A PRESENTATION TO THE WASHINGTON OPERATION RESEARCH
COUNCIL'S THIRD COST-EFFECTIVENESS SYMPOSIUM
"MARCH 18-19, 1974 —
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND
Analysis of Control Strategies to Attain the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide
Presented by
John Crenshaw, Allen Basal a
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
ABSTRACT
This paper discusses the methodology and conclusions of an analysis
that evaluated alternative air pollution control strategies that achieve
the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)~for N02 (nitrogen
dioxide). The analysis was undertaken by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in the summer of 1973 to determine the level of NO (nitro-
X
gen oxides) emission control from mobile and stationary sources required
to achieve the standard.
The primary objective of the analysis was to determine an efficient
air pollution control strategy that would attain and maintain the annual
N02 standard of 100 yg/m3 despite the rapid growth of NO sources. A
A
proportional model was used to simulate air quality data at five-year
intervals out to 1990. The model used current air quality data, six
categories of NO sources (light, medium, and heavy duty vehicles, in-
J\
dustrial processes, area sources, and power plants), five sets of
growth rates for each source category, two levels of stationary source
control, and four NO automotive emission standards. A proportional
/\ *
relationship was assumed between total annual NO emissions and annual
J\
average N02 concentrations. "Control costs were calculated for each
strategy. Fuel penalty costs were calculated for each level of mobile
source control.
*
From the analysis, EPA concluded and recommended that the 1977
automotive standard of 0.4 grams/mile should be revised to 2.0 grams/
mile. In addition, more stringent emission control should be placed
on new and existing stationary sources in regions with high N02 con-
centrations. If adopted, this recommendation would change the national
-------
2
N02 control strategy. The recommendation was made after evaluating
projected air quality, control costs, and fuel penalty costs.
BACKGROUND
The Clean Air Act of 1970 requires that the Administrator of EPA
establish ambient air quality standards for any pollutant which, in
his judgement, adversely effects the public health and welfare. An
ambient air quality standard implies that at no location in the nation
may a parcel of air contain more than a specified concentration of the
pollutant. Air quality standards are expressed in micrograms per cubic
meter (ug/m3) or parts per million by volume (ppm). In addition to
requiring air quality standards, Congress, through the Clean Air Act,
set emission standards for new automobiles. Based on 1970 N02
measurements, Congress estimated that only through 90% control of NO l
/\
emissions on new cars would the public be adequately protected from
the adverse health effects of N02. Congress, therefore, wrote into
the Clean Air Act the requirement that automotive emissions of NO
y\
•
be reduced by 90% by 1976.
In 1971, EPA promulgated National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for N02 and five other pollutants. The standard for N02 is
1 Nitrogen oxides are emitted into the air a nitric oxide (NO) and
nitrogen dioxide (N02). By far, NO is emitted in larger quantities.
Once in the air, NO is converted to N02. Therefore, to control
N02 in the ambient air, emissions of N02 and its precursor, NO,
must be controlled. By convention, NOX represents the sum of NO
and N02. In this paper, NOX refers to the emissions of NO and N02.
N02 refers to atmospheric concentrations of nitrogen dioxide.
-------
100 yg/m3 annual average. The national control strategy for attaining
the NOz standard was to meet the mandated 90% control of NO emissions
/\
from automobiles, to apply the available NO control technology to
/\
stationary sources, and then, if certain areas do not meet the standard,
to place further controls on transportation sources. Transportation
controls include reducing vehicle miles traveled, retrofitting existing
automobiles, and restricting downtown parking.
After the Clean Air Act was enacted, EPA discovered that the
analytical method that was being used to measure ambient N02 was over-
estimating NOz levels in many cases. Using other analytical techniques,
EPA remeasured air quality in the 47 regions of the country where the
standards were suspected of being violated. The results showed
that only 2-5 regions of the country were in violation of the standard.
Thus, the Administrator suspected and alerted Congress to the possibility
that our national control strategy for attaining the NOz standard might
be overly restrictive on the automobile.
