## CHAPTER 4 AQMP CONTROL STRATEGY

Introduction Overall Attainment Strategy District’s Stationary and Mob ile Source Control Measures SCAG's Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures State and Federal Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures Long-Term Control Strategy
Overall Emission ReductionsChapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 1 INTRODUCTION

The overall control strategy in the AQMP pr ovides the path to achieving emission reductions and air quality goals. Implem entation of the 2003 AQMP is based on a series of control measures that vary by sour ce type (i.e., stationary or mobile) as well as by the pollutant that is being targeted. Although great strides have been made in air pollution control technol ogies, air quality goals ca nnot be achieved without significant further emission reductions.

This chapter discusses the control m easures for the 2003 AQMP and associated emission reductions. Where appropriate, information regarding the differences between the 1997 AQMP, the 1999 amendmen ts to the 1997 ozone SIP and the 2003 AQMP are identified. For additional info rmation and details on control measures, please refer to Appendix IV-A: District's Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures; Appendix IV-B: Proposed 2003 State and Federal Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan; a nd Appendix IV-C: Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures. For add itional information regarding baseline emission projections, please refer to Appendix III.

OVERALL ATTAINMENT STRATEGY

The overall control strategy for this Plan is designed to meet applicable state and federal requirements, including attainment with ambient air quality standards. The focus of the Plan is to demonstrate atta inment with the federal PM10 ambient air quality standard by 2006 and with the fe deral 1-hour ozone in 2010 while making expeditious progress toward attainment of state standards and upcoming new federal standards. Although the 2003 AQMP will not address the new federal 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards, it is de signed to make continued pr ogress toward meeting these standards. The 2003 AQMP relies upon the mo st recent planni ng assumptions and the best available information such as CARB’s EMFAC2002 for on-road mobile source emissions inventory, CARB’s off-ro ad model for off-road mobile source emission inventory, latest point source a nd improved area source inventories as well as the use of the 1997 ozone episodes, expanded air qua lity modeling analysis, and SCAG’s forecast assumptions based on thei r 2001 Regional Transportation Plan.

The proposed control measures in the 2003 AQMP are based on implementation of all feasible control measures through the application of availa ble technologies and management practices as well as advanced technologies and cont rol methods. These measures rely on proposed acti ons to be taken by several agencies that currently have the statutory authority to implement su ch measures. Similar to the 1999 SIP approach, the SIP commitmen t is to bring each control measure for regulatory consideration in a specified time frame. E ach agency is also committed to achieve aFinal 2003 AQMP

4 - 2 total emission reduction target with the ab ility to substitute for control measures deemed infeasible, so long as equivalent reductions are met by other means. These measures are also designed to satisfy th e federal Clean Air Act requirement of reasonably available control technologies [Section 172(c)], and the California Clean Air Act requirements of Best Availabl e Retrofit Control Technologies (BARCT) [Health and Safety Code Section 40919, Subsection C].

To ultimately achieve ambient air quality standards and demonstrate attainment, additional long-term emissi ons reductions will be nece ssary from sources including those primarily under the jurisdiction of th e California Air Resources Board (e.g., onroad motor vehicles, off-ro ad equipment, and cons umer products) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (e.g., airc raft, ships, trains, and pre-empted offroad equipment). Without an adequate a nd fair share level of reductions from all sources, the emissions reduction burden woul d unfairly be shifted to sources that have otherwise done their part for clean air.

Designing the Overall Strategy

The basic principles used in designing the Di strict’s control strategy were to: 1) meet at least the same overall remaining emi ssions target committed to in the 1997/1999 SIP; 2) replace long-term measures with more specific near-term measures, where feasible, and 3) develop new short-term control measures and long-term strategies to achieve the needed reductions for attainment demonstration. To develop the control strategy required in the Plan to meet st ate and federal requirements, an iterative process of technology revi ew and ambient air quality modeling is utilized. Specifically, a remaining emissions target is defined utilizing air quality modeling that will achieve the ambient air quality st andards. Technological assessments are then performed to determine if specific t echnological advancements can be expected to result in meeting this remaining emissi ons target. Further modeling analyses are conducted using the actual emissions re ductions achieved based on the technology forecast. Ultimately an overall emissions target is determined that achieves the ambient air quality standard and for which controls have been proposed. Figure 4-1 illustrates this iterative process used to de fine the preferred control strategy.

The 1997 AQMP as well as the 1999 amendmen t to the 1997 California Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) control strate gies serve as the starting point to demonstrate attainment of both federal PM10 and ozone air quality standards. Additional reductions from implementation of controls on stationary, state and federal sources were then considered in order to demonstrate attainment with the federal air quality standards. Furthermor e, these additional control measures are evaluated to determine consistency with potential future air quality standards and ensure the most cost-eff ective path to meet multip le clean air standards.Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 3 FIGURE 4-1

Iterative Process to Define Emission Reduction Scenario

2003 AQMP Control Measures

The 2003 AQMP control measures consist of: 1) District's Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures; 2) State Cont rol Measures proposed by California Air Resources Board (CARB); and 3) Trans portation Control Me asures provided by SCAG. Overall, the Plan includes 28 sta tionary and 21 mobile source measures which are defined at this time. A summary of these measures is provided below. A detailed description of the control measures is provided in the following appendices:

Appendix IV-A: District’s Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures

Appendix IV-B: Proposed 2003 State and Federal Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan

Appendix IV-C: Regional Transportati on Strategy and Control Measures Control Strategy Development

Future Air Quality Projection

PM10 Attainment

Ozone Attainment

Implement Control Strategy Yes Yes NoFinal 2003 AQMP

4 - 4 These measures primarily rely on the traditional command-and-control approach facilitated by market incentive programs as well as advanced technologies expected to be implemented by 2010.

DISTRICT'S STATIONARY AND MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES

Since the adoption of the 1997 AQMP and the 1999 amendment to the 1997 California Ozone SIP (referred to as the 1999 SIP amendment), the District has made significant strides in achieving emission reduc tions from stationary sources. Table 1- 2 of Chapter 1 provides a listing of rules a nd regulations adopted by the District since adoption of the 1997 AQMP (October 1996) as well as the SIP commitment and the emission reductions achieved for each rule.

For stationary sources under the District's jurisdiction, District staff conducted internal and external brainstorming sessions to solicit additional control concepts and assess control feasibility. The stationary control measures presented in the 2003 AQMP are proposed to further reduce emi ssions from both point sources (permitted facilities) and area (generally small and non- permitted) sources. The basic principles followed in developing the Dist rict’s stationary source c ontrol measures included: 1) meet, at minimum, the same remaining emission reductions committed to in the 1997/1999 SIP for the District’s portion, 2) replace long-term measures with more specific short-term measures, where feasible , and 3) identify new control measures to implement all feasible measures. Ther efore, the proposed control strategy for stationary sources under the District’s ju risdiction include re maining revised and partially implemented measures from th e 1997/99 SIP and new me asures that are deemed feasible to provide additional c ontrol opportunity. All previous long-term measures in the 1997/1999 Plan have been inco rporated into the short-term measures with specified SIP reduction commitments. In addition, to foster further technology advancement, a mid-term measure is al so included aimed at achieving additional reductions from stationary sources ba sed on implementation and accelerated penetration of advanced tec hnologies. For each control measure, the District will seek to achieve the maximum reduction poten tial if deemed technically feasible and cost-effective.

Furthermore, in light of significant VOC and NOx reductions need ed for attainment demonstration, the District will expand its regulatory programs to mobile sources where the District has existing legal aut hority and is evaluating the possibility of additional limited authority for cost-effective local controls. Speci fically, the District is proposing three new mobile source control measures; na mely, a mitigation fee type program for federally-regulated sources (e.g., aircraft, ships, trains), an emission fee program for port-related mobile sources, and regulations fo r in-use off-road vehiclesChapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 5 and equipment, in the event CARB or U. S. EPA does not deve lop regulations for these vehicles and equipment.

The 2003 AQMP includes 21 short-term sta tionary and 3 mobile source control measures proposed by the District. These me asures are estimated to achieve a total of 21.5 tons per day of VOC, 5.1 tons per day of NOx, 2 to 6 tons per day of PM10, 2.1 tons per day of SOx, and 10.6 tons per day of a mmonia emission reductions by 2010 and have proposed ru le adoption schedules between 2003 and 2007 with implementation dates between 2004 and 2010. For control measures with quantifiable emission reductions, the District ’s control strategy as currently proposed will achieve remaining emissions reductions of approximately 64 tons per day of VOC below the 1997/1999 SIP target or 3 t ons per day of VOC below the 1994 SIP target.
Appendix IV-A provides detailed descriptions for the District ’s stationary and mobile source control measures. Overall, thirteen control measures originally contained in the 1997 AQMP or the 1999 SIP amendment ha ve been updated for inclusion into the 2003 AQMP. Of thirteen measures, th ree advanced control measures from the 1999 SIP amendment are now presented as ne ar-term control measures. The eleven new measures incorporated into th e 2003 AQMP include: 1) additional NOx reductions from RECLAIM (CMB-10); 2) further PM10 emission reductions from fugitive dust sources (BCM-07); 3) further PM10 emission reductions from aggregate operations (BCM-08); 4) em ission reductions from miscellaneous ammonia sources (MSC-04); 5) truck st op electrification (MSC-05); 6) PM10 emission reductions from wood-burning fire places and wood stoves (MSC-06); 7) natural gas fuel specifications (MSC-07); 8) further emission reductions for large VOC sources (MSC-08); 9) a mitigation fe e program for federally-regulated sources (FSS-05); 10) further emi ssion reductions from in-use off-road equipment and vehicles (FSS-06); and 11) emission fee program for port-related mobile sources (FSS-07).

Table 4-1 provides a listing of the District’s short-term stationary and mobile source control measures in the 2003 AQMP which ar e grouped into two main categories: 1) remaining 1997/1999 SIP control measures, and 2) new control measures as described below.

The District's long-term strategy is desc ribed in the "Long-Term Control Strategy" section of this chapter.Final 2003 AQMP

4 - 6 TABLE 4-1 District's Short-Term Stationary a nd Mobile Source Control Measures

Control Measure # Title Reduction Target 1 (tons/day)

Remaining 1997/1999 SIP Revi sion Control Measures
CTS-07: Further Emission Reductions from Architectural Coatings and Cleanup Solvents (Rule 1113) (VOC) 8.5

CTS-10 Miscellaneous Industrial Coati ngs & Solvent Operations (VOC) 3.0 2
FUG-05 Emission Reductions from Fug itive Emission Sources (VOC) 2.0

CMB-07 Emission Reductions from Petrol eum Refinery Flares (SOx) 2.1 3

CMB-09 Emission Reductions from Petroleum Refinery FCCUs (PM10/NH 3 ) 0.3-0.5/1.6 4

MSC-01 Promotion of Lighter Color R oofing and Road Materials and Tree Planting Programs (All Pollutants) TBD

MSC-03 Promotion of Catalyst-S urface Coating Technology Programs (All Pollutants) TBD

PRC-03 Emission Reductions from Restaura nt Operations (PM10) 1.0 – 5.0 PRC-07 Industrial Process Operations (VOC) 2.0

WST-01 Emission Reductions fro m Livestock Waste (VOC/NH 3 ) 4.8 5 /8.7

WST-02 Emission Reductions from Composting (VOC/NH3) 1.2/1.9 FSS-04 Emission Charges of $5,000 pe r Ton of VOC for Stationary Sources Emitting Over 10 Tons per Year (VOC) TBD

1 The emission reduction estimates are based on the 2010 planning inventory in the 2003 AQMP. The

actual reductions are subject to change during the rulemaking based on the latest available emission inventory data.

2 An additional 16 tons of VOC emission reductions associated with implementation of Rule 1171 –

Solvent Cleaning Operations are subject to technology assessments in 2003 and 2004 prior to implementation in 2005 and are not included in this value.
3 Smaller concurrent reductions of VOC, NOx, PM 10, and CO emissions are also expected from

implementation of this control measure.

4 PM10 emission reductions are expected to be 2.1 to 4.7 tons per day if condensables are included of

which 0.3 to 0.5 tons per day are filterable PM10, included in the AQMP inventory. The PM10 and ammonia emission reductions will be modifi ed to reflect Board's action on PR1105.1."

5 VOC reductions achieved through da iry relocations, updated annual popul ation, and the Regional Water

Quality Control Board Regulations.Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 7 TABLE 4-1 (continued) District's Short-Term Stationary a nd Mobile Source Control Measures

Control Measure # Title Reduction Target 1 (tons/day) FLX-01 Economic Incentive Programs (All) TBD

New Control Measures CMB-10 Additional NO x Reductions for RECLAIM (NO x ) 3.0 BCM-07 Further PM10 Reductions from Fugitive Dust Sources (PM10) TBD

BCM-08 Further Emission Reductions from Aggregate and Cement Plant Manufacturing Operations (PM10) 0.7

MSC-04 Emission Reductions from Misc ellaneous Ammonia Sources (NH 3 ) TBD MSC-05 Truck Stop Elect rification (NOx) 2.1

MSC-06 Emission Reductions from W ood-Burning Fireplaces and Wood Stoves (PM10) TBD

MSC-07 Natural Gas Fuel Specifications (NOx) TBD

MSC-08 Further Emission Reductions from Large VOC Sources (VOC) TBD FSS-05 Mitigation Fee Program for Federal Sources (All) TBD

FSS-06 Further Emission Reductions fro m In-Use Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment (VOC, NOx, PM10) TBD

FSS-07 Emission Fee Program for Port-Related Mobile Sources (All Pollutants) TBD

TCB-01 Transportation Conformity Budget Backstop Measure (PM10) 2 TBD

Total VOC PM10

NOx SOx NH 3 21.5 2.0 – 6.0 5.1 2.1 10.6

1 The emission reduction estimates are based on the 2010 planning inventory in the 2003 AQMP. The

actual reductions are subject to change during the rulemaking based on the latest available emission inventory data.

2 Control Measure TCB-01 is presented in this ta ble for presentation purposes only as the adoption dates for this measure are 2019/2029.Final 2003 AQMP

4 - 8 Stationary Source Control Methods an d Associated Emission Reductions

Stationary source control measures rely on a variety of cont rol technologies and management practices identifie d in Table 4-2. Control technologies vary according to the source type and pollutant being cont rolled and generally include a process or physical modification such as product refo rmulation, installation of air pollution control equipment, etc. In additi on, management modifications include administrative changes such as improve d housekeeping technique s, inspection and maintenance programs, etc.

TABLE 4-2 Stationary Source Control Methods

Source Category Control Method
Coatings and Solvents • Reformulation

• Higher Transfer Efficiency

• Process Improvements

• Add-On Controls

• Alternative Coating and Solvent Application Methods

• Market Incentives

• Improved Housekeeping Practices Petroleum Operations and • Process Modifications Fugitive VOC Emissions • Add-On Controls Systems

• Market Incentives

• Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance

• Improved Vapor Recovery Systems
Combustion Sources • Add-On Controls

• Market Incentives

• Process Improvement

• Improved Energy Efficiency Fugitive Dust Sources • Road Dust Suppression

• Watering or Revegeta tion of Disturbed Surface Areas

• Chemical Stabilization of Unpaved Areas

• Track-Out Prevention

• Reduced Vehicular Speeds on Unpaved Roads

• Add-On ControlsChapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 9 TABLE 4-2 (continued) Stationary Source Control Methods

Source Category Control Method

Miscellaneous Sources • Process Modifications and Improvements

• Add-On Controls

• Best Management Practices

• Market Incentives Compliance Flexibility Programs • Compliance Flexibility to Lower Costs

• Promotion of Early Reductions

• Incentivize Clean Technologies

• Investment in Clean Technologies

The following text describes a brief descripti on of the District's short-term measures for the seven groups of control measures : Group 1 – Coatings and Solvents; Group 2 – Petroleum Operations and Fugitiv e VOC Emissions; Gr oup 3 – Combustion Sources; Group 4 – Fugitive Dust Sources; Group 5 – Miscellane ous Sources; Group 6 – Compliance Flexibility Programs; and Group 7 – Di strict’s Mobile Source Control Measures.

Coatings and Solvents

Controls for the coatings a nd solvents category are prim arily targeted at reducing VOC emissions. The primary control appr oach for this category is command and control regulations that lower the allowa ble VOC content of various coating and solvent categories. As part of control op tion development, reactivity-based approach will further be evaluated for potential inclus ion as a viable compliance option. This category includes two control measures which seek to achieve further reductions from architectural coatings as well as miscellaneous coating and solvent source categories which are briefly described below.

