974
1975
1976 and
Later
Strategy II
1974
1975
1976
1977 and
Later
New York City and
Phoenix- Tucson AQCRs
Hydro-
carbon
17. 9a
17. 9
17.9
17. 9
17.9
17.9
5.6b
Carbon
Monoxide
179a
179
179
179
179
179
112C
Oxides of
Nitrogen
12. 6a
12. 6
12.6
12.6
12.6
12. 6
3.94d
Los Angeles AQCR
Hydro-
carbon
17. 9a
17.9
17.9
17. 9
5.6b
5.6
5.6
Carbon
Monoxide
179a
179
179
179
112C
112
112
Oxides of
Nitrogen
12. 6a
12.6
12.6
12.6
3.94d
3. 94
3, 94
aEmission factors from Table 9--
b5. 6 = 5/16x17.9 ] , , , , . , , , . c ^ ,.r
Reduced values determined by applying ratio of California
C112 = 25/40 x 179 1975 HDV standards/Federal 1974 standards to prior values
d3. 94 = 5/16 x 12. 6
see Table 3-5)
an additional growth factor was applied to account for present trends of
ownership of multiple cars per family (see Appendix E for details).
The overall annual growth rates thus selected for each AQCR
are listed in Table 9-7. To illustrate the effect of growth rate on the magni-
tude of mobile-source-generated emissions, a high-rate growth factor of
" percent per year was applied uniformly to all vehicle classes (LDVs, MDVs,
an-l HDVs) in the New York City AQCR only (Section 9. 3. 1).
9-6
-------
Table 9-7. Mobile Source Annual Growth Rates
AQCR
New York City
Los Angeles
Phoenix- Tucson
Percent per Year
Passenger Cars
1. 245
1.. 248
1. 235
Trucks
1. 180
1. 197
1. 200
9.3
9.3. 1
INVENTORY RESULTS
New York City AQCR
Figures 9-1, 9-2, and 9-3 illustrate the variation with time of
the New York City AQCR mobile source (LDVs, MDVs, and HDVs) emission
inventory for HC, CO, and NO , respectively. These figures include the
Jt
anticipated vehicle population growth rates of Table 9-7. In all cases, there
is a steady decline in total emissions, with all control strategies reaching an
apparent plateau level in the 1985 to 1990 time period.
With no further emission control beyond the presently-
established LDV regulations and the 1974 HDV emission standards (Strategy
No. I), the HC emissions are reduced in 1990 to approximately 24 percent of
1970 levels, CO to 28 percent, and NO to 38 percent.
j£
Implementation of MDV and HDV standards in 1977 equivalent
to the California 1975 HDV standards (Strategy No. II) results in further
sizable reductions by 1990. The HC emissions are reduced to approximately
15 percent of 1970 levels, CO to 21 percent, and NO to 21 percent.
ji.
The addition of oxidation catalysts to MDVs in 1979 (Strategy
No. Ill) has relatively little effect because of the relatively small MDV popu-
lation and VMT contribution. The addition of a reducing catalyst to MDVs in
1982 (Strategy No. IV) also has a small effect for the same reason.
9-7
-------
IOC
90
80
70
i-
z
60
d
Q.
(E
til
50
40
u.
O
t-
z
111
O
111
Q.
30
20
10
NOTE: THE EMISSION INVENTORY FOR ANY YEAR
THE END OF THE
1970 HC {MOBILE) = 835,311 tons/yr
I 1 i i
i i I i
I i I i
till
1970
1975
1980
CALENDAR YEAR
1985
1990
Figure 9-1. New York City AQCR -- Mobile Source
HC Inventory (Determined Using Antici-
pated Normal Growth Rates from Table 9-7}
9-8
-------
100
90
80
70
60
Q
O
a
£ 50
ui
Z
_l
ui
2 40
u.
O
z
ui
ui
Q.
30
20
10
NOTE: THE EMISSION INVENTORY FOR ANY YEAR
IS THAT EXISTING AT THE END OF THE
CALENDAR YEAR
Nos. 3 AND 4
(D
1970 CO (MOBILE) = 5,643,937 tons/yr
I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I
1970
1975
1980
CALENDAR YEAR
1985
1990
Figure 9-2. New York City AQCR -- Mobile Source
CO Inventory (Determined Using Anticipated
Normal Growth Rates from Table 9.-7)
9-9
-------
120
110
100
90
80
3 TO
O
QL
60
UJ
z
50
uj
O 40
ui
Q.
30
20
10 -
NOTE: THE EMISSION INVENTORY FOR
ANY YEAR IS THAT EXISTING AT
THE END OF THE CALENDAR YEAR
No. 4
(1)
1970 NOX (MOBILE) = 341,005 tons/yr
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I l l L
1970
1975
1980
CALENDAR YEAR
1985
1990
Figure 9-3. New York City AQCR -~ Mobile Source
NOX Inventory (Determined Using Antici-
pated Normal Growth Rates from Table 9-7)
9-10
-------
Figures 9-4, 9r5, and 9-6 show similar values for the New
York City AQCR if the growth rates for all vehicle classes were 4 percent per
year. Although the overall trends parallel those of Figures 9-1, 9-2, and 9-3,
the absolute levels are higher because of the higher vehicle population. Also,
the minimum plateau for HC, CO, and NO total emissions appears to be
.X.
reached by approximately 1985, with total emissions rising again in 1990.
Figures 9-7, 9-8, and 9-9 depict the percentage contribution
of the LDV, MDV, and HDV classes to the emission inventories of Fig-
ures 9-1, 9-2, and 9-3, respectively. In all cases, the HDVs contribute
proportionally higher amounts of emissions with time; by 1985 producing
more pollutants than LDVs under control Strategy No. I. Under control
Strategy No. II, the HDV HC and NO percentage is markedly reduced,
X.
although still about three times as high as 1970 percentages in 1990. The
HDV CO contributions are reduced somewhat, but are nearly five times 1970
values in 1990. Control Strategies Nos. Ill and IV do not markedly alter
HDV emission contribution characteristics.
In the case of MDVs, their percentage contribution rises
steadily with time under control Strategy No. I; by 1990, HC values are more
than double 1970 values, CO values are tripled, and NO values quadrupled.
j£
Control Strategy No. II nearly cuts 1990 HC and NO values in half, but has
X
a much lesser effect on CO. Control Strategies Nos. Ill and IV (oxidizing
and reducing catalysts on MDVs) restore 1990 MDV values to approximately
1970 percentage levels.
9. 3. 2 Los Angeles AQCR
Figures 9-10, 9-11, and 9-12 are Los Angeles AQCR mobile
source emission inventories for HC, CO, and NO , respectively. They are
.X.
based on the anticipated vehicle population growth rates of Table 9-7. The
trends are similar to those for the New York City AQCR (Figures 9-1, 9-2,
and 9-3), only the absolute numerical levels differ slightly. In general, the
1990 HC, CO, and NO emissions are from 5 to 10 percent higher than New
.X
York City values (based on 1970 baseline levels).
9-11
-------
100
90
80
70
i-
2.
