HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 1 AIR QUALITY MGMNT 10-19-88 NEW BUSINESS
NO. 1
DATE: OCTOBER 17, 1988 ~
TO:
FROM:'
SUBJECT:
WILLIAlq HUSTON, CITY IqANAGER
COMMUNITY DEYELOPIqEk"I' DEPARTMENT
C(XIIIlP, ENTS ON DRAFT ATR QUALITY PIANAGEHENT PLAN
RECOI~ENDATION
Instruct staff to complete formal comments on the Air Quality Management Plan
and authorize Mayor to transmit the City's comments prior to close of the review
period.
BACKGROUND
The Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has ordered, through the
courts, the South 'Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) to devise a
plan which a'ttains the Federal Air Quality requirements by the year 2007.
In response to these requirements the SCAQMD has prepared the Draft Air Quality
Management Plan. This draft document has been circulated for comments from
local jurisdictions by October 28, 1988.
ANALYSIS
The Community Development Department staff have reviewed the Plan and prepared
preliminary comments for submittal to SCAQMD. These comments are on the formal
draft Plan, a summary of which is attached for review.
The major issues identified by staff are summarized as follows-
.
Policy Deve_lopmep_t: The Plan contains many policy statements which have
far reaching impacts. One example is the goal of reducing use of petroleum
burning vehicle engines by 40S by the year 2007. This reduction is to be
achieved by use of clean-burning fuel cars (electric and methanol). The
business community and consumers will bear this burden and the provision of
the required vehicles is uncertain.
Ctty Counct1 Report
Comments on Draft Air
Qualtty Hanagment plan
October 17, 1988
Page two
Staff ts concerned with this poltcy and many of the other poltcies
contained tn the document. These kinds of policies should have been
formulated as a 'consensus, not as a top-down pressure approach. In order
to reach attainment of these goals, all affected jurisdictions must agree
to Implement them.
2. Implementation l~easures' The Plan Identifies many goals without provision
of lmplementati"on measures. For Instance, ustng the prevJously stated
example, what assurance ts there that vehicles capable of belng powered by
etther methanol or electricity wtll be produced by the market of
satisfactory qualtty and quantity to meet thts goal? If thts is possible,
wtll the vehtcles be used outstde the att bastn? If not, how can they be
used for long dtstance travel by vehtcles tn intersta'te commerce? And
ftnally, how can we control non-clean fuel cars (t.e. tourlsm, interstate
commerce) from entertng the bastn?
The Plan runs far short from providing the necessary implementation
measures wtthout adequate consideration of possible tmpacts.
3. Growth I~anac~lement: One of the key elements to the Plan is to ensure a job
tb houstng balance. Thts goal ts also supported by the SCAG Housing
Allocation Plan. However, ensuring compliance with thts policy ts
difficult at best, when considering the cost of houslng and htgh interest
rates of the regton. In most cases, residents will contlnue to commute
because they can't afford to move.
Additionally, the SCAG growth forecasts for the region show tremendous
growth. ~ltth a continued Influx of new residents to the area, only more
att pollution wtll follow.
4. Economtc Impacts' The Plan does not provtde an Economic Impact AnalysJs of
t~e attainment measures. However, the measures are estimated to cost $8.0
mtllion per day for the "Tier 1" measures only (see summary).
One can only assume that this burden will be absorbed by consumers and
businesses tn the region. The impacts of these increased costs could stunt
the regtons economtc growth, l~ithout adequate consideration of the
economic Jmpacts of the tmplementatJon measures, it is only hopeful that
they wi 11 ever be Implemented.
CO#CLUS!ON ·
Staff is highly concerned with the adoptton of a Plan which calls the local
jurisdictions to enforce unreasonable or poor measures which will not ensure
Corn rnunity Development Depar~mem
Ctty Counc¶~ Report
Comments on Draft Air
Quality Managment Plan
October 17, 1988
Page three
attainment of clean air. Our recommendation is to prepare a response to SCAQMD
and SCAG which requests both revision of the Plan and adequate consideration of
the issues highlighted in this report.
LCP' CAS: ts
Attachment'* Summary
christine A. Shlng ety~b
Director of Communit~f Development
Corn rnunity DeveloPmen~ Deparirnen~
SEPTE,
3ER 1988.
DRAFT 19 8 8
AIR
QUALITY
M-ANAGEMENT
PLAN
SOUTH COAST AIR QUAUTY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GO~
EXECUTIVE SUM~MARY
EXECUTIVE SU IARY,
BACKGROUND
The South Coast Air Basin, which comprises all Of Orange County-and the
non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bemardino Counties,
has the worst air quality problem in the nation. Despite having put into place
many strict controls, the Basin still fails to meet the federal air quality .
standards for four of the six criteria pollutants.