CTS-07 (P3) – FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS (VOC): This control measure proposes to achieve additional VOC emission reductions from architectural coating categories and thinning and clean-up solvents. On-going technical ev aluation of coating performance and research to further develop low-VOC and/or low-reactive coating or clean-up materials can provide further reduction opportunities. Control measure CTS-07 will implement the third phase of amendments to Rule 1113 - Architectural Coatings to achieve the level of re ductions committed under the SIP settlement.Final 2003 AQMP

4 - 10 CTS-10 – MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL COATINGS AND SOLVENT OPERATIONS (VOC): This control measur e is based on CM#99 ADV-CTS included in the 1999 amendment to the 1997 ozone SIP. This measure seeks additional VOC emission reduc tions from industrial coati ngs and solvent operations through a comprehensive review of existing Regulation XI and Regul ation IV rules. The review would include, but not be limited to, a comparison of VOC limits adopted by other air districts in California, survey of recent BACT determinations, etc. Examples of future technical eval uation may include currently exempt clean-up materials, vanishing oils, aerospace handw ipe cleaning operations, etc. Reactivity issues for VOC-containing materials associated with this control measure will also be reviewed.

Petroleum Operations and Fugitive VOC Emissions

Within this category, there is one contro l measure, which pertains primarily to fugitive VOC emissions from petroleum-relate d operations and chemical industries. Implementation of this control measure may be through several rulemaking phases targeting specific source categories.

FUG-05 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM FUGITIVE EMISSION SOURCES (VOC): This control measure proposes further VOC emission reductions from fugitive emission sources, such as refineries, oil and gas production facilities, terminals, chemical plants, and manufac turing facilities. Re ductions could be achieved through the implem entation of facility-specific and SCAQMD-approved compliance plans. As such, compliance flexibility opportunities could be maximized. This measure will impl ement CM#99 ADV-FUG and portions of CM#99 FUG-04 and CM#99 FUG-05(P3).

Combustion Sources

The three control measures in this cate gory include two control measures from the 1997 AQMP (CMB-07 and CMB-09) and one new control measure (CMB-10).

CMB-07 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY FLARES (ALL POLLUTANTS): This control measure applies to all gas flares used at petroleum refineries, sulfur rec overy plants and hydroge n production plants. This measure would consist of a two-step approach. During Step I, data collected from implementing Rule 1118 would be ev aluated and assessed to develop an accurate emissions inventory from flare opera tions. Step II will consist of a thorough investigation of control options to iden tify the most feasible and cost-effective control strategies available to reduce emissi ons from refinery flares. The District will work with refineries to identify appropr iate control options which may includeChapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 11 physical modifications and improvements to operation and maintenance procedures to prevent or minimize upset conditions.

CMB-09 - EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM PETROLEUM FLUID CATALYTIC CRACKING UNITS (PM10): This control measure seeks to refine the emission inventory and reduce PM10, PM2.5 and NH3 emissions from petroleum fluid catalytic cracking units. The pr oposed emission control method to reduce emissions would be to improve the operation of electrosta tic precipitators (ESP) and cyclones presently installed on the cataly tic cracking units, or to replace older equipment with new, more efficient models . A newly installed or upgraded ESP can be expected to achieve up to a 90 pe rcent reduction in PM10 emissions, and significantly reduce emissions of PM2.5 and NH3. Control measure CMB-09 is currently being developed unde r Proposed Rule 1105.1.

CMB-10 – ADDITIONAL NOX REDUCTIONS FOR RECLAIM (NOx): This new control measure proposes additi onal emission reductions from the NOx Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program (Regulation XX) if additional emission reductions are feasible a nd needed for attainment demonstration. There are a variety of control strategies that can be implemented, including reducing ending allocations in 2003-2006, overlaying source-specif ic regulations, excluding smaller emitting facilities, and/or bifur cated market for powerplants and nonpowerplants. Depending on the control strategy implemented, this control measure may affect all NO x RECLAIM facilities or a portion of the facilities based on their annual emissions or the type of equipment at the facility.

Fugitive Dust Sources

This category includes two new control m easures (BCM-07 and BCM-08) which are proposed to achieve further reductions of fugitive PM10 em issions from sources such as paved and unpaved road s, construction and demolition activities, aggregate processing facilities, and cement manuf acturing operations by requiring “best available control measures.” These measur es are proposed in or der to ensure that attainment with the federal PM10 standard is demonstrated by 2006 and progress is also made toward meeting the PM2.5 standard.

BCM-07 - FURTHER PM10 REDUCTIONS FROM FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES (PM10): Based on U.S. EPA guidance, 1 previous AQMPs identified “candidate” Best Available Control Meas ures (BACM) to reduce PM10 emissions from all man-made fugitive dust sources. At the time, these measures were at least as stringent as control measur es included in any other PM 10 non-attainment plan or

1 U.S. EPA, Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information Document for Best Available Control Measures, September 1992 (EPA-450/2-92-004).Final 2003 AQMP

4 - 12 achieved in practice. BACM that met es tablished cost and te chnological feasibility were subsequently adopted as SCAQMD rules in 1997 to meet CAA requirements. Other PM10 non-attainment areas have recen tly developed and a dopted fugitive dust regulations based on special federal requi rements or in response to lawsuits. Elements of these new regulations cont ain requirements that may improve the effectiveness of the District's fugitive dus t control program. A review of existing District's BACM rules is proposed to c onsider enhancements that would further reduce PM10 emissions from paved and unpa ved roads, constr uction/demolition and earth-movement activities, disturbed vacant lands, and agricultural sources. Based on a preliminary review of other air district s' recently adopted rules, potential District rule enhancements may include: improved co mpliance test methods, specific shortand long-term soil stabilization requireme nts, construction project signage, and mandatory use of track-out control device s (e.g., access road paving). Furthermore, the BACM review will consider regulations for specific geographic areas to provide additional compliance margin for PM10 attainment demonstration in 2006.

BCM-08 – FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM AGGREGATE OPERATIONS (PM10): This control measure proposes to establish prescriptive measures to control fugitiv e dust from area sources within aggregate facilities and cement manufacturing plants. Aggregate plan ts produce sand and gravel and crushed stone, which generate particulate matter in the form of fugitive dust. Examples of such requirements include pre-application of water prior to material extraction, application of chemical dust suppressant s or establishment of a vegetative ground cover to inactive disturbed areas, covering of material conveyors and haul vehicles, and installation of wheel washing system s where haul vehicles exit the site.

Miscellaneous Sources

Twelve measures are proposed under the Miscellaneous Sources category for a variety of sources ranging from service-orie nted industries such as restaurants to composting and waste-related emissions (s uch as livestock waste) to incentive programs. Of these measures, seven are carried over from the 1997/1999 SIP and five are new measures (MSC-04, MS C-05, MSC-06, MSC-07, and MSC-08).

MSC-01 – PROMOTION OF LIGHTER COLOR ROOFING AND ROAD MATERIALS (ALL POLLUTANTS): This measure seeks to provide incentives for voluntary actions to reduce VOC or NOx by lowering the ambient temperature through the use of lighter colored roofing and paving materials. This measure is implemented in part through the U.S. EP A’s Cool Communities Program. The U.S. EPA and the SCAQMD have been moving forw ard with the promotion of the use of lighter color roofing and paving materials. Several demonstration projects are currently being conducted nationa lly (one with the City of Los Angeles). In addition,Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 13 tree planting programs are being promot ed throughout the region. The SCAQMD has sponsored several studies to further quantify the benefits of these actions.

MSC-03 – PROMOTION OF CATALYST-SURFACE COATING TECHNOLOGY (OZONE, CO): This control measure proposes to reduce ozone and CO emissions through a regional-scale use of ozone destroying catalyst coatings. Several field studies have been conducted to demonstrate the efficacy of the use of the ozone destroying catalyst and preliminar y results do indicate reductions in ozone concentrations when the catalyst is us ed. There are ongoing technical research studies and projects demonstrating the re lationship between the amounts of ozone destroyed and the amount of VOC and/or NOx emissions reduced under various meteorological and geographi c conditions. In addition, staff is reviewing the CARB’s LEV II Program that c ontains an element to allo w for VOC credits for the use of catalyst surface coating in mobile s ource applications. If the mobile source credit approach is found to be applicable to stationary sources, staff will develop an incentives program for stationary sources.

MSC-04 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM MISCELLANEOUS AMMONIA SOURCES (AMMONIA): This new control measure proposes to develop a comprehensive plan by evaluati ng possible control op tions for reducing ammonia emissions in the Basin. Ammonia reacts in the atmosphere with gaseous nitric and sulfuric acid to form secondary particles which c ontribute to PM10 and PM2.5 levels in the Basin. To expeditiously attain the PM10 standard and make progress toward the PM2.5 standard, furthe r reductions of certain ammonia sources may be necessary. The control measure proposes to further refine the ammonia emissions inventory and identify potentia l control methods or technologies for various sources of ammonia emissions su ch as motor vehicles, poultry and other livestock operations, composting operati ons, and other stationary sources.

MSC-05 – TRUCK STOP ELECTRIFICATION (ALL POLLUTANTS) : This new control measure will require the mandato ry installation of electric systems at truck stops that can provide heating, ven tilating, and air conditioning to truck cabs, run appliances inside truck cab s, and on-board truck systems at truck stops in order to eliminate truck idling thereby eliminating th e operation of diesel-fu eled engines used by trucks (i.e., during engine idling). In or der to reduce or eliminate the operation of auxiliary engines that power refrigeration units on refrigera ted trailers, this control measure will also require the installation of external power supplies at truck stops for use by truck operators to power their trailer refrigeration units

.
MSC-06 - EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM WOOD BURNING FIREPLACES AND WOOD STOVES (PM10): This new control measure proposes to reduce PM10 emissions from wood-burning fireplaces and wood stoves used in the Basin. The current PM10 emi ssions inventory for th ese units is about 5Final 2003 AQMP

4 - 14 tons per day. The measure proposes to furt her refine the emissions inventory, assess available emissions data and air quality im pact for burning manufactured logs versus natural wood, consider control approaches (e.g., U.S. EPA cer tified wood stoves or fireplace inserts in new residential or pub lic settings), develop in centive programs to encourage the replacement of old w ood burning units, and strengthen public awareness and education programs.

MSC-07 – NATURAL GAS FUEL SPECIFICATIONS (NOx ): The purpose of this new control measure is to prevent emission increases from the combustion of natural gas with uncharacteristically hi gh heating value (HHV) in stationary applications. The high heati ng value of such gas relative to natural gas with a lower heating value may result in increased combustion temperat ure and, possibly, higher NOx emissions. This control strategy cons iders setting an upper limit of the heating value of natural gas. Natu ral gas producers/suppliers c ould achieve the objective of this control strategy by either not supplyi ng hot gas to the Dist rict, or by removing higher hydrogen compounds or othe rwise reducing the Btu valu e of the hot gas. The District will continue data collection to further determine the relationship between the HHV for natural gas fuel and NOx emissions from gas -fired equipment. Based on this information, the District will make a final determination about the potential emission reductions that can be realized from this measure.

MSC-08 - FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM LARGE VOC SOURCES (VOC): This new control measure seeks to achieve further emission reductions from the largest stationary s ources through implementation of facilityspecific emission reduction plans. Under this control measure, facilities will be required to submit a plan to outline specifi c measures which w ould be implemented to reduce their overall emissions beyond th e existing regulations and achieve a specified emission reduction target. The reduction targets will be based on technology-based control targets for vari ous source categories which would be developed by District staff a nd would take into account te chnical feasibility and costeffectiveness. Under the District-appr oved emission reduction plan, facilities would have the flexibility to select the most feas ible combination of c ontrol technologies for their facility to achieve the required reduc tions. In addition, emission inventory improvements at these facilities that result in lower emission estimates is considered to be SIP creditable provided a public review process is conducted to solicit comments to make appropriate revisions.

PRC-03 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM RESTAURANT OPERATIONS (PM10): This control measure seeks to reduc e PM emissions from charbroilers. Charbroilers consist of three main compone nts: a heating source, a high-temperature radiant surface, and a grill. The grill, whic h is grated, holds the meat while exposing it to radiant heat. Particulate emissions result from the fat being entrained when dripping grease flares up. Testing has been conducte d since 1998 and is an ongoingChapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 15 process to identify effective control tec hnologies for under-fired charbroilers, which contribute to approximately 85 percent of the total PM emission inventory for this source category. This c ontrol measure will focus on PM emission reductions; however, concurrent VOC emission reductions may occur.

PRC-07 – INDUSTRIAL PROCESS OPERATIONS (VOC): This control measure, which has evolved from CM #99 ADV-PRC, proposes to refine the emission inventory and further control VOC emissions from miscellaneous chemical processes subject to Regula tion XI and Regulation IV ru les. Potential control methods include enhanced inspection and maintenance and other housekeeping work practices to reduce fugitive emissions from mate rial transfer, storage, and processing. Process modification may also provide an effective control option to minimize or eliminate emission sources.

WST-01 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM LIVESTOCK WASTE (VOC, AMMONIA): This control measure considers the ammonia and VOC emissions inventory associated with livestock wast e and the development and assessment of feasible control approaches. Emission benef its associated with dairy relocations and existing water quality regulations will be taken into account. Potential control options include, but are not limited to, rem oval of manure out-of-Basin or processing of manure at controlled composting facilities or at anaerobic digesters. VOC and ammonia emission benefits associated with dairy relocations, existing water quality regulations, and control meas ure WST-01 are estimated to be 4.8 tons per day of VOC and 8.7 tons per day of ammonia emi ssions in 2010. This control measure is currently being developed under Proposed Rule 1127 - Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste. PR1127 will seek to achieve additional re ductions beyond those anticipated from dairy relocations and water quality regulations.

WST-02 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM COMPOSTING (VOC, AMMONIA): This control measure proposes to achieve VOC and NH3 reductions from composting and related operations in tw o phases. Under Phase I, a series of rules will be developed wh ich would 1) establish a registration program for composting and chipping a nd grinding facilities; 2) establish holding and/or processing (e.g., chipping and grinding, on-site applications) time requirements for greenwaste in order to prevent inadvertent decomposition; and, 3) set forth VOC and ammonia emission reduction requirements fo r co-composting operations. Potential control options may include forced aeration, enclosures, process controls, and add-on controls (e.g. biofilters). In Phase 2, feas ible control options will be evaluated and developed for greenwaste and foodwaste composting operati ons. Rules 1133, 1133.1, and 1133.2 adopted in January 2003 would implement Phase 1 of this control

measure.Final 2003 AQMP

4 - 16 FSS-04 – EMISSION CHARGES OF $5,000 PER TON OF VOC FOR STATIONARY SOURCE EMITTING OVER 10 TONS PER YEAR (VOC): The federal CAA requires that all major stationary sources of VOC emissions (greater than 10 tons per year) in an ex treme nonattainment area that has failed to attain the ambient air quality standard fo r ozone pay a fee as a penalty for such failure (Title I, Section 185). This contro l measure proposes that if the federal ambient air standards are not met by the year 2010, the District shall impose an emissions fee of $5,000 per ton of VOC, em itted by each major source in excess of 80 percent of the sources’ baseline emissions . The fee rate will be adjusted annually to reflect increases in the consumer price index. The fee shall be paid for each calendar year after the year 2010 and until the area is redesignated as an ozone attainment area. This fee will be in a ddition to the annual emission fee required by SCAQMD Rule 301.

Compliance Flexibility Programs

One control measure proposed under this ca tegory was originally contained in the 1999 SIP amendment. Control measure FL X-01 (Intercredit Trading Program) is designed to complement command-and-contro l measures. The primary objectives of these programs are to enhance regulat ory compliance flexibility by providing additional compliance options and ther eby lowering compliance costs and to incentivize early reductions and a dvancement of clean technologies.

FLX-01 – ECONOMIC INCENTIVE PROGRAMS (ALL POLLUTANTS): Control measure FLX-01 (Intercredit Tradi ng Program) is designed to complement command-and-control measures. The primar y objectives of this measure are to enhance regulatory compliance flexib ility by providing additional compliance options and thereby lowering compliance co sts and to incentivize early reductions and advancement of clean technologies through emission credit banking provisions. This measure along with other existing regulatory flexibility programs such as District credit rules and the Air Quality Investment Program are essential to the successful introduction of the advanced contro l measures. The District will continue to develop incentive-based credit ge neration rules to provide technology advancement or early implementation of mob ile, area, and stationary source emission reduction projects. Credit rules may be developed for use in RECLAIM, commandand-control programs, or for use by proj ects subject to New Source Review (Regulation XIII). The EIP will be considered in development of the rules to help facilitate CARB and EPA review and approval.

