Dirty Air in Too Many Locations: CARB Expansion?

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Twenty-two states are being put on notice that air quality in many of their counties is unhealthy because of tons of microscopic soot from power plants, diesel-burning trucks, cars and factories.

Click to expand...

CNN link

Thanks for the link.

Diesel PM is being addressed with ULSD fuel and DPFs. Now that "real world" studies have shown that gasoline vehicles are responsible for about 74% of on-road PM emissions, do you suppose they will now be required to be equipped with PM filters?

And what about the tons of microscopic rubber particles vaporized off all the tires rolling on the asphalt? Perhaps microscopic tire "nets" to capture it all?

The Phoenix metro area passed ...I am pretty surprised.

Florida is just one of two Southeastern states (the other one is NOT Georgia or North Carolina) meeting federal clean-air standards for fine-particulate pollution, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials said Tuesday.

In a letter to Gov. Jeb Bush, the EPA's regional director, J.I. Palmer Jr., praised Florida's air protection efforts, noting that the distinction "is truly good news for the residents of your state."

"After a thorough review of your recommendations, EPA agrees that your entire state is in attainment at this time," Palmer said.

No coal burning states to your West, unlike us in VA.

I ran across this site while looking for some info about our local air quality. It's a pretty nicely done site.

http://phoenixvis.net/index.html

PhoenixVis.net brings you live pictures and corresponding air quality conditions from scenic urban and rural vistas in the Phoenix, Arizona region.

This page provides an overview of all Phoenix Visibility Web Cameras. In addition, near real-time air quality data provide visibility and meteorological information to the public.

---
Executive Order 2000-3 directed Arizona’s Brown Cloud Summit “to establish options for a visibility standard or other method to track progress in improving visibility in the Phoenix area.” The Summit concluded that a daily visibility index for the metropolitan area should have its characteristics defined through a public survey process. This process called for a representative cross-section of residents of Area A (as described in House Bill 2538, roughly the Phoenix metropolitan area) to determine what visual air qualities are desirable, what visual range is acceptable, and how often the combination of acceptable visual range and air quality is preferred.

Can someone point me to the studies that show gasoline vehicles are responsible for the bulk of PM emissions? Do they include toxicology of the exhaust? Thanks!

Can someone point me to the studies that show gasoline vehicles are responsible for the bulk of PM emissions? Do they include toxicology of the exhaust? Thanks!

Click to expand...

This link references the original source:

http://www.osti.gov/fcvt/deer2000/eberharpa.pdf


The original study was done for Denver, CO. It showed that most PM in the area was from gassers, hugely upsetting/disputing EPA estimates of expected distributions, no less. In fact, the numbers were reversed - instead of the expected ~75% PM from diesels, it was the other way around - 74% from gassers!

From the document, regarding the study results:

These findings imply that the [EPA] models may be
inordinately overestimating the PM2.5 emission
contributions from diesel engines. Such model
predictions are often cited by those opposed to
enabling “dieselization” of light duty vehicles.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Rogue.

There are also these:

"...Mammalian cell genotoxicity:
• Gasoline PM strongly active for DNA damage and for chromosomal damage
• Diesel PM weakly active for DNA damage and for chromosomal damage
• Gasoline SVOC weakly active for DNA damage; strongly active for chromosomal damage
• Diesel SVOC inactive or weakly active for DNA damage or chromosomal damage..."

Source: In Vitro Genotoxicity of Particulate and Semi-Volatile Organic Compound Exhaust Materials from a Set of Gasoline and a Set of Diesel Engine Vehicles Operated at 30 Degrees F

M Ensell, M Keane, T Ong, W Wallace
National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


"…The smaller particulates from gasoline engines, currently unregulated, present a significant health risk….

Source: http://babbage.me.ic.ac.uk/department/review97/th/thrr11.html


"Emissions of extremely small particles (Dp < 10 nm) at high road speed may be very high (10^14 - 10^16 part./kg fuel) even for nominal low emitters [gassers].

-Number emissions from two classes of SI engines may equal or exceed Diesel levels

– Normal emitters at high speed and load

– Worn engines with high oil consumption

-The Swiss EPA has proposed that Europe adopt a solid particle emission standard of 10^11 part./km

– This corresponds to roughly 10^12 part./kg fuel

– It is unlikely that our current on-road gasoline fleet meets this standard

– Will gasoline engines need exhaust filters?"

Source: Gasoline Vehicle Exhaust Particle Sampling Study, David Kittelson, et al, DEER 2003 Conference,
http://www.orau.gov/deer/presentations/session9/2.%20Kittelson%20-%20DOE%20DEER%202003%20rev1.pdf


"…since gasoline vehicles are now proven to emit substantial amounts of PM and "toxics," the current exclusive regulatory crackdown on diesel vehicle PM doesn't quite hit the clean-air bull's-eye, scientific studies indicate….

…researchers once again exploded the "myth that gasoline doesn't put out much elemental carbon. Well, it does," Kittelson said, "especially under cold-start--there's
a lot of elemental carbon…."

Source: http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0CYH/17_7/109443861/p1/article.jhtml


"…Gasoline vehicle exhaust is enriched in particulate PAH as compared with diesel exhaust…."