5 60
O
Q.
tt
111
50
Ul
40
u 30
OC
Ul
a
20
10
NOTE: THE EMISSION INVENTORY FOR ANY YEAR
IS THAT EXISTING AT THE END OF THE
CALENDAR YEAR
Nos. 3 AND 4
(D
1970 HC (MOBILE) = 835,311 tons/yr
I ,
i i i
I i i i
1970
1975
1980
CALENDAR YEAR
1985
1990
Figure 9-4. New York City AQCR -- Mobile Source
HC Inventory (Determined Using Assumed
4 Percent per Year Growth Rate)
9-12
-------
100
90
80
=5. 7°
2
Q
< 60
O
a.
50
40
U)
ui
I]
uj
CO
LL.
O
h-
2 30
O
o:
LI
a.
20
10
NOTE: THE EMISSION INVENTORY FOR ANY
YEAR IS THAT EXISTING AT THE END
OF THE CALENDAR YEAR
Nos. 3 AND 4
1970 CO (MOBILE) = 5,643,937 tons/yr
I I I i
i i i
1970
1975 1980 1985
CALENDAR YEAR
1990
Figure 9-5. New York City AQCR -- Mobile Source
CO Inventory (Determined Using Assumed
4 Percent per Year Growth Rate)
9-13
-------
120
110
100
90
80
O
£L
U
111
O
U.
O
HI
a
70
60
50
40
30
NOTE: THE EMISSION INVENTORY FOR
ANY YEAR IS THAT EXISTING AT
THE END OF THE CALENDAR YEAR
CONTROL STRATEGY
No. 1
No. 4
20
10
1970 NOX (MOBILE) = 341,005 tons/yr
1970
1975
1980
CALENDAR YEAR
1985
1990
Figure 9-6. New York City AQCR -- Mobile Source
NO Inventory (Determined Using
Assumed 4 Percent per Year Growth Rate)
9*14
-------
CONTROL STRATEGY No. 1
CONTROL STRATEGY No. 2
CONTROL STRATEGY Nos. 3 AND 4
O LDVs
D MDVs
A HDVs
1980
CALENDAR YEAR
1985
1990
Figure 9-7.
New York City AQCR -- HC Percentage
Contribution of Vehicle Classes (Normal
Growth Rates from Table 9-7)
o 100.-
O LDVs
D MDVs
A HDVs
CONTROL STRATEGY No. 1
CONTROL STRATEGY No. 2
CONTROL STRATEGY Nos. 3 AND 4
CONTROL STRATEGY
Nos. 2, 3, AND 4 FOR LDVs
1980
CALENDAR YEAR
1985
1990
Figure 9-8.
New York City AQCR -- CO Percentage
Contribution of Vehicle Classes (Normal
Growth Rates from Table 9-7)
9-15
-------
O LDVs
O MDVs
A HOVs
CONTROL STRATEGY No. 1
CONTROL STRATEGY Nos. 2 AND 3
CONTROL STRATEGY No. 4
a O
-m
1980
CALENDAR YEAR
1985
1990
Figure 9-9. New York City AQCR -- NOX Percentage
Contribution of Vehicle Classes (Normal
Growth Rates from Table 9-7)
9-16
-------
100,
90
80
70
z
3,60
O
Q.
50
UJ
ui
s«
§ 30
on
UI
Q.
20
10
NOTE: THE EMISSION INVENTORY FOR ANY YEAR
IS THAT EXISTING AT THE END OF THE
CALENDAR YEAR
CONTROL STRATEGY
No. 1
(D
1970 HC (MOBILE) = 675, 158 tons/yr
1970
1975
1980
CALENDAR YEAR
1985
1990
Figure 9-10.
Los Angeles AQCR -- Mobile Source HC
Inventory (Determined Using Anticipated
Normal Growth Rates from Table 9-7)
9-17
-------
100
90
80
-a70
Q
60
O
0.
50
Ill
LJ
Z
_l
til
CD
U.
O
40
30
20
NOTE: THE EMISSION INVENTORY FOR ANY
YEAR IS THAT EXISTING AT THE END
OF THE CALENDAR YEAR
CONTROL STRATEGY
No. 1
Nos. 3 AND 4
10
(1)
1970 CO (MOBILE) = 4,710,432 tons/yr
i i i
i i i
1970
1975
1980
CALENDAR YEAR
1985
1990
Figure 9-11. Los Angeles AQCR -- Mobile Source CO
Inventory (Determined Using Anticipated
Normal Growth Rates from Table 9-7)
9-18
-------
110
100
90
80
z
H
=! 70
o
Q.
DC
60
LJ
3
UJ
m
la.
o
50
m
O 40
NOTE: THE EMISSION INVENTORY
FOR ANY YEAR IS THAT
EXISTING AT THE END OF
THE CALENDAR YEAR
CONTROL STRATEGY
>. 1
No. 4
30
20
10
(1)
1970 NOX (MOBILE) = 290,851 tons/yr
i i I
i i i i
i i i I
1970
1975
1980
CALENDAR YEAR
1985
1990
Figure 9-12. Los Angeles AQCR -- Mobile Source NOX
Inventory (Determined Using Anticipated
Normal Growth Rates from Table 9-7)
9-19
-------
Similarly, Figures 9-13, 9-14, and 9-15 depict the percentage
contribution of the LDV, MDV, and HDV classes to the emission inventories
of Figures 9-10, 9-11, and 9-12. Again, the trends are similar to those of
the New York City AQCR (Figures 9-7, 9-8, and 9-9) and are not further dis-
cussed in the interest of brevity.
9. 3. 3 Phoenix-Tucson AQCR
Mobile source HC, CO, and NO emission inventories for the
Phoenix-Tucson AQCR are illustrated in Figures 9-16, 9-17, and 9-18.
Their patterns and trends are similar to those noted for New York f.Uy and
Los Angeles,
The percentage contribution of the LDV, MDV, and HDV
classes to these emission inventories is shown in Figures 9-19, 9-20, and
9-21. The most notable characteristic here is that the relative effect and
importance of the HDV class is greatly reduced over that shown previously
for New York City and Los Angeles. This is a direct result of a smaller
HDV population in the Phoenix-Tucson area and a lesser VMT contribution.
CONTROL STRATEGY No. 1
CONTROL STRATEGY No. 2
CONTROL STRATEGY Nos. 3 AND 4
--'-=0
A
----A- - - - - - ^
CONTROL STRATEGY Nos. 1 AND 2 FOR MDVs
a
1980
CALENDAR YEAR
1985
1990
Figure 9-13. Los Angeles AQCR -- HC Percentage
Contribution of Vehicle Classes (Normal
Growth Rates from Table 9-7)
9-20
-------
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 9-14.
Los Angeles AQCR -- CO Percentage
Contribution of Vehicle Classes (Normal
Growth Rates from Table 9-7)
100
2
ui
O
a.
60
I
40
I
20
Ul
o
a
UI
0.