In 2001, the District adopted six mobile and area source pilot credit generation rules: Rule 1612.1 – Mobile Source Credit Gene ration Pilot Program; Rule 1631 – Pilot Credit Generation Program for Marine Ve ssels; Rule 1632 – Pilot Credit Generation Program for Hotelling Operations; Rule 1633 – Pilot Credit Generation Program forChapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 17 Truck/Trailer Refrigeration Units; Rule 1634 – Pilot Credit Generation Program for Truck Stops; and Rule 2507 – Pilot Cred it Generation Program for Agricultural Pumps. NO x emission reductions generated from these pilot credit generation rules can be used in the RECLAIM program e ither directly or through the RECLAIM Reserve for the Mitigation Fee Program fo r power producing facilities or the Rule 2020 AQIP for specific RECLAIM facilities. These pilot credit rules may be expanded to generate additional credits for short-term ERCs under REG XIII. Additional mobile source credit rules are antic ipated to be devel oped within the next couple of years to provide a dditional compliance flexibility.

District's Mobile Source Control Measures

In order to complement the proposed stat e and federal source control measures, the District is introducing thre e new control measures ai med at achieving additional emission reductions from off-road mobile sour ces, described below. The District will exercise its existing legal authority or seek additional authority to adopt and implement cost-effective mobile source controls.

FSS-05 – MITIGATION FEE PROG RAM FOR FEDERAL SOURCES (ALL POLLUTANTS): In order to achieve a fair share reduction commitment from federal sources, this new control measur e proposes to implement a mitigation fee program which is to be a dopted by U.S. EPA and the m itigation fee to be paid by federal sources through EPA ru lemaking and/or U.S. EPA gr ants to the District. Federal sources include emission source categories such as aircraft, ocean-going vessels, trains, and pre-empted off-road e quipment that are under the jurisdiction of U.S. EPA. These sources c ontinue to represent a signifi cant source of emissions in the Basin in the absence of ad equate federal regulations. Under this control measure, the District will use the monies collected to implement strategies for both federal and non-federal sources to achieve equivalent reductions for SIP purpos es. This program would potentially allow a fee to be paid in lieu of additional federal regulations. Projects funded by the Mitigation Fee Program for federal or other sources would be selected based on specific criteria, incl uding but not limited to: quantifiable emission benefits, emission reduction potential, cost-e ffectiveness, and proximity to affected areas (e.g., environmental justice areas). These projects would have to be approved by District's Governing Board.

FSS-06 - FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM IN-USE OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES (ALL POLLUTANTS): Although CARB and U.S. EPA have adopted stringe nt standards for new off-road engines, due to the slow engine turn-over rate, significant emissions remain from in-use engines manufactured many years ago. This control measure propos es that in the even t that the CARB orFinal 2003 AQMP

4 - 18 U.S. EPA does not develop a ggressive programs to reduce emissions from in-use offroad equipment and vehicle categories (e.g ., construction and i ndustrial equipment, recreational vehicles, utility equipment), the District would exercise its authority to develop regulations to retrof it existing engines or accelerate the engine turn-over
rate.

FSS-07 - EMISSION FEE PROGRAM FOR PORT-RELATED MOBILE SOURCES (ALL POLLUTANTS): As an alternative to establishing more stringent standards, this control measure proposes an emissions fee program for in-use portrelated mobile sources. Unde r this control measure, the District would establish an emission fee program for port-related vehicles and equipment, such as ships, trains, trucks, and off-road equipment, which woul d potentially apply to fleet operators of trucks and off-road equipm ent as well as railroads and shipping and trucking companies. The District will use the monies collected from the program to implement projects with a focus to achiev e emission reductions from in-use on-road and off-road mobile sources. When devel oping this control measure, staff will consider setting emission limits as a comp anion option in lieu of assessing emission fees.

In addition, District’s long-term c ontrol measure (LTM-ALL, under Group 8), transportation conformity budget backst op measure (TCB-01, under Group 9) and contingency control measures are provided in Appendix IV-A.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS' (SCAG'S) REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY AND CONTROL MEASURES

Transportation plans within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) are statutorily required to conform with air quality plans in the region, as established by the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act and subsequently reinforced by the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and by the Tr ansportation Equity Act for the 21stCentury (TEA-21).

The region must demonstrate that its tran sportation plans and programs conform to the mandate to meet the National Ambi ent Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in a timely manner. The regulations governing the implementation of transportation projects within air basins de signated as Extreme Non-Attainment Areas are stipulated in EPA’s Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR Parts 51 and 93) and also the Joint Federal Highway Administration (F HWA)/Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regulations, "Planning Assistance and Standards," 23 CFR Part 450 and 49 CFR Part 613.Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 19 The long-term transportation planning re quirements for emission reductions from onroad mobile sources within the Basi n are met by SCAG’s triennial Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), with its 20 y ear planning horizon. The short-term implementation requirements of the Tran sportation Conformity Rule are met by SCAG’s biennial Regional Tr ansportation Improvement Program (RTIP), the first two years of which are fiscally constraine d and demonstrate timely implementation.

The region is also required to identify a speci al class of transportation projects called Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), wh ich are specified in the Federal Clean Air Act (Section 108 (f)(1)(A) – Transporta tion Control Measures) and also by EPA’s Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 93). In the event that the region were to fall out of conformity, only those project s identified as TCMs would be allowed to go forward. However, once a project is identified as a TCM, certain special conditions and obligations arise.

• Emission Reductions : The region must specify the emission reductions accruing from these TCM projects, and undertake bot h to implement these projects in a timely manner, and to demonstrate that the projects have, in deed, resulted in the emission reductions specified. In the ev ent that a TCM category project is not implemented, for any reason, the region must substitute that project with an alternative that provides at least as much emission reduction as the original project.

• Timely Implementation : Projects identified as TCMs must be tracked for implementation. In the ev ent that a particular TCM category project is delayed or otherwise fails, the region undertakes to compensate the emission reduction losses by alternative means.

• Reasonably Available Contro l Measure (RACM) Analysis : The region must demonstrate that it has considered all re asonably available control measures and that projects identified as TCMs have been chosen on the basis of such an analysis. In general, transportation c ontrol measures (TCMs) are those actions which provide emission reductions from on-road mobile s ources, based on changes in the patterns and modes by which the regi onal transportation system is used. The various strategies being considered as part of the 2001 Regional Trans portation Plan (RTP) are defined, collectively, as a single TCM, with specific interventions and strategies grouped into its following three components:

• High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Interventions: These are interventions that attempt to shift the proportion of work trips made using single occupancy vehicles—the clearly preferred mode of travel within the Southern CaliforniaFinal 2003 AQMP

4 - 20 region, constituting 90 % of all home-to -work trips, according to the 2000 US Census—by increasing the share of HOV ridership within the Region. HOV lanes are one example of such projects, where particular segments of heavily used freeways are designated for exclus ive use by HOV vehicles, particularly during rush hour traffic. The purpose of such measures is to make car-pooling and ride-sharing practices more attrac tive to individuals who may otherwise prefer the convenience of a single occupancy vehicle commute trip.

• Transit and Systems Management Interventions: These are interventions that rely primarily on the provision of facilities and infrastructure that incentivize an increase in the proportion of regional tr ips that make use of transit as a transportation mode. Such measures also promote the use of alternative modes of transportation—such as bicycle and pedestrian modes—and seek to incentivize increases in th e average vehicle occupa ncy (AVO) or ridership (AVR) by facilitating van-pools, smart s huttles and other such strategies.

• Information-based Trans portation Interventions: These are interventions that rely primarily on the innovative provisi on of information in a manner that successfully influences the ways in which individuals use the regional transportation system. Typically, such me asures seek to induce changes in trip behavior that beneficially influence th e congestion and air pollution impacts of travel. One set of strategies attempt to increase the propor tion of ride-sharing and car-pooling trips by providing informa tion that makes it easier to match up people traveling to and from particular se ts of origin and de stination points. Another set of strategies attempts to shift the time-profile of demand—thus, transportation demand management (TDM )—by redistributing traffic flows from peak to off-peak hours. These strategies rely on providing single occupancy vehicle operators with rea listic and near-real time estimates of congestion using internet-based informati on networks, in an e ffort to influence their decision to defer traveling to some later, less congested time of day.

Transportation Control Measure Development

Over the past few decades, there have been remarkable improvements in the control of emissions from on-road vehicles. Thes e have stemmed, in large measure, from improvements in the efficiency of inte rnal combustion engines and also from dramatic improvements in the emissi on control technology installed on newer vehicles. 1 However, trends assessed as part of the regional tran sportation planning process make it clear that the increase in vehicle emissions resulting from increases in the number of vehicles on the road and the number of vehicle miles they each are

1 Such measures are outside the definition of TCMs, which are discussed in more detail in Appendix IV-C: Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures.Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 21 driven, may rapidly overwhelm any future benefits from technology improvements. This becomes even more signi ficant when taken together with the fact that the comparatively low-mileage s port utility vehicles (SUVs) currently constitute at least 50% of all new vehicle sales As a resu lt, it is imperative that the Region seek alternative and innovative ways to reduce transportation-related air pollution and environmental impacts.

The TCMs specified in the 2001 RTP, as well as the projects listed for implementation in the first two year s of the 2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), were deve loped as part of an extensive and comprehensive decision making process th at actively sought the input of key stakeholders throughout the Re gion. Various committees a nd task forces, made up of city and county elected officials, regulat ors, planners, and co mmunity-based groups, have worked to ensure that every viable measure that has the real potential of improving the Region’s progress toward a ttainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), receives due consid eration. At the culmination of the process, SCAG’s Regional Council recomme nded that the transportation control measures and strategies propos ed as part of the 2001 RTP, along with the investment commitments contained in the 2002 RTIP, be included as part of the Region’s air quality plans. These measures and recomme ndations have accord ingly been moved forward for inclusion in the present document.

Transportation Control Method Objectives

The central objective of the control me thods outlined in the 2001 RTP, and now incorporated into the 2003 AQMP, is to increase (or, at least, maintain at current levels) the proportion of trips made us ing modes other than single occupancy vehicles. This remains the primary goa l of the Region’s tr ansportation control strategy, and HOV projects are an impor tant component of such efforts.

However, projects that reduce congestion a nd improve traffic flows, on freeways and on arterial roads, also have some role to play in mitiga ting the air quality impacts of transportation. The conventional argum ent has been that capacity-enhancing congestion relief projects improve air quality by moving vehicles from the higher polluting slow speeds to lower polluting hi gher speeds. This argument has been countered by the observation that, in cases where capacity is increased to relieve congestion, the act of increa sing the supply itself generates an increase in demand. Thus efforts to relieve congestion also in crease the total volume of traffic on the roads, within certain bounds. However, wh ile the congestion relief benefits of capacity enhancing projects are certainly le ss than was previously thought, there are certainly measurable air quality and environm ental benefits to projects that improve traffic flows.Final 2003 AQMP

4 - 22 Transit and Systems Management projects constitute a second core of the Region’s efforts to mitigate the air quality and envir onmental impacts of increases in traffic activity. These measures include conventi onal transit projects (bus, commuter rail, subway and shuttle services), non-motorize d transit projects (supporting bicycle and pedestrian movement), and inter-modal facilities (park-and-ride lots, van-pool routes). The objective of these measures is to attract as many individuals as possible to non-single occupancy vehicl e modes of transportation for peak and non-deferrable work trips. Also consider ed in this segment are improvements to goods movementrelated facilities that carry the potential to either separate freight-related traffic from commute-related traffic, or to otherwise e xpedite the transfer of goods across diverse modes to transportation.

A third key element is the Region’s efforts to implement information-based measures that seek to change travel behavior in ways that mitigat e the air quality and environmental impacts of transportation. Some examples of such measures are rideshare programs that seek to match up i ndividuals traveling to and from specific destinations in a way that enables a number of people to share ri des to work, rather than driving alone. Intelligent Transporta tion Systems use comput erization, sensor technology embedded in road paving, signa lization and ramp metering-types of interventions to modulate the flows of tra ffic in ways that improve flows and so reduce emissions.

Table 4-3 provides a list of transportation c ontrol measures (TCMs) selected from the first two years (fiscally constrained por tion) of the 2002 Regi onal Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), which, in turn, is based on the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and consis tent with the 1994 and 1997/99 AQMP/SIPs.Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 23 TABLE 4-3 Selected TCM Projects Programmed for Implementation through the 2002 Regional Transportation Im provement Program (RTIP)

Project Description

A. High Occupancy Vehicle Measures HOV projects, and their pricing alternatives

 New HOV Lanes – Extensions and Additions to Existing Facilities

 New HOV Lanes – With New Facility Projects

 New HOV Lanes -- With Facility Improvement Projects

 HOV Bypasses, Connectors, and New Interchanges with Ramp Meters

 High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes and Pricing Alternatives

B. Transit and System Management Measures Bus, rail and shuttle transit expansion and improvements; park and ride lots and inter-modal transfer facilities; bicycle and pedestrian facilities; railroad consolidation programs such as the Alameda Corridor, grade separation projects, channelization, over-passes, underpasses; traffic signalization; intersection improvements Transit

 Rail Track – New Lines

 Rail Track – Capacity Expansion of Existing Lines

 New Rolling Stock Acquisition -- Rail Cars and/or Locomotives

 Express Busways – Bus Rapid Transit and Dedicated Bus Lanes

 Buses – Fleet Expansion

 Shuttles and Paratransit Vehicles – Fleet Expansion Intermodal Transfer Facilities

 Rail Stations - New

 Rail Stations - Expansion

 Park & Ride Lots – New

 Park & Ride Lots – Expansion

 Bus Stations & Transfer Facilities – New

 Bus Stations & Transfer Facilities – Expansion Non-motorized Transportation Mode Facilities

 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities - New

 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities - Expansion

 Bicycle Facilities - New

 Bicycle Facilities - Expansion

 Pedestrian Facilities - New

 Pedestrian Facilities - ExpansionFinal 2003 AQMP

4 - 24 TABLE 4-3 (continued) Selected TCM Projects Programmed for Implementation through the 2002 Regional Transportation Im provement Program (RTIP)

C. Information-based Transportation Strategies Programs that promote and popularize multi-modal commute strategies to maximize alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle commute trips; marketing and promoting the use of HOV lanes or rail lines to the general public; educating the public regarding cost, locations, accessibility and services available at Park and Ride lots; promote and market vanpool formation and incentive programs; promoting ride-matching services through the Internet and other means of making alternative travel option information more accessible to the general public; Urban Freeway System Management improvements; Smart Corridors System Management programs; Congesti on Management Plan-based demand management strategies; county-/corridor-wide vanpool programs; seek money for transportation management associations (TMAs); and TDM demonstration programs/projects eligible for programming in the RTIP.

 Marketing for Rideshare Services and Transit/TDM/Intermodal Services

 Intelligent Transportation Systems/Control System Computerization

 Telecommuting Programs/Satellite Work Centers

 Real-time Rail, Transit, or Freeway Information Systems (changeable message signs)

The measures contained in the 2001 RTP demonstrate an overall emission reduction for the region of 15.7 tons per day (tpd) of VOC, 7.8 t pd of NOx and 161.8 tpd of CO by the year 2010. Emission reductions from transportation control measures make up a subset of that to tal and provide emission reducti ons of 5 tpd of VOC, 1 tpd of NOx and 60 tpd of CO.

STATE AND FEDERAL STATIONARY AND MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES

The 2003 AQMP includes the State's strate gy for reducing emissions from sources that are primarily under State and federal ju risdiction, including mobile sources, fuels and the fueling infrastructur e, and consumer products.

The on-road motor sources category incl udes passenger cars, light-duty trucks, medium-duty vehicles, heavy- duty vehicles, and motorcycles. There are currently approximately 10 million vehicles in this cat egory in the South Coast Air Basin. In 1997, these vehicles traveled more than 296 million miles per day; they are projected to travel about 362 million miles per day by the year 2010. CARB and U.S. EPAChapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 25 have primary authority to reduce emissions from on-road mobile sources, through the adoption of emission standards and other re lated requirements. SCAG can contribute to this effort through the adoption of tran sportation control measures that reduce the use of on-road mobile sources. The Di strict has limited authority to impose requirements to reduce emissions from thes e sources. However, the District has reduced emissions from this source categor y through its trip reduction requirements for large employers (Rule 2002), fleet ru les, vehicle scrapping programs, and incentive programs.