The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) was
asked to study the NOz problem and, if appropriate, to recommend a
new national control strategy for NOz based on the more recent air
quality measurements. The problem was to determine the balance of NO
/\
»
emission control between mobile and stationary sources that would
achieve the NAAQS at the least cost to society. The general approach
to the problem was to formulate a set of strategies, predict future air
quality for each strategy, associate a cost to each strategy, and then
recommend a control strategy based on future air quality, costs and
energy considerations (gasoline consumption).
-------
4
AIR QUALITY SIMULATION
The Modified Rollback Model was used to simulate N02 concentrations
in the future. The model was developed by Roger-Morris and Noel deNevers
of EPA. The model will not be explained in detail because the model
per se is not the major subject of this paper. The model assumes that
in a region air concentrations of a pollutant are proportional to the
emissions of that pollutant. The basic equation from which the model
was derived is
AQp = B + (AQQ - B)
where AQp = Predicted pollutant concentration at a future date
(yg/m3)
B = Natural background concentration (yg/m3)
AQ = Baseline pollutant concentration (yg/m3)
Ep = Total emissions (Tons/year) at a future date
EQ = Baseline emissions (Tons/year)
The equation states that (future concentrations of a pollutant) =
(background concentration) + (that portion of baseline air quality
contributed by man) x (the ratio of future emissions to baseline
emissions).
The ratio
EpJ
is a summation of Ep and Ep for six categories
of NO emission sources. The calculation of I Ep and z Ep begins with
the baseline emissions (Tons/year) from each source category. The following
parameters were considered in the calculation, (a) Present and future
emission factors. Emission factors represent the rate of emission into
the environment per a unit of production. For example, an emission factor
-------
5
for the automobile is expressed in grams/mile. An industrial boiler
would be expressed in pounds/106 BTU. (b) Weighting factors represent
the percent contribution of NO emissions from sub-categories within
A
each emission category. Since the combustion of different fuels releases
different amounts of NO into the air, the power plant category was
A
divided into coal, oil and gas-fired units. Industrial emissions were
divided into coal, oil, and gas-fired boilers, nitric acid plants, and
solid waste disposal, (c) Stack height factors considered the effect
of stack height on ground level N02 concentrations, (d) Growth rates
were derived for all six categories, (e) Speed factors adjusted emission
factors of mobile sources according to average vehicle speeds, (f)
Deterioration factors accounted for the decrease in effectiveness of
control equipment (i.e. increased emissions) as vehicles grew older.
(g) Distribution factors were applied to consider the contribution
of emissions from each model year vehiclenduring a given calendar year.
Appendix A shows the expansion of the basic rollback equation that con-
siders six emission source categories and breaks down emissions by new
and existing sources.
. Future air quality was simulated for the ten cities shown in Table 3.
These cities were selected because they represented a wide variety of
*
N02 concentrations and NO emission sources.
A
Emissions data were taken from the National Emissions Data System
(NEDS) which is maintained by EPA with data provided by each state.
For the analysis, data were divided into the following six categorie^;--
light-duty vehicles, medium-duty vehicles, heavy-duty vehicles, power
-------
6
plants, industrial sources, and area sources (small emitting sources
of less than 100 Tons/year each). Air quality data were taken from the
National Air Surveillance Network (NASN) which is -a network of air
monitors operated by EPA. Air quality was measured in the central
business district of each city. The baseline year for all data was 1972.
Growth rates were derived for each source category. For each
category several sets of growth rates were derived using different
economic indicators from the Department of Commerce. The model was
run with each set of growth rates to determine whether small variations
in growth rates would significantly affect future air quality. The
variations were not significant (usually <4 yg/m3). Therefore, the
growth rates selected for the analysis were those derived from what
. were felt to be the best economic indicators.
STRATEGY FORMULATION
The general approach to formulating strategies was to select
various future automotive standards and test them at different levels of
stationary source control. The current NO emission standard for light-
/\
duty vehicles is 0.4 grams/mile to be achieved in 1977. The interim
standards are 3.1 grams/mile in 1973 and 2.0 grams/mile in 1976. EPA's
Mobile Source Testing Lab recommended four emission levels that should
be considered for future standards: 0.4, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 grams/mile.