O LDVs
D MDVs
A HDVs
CONTROL STRATEGY No. 1
CONTROL STRATEGY Nos. 2 AND 3
- CONTROL STRATEGY No. 4
-'
"CONTROL STRATEGY Nos. 2, 3, AND 4 FOR HDVs
1970
1975
1980
CALENDAR YEAR
1985
1990
Figure 9-15. Los Angeles AQCR -- NOX Percentage
Contribution of Vehicle Classes (Normal
Growth Rates from Table 9-7)
9-21
-------
100
90
80
i 7°
Q
z
I-
= 60
O
a
£ 50
ui
m 40
Z
UI
UJ
CL
30
20
NOTE: THE EMISSION INVENTORY FOR ANY YEAR
IS THAT EXISTING AT THE END OF THE
CALENDAR YEAR
CONTROL STRATEGY
No. 1
No. 2
=====
Nos. 3 AND 4
10
(D
1970 HC (MOBILE) = 74,576 tons/yr
I i I
i I I i
I I I
I I I I
1970
1975
1980
CALENDAR YEAR
1985
1990
Figure 9-16. Phoenix-Tucson AQCR -- Mobile Source
HC Inventory (Determined Using Antici-
pated Normal Growth Rates from Table 9-7)
9-2.2
-------
100_
90
80
a
570
a
50
Z
40
z
ui
a 30
ui
a
20
10
NOTE: THE EMISSION INVENTORY FOR
ANY YEAR IS THAT EXISTING
AT THE END OF THE
CALENDAR YEAR
CONTROL STRATEGY
No. 1
Nos. 3 AND 4
(D
1970 CO (MOBILE) = 502,922 tons/yr
i i i
i i i
j I
I I I i
1970
1975
1980
CALENDAR YEAR
1985
1990
Figure 9-17. Phoenix-Tucson AQCR -- Mobile Source
CO Inventory (Determined Using Antici-
pated Growth Rates from Table 9-7)
9-23
-------
90
I-
< 80
O
a.
< 70
UJ
Ul tn
l/> 01)
m
b.
o
50
40
30
20
10
CONTROL STRATEGY
NOTE: THE EMISSION INVENTORY FOR
ANY YEAR IS THAT EXISTING AT
THE END OF THE CALENDAR YEAR
No. 4
1970 NOX (MOBILE) = 30,360 ton«/yr
1970
1975
1980
CALENDAR YEAR
1985
1990
Figure 9-18. Phoenix-Tucson AQCR -- Mobile Source NOX
' Inventory (Determined Using Anticipated
Normal Growth Rates from Table 9-7)
9-24
-------
100
g 80
.O
02
Hui 60
u. ui
oo
Hg
58 40
O
£ 111
UI -J
Q-CQ
§ 20
O LDVs
O MDVs
A HDVs
CONTROL STRATEGY No. 1
CONTROL STRATEGY No. 2
CONTROL STRATEGY Nos. 3 AND 4
1975
1980
CALENDAR YEARS
1985
1990
Figure 9-19.
Phoenix-Tucson AQCR -- HC Percentage
Contribution of Vehicle Classes (Normal
Growth Rates from Table 9-7)
O LDVs
D MDVs
A HDVs
1970
CONTROL STRATEGY No. 1
CONTROL STRATEGY No. Z
CONTROL STRATEGY Nos. 3 AND 4
1975
1980
CALENDAR YEARS
1985
1990
Figure 9-20.
Phoenix-Tucson AQCR --CO Percentage
Contribution of Vehicle Classes (Normal
Growth Rates from Table 9-7)
9-25
-------
O LDVs
D MDVs
A HDVs
2 100
80
ui 60
m
o
2
i-
o
40
o- 20
CONTROL STRATEGY No. 1
CONTROL STRATEGY Nos. 2 AND 3
CONTROL STRATEGY No. 4
STRATEGIES 2, 3, AND 4 FOR HDVs-
1980
CALENDAR YEARS
1985
1990
Figure 9-21. Phoenix-Tucson AQCR -- NOX Percentage
Contribution of Vehicle Classes (Normal
Growth Rates from Table 9-7)
9-26
-------
REFERENCES
9-1. D. S. Kircher and D. P. Armstrong, An Interim Report on Motor
Vehicle Emission Estimation, EPA (October 1972).
9-2. Private communication with D. S. Kircher, EPA (July 1973).
9-3. Private communication with Curtis E. Fett, EPA/DECT (July 1973).
9-4. Private communication with J. H. Somers, EPA/DECT (July 1973).
9-5. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1972, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census
9-27
-------
SECTION 10
APPENDIXES
A. SIGNIFICANT VISITS OR COMMUNICATIONS
B. MEDIUM-DUTY BASELINE EMISSIONS TEST DATA
C. MEDIUM-DUTY VEHICLES TESTED AT EPA AND
EXHAUST EMISSION TEST RESULTS
D. DRIVING CYCLE DATA
E. EMISSION INVENTORY CALCULATIONS
9-28
-------
APPENDIX A
SIGNIFICANT VISITS OR COMMUNICATIONS
Date
Company /Agency Name
Personnel Contacted
22 May 1973
The Calspan Corporation
(meeting with subsequent
telecons)
L. Bogdan, Principal Research
Engineer
A.F. Burke, Principal
Research Engineer
H.G. Reif, Principal
Economist
C. Groenewald, Operations
Research Department
23 May 1973
Tri-State Regional
Planning Commission,
New York City (meeting
with subsequent telecon)
E. R. Lozada, Data Services
N. Lucey, Highway Planning
R. Leighton, Truck Operations
June 1973
and
July 1973
Southwest Research
Institute (San Antonio,
Texas)
(several telecons and
letter replies)
Karl J. Springer
MelvinN. Ingalls
23 May 1973
EPA/Monitor ing and
Data Analysis Division
(meeting with subsequent
telecons)
EPA/Durham, N. C. Personnel
Herschel Slater
Eric Finke
David Kircher
Roger Morris
EPA/Ann Arbor, Michigan
Personnel
Dr. Jose L. Bascunana
Dr. Joseph H. Somers
Tom Comfort
12 June 1973
New York State Depart-
ment of Air Resources
D. Gower, Surveillance
T. Davis, Abatement Planning
Bureau
A-l
-------
Date
June - July
1973
13 June 1973
25 July 197 3
5 June 19 73
30 July 1973
24 August
1973
27 August
1973
Company /Agency Name
New York City Depart-
ment of Air Resources
General Electric Corp.,
Philadelphia, Pa.
Riverside County Air
Pollution Control District
Los Angeles County Air
Pollution Control District
(meetings and subsequent
telecons)
San Diego County Air
Pollution Control District
(telecon)
Los Angeles Department
of Water and Power
(telecon)
Personnel Contacted
Bureau of Technical Services
Personnel
Dr. Edward Ferrand
John Sontowski
Michael Walsh
Fred Masciello
\
L. Dworetsky, Chief Engineer
for Environmental Monitoring
G.R. Kinley, Air Pollution
Control Officer
Los Angeles APCD Personnel
W.J. Hamming, Chief Air
Pollution Analyst
J.E.Dickinson, Asst. Chief
Air Pollution Analyst
R.N. Keith, Senior Meteor-
ologist
A. Davidson, Meteorologist
J. Foon, Analyst
B.R. McEntire
N. Bassin
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B
MEDIUM-DUTY BASELINE EMISSIONS TEST DATA
B-i
-------
Table B-l. Medium-Duty Vehicle Baseline Emission Test Data
Tested
By
EPA/DECT
Truck
Number
!