Off-road mobile sources re fers to off-road vehicles and mobile non-vehicular equipment categories such as aircraft, trai ns, marine vessels, farm and construction equipment (e.g., bulldozers), industrial equipment (e.g., forklifts), and utility equipment (e.g., lawn mowers). The author ity to develop and im plement regulations for off-road mobile sources lies primarily with the U.S. EPA and CARB. The District has limited authority to adopt retr ofit requirements for some off-road mobile

sources.
Technological breakthroughs over the past 30 years made significant emission reductions possible. Over the next de cade, CARB expects to see even greater advances through the development, commerc ialization, and use of zero- and nearzero emission technologies as well as furthe r development of clean and alternative fuels. These emerging technologies hold promise for several reasons: tailpipe, evaporative and fuel marketing emissions will be eliminated, emission control equipment deterioration or failure will be a thing of the past , toxic and greenhouse gas emissions will be substantially redu ced, and emissions associated with the traditional fuels infrastructure will be significantly reduced.

State Strategy

CARB’s strategy for achieving additional emissions reductions from the mobile source emissions inventory can be grouped in to five approaches: (a) set technologyforcing new engine standards; (b) reduce emissions from the in-use fleet; (c) require clean fuels, support alternative fuels, a nd reduce petroleum de pendency; (d) work with U.S. EPA to reduce emissions from fe deral and State sources; and (e) pursue long-term advanced technologies measures . These five strategies would be implemented via the mobile source and fu els measures cited in this Section.

Consumer products include products such as detergents, polishes, cosmetics, hairsprays, and disinfectants, that are used primarily by house hold and institutional consumers. Consumer products represent a significant source of VOC emissions in the Basin. Overall emissions from th is category are determined both by the emissions characteristics of the types of products within the category, and byFinal 2003 AQMP

4 - 26 increases in product usage that are larg ely tied to population increases. Although existing regulations for c onsumer products ha ve reduced projected 2010 emissions from this category, VOC emissions from this category are estimated to be about 108 tons per day, or 17% of the total VOC i nventory in the Basin. Under Health and Safety Code 41712, CARB has the author ity and responsibility to achieve the maximum technologically and commercially feasible VOC emission reductions from consumer products. Howeve r, CARB is prohibited from e liminating a product type (e.g., mode of dispensing).

a. Set Technology-Forcing Ne w Engine Standards - Technology-forcing emission standards for new vehicles and e ngines have been at the heart of CARB’s mobile source control program. Progressi vely more stringent emission standards have helped spur improvements in combus tion efficiency and a dvanced engine and after-treatment technology. For many mob ile source categories, more stringent standards were adopted under the existing program, and will be phased-in between now and 2010. To achieve a nd maintain healthful air quality for California residents in the face of increased population, increa sed vehicle miles traveled, and increased equipment usage, the push toward zero emi ssion technology is absolutely essential. Thus, CARB is proposing the next round of emission st andards, which will be adopted during this decade and realiz e substantial emission benefits by 2020.

CARB also believes that tighter national standards for new off-road equipment, harbor craft, ships, locomotives, and airc raft have the potential to be technically feasible and cost-effective.

b. Reduce Emissions from the In-Use Fleet - Incentive-based programs using public funds have been successful in re ducing emissions of VOC and NOx. Some incentive programs, for example the CA RB’s Lower-Emission School Bus Program and the Carl Moyer Program, are also achi eving particulate matter (PM) reductions. However, the implementation of incentiv e-based programs was never intended to relieve the private sector of its ultimat e responsibility to reduce emissions from the existing vehicle fleet. Therefore, the CA RB must now consider other options that require the aging vehicle and equipment fl eet within California to reduce emissions and the associated impacts on our State’ s air quality over the next ten years.

Light- and Medium-Duty Vehi cles: Inspection and Maintenance (or Smog Check) programs help ensure that in-use vehicles stay clean as they ag e. The Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) has implemented a number of near-term improvements to the Smog Check program. Three additional improvements are reflected in the new State measures: 1) loaded-mode testing for gasoline trucks between 8,500 and less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, 2) an evaporative emission control test to identify excess VOC emissions from leaks in the fuel system, and 3) increasing the percent of vehicles sent to Test-Only stations (implemented in December 2002).Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 27 In addition, CARB is currently conducting a Pilot Program to test both light- and medium-duty vehicles to determine the mo st effective means of reducing in-use emissions from older vehicles. The results of the pilot program will be used to determine the feasibility of implementing light- and me dium-duty vehicles parts replacement/repair programs.

Heavy-Duty Vehicles and Equipment: Th e CARB must also fo cus its efforts on reducing emissions from in-use on- and off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicle and equipment fleets. While stringent new em ission standards will result in significant reductions – this will only occur over time. The durability and performance reliability of the heavy-duty diesel engine m eans that each one re mains in service for an extended period of time, typically 500,000 miles to a million or more miles, diluting the near-term emissions impact of standards targeting only new engines. For both on-road and off-road diesel engines, the CARB will be considering several strategies to reduce in-use emissions. Some examples of these strategies are fleet rules to reduce PM emissions, idling restric tions, and vapor recove ry for cargo tanker fueling hoses. CARB also in tends to implement a software upgrade program that specifically targets 1993 through 1998 mode l year on-road heavy-duty diesel engines. These software upgrades, developed by the engine manufacturers and available now, will significantly reduce excess NOx emissions during typical onhighway driving conditions.



### c. Require Clean Fuels, Support Altern ative Fuels and Reduce Petroleum Dependency 

### - Cleaner conventional and alternativ e fuels will reduce emissions and enable the new technology envisioned in th is SIP. One proposed fuels measure would lower the maximum sulfur content a llowed in diesel fu el to 15 ppm by 2006, and significantly reduce diesel PM leve ls for on-road and off-road vehicles statewide. Low sulfur diesel fuel woul d enable technologies, such as catalyzed diesel particulate filters and NOx adsorber s that could significantly reduce emissions from on- and off-road engines. Additional measures would control the sulfur in lubricating oil and set additive standards fo r diesel fuel to control engine deposits.

While tighter fuel specifications can enab le the next genera tion of vehicle and equipment technology, alternative fuels a nd alternative diesel fuels can reduce emissions in the near-term. There are seve ral mobile source and fuels measures that provide for the use of alternative fuels or alternative diesel fuels to yield near-term emissions benefits. One sure way to reduce em issions from fuels is to use less of it. CARB will pursue approaches to reduce pe troleum dependency, including looking at advanced technologies, alternative fuels and alternative diesel fuels, lowering travel demand, and reducing upstream emissions.

d

. Work with U.S. EPA to Reduce Em issions from Federal and State Sources - Adopted U.S. EPA regulations for interstate diesel trucks and off-road equipment,Final 2003 AQMP

4 - 28 Figure II-4

Older Gasoline Powered Vehicle Contribution Statewide Summer 2010

25 81 87 66 48

0 20 40 60 80 100

VMT ROGexh ROGevap NOx PM10
pre-1998 1998+ % and the federal requirement for low-sulfur diesel fuel in 2006 fo r on-road trucks, are critical parts of the strategy to attain fede ral ambient air quality standards. Additional reductions from sources under federal jurisdic tion will be needed if the South Coast is to attain the federal one-hour ozone standard. Th ese reductions can best be achieved through the adoption of federal contro ls, regulations, or incentive programs.



### e. Pursue Long-Term Advanced Technologies Measures 

### - Light- and Medium-D uty Vehicles: There is a wide disparity in emissions between pre- and post-1998 light-duty vehicles. This varia tion is primarily due to the technological advancements in motor vehicle controls and vehicle design that occurred beginning in 1998, and the results of ove rall deterioration inthe aging motor vehicle fleet. Figure II4 illustrates how older engines in the light-duty fleet contribute a disproportionate share of emissions relative to their population and usage. Other long-term advanced t echnology measures for light- and medium-duty vehicles include: 1) Voluntary Accelerated Ve hicle Retirement (VAVR) – which requires funding, and 2) improvements to the Sm og Check program – wh ich would require legislative authority, including removing th e rolling 30-year model year exemption (bring the old, high-polluting vehicles back into the program) and extending enhanced smog check to include all eligible vehicles registered in a nonattainment region subject to smog check.

Heavy-Duty Vehicles and Equipment: For bot h on-road and off-road diesel engines, ongoing funding for incentive programs such as the Carl Moyer Program and the Lower-Emission school bus program would introduce cleaner technology and reduce in-use emissions. Other l ong-term advanced technology m easures include lower U.S. EPA emission standards for new off-road dies el equipment, tighter standards for new and remanufactured locomotive engines, additional marine reductions, including alternatives to dockside power and propulsi on in/out of port and operational controls, and reduced emissions from vehicles traveling to and from airports.

In addition to the proposed measures for mobile sources, the State element also contains specific measures to furthe r reduce VOC emissions from previously unregulated consumer product categories or regulated categories for which further emission reductions are feasible. Mass-ba sed or reactivity-based limits based on reformulation would be considered for thes e products. Additional measures are alsoChapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 29 proposed to reduce evaporative emissions associ ated with fuel storage, transport, and vehicle refueling.

f. Summary - CARB's proposed strategy include s both defined (short-term) measures as well as long-term strategies. Table 4-4A is a list of CARB's proposed defined control measures with estimated em ission reductions of 33 to 72 tons per day of VOC and 23 to 49 tons per day of NOx in 2010. If the Pr oposed 2003 State and Federal Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan is approved by the State, CARB staff will propose the control m easures listed in Table 4-4A for Board consideration by the dates shown. CA RB also proposes a broad commitment to adopt these or other measures to ac hieve, at a minimum, the VOC and NO x emission reductions in tons per day in the South Coast in 2010 shown in Table 4-4B. These totals represent the mid-range of emission reductions expected from the defined State measures in Table 4-4A. CARB’s proposed long-term strategy is presented in the “Long-Term Control Strategy” section of this chapter. A detailed description of the control measures identified in Table 4-4A is provided in Appendix IV-B - Proposed 2003 State and Federal Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan.Final 2003 AQMP

4 - 30 TABLE 4-4A Proposed State Defined (Short- Term) Control Measures (Emission reductions in tons per day in 2010)

Control Measure # Expected Reductions 1 (tons/day) Title/Description VOC NOx

LT/MED-DUTY-1 (CARB) Replace or Upgrade Emission Control Systems on Existing Passenger Vehicles – Pilot Program. 0-19 0-18

LT/MED-DUTY-2 (BAR) Smog Check Improvements 5.6-5.8 8.0-8.4

ON-RD HVY-DUTY-1 (CARB) Augment Truck and Bus Highway Inspections with Community-Based Inspections 0-0.1 0

ON-RD HVY-DUTY-2 (CARB) Capture and Control Vapors from Gasoline Cargo Tankers 4-5 0

ON-RD HVY-DUTY-3 (CARB) Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existing Truck/Bus Fleet 1.4-4.5 8-11

OFF-RD CI-1 (CARB) Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existing Heavy-Duty Off-Road Equipment Fleet (Compression Ignition Engines)-Retrofit Controls 2.3-7.8 NQ

OFF-RD CI-2 (CARB) Registration and Inspection Program for Existing Heavy-Duty Off-Road Equipment to Detect Excess Emissions (Compression Ignition Engines) NQ NQ

OFF-RD LSI-1 (CARB) Set Lower Emission Standards for New Off-Road Gas Engines (Spark Ignited Engines 25 hp and Greater) 0 0.8

OFF-RD LSI-2 (CARB) Clean Up Existing Off-Road Gas Equipment Through Retrofit Controls (Spark-Ignition Engines 25 hp and Greater) 0.5-1.4 1.5-3.5

OFF-RD LSI-3 (CARB) Require Zero-Emission Forklifts Where Feasible – Lift Capacity ≤ 8,000 Pounds 0.3-0.6 1.4-2.8

SMALL OFF-RD-1 (CARB) Set Lower Emission Standards for New Handheld Small Engines and Equipment (Spark Ignited Engines Under 25 hp such as Weed Trimmers, Leaf Blowers, and Chainsaws) 1.9 0.2

1 Expected reductions are from the summer planning inventory for the South Coast Air Basin in 2010Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 31 TABLE 4-4A (continued) Proposed State Short-Term Control Measures

Control Measure # Expected Reductions 1 (tons/day) Title/Description VOC NOx SMALL OFF-RD-2 (CARB) Set Lower Emission Standards for New NonHandheld Small Engines and Equipment (Spark Ignited Engines Under 25 hp such as Lawnmowers) 6.6-7.7 0.6-1.9

MARINE-1 (CARB) Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existing Harbor Craft Fleet – Cleaner Engines and Fuels 0.1 2.7

MARINE-2 (CARB) Pursue Approaches to Reduce Land-Based Emissions at Ports – Alternative Fuels, Cleaner Engines, Retrofit Controls, Electrification, Education Programs, Operational Controls 0.1 0.1

FUEL-1 (CARB) Set Additives Standards for Diesel Fuel to Control Engine Deposits NQ NQ

FUEL-2 (CARB) Set Low-Sulfur Standards for Diesel Fuel for Trucks/Buses, Off-Road Equipment, and Stationary Engines Enabling Enabling

CONS-1 (CARB) Set New Consumer Products VOC Limits for 2006 2.3 0

CONS-2(CARB) Set New Consumer Products VOC Limits for 2008-2010 8.5-15 0

FVR-1 (CARB) Increase Recovery of Fuel Vapors from Aboveground Storage Tanks 0-0.1 0

FVR-2 (CARB) Recover Fuel Vapors from Gasoline Dispensing at Marinas 0-0.1 0

FVR-3 (CARB) Reduce Fuel Permeation Through Gasoline Dispenser Hoses 0-0.7 0

PEST-1 (DPR) Implement Existing Pesticide Strategy Baseline Baseline

Subtotal of Potential Range of State Measures 33.6-72.2 23.3-49.4

1 Expected reductions are from the summer planning inventory for the South Coast Air Basin in 2010Final 2003 AQMP

4 - 32 TABLE 4-4B Proposed State Annual Adoption Comm itments for Near-Term Measures 2003 South Coast SIP 1 (Emission reductions in tons per day in 2010)

2003 2004 2005 2006 VOC 10 4 21 2 14 NOx 11 5 21 2 0

1 Expected reductions are based on summer planning inventory.

2 Includes BAR’s commitment to implement improvements to the Enhanced Smog Check Program.

DISTRICT, STATE, AND FEDERAL LONG-TERM CONTROL STRATEGY (182(e)(5) MEASURES OR "BLACK BOX")

In addition to the specific new short-term me asures defined by the State, District, and SCAG, the ozone attainment demonstrati on will rely on long-term measures that anticipate the development of new control te chniques or improvement of existing control technologies. The federal Clea n Air Act (CAA) Section 182(e)(5 ) specifically authorizes the inclusion of such measur es for extreme ozone nonattainment areas – these measures are often referred to as the “black box.” The size of the black box is based on the difference between the final atta inment target (carrying capacity) for each pollutant and the emissions remaining after applicati on of short-term control measures.

Achieving the reductions ascribed to the black box by the 2010 attainment deadline will pose a tremendous challenge to the agencies, businesses, and residents of California. Based on the latest emission i nventory and modeling analysis , the size of the black box for the 2003 AQMP is estimated to be 265 tons per day of VOC and 181 tons per day of NOx (which represents approximately 100 t ons per day of additional VOC reductions beyond the 1997/99 ozone SIP target).

The 2003 AQMP's long-term strategy is comprise d of two components: 1) Tier I, which is based on the commitment to achieve a dditional reductions be yond the proposed shortterm measures based on District's preliminar y technical evaluation; and 2) Tier II, which is based on the remaining long-term emi ssion reductions needed for attainment demonstration.

Two different scenarios are presented in Tabl es 4-5A and 4-5B for distributing the longterm reductions among agencies. Under Scen ario 1, recommended by District staff, the 1997/99 SIP commitments by agencies are used as a starting point to allocate the portion of Tier II long-term reductions needed. Since CARB/U.S. EPA have not met their commitments in the 1997/99 SIP (as of 2003), these agencies would be required toChapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 33 achieve the same level of remaining emissions by 2010 as contained in the current SIP. In addition, the remaining emission reduc tions needed for attainment are then apportioned to each agency base d on the contribution of the remaining emissions within each agency's legal authority.

Under Scenario 2, the long-term stra tegy recommended by CARB staff, all of the responsible agencies would fo cus on defining feasible measures to achieve the necessary emission reductions. CARB’s e xpectation is that each agency would pursue feasible, cost-effective measures for sources unde r its jurisdiction. CARB would take responsibility for assuring that measures ar e identified by 2007 to ac hieve the remaining emission reductions needed for attainment.