CL*
Each standard represents distinct level of technology and cost. Each
of these potential standards was assumed to be met in 1977 after the
interim star.-dards were met in 1973 and 1976. Standards for medium and
heavy-duty vehicles were assumed .in 1980 at a level expected to represent
-------
7
best available control technology at that time. These standards remained
constant throughout the simulations. Each of the four automotive strategies
was simulated with two levels of stationary source,..control. Both stationary
source strategies assign a level of control to new and existing emission
sources within each category and sub-category of NO sources.
X
CSST - Current stationary source technology represents
emission reductions that will occur as a result
of the current Federal and State air pollution
control regulations.
MSST - Maximum stationary source technology represents
emission reductions that would be feasible be-
ginning in 1980 if EPA pursues an intensive re-
search and development program for the control
of N02. The MSST strategy was derived from
emission estimates by EPA's Control Systems
Laboratory.
Figure 1 graphically represents the eight control strategies that were
considered. For each strategy future air quality concentrations were
simulated (on the Modified Rollback Model) for the years 1975, 1977,
1980, 1985, and 1990.
DEVELOPMENT OF COSTS
For the purpose of recommending a control strategy, the air quality
simulations alone were not conclusive. Several strategies appeared to attain
and maintain the air quality standard adequately. Cost estimates would
provide a measure of the resource requirements for each strategy. A
strategy could then be .selected which achieved and maintained the air
-------
Figure 1
SIMULATED STRATEGIES
1973
1976
1977
CSST = Current Stationary Source Technology
MSST = Maximum Stationary Source Technology
-------
8
quality standard while efficiently utilizing resources.
Therefore, costs were calculated for each of the eight simulated
strategies.
No formal model existed relating NO emissions to air quality
/\
and cost. The relationship between emissions and air quality could be
simulated with the Modified Rollback Model. But a method for linking
costs to emissions had to be developed.
The following assumptions were employed in developing costs.
Co^ntant costs were assumed for each source affected by a simulated
regulation. Economies and diseconomies of scale were not considered.
In certain instances, cost was projected beyond the useful life of a
device. This action implied replacement of the control device. Costs
were presented in annualized form for each of the simulated time periods.
The annualized form was believed to be an adequate representation of
costs since the ordinal ranking of projected air quality and cost for
every strategy did not change over the time periods.
Cost Development. in the analysis, cost represented the annualized
control'cost required to achieve a strategy in a particular time period
and region. For consistency, each strategy cost was developed with the same
emissions and growth rates used in the air quality simulations.
Each strategy cost was developed in the following sequence. The
affected sources were designated and categorized. The control techniques
were determined,Model plant costs were developed. The number of affected
sources in each category was determined. Finally, the model plant costs
and the numbers of affected sources were multiplied and their products
-------
9
summed to yield the total strategy cost. Each step of cost development
is described in more detail below.
Affected Sources^ The affected sources were designated by comparing the
current and projected emissions inventory with the emission reduction
requirements for each strategy. For example, consider a regulation
applying to NO emissions from stationary source coal combustion under
J\
CSST. A search of the current and projected emissions inventory found
coal-fired boilers in the industrial category and in the power plant
category. The emission source categories and the applicable affected
sources are displayed in Table 1.
Control Techniques. After the affected sources were selected, the
control techniques that would achieve the required emission reductions
were determined. The criterion for selection of a control technique
was least cost subject to demonstrated reliability or development
potential. Given the affected sources, the required emission reductions,
and the criterion, the applicable control techniques were determined.
Although appearing to be a large chore, this task was relatively easy,
because NO control techniques for stationary and mobile sources are
*v .»
few. The selected control techniques for the mobile and stationary
.source categories are given in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2, respectively.
Model Plant Cost. Given each affected source and the applicable control
technique, a model plant was specified. A model plant is a typical
source within a source category. For the mobile source category, the
model plant was defined by the affected source designation. In the
industrial, power plant, and area source categories a model plant had
-------
10
TABLE 1. Affected Sources
Emission
Source
Category
Affected Sources
CSST
MSST
Area
Industrial
Power Plant
Light-duty vehicle
Medium-duty vehicle
Heavy-duty vehicle
None
New and existing
coal, oil, gas
fired boilers.
Existing nitric
acid plants.