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Year
72
66
71
68
71
72
11
72
72
70
7 '
7 2
71
60
71
70
b7
72
72
71
60
Make
Chev
Dodgv
AMC
Dodge
IHC
Ford
Chev
Ford
D od g e
Dodge
Chev
Ford
Dodge
Ford
Che\
Ford
Ford
Chev
Ford
Chev
CMC
Model
C-20
D-100
J4000
B300
F-350
P-35
F-300
D-300
- -
C-35
F-250
D-300
F -30(1
C-30
F-300
F-350
C-20
F-250
C-30
Sierra
Grande
Body
Type
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
Van
Multi-
Stop
Van
Van
Van
Pickup
Motor
Home
Stake
Pickup
N'A
\ran
N'A
Van
NA
Pickup
Pic kup
Van
Pickup
GVVV,
Ib
7,500
5,200
7,000
7,700
6, 100
10,000
10,000
b,050
°, ooo
10,000
10,000
b,°00
10,000
t>,800
10,000
b,500
10,000
10,000
6,900
10,000
7,500
GCW ,
Ib
4385
3620
4265
5565
4295
6620
6760
4110
5185
8645
5395
4460
5575
4170
5580
4E35
6630
6770
4120
6820
4730
Inertia
Test
Wt, Ib
5000
4000
5500
6500
5000
7500
7500
4500
6000
9000
7500
5000
6000
4500
6000
4500
7000
7500
4500
7500
5000
Engine
CID
350
225
360
318
232
300
350
240
400
318
350
360
318
240
350
240
300
350
300
350
396
Cyl
8
6
S
8
6
6
8
6
8
8
8
8
8
6
8
6
6
8
6
8
8
Average Emissions, gm/mi
HC
3.14
3.05
6.05
5.52
4.02
2.89
3.86
2 .76
3.58
9.32
2 43
4.43
4.83
6.87
6.13
4 55
6.48
5.32
2.50
5 . U)
6.95
CO
19 32
49.92
24.44
56.02
65. 18
43.67
6-- 46
28 78
57.44
1 " = . 98
/9 82
26,46
38 52
14.65
'9 32
n 32
o5 .75
47 .26
29.57
ft! .3°
85. ;4
co2
875 88
591 .11
945.76
faQ7.b9
698.50
Q55 35
1144.03
682.94
851 .52
1082. 03
1240. 35
842.57
952.37
560.63
767.81
627 09
872.67
076.68
631 80
1058.20
734, 11
NO
X
4.88
5.70
7.66
9.43
5.63
10.77
9.32
5.40
5.11
14.85
9.02
12.63
9.99
5.38
9.45
6.67
15.97
12.04
10.95
12.44
7.03
Number
of
Tests
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
4
1
2
4
4
2
4
4
4
2
Engine
Tuned'
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
w
-------
Table B-l. Medium-Duty Vehicle Baseline Emission Test Data (Continued)
Tested
By
EPA /DECT
Truck
Number
22.
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Year
71
65
69
71
71
68
70
70
66
68
72
66
71
71
69
72
65
71
71
71
71
72
Make
Chev
Chev
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
Chev
Ford
Chev
CMC
Dodge
Chev
Ford
Chev
Ford
Ford
Chev
Ford
Chev
Chev
Chev
Ford
Model
C-20
C-20
F-250
E-300
E-300
F-250
C-20
F-250
C-20
C-25
B-300
C-20
NA
C-30
F-250
F-250
C-20
F-250
C-20
C-20
C-20
F-250
Body
Type
Pickup
Pickup
Motor
Home
\ an
Van
Pickup
Pickup
Camper
Pit kup
XA
Van
Pit kup
Camper
Camper
Pic kup
Pic kup
Pickup
Pickup
PK kup
tamper
Pickup
Pickup
GVW,
Ib
6,200
7,500
6, 100
7,600
6,050
7, 500
7,500
6,«00
7,500
7, 500
7,000
7, 500
6,000
9,000
b,900
8, 100
7, 500
7,500
6,400
6,700
6,400
7,800
GCW,
Ib
4920
4325
6315
5840
4340
4620
4QOO
7150
4405
5125
4160
4500
4920
4198
4600
4675
4650
5100
4880
4600
4275
4715
Inertia
Test
Wt, Ib
5500
5000
7000
6500
5000
5000
5500
5500
5000
5500
4500
5000
5500
4500
5000
5000
5000
5500
5000
5000
4500
5000
Fngine
CID
350
250
360
302
302
240
350
360
283
327
360
250
360
400
360
360
283
360
307
350
307
390
Cyl
8
6
8
8
8
6
8
8
8
8
8
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Average Emissions, gm/mi
HC
5.97
7.69
8.06
9.35
6.94
8.49
4.97
5 .65
13.00
7.65
3.91
9.86
8.17
4. 10
12.45
6.35
8 .06
6.41
4.06
4.21
3 38
CO
37.05
70.49
116.06
59.00
73.95
94.47
36.06
78.05
114.47
90 21
31 .01
65.94
111 56
43.82
106.61
75.28
98.39
48 . 78
78.23
41 .72
38 76
co2
757.78
532.08
934.45
786.11
695.26
569.85
801 .89
790 79
609.73
735.49
734.86
699.98
670.72
910.68
710.96
728.02
-
760.73
737.17
713.24
690.36
704.52
NO
X
8.56
8.99
15.82
15.55
6.58
6.53
12.77
10. 19
6.33
10.75
7.60
13.19
7.01
11.01
6.94
7.97
5.67
10. 06
6.12
7.80
10.14
Number
of
Tests
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
4
1
2
2
2
4
4
Engine
Tuned'
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
-------
Tab1 * 3-1. Medium-Duty Vehicle Baseline Emission Test Data (Continued)
Tested
By
EPA /DECT
Truck
Number
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
32
53
54
55
56»
57b
58
59
60
61b
62b
63b'c
63b'c
64
Year
--
-a
72
72
70
b9
70
72
71
69
73
73
fa°
73
73
73
73
73
Make
Chev
Che\
Chev
Ford
Chev
Ford
CMC
Chev
CMC
Dodge
Ford
Chev
Chev
Chev
Che^
Ford
Chex
Chec
Chev
Cru-v
(Tuned)
73 P!C
Model
C-30
C-30
C-20
F-700
C-20
F-250
C-35
C-20
C-^5
n-3oo
F-350
C-20
Camper
Spec lal
C-20
C-20
F-250
C-20
C-20
C-20
C-20
1510
1 t
Bodv
Type
--
--
--
NA
P.ckup
Pickun
NA
I'll Mlp
NA
NA
Van
' Pukup
Pic kun
Dump-
Bed
Pic kup
Pic kup
Pu kup
Pickup
Pickup
ChAf.fi-
GV\V,
Ib
--
--
--
23, 500
6,200
7, 500
14,000
7, 500
14,000
10,000
10,000
7, 500
" , 000
8,200
10,000
6,200
b , 400
0,800
0,400
6,400
14, 000
1_ _J
GCW,
Ib
--
--
--
8950
4540
4495
8180
4540
8175
5200
73ZO
4540
5170
5545
--
--
--
_.