The Basin is in compliance with federal standards for sulfur dioxide and lead.
But the maximum ozone concentrations here reach about three times the
federal health standard. Carbon monoxide and fine particulate matter
(PM10) reach maximum levels of twice the federal standard. And the Basin
is the only area in the country that still fails to meet the nitrogen dioxide
standard.
The Basin's first Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). was adopted in
1979. It contained an early action plan that emphasized control measures
which had been targeted by the federal Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the state Air Resources Board (ARB) as having high priority for
implementation. The Plan also requested an extension until 1982 for
subfi~ittal of a revision that would address attainment of the carbon
monoxide and ozone standards.
With the better data and modeling methods aVailable for the 1982 Revision
of the AQMP, it became apparent that the Plan could not demonstrate
attainmem by the 1987 deadline required by the federal Clean Air Act.
'Therefore, the 1982 AQMP Revision proposed a long range strategy that
could result in attainment in 20 years. In 1987, a federal court ordered the
EPA to disapprove the 1982 AQMP Revision because it did not demonstrate
attainment by the 1987 deadline.
i September, 1988
DRAFT 1988 AQM'
PURPOSE OF THE 1988 REVISION OF THE AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT PLAN (AQMP)
The purpose of .the 1988 Revision of the AQMP is to set forth a
comprehensive control program that will lead the South Co .as~ Air Basin into
compliance with all federal and state air quality standards. This goal has
been set by the Board of Directors of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (the District) and the Executive Committee of the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
In 1988, the District Board adopted a policy calling for attainment of all the
federal and state health standards at the earliest practicable date, but no
later than:
December 31, 1996 for nitrogen dioxide,
December 31, 1997 for carbon monoxide,
December 31, 2007 for ozone and PM10.
The .AQMP includes interim goals for ozone and PM10 to be met by the year
2000. For ozone, the interim goal is to reduce maximum concentrations to
no higher than the Stage I emergency episode level (0.20 ppm), and to
reduce the average per capita exposure to ozone levels above the federal
standa~rd by 70 percent compared to 1985. For PM10, the interim goal is to
attain the federal standards.
The District is responsible for completing the overall AQMP, with major
elements contributed by SCAG and the California Air Resources Board.
SC, AG is responsible for developing regional plans for transportation
management, growth and land use. These plans each include strategies that
contribute to air quality improvement, and are included in the AQMP. The
California Air Resources Board is responsible for developing mobile source
control measures, such as vehicle emission standards and fuel specifications.
Once the 1988 AQMP Revision is adopted locally, and approved by the
California Air Resources Board, it will be included in the State
Implementation Plan (SIP). It will then serve as the framework for all future
air pollution control efforts in the South Coast Air Basin.
ii September, 1988
EXECUTIVE SU~
~RY
SOURCES AND QUANTITIES OF EMISSIONS
Filure I shows the' relative contribution of certain emissions from each of the
major categories of sources during 1985, the baseline year used to represent
the current situation. For some pollutants~ such as carbon monoxide, the
emissions are overwhelmini, ly due to mobile sources - pfimari~ cars, trucks
and buses. For other pollutants, such as reactive organic gases and oxides of
nitrogen (the precursors of ozone), the sources of emissions are more
diverse.
Relative Conm'l:mfion By Stationary
And Mobile Sources to 1985 Emissions
· -
87%
5%
ROG
('l'otzl: 124~ Toa~/D~)
59%
NO=
1040 Toas/Day)
iii September, 1988
DRAFT 1988AQIV
The Basin's air quality problem cannot be solved by controlling any one
category of sources.. For example, Table 1 shows the 1985-.emissions of
ozone precursors (RO(3 and NOx) for each of the categories. Even if the
emissions from any two of these categories were totally eliminated,
substantially-more controls for the remaining two would be required to
achieve the reductions necessary to attain the ozone standard.
.
.
TABLE 1
Emissions of Ozone Precursors in 1985
(tom/day)
Residential/Commercial/Services
Industrial/Manufacturing
On-Road Mobile Sources
Other Mobile Sources
.o
Total emissions in 1985
ROG NOx
280 142
310 144
578 619
78 135
1,24~ 1,040
iv September, 1988
EXECUTIVE SUIV
~RY
FUTURE AIR QUALITY WITH NO ADDITIONAL CONTROLS
·
"The years 2000 and 2010 were selected to be the baselines for emissions
forecasts. These forecasts were derived using the 1985 emissions data,
adjusting them for the projected groWth, and assuming full implementation of
all rules of the District and the ARB that were adopted prior to December
31, 1987.