Source: DOE’s Gasoline/Diesel PM Split Study
Eric M. Fujita, David E. Campbell, William P. Arnott, Barbara Zielinska and Judith C. Chow
Division of Atmospheric Sciences
Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV
Douglas R. Lawson
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO


"…The cancer risk index is…higher for gasoline vehicles than for diesel vehicles…."

Source: John Fairbanks (DOE), Symposium on Particulate Matter, August 12-13, 2003

We need to take that post and make it a sticky in every diesel forum.

Once all diesel fuel is ULSD, and once new diesel engines are cleaner-running... then politicians and bureaucrats will look at pollution from relatively inefficient gasoline engines. And they will conclude that it will be not just time to tolerate diesel engines, but in fact it will be time to encourage a switch to diesel engines. Such as what has been done with hybrid vehicles.

TornadoRed said:

Once all diesel fuel is ULSD, and once new diesel engines are cleaner-running... then politicians and bureaucrats will look at pollution from relatively inefficient gasoline engines. And they will conclude that it will be not just time to tolerate diesel engines, but in fact it will be time to encourage a switch to diesel engines. Such as what has been done with hybrid vehicles.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with TR here. As the economics of low fuel mileage really begins to sink in, and as people realize that the era of cheap oil is over, they will begin to seriously consider alternatives like diesels and hybrids and public transit. And at some point, they'll stop just talking or thinking about it and actually do somethign about it.

Additionally, I've said it before, but I think more states adopting CARB LEVII emissions will actually benefit the diesel market in the long run for two reasons.

First, the CARB market is about ~60 million people right now. And with NJ, RI, CT, and OR (and IA?) set to implement LEVII in the next couple of years, you only increase the fraction of the total US market that requires cleaner vehicles. Eventually, you'll reach a tipping point where manufacturers will choose to meet only the stricter standards rather than pay the increased engineering/logistical/support costs of meeting two different standards.

Second, if the courts uphold CARB's recent carbon emissions regulation, almost overnight, diesel gets a huge boost because they emit less carbon than a comparable gasoline powered vehicle. And I don't know about other CARB states specifically, but when NY adopted the CARB carbon standards, they included regulatory language that provided an alternative compliance mechanism that strongly encourages manufacturers to support the use of biodiesel.


EDIT: the tipping point may be closer than we think. Ten minutes after I posted this, I read the following in the NYT:

NYT said:

The states that have passed or are phasing in California rules are New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington (and Pennsylvania has begun the process as well); together, the California-compliant states account for about a third of all cars sold in this country.

Click to expand...

DrStink said:

Second, if the courts uphold CARB's recent carbon emissions regulation, almost overnight, diesel gets a huge boost because they emit less carbon than a comparable gasoline powered vehicle.

Click to expand...

This case might get to the Supreme Court, but the SC will not allow the states to make global warming policy.

California has certain flexibility to set emission standards, because California law predated the Clean Air Act. But carbon dioxide limits go far beyond anything that Congress has authorized.

Notwithstanding the 10th Amendment, the courts have repeatedly ruled that federal law trumps state law.

TornadoRed said:

This case might get to the Supreme Court, but the SC will not allow the states to make global warming policy.

California has certain flexibility to set emission standards, because California law predated the Clean Air Act. But carbon dioxide limits go far beyond anything that Congress has authorized.

Notwithstanding the 10th Amendment, the courts have repeatedly ruled that federal law trumps state law.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct that federal law trumps state law but I'm not sure I agree with your legal interpretation.

The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) (Title 1, Section 109) requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prescribe national primary ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for certain air pollutants where public health criteria have been established. These pollutant levels were chosen to protect the health of the most susceptible individuals in a population, including children, the elderly and those with chronic respiratory ailments. A secondary standard is also prescribed to protect human welfare (visibility, crop damage, building damage). These pollutants are known as criteria pollutants.


The EPA currently has NAAQS for seven criteria pollutants: ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM 2.5).
In addition to the EPA standards, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has set air quality standards for the same criteria pollutants and four others: sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), vinyl chloride (chloroethene, C2H3Cl), and visibility reducing particles.

Click to expand...

I am not an environmental lawyer, nor do I play one on teh intarweb, but if CARB can legally add these four criteria pollutants to the list, what is the legal basis for claiming they can't add CO2 as well?

DrStink said:

The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) (Title 1, Section 109) requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prescribe national primary ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for certain air pollutants where public health criteria have been established. These pollutant levels were chosen to protect the health of the most susceptible individuals in a population, including children, the elderly and those with chronic respiratory ailments. A secondary standard is also prescribed to protect human welfare (visibility, crop damage, building damage). These pollutants are known as criteria pollutants.

Click to expand...

I am not an environmental lawyer, nor do I play one on teh intarweb, but if CARB can legally add these four criteria pollutants to the list, what is the legal basis for claiming they can't add CO2 as well?

Click to expand...

Carbon dioxide doesn't seem to fit either the public health or the human welfare categories.