Tables 4-5A and 4-5B provide the overall emission reductions (tons/day) associated with short-term/defined measures as well as long- term strategies by agency under Scenarios 1 and 2. CARB staff suggests a single black box and a public process to identify feasible measures and the appropriate agency for adoption and implementation. District staff asserts that responsibility for achieving ev ery ton of needed reductions should be assigned to each agency (CARB, U.S. EPA and the District) in this SIP. These views must be reconciled in the final South Coast SIP to facilitate acceptance by both the State and local governing boards.Final 2003 AQMP

4 - 34 Table 4-5A (Scenario 1) Emission Reductions from Short- Term and Long-Term Measures 1 (2010, tons per day)

District CARB EPA
VOC NOx VOC NOx VOC NOx
Short-Term Measures 21.5 5 49 37 --- --- Long-Term Measures:
Tier I 11 --- 47 --- --- Tier II 20 --- 187* 113* (18)* 68** Subtotal 31 --- 234* 113* (18)* 68** Total Reductions by Agency 52.5 5 283* 150* (18)* 68**
Overall Reductions VOC= 336 and NOx= 223
* If U.S. EPA achieves the anticipated 18 tons pe r day of VOC reductions from sources under federal

jurisdiction, CARB's long-term reduction commitment will be reduced by this amount. ** Reflects the anticipated emission reductions from sources under federal jurisdiction to be achieved

by U.S. EPA. In the event that U.S. EPA does not achieve these reductions, the NOx carrying capacity will be increased by this amount under Op tion 2 of attainment strategy (i.e., excluding reductions from federal sources) which would still demonstrate atta inment with the federal 1-hour ozone standard.

Table 4-5B (Scenario 2) Emission Reductions from Short- Term and Long-Term Measures 1 (2010, tons per day)

District CARB EPA
VOC NOx VOC NOx VOC NOx
Short-Term Measures 21.5 5 49 37 --- --- Long-Term Measures* VOC = 265 and NOx = 181
Overall Reductions VOC = 336 and NOx = 223
* CARB proposes to take responsibility for assuring th at measures are identified by 2007 to achieve

these reductions to meet the primary carrying capacity of 310 tpd VOC and 530 tpd NOx. If the federal government does not agree to fulfill its described reduction responsibility, 68 tpd of these NOx emission reductions will be foregone and the NOx carrying capacity will be adjusted upward by 68 tpd. Since the federal VOC reductions must be achieved to attain, those 18 tpd VOC reductions will be retained in the long-term commitment.

1 In addition to District, CARB, and U.S. EPA measures, the 2003 AQMP includes reductions from SCAG's 2001 RTP (i.e., 15.7 tons per day of VOC a nd 7.8 tons per day NOx) of which emissions reductions from transportation control measures are 5 tons per day of VOC and 1 ton per day of NOx emissions.Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 35 SCENARIO 1 -- RECOMMENDED BY DISTRICT STAFF

District's Portion of Long-Term Strategy - After implementation of its proposed shortterm measures, the District would be exc eeding its emission target in the 1997/99 SIP by about 65 tons per day of VOC ; however, in view of the magnitude of the reductions required for attainment demonstr ation, the District staff is proposing long-term measures to achieve additional VOC reductions from sta tionary sources. The District's long-term strategy is also made up of Tier I and Tier II components. Under the Tier I long-term strategy, the reduction target is 11 tons per day of VOC with the actual reductions dependent on technology assessments to be perfo rmed as part of the rule development process. The Tier I long-term control meas ures have an adopti on date between 2005 and 2007 and implementation date between 2007 and 2009, and targets the source categories such as those in the following control measures:

• CTS-10 – Miscellaneous Industrial Coa tings and Solvent Operations (VOC)

• FUG-05 – Emission Reductions from Fugitive Sources (VOC)

• PRC-07 – Industrial Process Operations (VOC)

The reduction target for Tier II long-term st rategy is 20 tons per day of VOC reductions in 2010. Any excess reductions achieved during implementation of the short-term commitment will be credited toward the Tier I long-term commitment. The Tier II longterm control strategy has an adoption da te between 2006 and 2008 and implementation date between 2008 and 2010, and would target all stationary source categories for which feasible reductions can be identified. Fu rthermore, permanent reductions in emission estimates due to improvement in inventory methodology are SIP creditable if the changes are approved by the Governing Board at its regularly scheduled public meetings. The District's overall reduction target under the l ong-term strategy is 31 tons per day of VOC in 2010. The District's long-term strate gy is described in Appendix IV-A (Control Measure LTM-ALL).

In order to achieve the District's long- term emission reduction commitments, several mechanisms will be used by District sta ff to identify and implement new control strategies. These mechanisms described in more detail in Appendix IV-A: Long-Term Control Measure (LTM-ALL) include, but are not limited to: 1) AQMP Advisory Technical Subcommittee; 2) Annual Tec hnology Assessment Workshops; 3) Emissions Inventory Updates/Studies; 4) VOC Reactivity Studies; 5) Periodic BACT Evaluations. In addition to these mechanis ms, advanced control technologi es (mobile and stationary sources) and innovative control approaches (e.g., market in centive programs, localized controls), presented later in th is Chapter, are also expected to play a major role in achieving the long-term reductions required for demonstrating attainment with the federal 1-hour ozone standard. A brief description of the above mechanisms is provided here:Final 2003 AQMP

4 - 36 (1) Technical Subcommittee of the AQMP Advisory Group Because of the significant emission reductions required for attainment demonstration, a Technical Subcommitt ee was established under the District’s AQMP Advisory Group in April 2003 to e xplore additional control technologies and innovative approaches to achieve further reductions beyond the defined control measures and reduce the size of the “black box”. A preliminary list of potential control strategies identified by this Subcommittee is included in the Section entitled, "Suggested Strate gies by AQMP Advisory Technical Subcommittee" in this chap ter. Additional control strategies will be further explored and developed th rough this Subcommittee in the future. Control strategies that involve mobile source s or consumer products will be further coordinated with CARB and U.S. EPA. To assist in identifying new control strategies, the Subcommittee may also be expanded to include additional technical experts on an as needed basis.

(2) Annual Technology Assessment Workshops

The District will conduct annual te chnology assessment workshops with participation from broader audience includi ng consultants, tec hnical experts, and other interested parties to identify the latest technology improvements and process changes which could lead to implemen tation of cost-effectiveness control strategies to further reduce VOC emi ssions. Potential control methods will include, but are not limited to near-zer o or zero-VOC coating and solvent formulations and technologies (e.g., water-based, UV/EB technologies, powder coatings), add-on controls, improved insp ections and maintenance programs, and process modifications. Manufacturi ng processes identified through the enforcement of stationary source rules such as Rule 442 – Usage of Solvents, will also be used to identify potential control strategies.

(3) Emissions Inventor y Updates/Studies As part of the effort in identifying ne w source categories for potential controls, specific emission studies will be conducted to refine em ission inventories. Any emission studies conducted that resulte d in permanent emission reductions (relative to 2003 AQMP invent ory) due to changes in inventory methodology or emission factor update, will be credited to ward the District’s SIP commitment for long-term measures. These changes will be approved by the AQMD Governing Board at a public meeting to allow public review and comments. Also, studies conducted as part of implementing the annual Emissions Reporting (AER) Program (i.e., reviewing/auditing AERs f ilings from large facilities) will be used to identify any new emission reduction strategies voluntarily implemented by facilities (for reducing annual emission f ees) which may exceed the limits under the District’s existing regulations.Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 37 (4) VOC Reactivity Studies

Studies conducted to evaluate the reac tivity of VOC compounds such as those proposed under the District’s Three-Year Advanced Pollution Research Plan will provide a basis for establishing control stra tegies and pilot projects that substitute low-reactive VOCs for highly reactive VOCs. These studies will lend support to the possibility of using low -reactivity-based products for incorporation into future rule development for further VOC reductions.

(5) Periodic BACT Evaluations BACT evaluations will be conducted pe riodically to identify new control strategies that may result from add-on c ontrols or process changes for existing

sources.

New control measures identif ied through any of the above five mechanisms will be reported to the Governing Boar d in December of every year, as part of the District’s Annual Rule and Control Measure Forecast Report. This report will also provide a preliminary estimate of the expected emi ssion reductions from ea ch newly identified measure along with the proposed rule adoption ca lendar. Furthermore, in January of each year, District staff will provide a summary of the emission reduc tions achieved through adoption of the control measures by the Governing Board in the previous year(s) to track the performance of its SIP commitment.

The District is committed to continue activ ely seeking cost-effective and technically feasible control measures. Once these measur es are identified, they will be adopted and implemented as early as practicable while me eting all public notification requirements. The reductions achieved in aggregate would then be used to first satisfy the District's short-term commitment, if there is a shortfall, otherwise the District's long-term SIP commitment and any excess reductions achieved will be contributed to the State/federal long-term reduction goals. However, it bears re peating that all sour ce categories should produce their fair share of cost-effective emission reductions.

CARB's Portion of Long-Term Strategy - CARB's Tier I long-term reduction target is based on the CARB's proposed long-term measur es contained in their State and Federal Element, dated January 2003. CARB’s Tier II long-term reduction target is assigned by the District staff following the methodology de scribed in section, District, State and Federal Long-Term Control Strategy ( 182 (e)(5) Measures or “Black Box”).

CARB will establish a formal process to ex amine the universe of source categories for which the State has jurisdiction to determin e how additional reductions can be achieved to satisfy the remainder of the long-term co mmitment. The examina tion will also include approaches that require federal participati on and implementation to meet reduction goals. Table 4-6 contains an initial list of possibl e approaches that CARB staff will pursue toFinal 2003 AQMP

4 - 38 identify suitable long-term measures. Be ginning in 2004, CARB will also solicit written proposals for innovative control concepts from the public and conduct technical workshops to further explore promising ideas . CARB expects to identify the remaining measures needed to fulfill the long-term commitment in an expeditious manner, and commits to adopt such measures by the earliest feasible date and im plement them prior to the beginning of the ozone season in 2010.

TABLE 4-6 Possible State Approaches for Long-Term Measures

Light/Medium Duty Vehicles ■ Provide incentives for voluntary passenger vehicle retirement

Smog Check Explore program expansion to increase benefits, including:

■ Expanded enhanced smog check

■ Opt-in to test-only program

■ Replace rolling 30-year exemption with exemption of pre-1974 vehicles On-Road Heavy Duty Vehicles ■ Provide incentives for cleaner trucks and buses, including school buses

Off-Road Vehicles ■ Provide incentives for cleaner off-road equipment Airports ■ Pursue approaches to reduce emissions from vehicles traveling to and from airports

Locomotives ■ Pursue approaches to reduce em issions from in-use locomotives

Diesel Engines ■ Set toxics standard for existing stationary diesel fueled engines – over 50 hp

■ Set toxics standard for existing portable diesel engines

■ Set toxics standard for new and existing small stationary diesel engines – under 50 hp

■ Set toxics standard for diesel-fueled refrigeration units on trucks

Fuels ■ Set sulfur/ash content limits for diesel engine lubricating oils

■ Support infrastructure for zero emission vehicles – electric, fuel cell, hydrogen

Consumer Products ■ Consider future consum er products regulations

Incentives ■ Establish clean air labeling program

■ Continue Statewide energy conservation program

■ Consider Statewide public education campaign for air quality

Pesticides ■ Explore approaches to further reduce volatile emissions from pesticides based on regional need

SCENARIO 2 -- RECOMMENDED BY CARB's STAFFChapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 39 Under State law, the California Air Resource s Board is designated as the State agency responsible for the preparation of the SIP required by the Clean Ai r Act and coordination of district activities necessary to comply with the federal Act. In this capacity, California is proposing to assume responsibility for assu ring that by 2007 measures are identified to achieve the remaining emission reductions need ed for attainment in the South Coast.

California makes this commitment with the e xpectation that U.S. EPA will discharge its responsibilities under the Clean Air Act by undert aking rulemaking or other actions to achieve emission reductions that are determin ed to be appropriate for U.S. EPA and needed for attainment in the South Coast Air Basin. Furthe rmore, CARB expects that the District will continue to be an active partne r in the technical and regulatory processes to identify and adopt the necessary long-term measures.

CARB staff believes based on the best technical information available, that identifying new measures that will achieve attainment is particularly challenging for the South Coast given the level of control already in place and the additional define d measures in this plan. CARB and the District will continue to assess, on an on- going basis, emerging technologies, market incentive programs (e .g., public funding/demand side strategies), opportunities for pollution prevention, and the r easonable availability of other measures. Through this process, the specific measures needed for attainment will be identified no later than 2007, adopted by the earliest feasible date, and implemented prior to the ozone season in 2010. If the specific measures deve loped to satisfy the long-term obligation affect the on-road motor vehicle emissions budget, the District and CARB commit to submit the revised budget to U.S. EPA.

CARB staff will work with the District, U. S. EPA, and the public to assess potential emission reduction concepts to meet the l ong-term commitments. All agencies will actively seek to identify add itional cost-effective control strategies to achieve the maximum feasible reductions from all source ca tegories. Special a ttention will be given to achieving reductions from in-use on-road a nd off-road mobile sources because of the extended life of these sources a nd their slow turn-over rate. This effort will rely heavily on input and feedback from inte rested stakeholders. The public’s participation will be important both in identifying potential em ission reduction concep ts and developing approaches to achieve those em ission reductions in practice. The support of stakeholders in crafting ways to overcome implementa tion barriers and providing assistance to ultimately obtain the emission reductions will be a key component to meeting the longterm commitment. As new control strategi es are identified, agencies would adopt regulations to implement these measures in the earliest practicable timeframe.

Every type of emission source – mobile, st ationary, and area – as well as new and existing -- will need to be evaluated to determine the remaining emissions in theFinal 2003 AQMP

4 - 40 attainment year, and the possi bility for further emission re ductions. Both new sources and sources already in pl ace will be evaluated for potential emission reduction opportunities.

Together with the interest ed public, the agencies will evaluate the opportunities to achieve all feasible emission reductions fro m regulatory programs as well as innovative approaches such as incentives , voluntary programs, episodic c ontrols, and other actions. Part of this evaluation will include a discu ssion of which agency or agencies can most effectively obtain the emission reductions in prac tice. For sources such as airports, ports, and rail yards, the agencies will consider facility-based approach es to reduce overall emissions. For these types of sources, a comprehensive approach may be the most effective way to reduce emissions of ozone a nd fine particulate precursors, as well as address community health con cerns. The agencies will also work with SCAG to identify how transportation decisions can support fu rther emission reductions through direct funding of cleaner engine proj ects or through programs to redu ce the rate of growth in vehicle travel. As strategies are defined th roughout this process, th e responsible agency will begin development as soon as practicable.

The agencies will hold a techni cal forum and identify any new control measures that can help implement the long-term strategy. By 2007, the District and CARB will prepare a revision to the ozone SIP that: (1) reflects any modifications to th e carrying capacity and (2) identifies the additional strategies n eeded to provide the remaining emissions reductions, including the specific measures, bene fits, timing, and responsible agencies. This schedule would harmonize with development of SIPs to attain the federal eight-hour ozone standard and fine particulate ma tter standards in the post-2010 timeframe.

The District is seeking public comment on whic h scenario (i.e., 1 or 2) provides the most appropriate approach.

Federal Responsibility U nder Long-Term Strategy - As established in the 1994 ozone SIP and reaffirmed in the 1999 SIP, the S outh Coast needs reductions from sources under the legal, or practical, control of the fede ral government to attain national air quality standards. These sources include vehicles regi stered outside California that travel within the State, preempted farm and construction equipment, locomotives, marine vessels and aircraft, as well as the fuels sold outside Ca lifornia for these engines. The federal Clean Air Act directs U.S. EPA to continue reduc ing mobile source emissions that cause or contribute to air pollution that endangers public health.

U.S. EPA and CARB staffs have partnered effectively, sharing technical resources to develop new emission standards and other approaches to cut emissions from source categories under shared authority. For ex ample, parallel regulations will reduce emissions from new 2007 heavy- duty trucks by 95 percent co mpared to 1998 levels, ifChapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 41 fully implemented. The national emission st andards for these vehicles are vital to reducing NOx and particulate emissions to m eet health-based air quality standards and reduce the cancer risk from exposur e to diesel exhaust. These benefits are reflected in the baseline inventory.