The forecasts show a reduction in emissions of most pollutants by the year
2000. But, by 2010, emi.~ions are predicted to rise nearly/s high or higher
than the 1985 leveh. Figure 2 shows this pattern for reactive organic gases
and oxides of nitrogen. This resurgence in emissions is due entirely to the
impact of growth, with two-thirds of this growth due to natural increases
(births over deaths) rather than people moving in from other areas. Almost
ail the emission reductions expected over the next few years as a result of the
rules currently in effect will be lost to the impact of the projected 37 percent
increase in population and the related increases in jobs, housing and traf~c
shown in Table 2."
FIGURE 2
Emissiom With And Without Growth
lOO0
lm
W/G
1154
w/o G
184
2OO0
2010
1000
m
OTHER MO~ILE
INOU&/MANUF.
W/G
w/o (3
Ig8~
2O00
2010
ROG
NOx
v September, 1988
D-RAFT 1988AQM'
_
TABLE 2
$ocio-Economic Growth Forecasts · .. for the South Coast Air Basin
Comparison of the year 2010 {o the year 1985.
Population
Housing Units
Total Employment
Retail Employment
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Vehicles In Use
Vehicle Trips
37% increase
46% increase
47% increase
47% increase
68% increase
35% increase
72% increase
Controlling growth alone, however, will not solve the Basin's air quality
problem. Even if no future growth were assumed, the emission reductions
expected by the year 2010 as a result of existing rules would not be nearly
enough to bring the Basin into compliance with the air quality standards for
ozone, PM10 and carbon monoxide.
Forecasts for the year 2010 show that the. distribution of emissions
throughout the Basin will change over the years, with a significant decrease
in emissions in the western pan and an increase in the eastern part.
Computer modeling was used to estimate the effect this distribution would
have on air quality. Even though the Basin's total emissions of ROG and
NOx are nearly the same in the year 2010 as they were in 1985, the resulting
ozone distribution is very different. Modeling predicts that there would be
large scale ( 0.11 ppm ) reduction in the ozone concentrations in Los Angeles
and Orange counties, but a corresponding scale of deterioration in the inland
'areas. The peak ozone concentration would be reduced by 0.06 ppm and the
affected area would shift eastward and would be larger.
vi September, 1988
EXECUTIVE SUM' 'RY
THE ATrAINMENT STRATEGY
..
In developing the AQMP, all the potential control measures that could' be'
available by the year 2007 were iden_ti~ed and, to the extent possible, their
ernk~ion reductions were quantified. These. control measures were
categorized into three tiers, based upon their readiness for implementation.
Tier I. Full implementation of known control technologies and management
practices.
Tier I controls are those that can be adopted within the next five years using
currently 'available technological applications and management practices.
Tier I control measures, summarized in Table 3, are expected to be
implemented by 1993 except for transportation facility constructions which
may continue up to 200'/.
The total estimated cost for the Tier I measures that have cost data is about
$8.0 million per day. This represents an average cost of about 615 cents per
day. for each resident of the Basin. Improved technology may reduce the
costs. On the other hand, the estimated air quality benefit is about $2. per
day per capita.
Computer modeling has indicated that Tier I measures will bring thc Basin
into compliance with {he federal standards for carbon monoxide and nitrogen
dioxide. Additional control measures are needed to meet the PM10 and
ozone standards.
Tier II. Significant advancement of today's technological applications and
vigorous regulatory intervention.
Tier II measures include already-demonstrated control technologies, but
require advancements that can reasonably be expected to occur in the near
future. When necessary, these advancements are promoted through
regulatory action, such as setting standards at levels, that force the
advancement of existing technology, or establishing a system of emission
charges that provide an economic incentive to reduce emissions.
vii September, 1988
D-RAFT 1988AQMr
Tier H measures mainly focus on transportation sources and the use of
coatings and solvents. Tier H measures and goals are s~mmarized in
Table 4. All the Tier H goals are expected to be. achieved by 2000 except for
transportation facility construction which may continue until 2007.
Computer modeling indicates that the combination of Tier I and Tier II
controls will bring the Basin into compliance with the federaL, but not the
state, standard for PM10.
To meet~ the state standard for PM10, and the state and federal ozone
standards, additional controls beyond Tier II will be required.
TIER III - DEVELOPMENT OF NEW TECHNOLOGY
Tier HI programs are designed to bring about major technological
breakthroughs to further reduce emissions of reactive organic gases. Unlike
the first two tiers, which focus on implementing and strengthening known
control measures, Tier HI promotes research, development and widespread
com~er~al application of technologies that may not exist yet,' but may be
reasonably expected given the rapid technological advances experienced over
the past 20 years.