--
--
Inertia
Test
Wt, Ib
--
--
--
10, 000
5000
5500
10, ooo
5500
10,000
6500
8500
5000
6500
7000
7500
5000
5500
5500
5000
5000
8000
Fngine
CID
--
--
--
361
350
250
350
350
350
318
300
307
350
454
350
360
454
350
250
292
345
Cyl
--
--
--
8
8
b
8
8
8
8
6
8
R
8
8
8
«
8
b
A. v o r a e t Fm vssions, g IT* '' m i
1
HC CO
i
-- i --
--
t< 01 7r, .an
i.2P ?- 19
5.23 ;.:.4°
!
6.85 fc>-.'..6
9.70 I ..:'.'
7.53 i J .f 1
!
4 . b i :,-'..)
6 . fa4 j "' .87
6.20 3! '!
1 .63 1> 96
I
1 68 ! : 07
8.1? <) J 33
3.51 '' .t,Q
1 5f J1.18
2.0; 12. 17
!
i.3(i il 47
6 | 3,^ r S9
1. 28 M 70
8 6.7" ; >. {3
!
C°2
--
--
--
1185.69
684,49
737.25
9b6 76
639.87
986 91
806.88
750 81
641 15
1000. 18
9q8.32
75Q.31
7tiO.R7
1091.85
8?'- 63
710.89
1041. 36
740. 60
931. 81
NO
X
--
--
--
16.38
7.03
2.78;
13.02
5.48
13.01
8.80
9.01
7.22
5.87
10.53
8.54
4.67
4.69
6 . b 2
3.68
2.50
2. 32
4. 59
of
Test?
--
--
<:
2
'
2
-
I
2
;
1
-
-
Engine
Tuned'
--
--
--
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Ye.-,
Yes
No
Yes
i Ye.--
i
1
w
I
-------
Table B-l. Medium-Duty Vehicle Baseline Emission Test Data (Continued)
W
i
Tested
By
EPA/DECT
SWRI
Truck
Number
65
66b
67
200
201
202
203
204
205
20t>
207
.OS
208
209
209
210
211
212
213
Year
73
73
73
70
69
66
68
71
73
71
66
72
(Tu
73
(Tu
70
70
70
72
Make
Chev
Chev
Ford
Ford
Chev
Chev
Chev
Chev
Dodge
IHC
IHC
IHC
ledl
Ford
led)
Chev
Chev
Dodge
Ford
Model
P-30
P-30
F-2SO
F-250
C-20
C-20
C-20
C-20
NA
1210
Metro
Van- 1200
1210
E-300
C-30
C-20
D-200
E-300
Body
Type
Std. Van
Earth
Motor
Home
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
Motor
Home
Pickup
Panel
Pu kup
Van
Pu kup
Pit kup
Pickup
Van
GVW,
Ib
8,200
1 1 ,000
6,200
7,500
7, 500
7,500
7,500
7,500
11 ,000
b, 100
8,000
7, 500
7,000
8,000
6,200
7,500
7,000
GCW,
Ib
--
4020
4430
4260
4390
4400
7730
4450
5900
4710
4260
4990
5990
4300
4450
Inertia
Test
Wt. Ib
7000
8500
5000
5000
5500
5500
5500
5000
8000
5000
7000
5500
5500
6000
6500
5500
5500
Engine
CID
350
454
360
240
292
327
327
350
318
345
266
304
302
292
250
318
302
Cyl
8
8
8
6
6
8
8
8
8
8
6
8
8
6
6
8
8
Average Fmissions, gm'mi
HC
2.52
3.61
3.91
9.69
6.18
39.07
19.70
3.48
8.97
6.02
18.50
4.72
4.35
5.82
5.30
7.11
6.35
5.59
4.24
CO
40.51
51 .91
31 .43
139.06
68.39
122.61
236.05
24.20
126.39
64. «1
170.41
41 .37
59.76
38.40
31 .87
76.53
91 .58
37.40
68.5]
CO,
968.25
1202.20
763.70
502.33
508.11
648.45
532.02
717.08
1008. 05
617 .20
702 .84
677.79
734.00
629.83
706.37
655. 10
659.79
604.05
774.11
NO
X
7.18
9.85
5.73
5.93
4.81
4.88
2.75
6.82
12.88
4.13
5.56
8.47
5.14
4.73
3.RO
7.21
8.40
5.29
4.13
Number
of
Tests
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Engine
Tuned'
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
-------
Table £>-!. Medium-Duty Vehicle Baseline Emission Test Data (Continued)
cd
Tested
By
SWRI
AESf
Truck
Number
214
215
216
217
218
218
219
220
221
222
222
223
224
225
^2b
t?7
228
229
230
231
Year
72
70
69
73
72
(Tu
73
70
72
72
(Tu
72
70
67
b7
72
72
b 7
i>7
65
Make
Ford
CMC
D od g e
Chev
Chev
ned)
Chev
Ford
Ford
Dodge
ned)
CMC
Ford
Ford
Ford
!HC
Ches
Irlr
Che"
F.ird
Model
F-300
C-25
D-27
C-20
C-20
C-30
F-350
F-300
C-300
C-35
F-2^0
F-250
F-250
1210
( -20
1200
( -20
F-350
Body
Type
Van
Pickup
Motor
Home
Pickup
Pickup
Van
Stake
Motor
Home
Stake
U rn ker
Pu Uup
Pu kur>
Pu kup
Tra\ellal
Pu l-up
Cre^ C ah
P 1C Kup
PK '-up
Platf'ir -,i
GVW,
Ib
7, 000
6,200
12 , 000
6,400
6,200
6,400
10,000
8, 100
10,000
1.000
n, 100
b, 100
b, 100
7, 500
6,200
7. 300
7. "=00
10,000
GCW,
Ib
4080
4360
9820
4900
4340
4040
6000
6580
5350
5590
5000
5100
5 IOC
5380
4800
4820
6000
7120
Inertia
Test
Wt, Ib
5000
5000
11, 000
5500
5000
5000
7500
7500
7500
7500
5500
6000
6000
6500
5500
6000
6500
8200
Fng'mc
CID
302
292
318
454
350
350
300
302
318
350
360
240
240
345
350
241
250
240
Cyl
8
6
8
8
8
8
6
8
8
a
8
b
b
8
8
6
6
6
Average Frmssions, gm/mi
HC
5 84
5.86
CO
10.75
53 20
6.02 i 8.' "2
\
5.13
5.34
7.01
5.23
4.01
5 . 55
8.24
70, 5?
40 52
40 -16
4 !- . 1 C
', 78
."..23
" 1 M
8.00
9 . Q5
9.90
10.23
,". 07
Hf .1 1
126. 58
! if,.Z7
i
13.4? ' T> 05
i
5.22 ! o "' 33
3 I'l - hi
13 .t>8
12 ]'
20 . '<-.
t.'K =8
" ] R 45
i(<2 H2
co2
628.82
'.'13.33
757.98
860.91
b34.38
636.89
820.52
855.51
818 19
846. 14
793 .44
523 .44
855.2!