New and existing
coal, oil, gas-
fired plants
New
New
New
New residential oil-
fired sources
New and existing coal ,
oil, gas fired boilers,
Coal, oil, gas-fired
plants
New
New
New
-------
n
TABLE 2-1.
Control Techniques for Mobile'Sources
Affected Sources
Emission Reduction
Requirement
Control Technique
Light-Duty Vehicle
Medium-Duty Vehicle
Heavy-Duty Vehicle
gasoline
diesel
2.0 grams/mile
1.5 grams/mile
1.0 grams/mile
0.4 grams/mile
3.1 grams/mile
2.0 grams/mile
7.0 grams/mile
7.0 grams/mile
Proportional Exhaust
Gas Recirculation (PEGR)
PEGR
PEGR + 3-way Catalyst
PEGR + 3-way Catalyst
Exhaust Gas Recirculation
Proportional Exhaust
Gas Recirculation
Exhaust gas recirculation
Engine Modification by
Redesign
-------
12
TABLE 2-2.
Control Techniques for Stationary Sources
Affected Sources
Current Stationary
Source Technology (CSST)
Maximum Stationary
Source Technology (MSST)
Power Plants
coal-fired
oil-fired
gas-fired
Industrial Sources
coal-fired
oil-fired
gas-fired
HN03 Plants
Area Sources
Residential
oil-fired
heaters
Low Excess Air Firing plus
two stage firing
Low Excess Air Firing plus
two stage firing
Low Excess Air Firing plus
two stage firing
Low Excess Air Firing
Low Excess Air Firing
Low Excess Air Firing-
Catalytic Reduction
Not Applicable
Flue Gas Recirculation
Flue Gas Recirculation
Flue Gas Recirculation
Flue Gas Recirculation
Flue Gas Recirculation
Flue Gas Rhcirculation
Low Excess Air Firing
plus Flue Gas Recircu-
lation
-------
13
to be specified. The model plants in these instances were composite
plants whose characteristics were determined considering the current
and projected size distribution of the affected sources.
Characteristics such as operating time, life of the control device,
investment cost, interest, and maintenance cost were then calculated
for each model plant. The validity of each characteristic was documented
by published cost/engineering studies and expert opinion. Given the
model plants, the characteristics, the required emission reductions,
and the control techniques, the annualized costs for each model plant
were developed. Two examples, one from the industrial category and
one from the mobile source category are given below. The examples
display the sequence of model plant cost development.
1. Source category
2. Regulatory strategy element
3. Affected Source
4. Control Technique
5. Model Plant
6. Characteristics:
Vehicle Age and Annual
Mileage
Miles per gallon
Fuel Cost
Control Investment
Depreciation period
Interest
Maintenance
Fuel penalty factor
Operating cost
Annual fuel penalty cost
-- Mobile
-- 2.0 grams NO per mile
-- light-duty vehicles (less
than 6000 pounds)
~ ^Proportional exhaust gas
recirculation
—' light-duty vehicle
4 years old; 11,400 miles
13.5 mpg
$.40/gal
$32.00
10 years
8%
$4.00/year
6%
_ /"mi
ilesVgall
^year J\ mi
$
ons.
le A gallon
'fuel penalty]
factor J
= (11,400) (.0741) ($.40) (.06)
. $20.27/year
7. Annualized Model Plant Cost -- $29.00
-------
14
1. Source Category
2. Regulatory Strategy Element
3. Affected Source
4. Control TUchnique
5. Model Plant
6. Characteristics:
Fuel Consumption
Operating Time
Fuel Cost
Combustion Efficiency
Factor
Excess Air, pre control
Excess Air, past control
Fuel Savings Factor
Control Investment
Depreciation Period
Interest
Maintenance
Operating Costs
— Industrial
— MSST
— Coal Fuel Combustion
— Flue Gas Recirculation
— Boiler producing 190,000 pounds
of steam'per hour
5-100
—\9 tons of coal per hour
— 4566 hours per year
— $.18 per 106 BTU
— 80 percent
-- 25 percent
5 percent
1 percent
-- $141,000
~ 10 years
-- 3 percent
— 8.6 percent of investment
Electricity and Labor -- $700
Fuel Savings - pounds steam X
factor
fuel savings factor X ins RTM x operating time
= 190,000 X
X .01 X X 5700
= $2437
7. Annual ized Model Plant Cost — $22,443
Affected Number of Sources. The number of affected sources was calculated
in the following manner. The annual emissions per model plant were determined.