Agencies at all levels must deliver combined new reductions of about 330 tons per day of VOC and about 220 tons per day of NOx to reach the ozone attainment targets in the South Coast by 2010. This plan identifies control measures that the District, SCAG, and CARB will develop to achie ve significant emission reductions, as well as a broad longterm strategy. However, California alone ca nnot do it all. The sheer magnitude of the additional reductions required to attain nece ssitates that federal government agencies with authority to control air pollution share responsibility for re aching attainment targets.

To support attainment of the federal one-hour ozone standard (and more protective new federal standards) in the South Coast, Calif ornia believes that the federal government has a responsibility to further reduce emissions in proportion to the contribution from sources under its jurisdiction to the degree feasible. Federal government action is essential to reach the attainment target s which will require reducing emissions across all sources contributing to the problem.

a. Emissions Contribution

Based on projected 2010 emissions with exis ting control requirements, sources under federal jurisdiction will contribute one-third of total NOx emissions which form ozone and about half of fine particulate matter (P M2.5) on peak days in the South Coast Air Basin. These sources also emit VOC although in smaller proportion. As California State and local agencies continue to make comm itments and adopt new measures, the relative contribution of emissions (especially NOx) from sources under federal control will grow larger.Final 2003 AQMP

4 - 42 2010 NOx Emissions = 764 Tons/Day District

11% CARB 56% EPA 33%

Figure 1 Projected NOx Emissions by Agency (South Coast Air Basin, 2010, Summer Planning Inventory)

Ozone-forming emissions from most source s are declining over time due to the effectiveness of adopted controls, despite continued population and travel growth. But net emissions from marine and aircraft cate gories are rising. Be tween 2000 and 2010, the total NOx emissions from marine vessels are projected to increase 25 percent, with aircraft emissions rising over 30 percent, b ecause the effects of activity growth are greater than the benefits of current controls . In contrast, total NOx emissions will drop by 60 percent for passenger vehi cles and 30 percent for trucks over the same period. Marine and aircraft emissi ons continue to grow dram atically by 2020 without new strategies.

b. Federal Actions to Meet Emission Reduction Targets

U.S. EPA and CARB staffs continue to coor dinate on future rule making, including three ongoing efforts. First, U.S. EPA proposed more stringent emission standards for new off-road diesel equipment based on the tran sfer of emission c ontrol technology for onroad engines. The benefits will be critic al in the post-2010 timeframe to both offset growth and make progress towa rd the new, more stringent federal standards. Second, U.S. EPA has also proposed phasing in the us e of low sulfur dies el fuel in off-road applications nationwide. This will enable the use of more sophisticated control technology on off-road diesel engi nes. Third, U.S. EPA is working in parallel with California to develop on-board diagnostics and to strengt hen manufacturers’ in-useChapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 43 testing to ensure that new h eavy-duty trucks and bus es maintain expected emission levels throughout their useful lives.

CARB and the District expect that U.S. EP A and other federal agencies will secure further reductions, consistent with the emi ssions contribution from federal sources. The plan relies on the federal govern ment to achieve an additi onal 68 tons per day of NOx reductions, as well as 18 tons per day of ROG reductions, in South Coast Air Basin by 2010. These totals include the benefits of the three parallel measures described above. Like State and local SIP measures, we an ticipate that the federal government may consider a mix of regulatory programs, ince ntives, or other agreements to achieve reductions.

As part of the State’s own long-term stra tegy, CARB identified possible federal emission reduction approaches. Accordingly, CARB st aff included in its ow n document concepts that the federal government could consider, indi cated in Table 4-7. Long-term strategies for new engines in locomotives, ocean-going ships, harborcraft, and commercial and nontactical military aircraft are feasible and effective means to cut emissions and will be critical to make progress toward all of the na tional air quality standards. Because of the extended life of these engines, we believe the long-term strategy will n eed to rely heavily on programs to replace existing engines with cl eaner models or to add emission control equipment. Given the volume of equipment in operation and the public health impact of the emissions, it is important that U.S. EPA a nd its federal partners take early action in this regard.

TABLE 4-7 Concepts for Federal Action

On-Board Diagnostics For New Truck/Bus Fleet A nd In-Use Testing For Existing Truck/Bus Fleet Lower Emission Standards for New Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines Low-Sulfur Standards for Diesel Fuel for Trucks /Buses and Off-Road Equipment, and Stationary Engines More Stringent Emission Standards for New Harbor Craft and Ocean-Going Ships Clean Up The Existing Ocean-Going Ship Fleet Through Approaches Such As Cleaner Fuels, Incentives For Cleaner Ships, Smoke (Opacity) Limits Reduce Emissions from Jet Aircraft Through Approach es Such As More Stringent Engine Standards, Retrofit Controls, Cleaner Fuel, and Applying St andards to Non-Tactical Military Aircraft More Stringent Emission Standards for New and Remanufactured Locomotive Engines Incentives to Accelerate Clean Up of Existing Diesel Engines

CARB intends to continue working with the U.S. EPA and other fe deral agencies on both near-term activities and the long-term strate gy. However, the State does not yet have assurance that the federal gove rnment will achieve the emissi ons targets in the needed timeframe.Final 2003 AQMP

4 - 44 To avoid a transportation confor mity lapse, local and State ag encies need to adopt this SIP revision, and U.S. EPA must find that the transpor tation conformity emissions budgets are adequate, by spring 2004. To preclude the possibility of transportation penalties, a backstop provision is proposed in th e Plan to be triggered if U.S. EPA does not accept the primary control strategy that incl udes local, State, and federal elements.

Two options for attainment demonstration of the federal 1-hour ozone standard are provided in this Plan. The impact of the 2003 AQMP's proposed control strategy (including emission reductions fro m federal sources), referred to as Option 1, as well as the backstop provision (excludi ng reductions from federal sour ces), referred to as Option 2, on attainment demonstration are presented in Chapter 5.

The primary control strategy provides the gr eatest protection for public health and the best foundation for meeting upc oming federal ozone and particulate matter standards. (NOx is the dominant contributor to fine par ticulate levels and a critical component in 8- hour ozone air quality in the Basin.) However, a high prio rity should be placed on achieving the federal PM2.5 air quality standard which require s aggressive action at this time to demonstrate attainment by the 2014 fe deral target. The ba ckstop strategy would be equally effective for meeting the first oz one attainment milestone, the federal one-hour standard. However, it would not provide the NOx emission reductions that will be critical in the longer term to attain th e new federal eight- hour ozone and PM2.5 standards. It is vital for the federal governme nt to join the State and local agencies in taking early action to address the serious public health c onsequences of particulate pollution as we design our strategy to me et the federal one-hour ozone standard.

Suggested Strategies from AQMP Advisory Technical Subcommittee

The Technical Subcommittee of the AQMP A dvisory Group was established in April 2003 to identify new control strategies that could be implemented to achieve the longterm emission reduction requirements (i.e., “black box”). The membership of the Subcommittee is comprised of staff fro m District, CARB, and SCAG as well as representatives from the environmental co mmunity, industry and local government, but would be extended to include other technical experts and en trepreneurs. The following is a list of strategies which have been sugge sted by this Subcommitte e thus far as well as other strategies suggested during the comment period. These suggestions will continue to be further evaluated by agency staff following the adoption of 2003 AQMP.

Accelerate Penetration and Use of Existing Technologies

Instead of relying on the development of new technologies for achieving “black box” reductions, existing technologies should be relied upon to the gr eatest extent possible. Examples include retrofit of on-road trucks and off-road vehicles and equipment withChapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 45 existing technologies (e.g., dies el particulate filters, 3-way catalysts, and/or diesel oxidation catalysts), low- or zero-emission ground support equipment at airports, and low-emission switcher locomotives. This accelerated penetration of existing technologies through mandatory requirements would result in emission reductions occurring earlier instead of waiting for furthe r development or commercialization of new technologies. Agency responsibility, funding, and feasibility are among the issues that need to be further evaluated for these control strategies.

Demand-Side Strategies

Demand-side strategies use differential pric ing as a mechanism to influence consumer choice when purchasing or operating a product. Examples include charging higher fees for registering or purchasing a higher-emitting vehicle or a consumer product. Another example may include charging higher user fees for recreational boats for access to water ways unless their engines meet a low-emi ssion standard. Charging a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or emission-based fee for higher mileage and hi gher emitting vehicles, respectively, is another example. A pilot project could be considered as a way of initiating and evaluating this type of strategy. A task forc e will be convened to further explore and evaluate demand-side strategies. These strategies could also be considered for large VOC sources (in lieu of Control Me asure MSC-08) by establishing a facility cap (e.g., based on 80% to 90% of peak level operation) and requiring them to pay a fee if these thresholds are exceeded. To improve public acceptance, these programs can be designed to be revenue-neutral and minimize the socioeconomic impacts on low-income residents of the Basin.

Accelerated Retirement of Older High-Emitting Vehicles

Older high-emitting vehicles contribute to a significant portion of emissions in the Basin. While funding and social considerations ar e key issues relative to accelerating the retirement of higher emitting vehicles, remova l of this emission source would be an extremely effective method of reaching clea n air goals. Buyback or similar programs could be considered to accelerate the retir ement of these vehicles to achieve the maximum reduction feasible. One suggest ed mechanism is for CARB to adopt a regulatory program to require vehicle manufact urers to retire gross-polluting vehicles in order to sell new vehicles in the state.

Clean Communities Concept

In contrast to demand-side strategies, the clean communities concept influences consumer choice by offering incentives to promote changes in purchasing habits. Examples of incentives include purchase vouchers for low-emitti ng products and energy rate reductions for energy efficiency improvements.Final 2003 AQMP

4 - 46 Smog Check Improvements

Improvement in the current Smog Check Pr ogram by requiring annual testing for highmileage vehicles or gross polluters is e xpected to provide significant reductions from existing on-road mobile sources . In addition, a voluntary Smog Check program could be implemented using remote sensi ng stations where vehicles c ould periodically drive by, be tested, and subsequently be repaired, if necessary.

Remove Disincentives on Voluntary Measures

Stationary source operators may often be hesitant about maki ng modifications or improvements to their permitte d sources due to the potential impact on their facilities from District Rules 201, 203, and Regulation XIII. These rules require a permit change or new source review for modifications that increase or decrease emissions. Recommendation was made to consider re moving impediments potentially created by District rules and regulations in order to achieve reductions fro m voluntary measures implemented by facilities for SIP purposes.

Expand Fleet Rules to Private Fleets

Currently, the District fleet rules apply to public agency fleets or fleets which are contracted through public agenci es. This recommendation calls for the District to expand the fleet rules to private fl eets such as utility companies, cable operators, and delivery services.

Modify Stationary Source Monitoring Requirements

In lieu of conducting more rigor ous annual source testing of pe rmitted stationary sources, this recommendation would allo w more frequent monitoring us ing hand-held devices to evaluate rule compliance by facilities. This assumes that more frequent monitoring using less rigorous techniques stre ngthens compliance by allowing operators to make adjustments to lower emissions on equipment more often than on an annual basis, which is considered costly and unn ecessary. Equipment types which could benefit from such an approach include boilers and ICEs.

Add Flexibility to Current Programs

This recommendation seeks to add more flexib ility to existing stationary source rules by allowing sources to mitigate their emissi ons by reducing emissions from other lesscontrolled or uncontrolled source s in lieu of complying with more costly controls under the existing framework. A three- step process could be set up to implement this strategy. Step one would identify specific source categor ies and facilities or s ources that would beChapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 47 subject to additional controls under any portion of this AQMP. Step two would include an identification of superior and more cost-e ffective strategies for one or more existing sources whose emissions occur within or othe rwise impact the Basin. The final step would be to craft regulations which would offer facilities th e flexibility to select from a menu of control options to co mply with their emission reduc tion obligations as identified in the AQMP. The purpose of this program is to achieve em ission reductions and environmental improvement in a less costly and more efficien t manner and, through compliance flexibility, to minimize the economic and job-re lated impacts of the Plan and potentially to reduce the size of the black box.

During the next several months, the Di strict will undertake a collaborative multistakeholder process to consider whether to implement this approach as a pilot program for the refineries in the Basin. Based on th e results of this process, the District may consider adoption of a pilot program. An appropriate environmen tal review would be performed prior to adoption of any pilot pr ogram. If such a program is adopted, then upon achieving at least the equivalent reducti ons, the pilot program would subsume the 2003 AQMP measures addressing refinery em issions including FUG-05, CMB-07, MSC04, MSC-07, MSC-08, PRC-07, and LTM-ALL to the extent they are applicable to the refining industry. Accordingly, if the pilot program is implemented, refineries meeting the reduction commitments would no longer be subj ect to specific short-term measures or long-term strategies in the 2003 AQMP. The implementation of this pilot program does not preclude future adjustments to the overall reduction targets estab lished for this source category if warranted by attainment dem onstrations in future SIP revisions.

Educational Programs

Educational programs on the emission impacts of energy efficiency measures can provide reductions from voluntary actions. The District could establish estimates on the expected emission reductions from increasing the en ergy efficiency from permitted equipment such as by performing regular t une-ups on stationary boilers.

Control of Emissions from Port Operations

A number of suggesti ons were received relative to controlling emissions from port operations. Some of these control strategies overlap with other sugge stions listed above. The suggestions specific to ports include:

- Electric power at berths (“cold ironing”)

- Electrification of diesel powered cranes

- Yard tractor fleet rule

- Diesel truck retrofit programs (e.g., di esel oxidation catalysts, particulate traps)Final 2003 AQMP

4 - 48 - Use of low sulfur diesel for ships calling at ports

“Emission Bubbles” at Ports and Airports

The concept of an “emissions bubble” is sim ilar to that of the District’s RECLAIM program. The concept involves including all emi ssion sources at ports and at airports in “emissions bubbles” under which annual allocations of emissions must be reduced at a certain percentage. Some of the potential implementation issues associated with an “emissions bubble” program which need to be further evaluated include, but are not limited to, 1) establishing baselines, 2) District ’s legal authority over federal sources, 3) extent of ports or airports authority over their tenants, and 4) annual emission reduction targets. Such a program would, however, pr ovide flexibility to ports and airports in selecting and implementing the most cost-effe ctive control strategi es to achieve their overall emission reduction targets.

Consumer Products

The District should seek to obtain legal aut hority to regulate consumer products in the Basin and achieve further re ductions from this category.

Advanced Technologies

The long-term strategy will requi re an aggressive developm ent and commercialization of advanced mobile source control technologies. In addition, si gnificant penetration of new and advanced technologies into in-use applications is critical if the additional reductions are to be realized by 2010.

Some of the advanced technologies and i nnovative control approaches which can be relied on to achieve the additional emi ssion reductions, needed for attainment demonstration, are brie fly described below.

Fuel Cells /Advanced Battery Technologies

Fuel cells are electrochemical devices th at convert hydrogen and oxygen directly into electricity and water with little or no polluta nt emissions. Most fuel cell systems use ambient air as the oxygen source, and the hydrogen fuel is either provided directly to the fuel cell or produced first from a fossil fuel (e .g. natural gas or meth anol). The process of producing hydrogen from a fossil fuel is termed “reforming” and can be done external to the fuel cell or internally w ithin the stack, such as w ith the high temperature molten carbonate fuel cells. Fuel cells are similar to batteries in that both offer zero or near-zero emissions, high efficiency, responsive powe r, few moving parts, and low noise. A battery, however, is an energy storage de vice and can only pr ovide power until itsChapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 49 reservoir of stored chemical reactants is spent, at which point it must be recharged. Fuel cells, on the other hand, are energy conversi on devices which can pr ovide power as long as the fuel and oxidant are provided. A lthough fuel cells have been around for decades, the major hurdles affecting their commercializa tion are their high cost of production, fuel flexibility, fueling infrastruct ure (for mobile applications), and reliability and durability.

The U.S. Department of En ergy (DOE) adopted the Freedom Car Program in January 2002 to accelerate the introduction and commerc ialization of fuel cell vehicles. Additionally, the TAO program has played a l eading role toward addressing these issues and expediting the commercialization of fuel cells for both mobile and stationary applications. For example, the SCAQMD is contributing resources to support both the California Fuel Cell Partnershi p (“Partnership”) and the Calif ornia Stationary Fuel Cell Collaborative (“Collaborative”). The goals of both statewide initiatives are to advance the deployment and commercialization of fu el cell technologies for clean air and efficiency benefits engendered by the t echnology. Both the Partnership and the Collaborative seek to form alliances between government agencies and industry to the benefit of California residents.