707.96
719.13
61 3 . u<>
527.89
844.30
Ml .02
b30.0t,
NO
X
3.53
7.37
b.34
4.26
4.97
4.82
4.04
11 .45
7.26
6.77
5.13
7.03
4.00
2.66
2.30
5.98
7.46
3.50
6 00
5,27
Number
of
1 e st 3
2
Z
2
I
i
i
2.
j
>
Engine
Tuned0
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
?
2
i
:
No
Yes
Yes
No
2 No
\'o
Yes
Yes
! No
No
! No
-------
Table B-l. Medium-Duty Vehicle Baseline Emission Test Data (Concluded)
Tested
By
A ESI
Truck
Number
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
Z45
Year
71
68
68
72
66
69
73
71
73
72
--
72
--
72
Make
Ford
Chev
Ford
CMC
Ford
Ford
Ford
Chev
IHC
Ford
--
Win-
nebagc
--
Cham-
pion
Model
F-350
C-20
F-250
P-35
F-250
F-250
E-300
C-20
1310
F-250
--
D22
--
(Dodge)
Body
Type
Platform
Pickup
Pickup
Van
Pickup
Pickup
Econo.
Panel
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
--
Motor
Home
--
Motor
Home
GVW,
Ib
10,000
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
6, 100
8,300
6,200
10,000
6,900
13,000
11 ,000
GCW,
Ib
7210
4190
4490
6960
5100
4500
4340
4500
--
--
--
--
--
Inertia
Test
Wt, Ib
8200
5000
5500
7500
6000
5000
5500
5000
7500
6000
--
8500
--
8500
Engine
CID
360
307
240
292
240
360
302
350
304
300
-
413
-
318
Cyl
8
8
6
6
6
8
8
8
8
6
-
8
-
8
Average Emissions, gm/mi
HC
12.85
11 .00
7.56
5.35
10.97
8.04
6.21
5.63
10.88
6.30
--
13.96
--
8.23
CO
116.28
135.10
78.97
79.61
140.10
103.50
47.22
50.27
131 .80
112.03
--
139.45
--
141.49
CO,
749.96
482.41
477.71
788.42
519.29
582.09
566.46
656.20
859.84
737.09
--
1131. 14
--
996.24
NO
X
6.93
1 .22
5.67
7.22
1 .78
2.81
5.69
5.01
3.16
8.12
--
14.92
--
11.96
Number
of
Tests
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
-
2
-
2
Engine
Tuned''
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
--
Yes
--
Yes
td
i
-si
Exhaust Gas Recirculation System
Green Engine
CStart of More Extensive Tuneup Checks
-------
APPENDDC C
MEDIUM-DUTY VEHICLES TESTED AT
EPA AND EXHAUST EMISSION TEST RESULTS
C-l
-------
Table C 1. Medir"~^-Duty Vehicles Tested at EPA in June, July, and
August 1972 (Ref 3-4)
O
i
Vehicle Number,
Make, and Type
1
Chev, Cheyenne
3/4-ton pickup
2
Dodge Custom 100
Light Pickup
3
Jeep Model 400E
Pickup
4
Dodge Tradesman
300 Van
Description
CID = 350 V-8
Automatic transmission
GVW = 7, 500 Ib
GCW = 4, 385 Ib
Mileage = 5704
CID = 225 6
Automatic transmission
GVW - 5 240 Ib
GCW = 3, 920 Ib
Mileage = 1962
CID = 360 V-8
4-speed manual transmission
r^vw 7 fifin IK
GCW = 4, 295 Ib
Mileage = 774
CID - 318 V-8
Automatic transmission
GVW = 7, 700 Ib
GCW = 5, 565 Ib
Mileage = 4152
Percent
Load
0
25
50
100
0
25
50
100
0
25
50
100
0
25
50
100
Inertia
Test Weight,
Ib
4, 500
5, 000
6, OOC
7, 50C
3, 500
4, 000
4, 500
5, 000
4, 500
5, 000
5, 50C
7, 000
6, 000
6, 000
6, 500
7, 500
1975
Federal Test Procedure
Emissions, gm/mi
HC
3. 08
3; 14
3.25
3. 49
3. 35
3. 05
3.81
3.73
5. 34
6. 36
6. 05
6. 01
5. 42
5. 32
5. 52
5. 69
CO
20. 51
19; 32
20. 20
Ib. 37
65. 27
49. 92
73. 16
83. 95
19. 54
27. 09
24.44
29. 45
48. n
46. 65
56.02
64. 84
NO
X
5.05
4; 88
s!so
7.32
5.33
5.70
5. 19
5.09
6.09
6. 77
7.66
8.00
9.46
9.65
9.43
9.29
-------
Table C-l. Medium-Duty Vehicles Tested at EPA in June, July, and
August 197Z (Ret. 3-4) (Continued)
O
i
U>
Vehicle Number,
Make, and Type
5
IHC Model DM106
Light Van
6
Ford 350
Box Van
7
Chev. Custom 30
Box Van
g
Ford Econoline
Van
Description
CID = Z3Z 6
3-speed manual transmission
GVW = 6, 100 lb
GCW = 4, 295 lb
Mileage = 623
CID = 300 6
Automatic transmission
GVW = 10, 000 lb
GCW = 6, Z20 lb
Mileage = 41, 520
CID = 350 V-8
Automatic transmission
GVW = 10, 000 lb
GCW = 6, 750 lb
Mileage = 497
CID = 240 6
Automatic transmission
GVW = 6, 050 lb
GCW = 4, 110 lb
Mileage = 503
Percent
Load
0
25
50
100
0
25
50
100
0
25
50
100
0
25
50
100
Inertia
Test Weight,
lb
4, 500
4, 500
5,000
6, 000
7, 000
7, 500
8,000
10, 000
7, 000
7, 500
8, 500
10, 000
4, 500
4, 500
5, 000
6, 000
1975
Federal Test Procedure-
Emissions, gm/mi
HC
4.02
3.52
4. 02
5.59
2.70
2.89
3. 05
3. 75
3. 87
3. 86
4.06
5. 05
2. 76
2. 93
3. 34
CO
72. 17
.60. 07
65. 18
95.43
28. 72
43. 07
57. 76
75. 33
61. 88
65.46
67. 22
76.61
28.78
33. 42
48. 19
NO
X
5.61
5.26
5.63
5.95
11. 48
10.77
11.89
11.62
9.39
9.32
11.06
11.76
5.40
5.34
6.45
-------
Table C-l. Medium-Duty Vehicles Tested at EPA in June, July, and
Auguts 197E (Ref. 3-4) (Concluded)
O
i
Vehicle Number,
Make, and Type
9
Dodge Crew Cab
Pickup
11
Chev. Stake Truck
Description
CID = 400
Automatic transmission
GVW - 9, 000 Ib
GCW = 5, 185 Ib
Mileage = 2262
CID = 350
Automatic transmission
GVW - 10 000 Ib
GCW = 5, 395 Ib
Mileage = 1183
Percent
Load
0
25
50
100
0
25
50
100
Inertia
Test Weight,
Ib
5, 500
6, 000
7, 000
9, 000
5. 500
6, 500
7, 500
10, 000
1975
Federal Test Procedure
Emissions, gm/mi
HC
3. 68
3. 58
3. 39
4. 57
2. 42
2. 38
2. 43
3. 91
CO
55. 07
57. 44
60. 42
85. 79
18. 44
24. 13
29. 82
60. 68
NO
X
6. 56
5. 91
6. 32
7. 74
7. 89
8. 30
9. 02
9. 87
-------
Table C-2. Exhaust Emission Test Results at
Various Inertia Weights and Road
Horsepower Settings -- Trucks
246 and 250 (Ref. 3-4)
Truck 246 -- 1972 Winnebago
Run
Number
3
4
5
6
7
8
Inertia
Test
Weight, Ib
7,900
7, 900
8, 900
9, 600
11, 200
11, 200
1975 Federal Test Procedure
Emissions, gm/mi
HC
5.71
6. 63
7. 35
6.75
7. 18
7.29
CO
69. 08
91. 66
103. 30
101. 65
109. 08
107. 29
NOX
9.27
10. 54
10. 14
12.01
10. 52
10.77
Truck 250 -- 1972 Chevrolet Box Van
Run
Number
1
2
3
Inertia
Test
Weight, Ib
7, 500
8, 500
9,600
1975 Federal Test Procedure
Emissions, gm/mi
' HC
7. 52
7. 33
9.75
CO
110. 45
133. 82
180. 69
NOX
7. 14
7. 59
7. 58
C-5
-------
APPENDIX D
DRIVING CYCLE DATA
Driving Cycles for Emission Comparisons
Ethyl Corporation Chassis Dynamometer Cycles
Map of San Antonio Road Route
D-l
-------
DHEW URBAN DRIVING CYCLE
o.