Although no specific control measures can be summarized for Tier HI, the
programs included in this tier are directed primarily at further reducing
ROG emissions from solvents and coatings, and from motor vehicles.
Possible 'Her HI control strategies for solvents and coatings include further
improvement in water-based products, ultraviolet-curable coatings, two-
component coatings, and non-reactive solvents. These strategies, along with
the prohibition of certain coativg processes, offer the promise of almost
complete elimination of ROG from solvents and coatings.
With respect to dean-fueled vehicles, recent progress in fuel cells, solar cells,
storage batter/es, and superconductors offer the promise of eliminating
combustion processes from motor vehicles almost entirely.
viii September, 1988
EXECUTIVE.e MMARY
If sufficient technologies to achieve the standards are not identifiable by the
mid-nineties, a contingency plan will be developed for replacing .high-
polluting industries with low-pollUting industries having equivalent
employment potential.
Modeling indicates that a further 90 percent reduction of ROG from solvents
and coatings, and total conversion of the vehicle fleet to clean' fuels, can
bring the Basin very close to the federal ozone standard with a Basin peak of
12.6 pphm.
There is some uncertainty in the ozone model at low ozone concentrations.
This uncertainty, along with the inability to predict the future for technology
that does not yet exist, must be taken into account when trying to determine
the possible air quality improvement associated with Tier IlL Further study
will be required to determine if, or how much, additional control will be
necessary to meet the federal and state ozone standards.
Modeling indicates that to meet the state standards for PM10 and ozone, we
will require further technology advancement than just solvent substitution
and clean fuels.
ix September, 1988
DRAFT 1988AQMP
PREDICTION OF AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS
The air quality improvements predicted as a result of each of the three tiers
of the attainment strategy are shown in Figure 3.
Projection of Future Air Ouality in the South Coast Air Basin
in Comparison with the Most Stringent Federal Standards
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
_
NO2 PM10 - OZONE CO
POLLUTANT
~ le85 I~ 2000 I-"1 2010
~ ?~EI:I ! ~ ?tEn ~ ~ ?~ER
To estimate the degree of air quality improvement expected before Tier IH
measures are put into effect, an evaluation was made for the year 2000,
assuming maximum implementation of the control measures in Tiers I and II.
The results are;
1. Compliance with all federal and state standards for carbon monoxide,
2. Compliance with all federal and state standards for nitrogen dioxide,
1
Compliance with the federal annual and 24-hour average PMIO
standard, but without any safety margin,
1
Basinwide peak 24-hour average PM10 concentrations would be
about 2.4 times the state standard, and the annual average PM10
concentration would be about 1.5 times the state standard,
x September, 1988
EXECUTIVE SU'
'ARY
.
..
Peak ozone concentrations will be lowered tO the level of the S.tage I
Episode ( 020 ppm), "' '
The Basinwide average per capita exposure to ozone le~,els above the
federal standard will be lowered about 90-percent from the 1985
average.
SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF A'i'I'AINMENT
STRATEGIES
The schedule for implementation of each tier of the attainment strategy is
shown in Figure 4. The milestone for complete adoption of Tier I control
measures is 1993. Tier II goals for emission reduction are expected to be
achieved by 1998.
FIGUR[ 4
Attainment Strategy T'unetable
1,900 1.993
' lief "i'i~E, ! Contz,ol.t
& ~X! Pro~r'm
2000 2003 2007
~-~le~&ce Implemefl c'
· ,
I ~oo,n'zo. { .
Z [ 3:MPL~4EHTATZON [ ....................... j
] n~'q, nOl t, u{p~:z~mHmmn' ~u FOnPIULA?ZON ] .
'rz~
z z I : .P~ZX~,n'ATZO. { ............. J
] R~S~.JLRCH AND OEVgLOPI4ENT
Tl~lt ,
l l Z ] COI~IERCZALX ZATZON
I mPLZXEHTA'rzo. {
v/IA continue unc~X 2007.
September, 1988
D-RAFT 1988AQMF
Achieving the Tier HI emix~ion reduction goals depends largely on research
and technological breakthroughs that may rea~0.nably be expected to occur
during the next two decades. But actual implementation of Tier HI measures
is projected to begin as the Tier H goals are achieved in 1998. -The Tier IH
measures will then be implemented on an accelerated schedule intended to
achieve attainment by the year 200?.