NO emissions for each of the affected sources were projected for each region
J\
.and time period. Then, the projected annual emissions were divided by
annual model plant emissions to determine the affected number of sources.
An example is given below.
-------
15
1. Emissions per model unit
a. Emission factor: 18 pounds of NO per ton of coal consumed
A
b. Annual Coal consumption — ' ^
•hourly consumption x annual operating time
5700 5
•9 tons per hour x 456'0 hours per year = /TI300 tons per year
c. Annual unit NO emissions --
A
•emission factor x annual coal consumption
• 18 pounds of NO per ton of coal x 51300 coal tons per year =
/\
923,400 pounds of NO per year = 460 tons of NOV per year
X A
2. AQCR emission of NO from new industrial -- coal fuel combustion
A
in the year 1980, regulation effective in 1980
a. total 1980 emissions
(1) Base emissions; growth rate; projection period given
(2) 1980 total emissions = (1 + growth rate)10 x 1970 emissions
b. 1980 new source emissions
(1) 1979 total emissions
(2) 1980 emissions = 1980 total - 1979 total
3. Number of new industrial fuel combustion sources in 1980
New sources in 1980 = 1980 emissions from new sources divided
by annual unit emissions
Total Strategy Cost. Total strategy cost was developed by multiplying
the number of affected sources by the model plant cost for a given source
for each time period and region. An example of this product would be the
annualized cost for oil-fired power plants to meet the MSST requirements
in New York City in 1985. The costs of each source were then summed to yield
-------
16
the total strategy cost for a given time period and region. An example
of the total strategy cost would be the cost for the 1.0 gram/mile
strategy with CSST for Chicago in 1980 (depicted'ir^ Table 4).
FACTORS INFLUENCING COST
The relative magnitudes of strategy cost are not always apparent
from the regulatory aspects of a strategy. Factors that influence the
magnitude of costs include growth rates of the affected sources, the
distribution of emissions among the various mobile and stationary source
categories, control techniques, age of the source, and phasing of
control. Of course, there are other factors influencing cost. For NO
J\
control, one of the most important factors is the relationship of emission
reduction to fuel use. This factor is unique in its affect upon cost.
For some sources, there is an indirect relationship between emission
reduction requirements and fuel use. For other sources, there is a direct
relationship between fuel use and emission reduction requirements.
For stationary fuel combustion, required emission reductions are
achieved by boiler modifications that reduce excess air during combustion.
This modification reduces waste heat losses to the stack and thus saves
fuel. The fuel savings were considered in calculating the costs for both
the CSST and MSST strategies. emission reductions
For light, "medium, and heavy-duty gasoline propelled vehicles/down
to 1.5 grams/mile are achieved by lowering combustion temperatures through
exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). Exhaust gas recirculation suppresses NO
}\
formation, but engine efficiency is also suppressed, resulting in the
expenditure of more fuel. Emission reductions and fuel use increase as
-------
17
the flow rate through the EGR device is increased. Emission reductions
below 1.5 grams/mile are achieved by also installing a catalytic muffler.
Fuel penalties, however, are still controlled by-the EGR specifications.
Fuel penalties increase as automotive emissions are reduced from 3.0 to 2.0
to 0.4 grams/mile. In comparing strategies, the fuel penalty was found to
be the dominant factor influencing the relative magnitudes of cost.