E
Q_
CO
200
O-
e
o"
UJ
UJ
Q_
60
40
20
400 600 800 1000
TIME, sec
NEW YORK CITY DRIVING CYCLE
i I
0
60 r-
a.
E
25 50 75 100 125 150
TIME, sec .
7-MODE DRIVING CYCLE
175
50 75 100 125 150
TIME, sec
1200
1400
200
Figure D-l. Driving Cycles for Emission Comparisons
(Ref. 3-10)
D-2
-------
Table D-l. Ethyl Corporation Chassis Dynamometer Cycles
(Ref. 3-7)
DLA-1 -- Group II
Median Truck (6, 000
to 10, 000-lb GVW)
DLA-2 -- Group III
Median Truck(10,000
to 19, 500-lb GVW)
DLA-3 -- Group IV
Median Truck (over
19, 500-lb GVW)
Mode
1. Idle
2. Gear-1
3. Gear-2
4. Gear-3
5. Decelerate
6. Accelerate
7. Decelerate
8. Accelerate
9. Cruise
10. Decelerate
11. Accelerate
12. Decelerate
Rear
Wheel
Speed, mph
0
0 to 16
15 to 27
26 to 32
32 to 27
27 to 32
32 to 20
20 to 29
29
29 to 19
19 to 29
29 to 0
Duration,
sec
22
6
5
8
6
5
5
6
22
9
5
15
Mode
J. Idle
2. Gear-2
3. Gear-3
4. Gear-4
5. Gear-5
6. Decelerate
7. Cruise
8. Accelerate
9. Cruise
10. Decelerate
Rear
Wheel
Speed, mph
0
0 to 10
9 to 21
20 to 26
24 to 35
35 to 25
25
25 to 28
28
28 to 0
Duration,
sec
20
3
10
6
12
10
12
6
12
15
Mode
1. Idle
2. Gear-2
3. Gear-3
4. Gear-4
5. Gear-5
6. Decelerate
7. Cruise
8. Accelerate
9. Cruise
10. Decelerate
11. Cruise
12. Decelerate
Rear
Wheel
Speed, mph
0
0 to 12
10 to 21
18 to 32
28 to 35
35 to 21
21
21 to 24
24
24 to 21
21
21 to 0
Duration,
sec
27
9
9
9
12
13
28
19
28
6
28
12
D-3
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
2
3
4
S
6
7
I
TOTAL MILEAGE
N
DOWN /
OVER OR UNDER PASS
TRAFFIC LIGHT
SCHOOL ZONE
SPEED LIMIT-SO MPH UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED
Figure D-2. San Antonio Heavy-Duty Gasoline Truck Road
Route (Ref. 3-8)
D-4
-------
APPENDIX E
EMISSION INVENTORY CALCULATIONS
Mobile source pollutant emission inventories (HC, CO, and NOX)
for the LDV, MDV, and HDV classes were presented in Section 9 to illustrate
the effect of four different MDV emission control level strategies on overall
HC, CO, and NO emissions in the New York City, Los Angeles, and Phoenix-
Tucson AQCRs.
The results were shown, for each pollutant, as the fraction or
percentage of the 1970 emission inventory for the AQCR of interest, for the
years 1970 through 1990. The emission inventory for any year (e. g. , 1975)
is based on the full calendar year (e. g. , from 1 January to 31 December 1975).
Examination of available sales data indicates that approximately one-third of
the sales of a given model year (e. g. , 1976) occurs during the period September
through December of the prior calendar year. Therefore, the emission cal-
culations for a given year (e. g. , 1975) include the effects of one-third of the
sales of the next (1976) model year.
This section is supplementary to Section 9 and presents a brief
discussion of the calculational technique used.
The approach used to calculate vehicle emissions was, in gen-
eral, similar to the method recommended by EPA in Ref. E-l. The cal-
culation was made independently for each of four vehicle classes (passenger
cars, light-duty trucks, MDVs, and HDVs) at each of a series of discrete
years to project the trend of vehicle emissions from 1970 to 1990. The results
for passenger cars and light-duty trucks were combined as LDVs.
Four different sets of exhaust emission alternative standards
for MDVs and two for HDVs were examined. They were combined to represent
four possible emission control strategies. These exhaust emission levels
are shown in Tables 9-3, 9-4, 9-5, and 9-6. In all four strategies, the LDV
E-l
-------
emission standards (or characteristic levels) for passenger cars and
light-duty trucks are invariant as shown in Table 9-1 and Ref. 9-1.
In Strategy No. I, both MDV and HDV emission levels remain
at 1974 levels indefinitely.
In Stragegy No. II, both MDV and HDV emissions are reduced
to reflect compliance with California 1975 HDV engine emission standards.
Both changes occur in California in 1975 and the rest of the United States in
1977.
Strategy No. Ill is the same as Strategy No. II except that
MDV emissions are further reduced in California in 1977 and the rest of the
United States in 1979. These reductions are based on the use of an oxidation
catalyst plus EGR.
Strategy No. IV is similar to Strategy No. Ill except that MDV
NC) emissions are further reduced in California in 1980 and in 1982 for the
A.
rest of the United States. It is assumed that the incorporation of a reducing
catalyst (or other equivalent) permits the attainment of these ultralow NOX
emission values.