In addition, the District has been proactive in establishing demonstration projects for the advancement of stationary fuel cells in California. In 2001, the SCAQMD Governing Board awarded a contract to demonstrate ten, 5kW, solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) systems for residential use in the Basin. A simila r residential fuel cell project employing 5kW proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells is also being cons idered in order to compare the different technologies head-t o-head in actual use, in or der to assess relative costs, reliability, durability, ease-of-use , etc. In 2002, the Governing Board also approved the release of a Request for Proposals for a larg er-scale industrial fuel cell demonstration project. The goal of this pr oject is to deploy multiple 200-250 kW fuel cell units in industrial/commercial applications to capita lize on the heat recove ry potential of these higher temperature fuel cell technologies. De monstrating fuel cells in these industrial settings, where high efficiency and economic al operation are dema nded, will provide excellent opportunities to identify optimum pe rformance scenarios. The major fuel cell technologies proposed include SOFC, PEM, molten carbonate, and phosphoric acid fuel cells. These data can then be used by other industries to select the most appropriate fuel cell technology for deployment.

Another project anticipated by the SCAQMD is the development and demonstration of an integrated hydrogen production, st orage, and fuel cell power f acility to be located at the Diamond Bar headquarters. H ydrogen will be produced renewa bly using an electrolyzer powered by an upgraded solar array; the hydroge n will then be used for fueling internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicl es and fuel cell vehicles, as well as fueling an ICE generator and PEM fuel cell fo r backup and premium power. This demonstration project will exemplify the required technology inte gration for a near-zero emission hydrogenFinal 2003 AQMP

4 - 50 economy. The engineering, operational, and economical in tegration scenarios will be addressed to provide data for key decision makers. All of these types of projects will help assess the different fuel cell technologies in realistic situations and advance the commercialization of truly viable products.

Electric & Hybrid-Electric Heavy Duty Vehicles

Hybrid electric systems can vary significantly in their design configurations as well as components. Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) can be either parallel or serial systems. Engines of various sizes can either drive a ge nerator to charge the batteries or provide power directly to the wheels or both. The batteries can provide primary power to the traction drive motor or supplement the inte rnal combustion engine (ICE). Some HEV designs can plug in to recharge the batteries , operate battery-only for several miles with the engine coming on just as needed to sust ain the batteries. This type of “plug-in” battery dominant HEV can make extended trip s by refueling quickly with gasoline or other fuel.

The major automobile manufacturers are ac tively developing hybrid-electric vehicles with the objective of meeting the CARB LEV II regulations, which provide mechanisms for technologies other than battery electric and hydrogen fuel cells to earn ZEV credits. Hybrid electric vehicles are vehicles with drivetrains that integr ate a small internal combustion engine or fuel ce ll alternator/generator, battery pack, and electric drive motors. Battery fuel cell hybrids are a nother potential technol ogy being mentioned by battery experts as a way of reducing cost s and enhancing perform ance of fuel cell vehicles.

Innovative approaches to HEV systems are al so under development that could improve performance, fuel efficiency, and reduce emissions relative to the first HEVs commercially introduced. Innovations that may be considered for demonstration include: advancements in the auxiliary power unit, e ither ICE or other heat engine, especially using alternative fuels including natural gas and hydrogen; batte ry-dominant hybrid systems utilizing off-peak re-charging; a nd non-conventional light -duty and mediumduty HEVs including delivery vans, shuttle s, and other medium-duty vehicles.

The District has been involved in the deve lopment and demonstration of energy storage systems for electric and hybrid-electric vehicl es, mainly lead acid and nickel-cadmium battery packs. Over the past few years, a dditional technology consisti ng of nickel sodium chloride and lithium manganese batteries have shown robust performan ce, especially in heavy-duty uses. During this time period, other technology manufactu rers have further developed other energy stor age devices, including ultracapacitors, flywheels and hydraulic systems. Flywheel systems ca n draw electrical energy from internal combustion engines, microturbi nes, and regenerative braking systems, store the energy in kinetic form, and are capable of releasi ng the energy to provide electric power.Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 51 Hydraulic energy storage systems are availa ble in various forms. Typically, these systems can store retardation energy and provi de this energy as a secondary source of propulsion, especially during acceleration. Both energy storage systems can be retrofitted into existing platforms to significa ntly increase fuel economy, especially in medium- and heavy-duty vehicles with frequent stopping in urban environments.

Marine Vessels and Portside Equipment

Marine vessels and portside equipment, whic h primarily run on dies el fuel, contribute a significant portion of NO x , PM10, greenhouse gas and toxic emissions particularly in coastal regions and in and around shipping ports. However, implementation of the costeffective District and CARB programs has re sulted in significant emission reductions through incentive programs such as RECLAI M Executive Order Emissions Mitigation, RECLAIM AQIP, Rule 2202 AQI P, Carl Moyer, and State Emissions Mitigation programs. The primary emission reduction tec hnologies that have been employed so far are engine repowering and e ngine remanufacturing to achieve lower emission limits.

Currently, the California Maritime Air Qua lity Technical Working Group, which is comprised of the CARB, U.S. EPA, District, and industry, is explor ing promising retrofit technologies to be used on marine vessels . The working group is also working on a marine vessel demonstration pr oject to: 1) identify technologies that are capable of reducing NO x , PM10, and greenhouse ga ses; 2) identify and demonstrate emission measurement systems capable of accurately measuring pollutant emissions in ship exhaust streams; 3) install the most pr omising technology on an in-use vessel for demonstration under real wo rld conditions; and 4) esta blish the emission reduction potential in different modes of operation. After conducting an in -depth survey, the following technologies have been identified as promising candidates: diesel fuel conditioners, organo-metallic combustion catalysts, catalytic vapor injection, humidification of intake air, selective catalytic reduction with urea and ammonia injection, emission capture and exhaust re duction catalytic separation units, ceramic coatings, water emulsified fuels, alternative fuels, intake air fumigation with temperature control, and fuel injection optimization with high pressure injection. These technologies have a wide range of cost effectiv eness, and can reduce up to 90% of NO x and PM emissions.

Twin speed marine transmissions can reduc e engine speed and hence fuel use and emissions without significantly affecting vesse l speed. This technology is applicable to vessels such as crew, supply, pilot, fishi ng, and recreational boa ts and possibly barge towing tug boats. While twin speed transmi ssions are commercially available for certain horsepower ranges and duty cycles, virtually all recreational and commercial vessels in the District use single speed transmissions. The second gear can achi eve nearly the sameFinal 2003 AQMP

4 - 52 top end vessel speed as a singl e speed transmission at substantially lower engine RPM and fuel consumption (25% to 30%). Unless the propeller speed is governed (limited), the use of twin speed transmission could resu lt in a substantial increase in vessel fuel consumption. Experimental data indicates th at if the propeller speed can be regulated in second gear, it is probable that a twin spee d transmission could reduce emissions of all pollutants up to 40% without a si gnificant sacrifice in vessel performance. The District is considering executing a pilot demonstr ation project using this technology.

For portside equipment, the new technologies that are currently being studied and verified are diesel oxidation catalysts (DOCs) and PM traps. These control devices are being studied on yard hostlers, yard tractors, and other off-road equipment. The DOCs have the potential to reduce VOC emissions by up to 40% and the PM traps can reduce PM emissions by up to 90%. CARB is in th e process of verifying DOCs and PM traps for off-road applications. Em ission reductions can also be achieved by using alternative fuels. The District is currently involved in yard hostler DOC and water-emulsified diesel projects.

Advanced Engine and Aftertreatment Technologies

Heavy-duty engine t echnologies are under development to meet the 0.2 g/bhp-hr NO x standard for 2007 models. These include more powerful electronics for precision engine control, improved air hand ling (variable geometry tu rbochargers), exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), and after-treatment syst ems (particulate traps, oxidation catalysts, lean NOx catalysts, selective catalyst reduc tion, SCR). For natural gas engines, additional technologies include humidity co mpensation, stoichiometric combustion, three-way catalysts (TWC) and electronically controlled engine valves (“throttleless” engine). These technologies will enable hea vy-duty engines to opera te with very low emissions while retaining good performance a nd acceptable fuel ec onomy. Once these technologies are adopted on ne w engines and vehicles, they have the capability to achieve even lower emissions as the technol ogies mature. Future emission performance includes reduced deterioration, possible ULEV- or SULEV-type emissions (0.05 g/bhphr NO x or lower), zero toxics, and better fuel economy.

Emission control strategies for gasoline-, CNG-, and LPG-powered engines generally involve combination of sequential multi-port fuel injection, one or two heated oxygen sensors, three-way catalytic converters, e ngine control modules, and EGR systems. Public agencies and private i ndustry continue to direct cons iderable efforts to developing strategies that allow an effective use of na tural gas as a cleaner-burning alternative to conventional fuel in automotiv e service. These efforts have resulted in many options available for improving natural gas engine technology and effici ency, and developing exhaust aftertreatment devices to achieve hi gher reduction of criteri a and toxic pollutant emissions. One such effort is to optimize or reformulate existing oxidation catalyst andChapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 53 develop catalyzed particulate traps to fu rther reduce criteria and toxic pollutant emissions, especially carbonyl (formaldehyde and acetaldehyde) and PM emissions.

NO x and PM emissions from diesel-powered on- and off-road engines are higher than those powered by natural gas because oxidati on catalysts are the only applicable add-on control device for diesel engine exhaust. W ith the advent of gas-to-liquid, low-sulfur diesel fuels, and other adva nced liquid fuels, many emissi on control technologies that may not otherwise be possible with conventiona l diesel fuel are now being developed and tested for use in diesel engines. These technologies include lean-NO x and diesel oxidation catalytic converters, NO x adsorbers, thermal and cat alyzed particulate filters, fuel-borne catalyst, selective catalytic reduction system, and non-thermal plasma discharge system. Many demonstration progr ams are now showing that PM emissions from diesel engines can be significan tly reduced with particulate traps.

The reduction in heavy-duty em issions can be multiplied by in corporating these engines into hybrid vehicles. Such vehicles use two propulsion schemes: a low-emission engine and auxiliary propulsion such as an electric drive system or a mechanical pump and pressure storage system. In addition to propelling the vehicle, the auxiliary systems are used to store energy normally lost during br aking and re-use this energy to propel the vehicle, reducing both emissions and fuel consumption. With new heavy-duty engine technologies, natural gas hybrid vehicles have the capacity to achieve near-zero emissions, as low as fuel cell vehicles with onboard fuel reformers.

Renewable Power Generation Technologies

Renewable power generation technologies such as sola r and wind electric power generation technologies may al so play a role in future long-term attainment demonstration strategies. The District will evaluate the application of renewable power generation technologies through market incentiv e programs in order to achieve additional emission reductions (e.g., area source credit ru le). Future market incentive programs will focus on renewable power gene ration technologies used in residential and commercial applications.

The District’s Technology Advancement Office is currently participating in a pilot solar thermal air conditioning project. The tec hnology which is supporte d by this project involves the use of solar energy to provide air conditioning for commercial buildings. The project seeks to demonstrate the viability of using solar driv en absorption chillers (which use heat from an array of solar collectors to produce chilled water) to air condition buildings.

Other possible strategies for increasing the penetration of renewa ble power generating technologies include encour aging solar and wind turbine use where applicable. Examples of possible renewable energy app lications include powering electric motorsFinal 2003 AQMP

4 - 54 used to run agricultural pumps with wind energy and utilizing solar panels in the residential and commercial sectors. Th e AQMD has provided incentive money to convert diesel powered agricultural pumps to electric motors. The eastern portion of the district may have sufficient wind resources such that these electric motors could be costeffectively driven by wind energy.

For the last few years, there have been s ubstantial incentives available from California Public Utilities Commission and California Ener gy Commission to install solar panels on private residential rooftops. These incen tives have been heavily utilized by the commercial sector, but those for the residentia l sector remain substantially unused, due to lack of awareness by the public . While LADWP is vigorously advertising the availability of their incentives, other ener gy providers have done less in this regard. The AQMD can possibly promote and, depending on the availability of funds , leverage the incentives for rooftop solar panels currently available from other public agencies.

Advanced Low-VOC Technologies

VOC emissions from stationary sources resu lt primarily from the use of VOC containing materials such as coatings, inks, adhesive s and cleaning solvents. The VOC-containing materials are used in a wide variety of industries which include: manufacturing and coating of metal, wood, plastic, and ot her products; printing operations such as lithography, flexography, screen printing, gravure and letterp ress; cleaning operations at repair and maintenance facilities; and numerous industries where adhesives are used.

Some of the advanced low-VOC alterna tive technologies deve loped by the industry include: waterborne technologies, radiati on-curing technologies, and high solids and powder coating technologies.

Waterborne Technology One way of eliminating VOC emissions is to replace solvent-based products with waterborne products. Ordinarily , resins were originally solid s that were dissolved in the solvents. Upon drying, the solvent evaporates and leaves behind the pigment and resin to form the dried film. With waterborne products , the resins are dissolved in water, but they must dry to a non-water soluble film upon th e substrate. Water borne products also contain some VOCs, which work as a coalescen t, provide resin stability, and help achieve certain desirable properties for application. Waterborne technology is quite advanced in most chemistry types, with recent research being done to minimize the amount of solvent or to attempt to switch to the non- HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutant) solvents.

The drying properties of water borne products are more sens itive to ambient temperature and humidity characteristics, as compared to their solvent-based counterparts. The newer resin chemistries and formulations offer many advantages, whic h include lower VOC emissions, reduced fire hazards, increased work er safety, lower odor, ease of application,Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 55 and easy cleanup. Waterborne technology has been successf ully used in automotive refinish, industrial maintenance, architectural and marine coatings; flexographic, screen and gravure printing; and adhe sives. Overall performance studies completed to date indicate equivalent or superior performance compared to their higher-VOC counterparts.

Radiation-Curing Technologies Radiation-curing products are li quids with low viscosity that are 100 percent solids. The main difference between trad itional solvent-based products and radiation-curing products is the curing mechanism. Radiation-curing products do not dry in the sense of losing solvents to the atmosphere as is the case with solvent-based products. Instead, when radiation-curing products are e xposed to radiation, a polymer ization reaction starts which converts the liquid to a hard, tough, cured solid film in a fraction of a second. This process typically results in significantly lo wer VOC emissions compar ed to solvent-based products. The most common radi ations used to cure the products are ultraviolet light (UV) and electron beam (EB). The UV- curing products need a chemical called photoinitiator, which initiates the polymerizati on (curing) process when exposed to UVlight. The EB-cured products do not contai n photoinitiators and are cured when the electrons generated with the EB equipment re act directly with monomers and polymers in the liquid product.

Due to almost instant curing of these products , the concept of drying time is eliminated which allows any post-applica tion operation to commence immedi ately or in-line. Other advantages include the attainment of very high gloss levels, reduction of VOC emissions and solvent odors, and reduced energy consum ption. UV and EB-cur ing products can be used on virtually all substrates, from metal a nd wood to glass and plastic. Applications of UV and EB-curing products are numerous and prolifera ting rapidly. Examples include: paper, furniture, automotive com ponents, no-wax floori ng, credit cards, packaging, lottery tickets, golf balls, eye glass lenses, CDs, baseball bats, beer cans and hundred of other items. Howeve r, these technologies have registered significant progress toward alleviating previous limitations in technology for fiel d applications. UV applications are also making headway in automotive field repair, and efforts are underway for applying this technology fo r aerospace and military field uses.

High Solids Technology Another way of reducing VOC emissions is to replace conventional low solids products with higher solids products, thus reduci ng VOC content. This requires product formulators to increase the solid content, wh ile maintaining the impor tant application and performance characteristics. The characteris tics of higher and low solids products are significantly different. This makes the de velopment of high-performance, higher solids products a more difficult formulating task th an simply replacing the amount of solvent used in low solids products. A higher solids cont ent increases the visc osity and, in some cases, the surface tension, as well as affecti ng application and perfo rmance properties. While these increases can be minimized by the utilization of lower molecular weightFinal 2003 AQMP

4 - 56 polymers, they can be further reduced by the incorporation of a good solvent system into the formulation. The combination of reduci ng the molecular weight of the polymer and employing a balanced solvent sy stem has contributed to the successful development of many of the commercial higher solids products in use today.

Powder Coating Technology Powder coating is a 100 percen t solid coating with virtually no VOC emissions. In a powder coating application proc ess, dry paint particles are supplied to a spray gun where particles acquire electrostatic charge. The char ged particles are sprayed and attracted to a grounded object and form a unifo rm layer of powder coating on its surface. The coating is then cured by applying heat.