Note in Table 4 that the cost of the 1.0 gram/mile strategies is less
than the cost of the 1.5 gram/mile strategies. The explanation lies in the
fuel penalties associated with 1.0 and 1.5 gram/mile emissions. Although
fuel penalties usually increase as NO emissions are reduced, this is not the
y\
case as. NO emissions are reduced from 1.5 to 1.0 grams/mile. A change
A
in control techniques account for a decrease in fuel penalty between 1.5
and 1.0 grams/mile. Emission reductions to 3.1, 2.0, and 1.5 grams/mile
are achieved by exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). At 1.5 grams/mile, the
device
EGR/is operating at its limit and the fuel penalty is severe. Other
control methods could potentially achieve 1.5 gram/mile emissions, but
the exhaust gas recirculation device was selected because none of the
other methods had been demonstrated and the potential for development
was not considered adequate -within-^fehe required- -t4ffl€n To reduce emissions
to 1.0 gram/mile exhaust gas recirculation has to be augmented with a
catalytic muffler. At 1.0 gram/mile, the catalyst eases the emission
reduction burden on the EGR device so that the flow rate through the EGR
(which determines fuel penalties) can be reduced to the same level that
is required for an emissions reduction to 2.0 grams/mile. Note in Table 5
that the fuel penalty for 1.0 gram/mile and 2.0 grams/mile is identical.
-------
18
Thus, the fuel penalty associated with the 1.0 gram/mile standard is
far less than the fuel penalty associated with the 1.5 gram/mile standard
(Table 5). The fuel penalty has such an overwhelming influence on cost
that the total cost of the 1.0 gram/mile strategies was less, in all
cases than the total cost of the 1.5 gram/mile strategies.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The results of the air quality simulation are presented in Table 3.
For the analysis, the assumption was made that a city within _ 10 yg/m3
of the standard will marginally achieve the standard. The model was not
considered sufficiently precise to conclude that a city with a predicted
air quality of 104 ug/m3 in 1985 would, in fact, violate the standard in
1985 or that a city with a predicted air quality of 98 yg/m3 would meet
the standard. Table 3 shows that each strategy affected various cities
differently. The cities fell into three classes: (1) cities (e.g.
Phoenix, San Francisco, Salt Lake City) that adequately maintain the
standard under any strategy; (2) borderline cities (e.g. Chicago, Baltimore)
where the model cannot predict with confidence if the standard will be
met or fail to be met; (3) Los Angeles where only through maximum control
of both stationary and mobile sources will the standard be met.
Although each city's air quality reacted differently to a given
strategy, one trend was apparent in all cases—that air quality was affected
more by stationary source control than by mobile source control. For example,
consider one of the borderline cities—Philadelphia. Air quality (AQ) in
1972 was 83 yg/m3. By 1985, if the interim 2.0 gram/mile standard is
retained, AQ = 106. If the automotive standard is reduced to 0.4 grams/mile
-------
19
in 1977, AQ = 102 yg/m3 by 1985. If the 2.0 gram/mile is retained in 1977
and more control is placed on stationary sources, then AQ = 87 yg/m3 by 1985.
The conclusion was drawn that the 2.0 gram/mile strategy with MSST will
give comparable or even better air quality than the current strategy of 0.4
.grams/mile with CSST. Further, MSST may not be required except in a few
cities. 2.0 grams/mile with CSST may adequately maintain the standard in
all cities except Los Angeles and Chicago.
Table 4 presents the cost of each strategy. The data clearly show
that the 2.0 gram/mile strategy with MSST costs less than any strategy
with CSST and more strict control of the automobile. The main reason is
because of the fuel penalties attributable to the control of NO from
/\
mobile sources. Table6 shows the cost of extra gasoline consumption
that is associated with each level of automotive control.
From this analysis, and after other considerations, the Administrator
of EPA has recommended that the 1977 NO emission standard for automobiles
X
be changed from 0.4 gram/mile to 2.0 grams/mile and that cities requiring
more NO control to maintain the standard achieve that control through
y\
further emission reductions from stationary sources. Table 6 summarizes
data from Tables 3,-4, and 5 for New York City for the current N02 strategy
and the recommended strategy. The table shows an example of how the
recommended strategy results in better air quality for the city, costs the
public less, and requires less gasoline consumption.
-------
20
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This analysis was presented by John Crenshaw and Allen Basala for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at the WORC's Third Cost- -
Effectiveness Symposium. The entire analysis, documenting all methodology
and data in detail, will be published as an EPA technical document. The
analysis was performed at the request of B.J. Steigerwald, Director of
the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. The project was
managed by Michael Berry and John Crenshaw. Allen Basala was responsible
for the economic portion of the analysis. The authors greatfully
acknowledge the assistance of Frank Bunyard and Paul Boys in calculating
control costs; EriK, Finke, Warren Freas, and Dave Kircher in computer
modeling; and Pat Barber and Evelyn Barry in data handling and technical
research.