For each vehicle class (passenger car, light-duty truck, MDV,
and HDV) and for each calendar year, the principal calculational variables
were:
a. The number of vehicles registered for each model year
b. .The mileage of vehicles according to age
c. The specific vehicle pollutant emission levels for each
model year
E. 1 NUMBER OF VEHICLES REGISTERED
The calculation of the number of vehicles registered as a
fur- tion of model year was based on two main factors: the number of vehicles
registered when new and the loss of vehicles resulting from age (attrition).
E. 1. 1 New Vehicle Registrations
The number of new motor vehicles historically registered each
year was determined from published values in the Automotive News for the
E-2
-------
two basic classes, passenger cars and trucks. The proportional split of
trucks into the LDV, MDV, and HDV weight classes was based on 1972 truck
registration surveys for the AQCRs of interest (discussed in Section 8).
Future trends in new motor vehicle sales (both passenger cars
and trucks) were established by adjusting sales growth by the "above 18"
population growth trend as obtained from census projections (Ref. E-2). In
addition, for passenger car registration projections, a standard-of-living
increase factor was included. The new vehicle growth factors determined by
this approach are shown in Table 9-7 as "anticipated" growth factors. In
the case of the New York City AQCR, a high growth rate of 4 percent per
year was also arbitrarily assumed in order to examine the impact of growth
rate assumptions on resulting mobile source emission inventories.
Initially, a new vehicle registration growth rate based on
historical total registration data trends was derived; however, using these
past values for projected growth rates led to absurd truck-to-passenger-car
ratios in projecting to the 1990's. This was the principal reason for adopting
vehicle growth factors that were related to population forecasts.
The calculational procedure is capable of applying the vehicle
growth factor to either the whole class of vehicles under examination or to
only the new vehicles each year. Correlations have indicated that applying
the growth factor to new vehicle sales only is more reasonable. Over the
long range of forecasting, this technique predicts a reduced rate of increase
in vehicle sales over the very high vehicle sales growth values of recent
years.
In the case of passenger cars, in addition to the growth rate
in new car sales based on population growth, a factor reflecting an increase
in the specific car-per-person ratio was added, reflecting the present trends
of multiple cars per family ownership. The present car-per-person-above-18
ratio is about 70 percent. Because of factors such as illness, blindness, and
old age, a car-per-person-above-18 ratio of 90 percent appears to be a
Above 18 years of age
E-3
-------
probable upper limit. An intermediate value of 80 percent was adopted in
the present study as a most probable forecast increase.
E, 1. 2 Vehicle Attrition Factor
An attrition factor resulting from age was used to represent
the percentage of vehicles remaining in service as a function of vehicle age.
The age distribution of vehicles obtained from R. L. Polk Company registration
data was insufficient to establish uniform profiles for each AQCR; therefore,
a mathematical model of the following form was used.
-C.XN L C,(25 - X)M .
y - e 1 -)- e 2 -1
where
y = percent of vehicles left in service
X = vehicle age, in years
This equation is uniquely determined by five constraints. The first constraint
is the normalized value of 1972 total vehicle population distribution by model
year (1957 through 1972) as derived from Table 8-12 and R. L. Polk Company
registration data by model year.
The second constraint is the ratio of 1970 new vehicle regis-
trations to 1957 vehicles left in service, corrected by the 1970 to 1957 new
vehicle registration ratio. The result is the percentage of vehicles still in
service after 15 years of use.
The third constraint is the normalized value of vehicles older
than 1957 still in service in 1972.
The fourth constraint is the assumption that practically no
vehicles are left after 25 years of service. (Actual results show a decay
period of 20 years for passenger cars and 25 years for all trucks. )
The fifth constraint is:
e-Cl(15)N = eC2(10)U ^
E-4
-------
which says that both parts of the equation must have the same coordinates
at 15 years of age. Hence, the equation y = e"C!X describes the attrition
factor for the age bracket 0 to 15 years, and the equation y = e 2^ 5 ~ x) -1
describes the attrition factor for vehicles older that 15 years. These attrition
factors were determined for the period 1947 to 1972. However, examination
of the data shows little change in the attrition factor over the years; therefore,
a single attrition factor was used for the period extending to 1990.
Finally, the total number of vehicles calculated for a given
AQCR were forced to agree with the vehicle population given in Table 8-12
for that AQCR, by using a multiplier factor. This multiplier corrects for
normalizing values based on insufficient registration data breakdowns.
E. 2 VEHICLE MILEAGE DETERMINATION
The mileage distribution according to vehicle age was based
on the normalized average miles driven values of Tables 10 and 16 of
Ref. E-l. However, the magnitude of the mileage distribution function was
adjusted to result in the total miles traveled values for each AQCR as shown in
in Table 8-12.
E. 3 EMISSION CORRECTION FACTORS
Specific LDV, MDV, and HDV emission characteristics by
model year and deterioration-with-age factors used were delineated in
Section 9. Deterioration-with-age factors were applied only to passenger
cars and light-duty trucks (LDV class). No velocity corrections were used
in any of the emission calculations (speed correction factor = 1. 0).
E-5
-------
.REFERENCES
ii-i. D. S, Kircher and D, F. Armstrong, £~±
Vehicle Em.issj.onE8ti.raaxi.on, EPA (October
E-2. Statistical Abstract of the United States. 1972. U. S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census
E-6
-------
GLOSSARY
AQCR
CID
CO
CVS
DF
ECS
EGR
EVW
FDC
FGR
FTP
gm
gm/mi
GVW
HC
HDV
w
LDV
MDV
mpg
NO
Air Quality Control Region
cubic inch displacement
carbon monoxide
constant volume sampling
degradation factor
emission control system
exhaust gas recirculation
empty vehicle weight
Federal Driving Cycle
flue gas recirculation
Federal Test Procedure
gram
gram per mile
gross vehicle weight
hydrocarbon
heavy-duty vehicle (over 14, 000-lb GVW)
inertial test weight
light-duty vehicle (under 6000-lb GVW)
medium-duty vehicle (6, 000 to 14, 000-lb GVW)
miles per gallon
oxides of nitrogen
F-l
-------
SARR San Antonio Road Route
SCAB South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles)
VMT vehicle miles traveled
vV curb weight
c
W test weight
te sx
F-2
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1 REPORT NO.
EPA-460/3-74-004-b
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. nTLE AND SUBTITLE Medium Duty Vehicle Emission
Control Cost Effectiveness Comparisons
Volume II - Technical Discussion
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. Speisrnan, H. M. White
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
ATR-74(7327)-l, Vol. II
9. PERFORMING ORG '\NIZATION NAME AND ADDREiiS
The Environmental Programs G
Urban Programs Division
The Aerospace Corporation
El Segundo, California 90245
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-0417
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Air and Water Piograms
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
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
A comparative analysis was ma/ton) in general decrease in numerical value as the vehicle
weight increases; i. e. , MDVs ar; 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.
7.
KEY WC IDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution
\utomobiles
1 rucks
Boilers
Utilities
Costs
B DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution Control 13B
Mobile Sources 13F
Stationary Sources 14A
Emission Inventories 21G
Emission Control
Systems
Control Cost Effectiveness
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport}
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
c. COSATI Field/Group
21. NO. OF PAGES
235
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
G-i
------- |