Progress toward attainment will be tracked in annual status reports to the
District Board. Additional control measures will be proposed, or others
a .dvaaced, as necessary or appropriate.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF A'R'AINMENT
STRATEGIES
Tier I control measures can be implemented by existing agencies using their
existing authority. The priority for each measure's implementation is based
on the following criteria:
· .
Potential for reducing emissions
T~me required for implementation
Technical and legal readiness for implementation
Cost effectiveness of control
Availability of financing · ..
Short term benefit in relation to long term goals
Number of years benefit would accrue
Based upon the above criteria, the responsible implementing agencies, the
adoption dates, and the associated activities have been identified.
Tier H control measures-are primarily extemions of Tier I measures, but with
more stringent requirements. Tier II goals are heavily dependent' on
research and development to facilitate their commercial application and
widespread use. The technology advancement and' demomtration projects
xii September, 1988
EXECUTIVE SUMIV '{Y
needed to ensure meeting the Tier H goals are provided along with the
responsible agencies and the time flames for each measure's implementation.
The District will be responsible for implementing all measures related to
stationary sources. Growth management measures will be the primary
responsibility of local governments, but there may be some involvement with
such regional organizations as SCAG and the District. Local transportation
commissions, along with Caltrans, will be responsible for improvements to
u'ansportation infras~~e. Further controls on motor vehicles, including
alternative fuels, are the responsibility of the ARB with the assistance of the
District.
In some cases, regulatory actions such as technology-forcing standards,
emission charges, and growth-management measures will be needed to bring
about the technology necessary to achieve Tier II goals. 'The regulatory
actions that require legislation along with the responsible agencies have been
provided.
The strategies necessary to achieve Tier IH goals are the respOnsibility of the
District, in conjunction with the state Air Resources Board, and local and
regional transportation and planning agencies. A task force should be
formed to coordinate necessary regulatory actions and to monitor progress
toward meeting the Tier II and Tier III goals.
xiii September, 1988
DRAFT 1988AQMF
T, B LE 3
SUMMARY OF TIER I CONTROL MEASURES
.-.; .
· .
Controls on the use of contings and solvents
Twenty-two control measures such as using low VOC paints and solvents, higher transfer efficiency.
methods for applying coatings and controilln~ fumes from coating operations. Also, reducing
em~qlons from consumer products such as aerosol sprays and underarm deodorants.
Controls on the production, r~flning, and dlstributrion of petroleum and gns
Fifteen control measures to control emissions from refinery heaters and boilers, oil field steam
generators, valves, pumps and compressors, and improve vapor recovery systems.
Controls on industrial and commercial processes
Ten control measures such as reducing emissions from small sources which are exempt from
existing rules, controlling emissions from boilers and internal combustion engines.
Controls on residential equipment and public services
Nme control measures such as reducing nitrogen oxide emissions from watcr heaters and furnaces,
controilln~ fugitive emissions from publicly-owned wastewater treatment plants, controlling dust
.fr. om roads and parking lots, and transporting,solid wastes out of the Basin for disposal.
Controls on agricuRurai sources
Three control measures to reduce reactive emissions from pesticide applications, ammonia from
livestock wastes, and fugitive dust from farming operations.
o
Controls on other stationary sources
Ten control measure such as requiring use of Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for ali
existing sources, tightening requirements for New Sourcc Review, requiring low-emission materiah
for building construction, and phasing out use of fuel oil and coal by stationary sources·
Controls on motor vehicles
Nineteen control measures such as requiring stricter emission control standards for new vehicles,
clean fuels for fleet vehicles, improved inspection and maintenance programs and controls on
diesel powered buses and trucks.
Controls on transportation systems and land use
Twenty-two control measures to reduce vehicle use, improve traffic flow, improve public transit,
and managc growth.
Control on other mobile sources
·
Thirteen control measures such as reducing emissions from aircraft, ships, locomotives,
construction equipment, pleasure boats and off-road motorcycles.
xiv September, 1988
EXECUTIVE F
MMARY
ii
SUMMARY OF TIER II CONTROL MEASURES AND GOALS
·
Converting 40 percent of the passenger vehicles and 70 percent of the
freight vehicles to operate on clean ~uels (e.g., methanol fuel cells, or
electric power). All diesel-powered transit buses switched to clean fuels
(e.g., methanol or liquid propane gas).
Reducing the remaining emissions from other mobile sources (aircraft,
ships, locomotives, construction equipment) by 50 percent.
Reducing the remaining ROG emissions from solvents and coating by 50
percent.
Reducing the remaining ROG emissions from consumer products by 50
percent
Minimizing potential increases in emissions from existing stationary
sources
xv September, 1988