-------
Table 3
Projected Air Quality
For Various Standards
AQCR
Standard
2 g/m1
1.5 g/ml
1 g/ml
.4 g/m1
1977
1. Phoenix
1980
61
1985
1977
1980
1985
1977
66
1980
60
1985
1977
fiS
1980
_5fl_
1985
2. Los Angeles
1Q6
1U
117
120
log
102
107
116
97
3. San Francisco
71
70
62
4. Denver
5. New York
90
74
6. Philadelphia
88
77
7. Washington, D.C.
87
97,
71
87
69
8. Chicago
11
119
112,
98
10
97
111
101
9. Baltimore
101
101
101
101
84
88
78
0. Salt Lake City
59
59
59
54
-------
Table 4
Annualized Costs of Projected Air Quality ($106)
CSST
MSST
-------
Table 5
Annualized Fuel Penalties ($106)
^0^ — • — Standard .
1. Phoenix i
t
2. Los Angeles
3. San Francisco
4. Denver
5. New York
6. Philadelphia
7. Washington D.C.
8. Chicago
9. Baltimore
10. Salt Lake City
2 g/mi
1977
7.9
52.5
23,1
6.8
60.5
24.5
12.8
31.3
11.0
4.6
1980
12.8
82.1
35.8
10.7
92.8
38.0
20.4
48.6
19.4.
7.5
1985
19.9
120.3
51.7
15.7
132.1
55.2
30.8
70.6
35.1
11.9
1.5 g/ml
1977
9.5
63.4
27.9
8.2
73.0
29.6
15.5
37.8
113.3
5.5
1980
22.9
147.2
64.1
19.1
166.5
68.2
36.6
87.2
34.8
13.4
1985
41.1
247.9
106.5
32.4
272.2
113,8
63.5
145.5
72.2
24.5
1 g/ml
1977
7.9
52.5
23.1
6.8
#
60.5
24,5
12.8
31.3
11.0
4.6
' 1980
12.8
82.1
35.8
10.7
92.8
38.0
20.4
48.6
19.4
7.5
1985
19.9
120.3
51.7
15.7
132.1
55,2
30.8
70.6
35.1
11.9
•4 g/ml
1977
8.8
58.8
25.8
7.6
67.6
27.4
14.4
35.0
12.3
5.1
1980
18.5
119.3
52.0
15.5
134.9
55,3
29.7
70.7
. 28.2
10.9
1985
32.0
193.2
83.0
25.3
212.2
88.7
49,5
113.4
56.3
19.1
-------
Table 6
COMPARING NOX CONTROL STRATEGIES
(NEW YORK)
Strategy
Annual
Air Quality
Annual
Control Cost (10° $)
Annual Fuel
Penalty (10° $)
' J
Automoti ve s tandardjcf
.4 grams/mile
/ and
Moderate Stationary
Source Control .
Automotive standard of
2.0 grams/mile and
Maximum Stationary
Source Control.
\
1977
90
91
1980
90
78
1985
86
77
1990
96
87
1977
144.8
128.7
1980
276.0
194.7
1985
4'57.0
320.6
1990
510. -1
377.4
t
1977
67.6
60.5
1980
134.9
92.8
1985
212.2
132.1
1990
227.9
136.7
-------
Appendix A: MODEL USED FOR AIR QUALITY PREDICTIONS
cmax-future "
max-base
(e • gf • ef)LDV + (e • gf • ef)Mm/ + (e • gf • ef)HDV
e)
LDv
[k • e (efi +(gf -I)ef2)] + [k . e (e^ +(gf -I)ef2]j + [k • e (e^ +(gf -l)ef2]A
+ (k - e) + (k . e)j + (k . e).
where e = baseline emissions in Tons/year
k = emission height factor (unitless)
efi = emission factor ratio for existing sources
ef2 = emission factor ratio for new sources
gf = growth factor (unitless)
c = air concentration (yg/m3)
b = background concentration (yg/m3)
------- |