Some of the benefits of this technology are: solvent-free systems, reduced fire risk and associated insurance costs, reduced waste disposal cost, good solvent and chemical resistance, flexibility and impact resistance. Due to these benefits, powder coatings have become popular with OEM baked coating market s, especially in the decorative market. This system also has limited application for field finishing.

Innovative Control Approaches

Because of the significant level of reductions needed for attainment demonstration, innovative control approaches need to be explored which can be implemented in conjunction with advanced em ission control technologies. Three innovative approaches including market incentive programs, reactivity -based controls, localized controls, and public awareness and education progr ams are briefly discussed here.

Market Incentive Programs

Since the adoption of the 1997/1999 SIP, the District has adopted several market incentive programs designed to offer stationary sources short-term compliance flexibility while at the same time incentivizing the introduction of low-emission mobile and area source technologies. In 2001, fi ve pilot credit generation mobile and area source rules were adopted to allow gene ration of mobile source emi ssion reduction credits (MSERCs) and area source credits (ASCs) that could be used as RECLAIM trading credits in the RECLAIM compliance program. A sixth pilo t credit generation rule was adopted in 2002. The District has used collected m onies from the Executive Order (EO) RECLAIM Mitigation Fee Program for power producing facilities to maximize the funding for low emission mobile and area source projects th rough the pilot credit generation programs. In turn, these programs have allowed RECLAI M sources to obtain short-term compliance with their RECLAIM allocations while long-te rm solutions to meeting their allocations are sought. Credit generated under these progr ams cannot be used past a specific year which in most cases is 2006; however, one rule has a 2010 deadline.Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 57 Market incentive programs can continue to play a key role in the development and penetration of low-emission technologies . These programs can be expanded by maximizing the funding sources (e.g., private funding) to provide monies to purchase low-emission technologies. Expa nsion of these programs will continue to provide shortterm flexibility for stationary sources while also producing credita ble emission reductions after emission reduction credits can no longe r be used (i.e., 2006 - 2010). Thus, any emission reductions still occurri ng after the rule’s specific deadlines may be credited toward the current and future SIP commitments.

Reactivity-Based Controls

Over the past two decades, re gulations for coating and solv ents have primarily focused on lowering the VOC content which has signi ficantly reduced the VOC emissions from these categories. Reformulation of high- VOC compounds to low-VOC alternatives has resulted in substantial reductions in VOC emissions and improvement of ambient air quality. However, different chemicals used in coatings and solvents would exhibit different reactivity rates in forming ozone in the atmosphere. Therefore, because of the need to achieve additional VOC reductions for ozone attainment demonstration, reformulation based on lower reactive compounds need to be evaluated and considered in future rulemakings for coatings and solvents in order to provide a viable compliance option. Further study would al so be required to evaluate the reactivity of different compounds under various meteor ological conditions.

Localized Controls

To complement the AQMP's overall control stra tegies, localized controls may also be considered to achieve reductions from specif ic areas which contribute to the exceedance of ambient air quality standards. In instan ces where the exceedan ces of the air quality standards are attributed only to emissions fro m a specific geographical area, it would be infeasible to develop region-wi de regulations for the purpose of attaining the standard in a local area. For example, it appears that lo cal PM10 sources in the eastern portion of the Basin are primarily responsible for the exce edance of PM10 air quality in that area. Therefore, it might be more feasible and cost -effective to develop localized controls to achieve the necessary reduction rather than s ubject the entire Basin to regulations which would not benefit the attainment in the local area. As the District nears the attainment dates for federal air quality standards, loca lized controls may offer a more viable approach in meeting these standards.

Public Awareness and Education Programs

The concept of public awareness and educa tion programs is to e ducate consumers and select stationary sources about the lower-e mitting product and process alternatives. The District instituted a pilot program in 2001 to increase public awarene ss of the availabilityFinal 2003 AQMP

4 - 58 of low emission motor vehicles. AQMD sta ff worked with vehi cle dealers in Los Angeles County to place window stickers on new vehicles w ith emissions information geared to the general public. The AQMD is in the process of rein stituting this program and expanding it to other areas of the district.

A possible method to implement a similar c oncept relative to consumers products would be through a certification program for manuf acturers. Manufacturers of consumer products that meet or exceed a specified emission limit would be eligible for a label certified by CARB or the AQMD that indicates that their product cont ains low or zero VOCs and is environmentally friendly.

For stationary sources, a series of public awareness programs could be established to educate facilities about control methods that would reduce emissions at their facility or business. Public awareness and education pr ograms could include, but are not limited, to educational brochures, videos , articles, and workshops.

District's SIP Emission Commitment

The SIP commitment of the 2003 AQMP is structured into two components: reductions from adopted rules and reductions from the 2003 AQMP control measures. Taken together, these re ductions are relied upon to demonstrate expeditious progress and attain ment of the federal PM10 a nd 1-hour ozone standards. The following sections first describe the methodology for SIP emission reduction calculations and the creditable SIP reductions, then describe what procedures will be followed to ensure fulfillm ent of the commitment.

SIP Emission Reduction Tracking

For purposes of tracking progress in emi ssion reductions, the baseline emissions for the year 2010 planning inventory (summe r planning for ozone) in the 2003 AQMP will be used, regardless of any subsequent new inventory information that reflects more recent knowledge. This is to ensure that the same “currency” is used in measuring progress as was used in designing the AQMP. Th is will provide a fair and equitable measurement of progress. Ther efore, whether progress is measured by emission reductions or remaining emi ssions for a source category makes no difference. However, current emission inve ntory information at the time of rule development will continue to be used fo r calculating reductions, and assessing costeffectiveness and socioeconomic impacts of the proposed rule. Therefore, for future rulemaking activity, both the current a nd AQMP inventories will be reported.

Any non-mandatory emission reductions achieved beyond the existing District regulations are creditable only if they are al so SIP-enforceable. Therefore, in certain instances, the District may have to adopt regulations to reflect the existing industryChapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 59 practices in order to claim SIP reduction credit with the understanding that there may not be additional reductions beyond what has already occurre d. Exceptions can be made where reductions are real, quantif iable, surplus to the 2003 AQMP baseline inventories, and enforceable through other st ate and/or federal re gulations. Also, any emissions inventory revisi ons, which have gone through a peer review and public review process, can also be SIP creditable.

Reductions from Adopted Rules

A number of control measures cont ained in the 1997 AQMP and the 1999 SIP Revision have been adopted as rules. These adopted rules and their projected emission reductions become assumptions in developing AQMP’s future year inventories. Although they are not part of the control strategy in the 2003 AQMP, continued implementation of those rules is essential in achieving the clean air goal and maintaining the attainment demonstration. Table 1-2 of Chapter 1 lists the rules adopted by the District since the adopti on of the 1997/1999 SIP and their expected emission reductions. As indicated in this table, the emission reductions achieved through adopted rules exceed s the District’s SIP commitment by 44.5 tons per of VOC in 2010 for control measures adopted.

Reductions from District’s Stat ionary Source Control Measures

For purposes of implementing an approved SIP, the Distri ct is committed to adopt and implement control measures that will achieve, in aggregate, emission reductions specified in Table 4-8A (near-term reductions) and Table 4-8B (long-term reductions). Emission reductions achieved in excess of the amount committed to in a given year can be applied to the emi ssion reduction commitments of subsequent years. The District is co mmitted to adopt the control measures in Table 4-1 unless these measures or a portion th ereof are found infeasible a nd other substitute measures that can achieve equivalent reductions in the same adoption/implementation timeframes are adopted. Findings of inf easibility will be made at a regularly scheduled meeting of the District Boar d with proper public notification. For purposes of SIP commitment, infeasib ility means that the proposed control technology is not reasonably lik ely to be available by th e implementation date in question, or achievement of the emission reduc tions by that date is not cost-effective. The District acknowledges that this comm itment is enforceable under Section 304(f) of the federal Clean Air Act.

Adoption and Implementation of Distric t’s Stationary Source Control Measures (Table 4-1) – In response to concer ns raised by the regulated community that costly controls may be required to meet the SI P obligations, the District establishes a threshold of $13,500 per ton of VOC reduction for tiered levels of analysis.Final 2003 AQMP

4 - 60 Specifically, proposed rules with an averag e cost-effectiveness above the threshold will trigger a more rigorous average co st-effectiveness, incremental costeffectiveness, and socioeconomic impact analysis. A public review and decision process will be instituted to se ek lower cost alternatives. In addition, the District staff, with input from stakeholders, will attemp t to develop viable control alternatives within the industry source categories that a rule is intended to regulate. If it is determined that control alternatives w ithin the industry source category are not feasible, staff will perform an evaluation of the control measure as described in the next paragraph. Viable alternatives sha ll be reviewed by the District Governing Board at a public meeting no less than 90 da ys prior to rule adoption and direction given back to staff for furthe r analysis. During this review process, incremental costeffectiveness scenarios and methodology w ill be specified, and industry-specific affordability issues will be id entified as well as possible a lternative control measures. The District Governing Board may adopt th e original or an a lternative that is consistent with state and federal law. In a ddition, staff shall include in all set hearing items a notification that proposed rules do or do not exceed the cost threshold.

Adoption and Implementation of Alternative/Substitute Measures – Under the 2003 AQMP, the District will be allowed to substitute District’s stationary source measures in Table 4-1 with other measur es, provided the overall equivalent emission reductions by adoption and implementation dates in Tables 4-8A and 4-8B are maintained and the applicable measure in Tabl e 4-1 is infeasible. In order to provide meaningful public participation, when new control concepts are introduced for rule development, the District is committed to provide advanced public notification beyond its regulatory requireme nts (i.e., through its Rule Forecast Report). The District will also report quantitatively on AQMP’s implementation progress annually at its regularly scheduled Board meetings. Included in the repor ts will be any new control measures being proposed or measures, or portions thereof, that have been found to be infeasible and the basis of such finding. In addition, in the beginning of the year, any significant emission reduction re lated rules to be considered would be listed in the Board’s Rule Forecast Report. Upon finding of a new feasible control measure, rule development will be comp leted no later than 12 months from the adoption date of the contro l measure substituted, and implementation of the new measure will occur no later than 2 years fro m the final implementation date of the measure substituted. The existing rule de velopment outreach efforts such as public workshops, stakeholder worki ng group meetings or public consultation meetings will continue to solicit public input. In addition, if additional technical analysis, including source testing, indicates that actual emissi ons are less than previously estimated, the reductions would then be creditable toward SIP commitments. In order for reductions from improved emission calcul ation methodologies to be SIP creditable, a public review process will also be instituted to solicit comments and make appropriate revisions, if necessary.Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 61Final 2003 AQMP4 - 62TABLE 4-8ANear-Term VOC, PM10, NOx and SOx Emission Reductions Commitment by SCAQMDto be Achieved Through Rule Adoption and Implementation-2010 PlanningInventory-(Tons/Day)VOCPM10NOxSOxYearBased onAdoptionDateBased onImplementationDateaBased onAdoptionDateBased onImplementationDateaBased onAdoptionDateBased onImplementationDateaBased onAdoptionDateBased onImplementationDatea2002 0.6 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---2003 16.9 0.6 0.5 --- --- --- --- ---2004 2.0 --- 1.7 --- 3.0 --- 2.1 ---2005 2.0 --- --- 0.16 2.1 --- --- 2.12006 --- 4.8 --- 0.86 --- --- --- ---2007 --- 2.0 --- 0.16 --- 2.1 --- ---2008 --- 12.1 --- 0.66 --- --- --- ---2009 --- --- --- 0.16 --- --- --- ---2010 --- 2.0 --- 0.16 --- 3.0 --- ---Total 21.5b21.5b2.2 2.2 5.1 5.1 2.1 2.1aRepresents the final, full implementation date; typically a rule contains multiple implementation dates.bAn additional 16 tons of reductions associated with implementation of Rule 1171 – Solvent Cleaning Operations are subject totechnology assessments in 2003 and 2004 prior to implementation in 2005 and are not included in this value.Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 63 TABLE 4-8B Long-Term VOC Emission Reductions Co mmitment by SCAQMD to be Achieved Through Rule Adoption and Implementation -2010 Planning Inventory- (Tons/Day)

VOC

Year Based on Adoption Date Based on Implementation Date a

2005 4.0 ---
2006 10.0 ---
2007 10.0 3.0
2008 7.0 10.0
2009 --- 11.0
2010 --- 7.0

Total 31.0 31.0

a Represents the final, full implementation date; typically a rule contains multiple implementation dates.

OVERALL EMISSION REDUCTIONS

A summary of emission reduc tions available by the years 2006 and 2010 for the proposed control measures is provided in Tables 4-9 through 4-12. These reductions reflect the emission reductions associated with implem entation of control measures under local, state, and federal jurisdiction. Emission re ductions represent the difference between the projected baseline and the remaining emissions . For 2006, Table 4-9 identifies projected reductions based on the annual average invent ory for all criteria pollutants (VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, and PM10). It represents the leve l of emission reductions needed to achieve the federal PM10 standards. For 2010, Ta bles 4-10 through 4-12 identify projected reductions based on the summer planning i nventory for VOC and NOx emissions, the winter planning inventory fo r CO and NOx emissions, and the annual average inventory for criteria pollutants. Emission reductions by 2010 illustrate the extent of controls needed for achieving the federal ozone standard.Final 2003 AQMP

4 - 64 TABLE 4-9

Emission Reductions for 2006 Based on Average Annual Emissions I nventory (tons per day)

Sources VOC NOx CO SOx PM 10

Year 2006 Baseline 698 94 9 3,973 60 293

Baseline Adjustments 1 (4) (8) (30) 0 0

Emission Reductions:

District's Control Measures 2 12 0 1 2 1

CARB's Control Measures 3 0 0 0 0 0

SCAG's Transportation Control Measures 8 7 89 0 1

Total Reductions (All Measures) 20 7 90 2 2

2006 Remaining Emissions 674 93 4 3,853 58 291
1 Baseline adjustments reflect additional revisions made to the baseline inventory (see Appendix

V - Attachment 4 for details). () denotes reductions.
2 Includes District's short-term control measures.
3 No reductions are claimed from CARB's short-term control measures in 2006.Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 65 TABLE 4-10

Emission Reductions for 2010 Based on Summer Planning Invent ory (tons per day)

Sources VOC NOx

Year 2010 Baseline 659 764

Baseline Adjustments 1 (2) (6)

Emission Reductions:

District's Control Measures 22 5

CARB's Control Measures 2 49 37

SCAG's Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures 16 8

Long-Term Measures 265 181

Total Reductions (All Measures) 352 231

2010 Remaining Emissions 3 310 530
1 Baseline adjustments reflect additional revisions made to the baseline inventory (see

Appendix V - Attachment 6 for details). () denotes reductions.
2 Includes CARB's short-term control measures.
3 Includes emissions added for the purpose of set-aside tracking (5 t/d VOC, 3 t/d NOx).

See Appendix III.Final 2003 AQMP

4 - 66 TABLE 4-11

Emission Reductions for 2010 Based on Winter Planning Invent ory (tons per day)

Sources CO NOx

Year 2010 Baseline 3,314 818

Baseline Adjustments 1 (20) (7)

Emission Reductions:

District's Control Measures 1 5

CARB's Control Measures 2 265 39

SCAG's Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures 162 10

Long-Term Measures 5 191

Total Reductions (All Measures) 433 245

2010 Remaining Emissions 3 2,862 569

1 Baseline adjustments reflect additional revisions made to the baseline inventory (see

Appendix V - Attachment 6 for details). () denotes reductions.
2 Includes CARB's short-term control measures.
3 Includes emissions added for the purpose of set-aside tracking (0.5 t/d CO, 3 t/d NOx).

See Appendix III.Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy

4 - 67 TABLE 4-12

Emission Reductions for 2010 Based on Average Annual Emissions I nventory (tons per day)

Sources VOC NOx CO SOx PM 10

Year 2010 Baseline 630 780 3,358 60 301

Baseline Adjustments 1 (3) (7) (20) 0 0

Emission Reductions:

District's Control Measures 20 5 2 2 2

CARB's Control Measures 2 48 38 271 0 0

SCAG's Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures 17 9 165 0 1

Long-Term Measures 251 181 7 0 0

Total Reductions (All Measures) 336 233 445 2 3

2010 Remaining Emissions 3 296 543 2,894 59 299
1 Baseline adjustments reflect additional revisions made to the baseline inventory (see Appendix V - Attachment 5 for details). () denotes reductions.
2 Includes CARB's short-term control measures.
3 Includes emissions added for the purpose of set-aside tracking (5 t/d VOC, 3 t/d NOx, 0.5 t/d

CO, 1 t/d SOx, 1 t/d PM10). See Appendix III.