SkyPup said:

Florida is just one of two Southeastern states (the other one is NOT Georgia or North Carolina) meeting federal clean-air standards for fine-particulate pollution, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials said Tuesday.

In a letter to Gov. Jeb Bush, the EPA's regional director, J.I. Palmer Jr., praised Florida's air protection efforts, noting that the distinction "is truly good news for the residents of your state."

"After a thorough review of your recommendations, EPA agrees that your entire state is in attainment at this time," Palmer said.

Click to expand...

Florida is mostly a relatively narrow sandbar surrounded by lots of ocean water... most of the air pollution is blown out to see rather than accumulating over land. You could burn tires to light the streets in Florida and it would not impact the air quality over land that much.

Here in Atlanta, we sit on about a 900 feet above sea level plateau boarded by Mountains to the North. Because of the topography, in the summer Atlanta suffers from a weather "inversion" where hot air is trapped like a bubble over the city. No wind, and no air movement. This stagnant air causes each day's smog and air pollution to be added to the next day's air pollution. It just builds up for days and weeks at a time.

Atlanta has a few coal burning power plants too and no "outer loop" interstate bypass to divert vehicles passing through the area out and AROUND the city so that they don't contribute to the problem.

What is means is that because of the weather and topography, Atlanta will meet the "attainment" goals and Florida will never fail to meet them no matter what anyone does.

Why do we need so many different gasoline 'recipes' in this country?
Could we not do just fine with the same reformulation for the entire
country? One kind of RUG, one kind of mid-grade, one kind of premium.....

Wouldn't this be a more efficient use of resources than what we have now?

What am I missing?

Bill

40X40 said:

Why do we need so many different gasoline 'recipes' in this country?
Could we not do just fine with the same reformulation for the entire
country? One kind of RUG, one kind of mid-grade, one kind of premium.....

Wouldn't this be a more efficient use of resources than what we have now?

What am I missing?

Bill

Click to expand...

You're right, it does seem rather inefficient doesn't it...

The Clean Air Act Amendments signed into law by GHW Bush requires the use of reformulated oxygenated gasoline (RFG) in areas with severe air quality. The CAAA of 1990 do not specific the oxygenate that must be used, only the level of oxygenation required (2% by weight). The two ways to achieve this level is to add either MTBE or ethanol. MTBE is cheaper, but is banned in some states (like NY and CT) because it contaminates ground water.

Anyway, here's map of the places that use RFG:
http://www.epa.gov/OMS/rfg/whereyoulive.htm

IANAL, but I imagine we could have one gasoline, if...and its a big if...refiners were willing spend more to produce MTBE free RFG regardless of whether or not it is required in that location. But since our market economy requires companies to maximize their profits to keep their shareholders happy, that's just not gonna happen. Refiners will always produce conventional gasoline or RFG with MTBE if they can, because if they don't, some other company will and undercut them by a few cents a gallon.

So to answer your question, the only way to have one single gasoline formulation nationally is to set a one size fits all standard that meets the needs of the single most polluted place in the country. And given the current regulatory/political climate, that is just not gonna happen.

Oregon and Washington state are going with Californias CARB in 2007 for sure so I wouldnt be surprised .

Jim

In Saskatchewan our provincial government is implementing a law that requires gasoline to have a minimun of 7% ethanol (IIRC) by then end of this year.

We are also getting ULSD if it is not here already? If you ask the service station attendants they have no idea what is in their tanks.

It always amazes me that diesels get "picked on" for their "emissions." Has anyone ever done the math to see what the emissions-per-mpg-per-gross weight ratio is? My guess is that in such a true comparison of emissions, even dirty smell Mack trucks are less polluting than cars. As for the TDI, it runs so lean and smokeless and odorless that I'm sure it is cleaner than ANY car (except maybe an electric car that is charged by a power plant running on natural gas), mile-for-mile. Everyone worries about NOx and particulates. Shouldn't we be more worried about Saudi Arabia? We wouldn't need Middle East oil if everyone drove these diesels like they do in Europe. But, no...., can't get that through the head of a President soaked in oil and a Vice President that was once CEO of Halliburton. You can't buy a TDI new in ignorant New York State. It does my heart good to live in Pennsylvania and know my "emissions" are helping to make New York CLEANER when they drift eastward over NewYork.....

pcosby said:

Has anyone ever done the math to see what the emissions-per-mpg-per-gross weight ratio is?

Click to expand...

Actually yes. Well, really emissions-per-vehicle-per-year (15,000 miles). Compared a 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid (HCH) with a 2003 TDI (Tier 1) from CARB data ( http://home.pacbell.net/tocho9/honda-civic-hybrid.pdf for the HCH; http://home.pacbell.net/tocho9/volkswagen-tdi.pdf for the TDI). I included VOC emissions from the distribution ("dist.") of the fuel since VOCs are a major cause of air pollution in urban areas. Hopefully, my calculations are correct!


HCH
HC - 240 (tailpipe) + 475 (2-day) + 150 (RL) + 30 (ORVR) + 409 (dist.) = 1304 g
NOx - 1500 g
PM - --
CO - 12,000 g
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total - 14,804 g


TDI
HC - 300 (tailpipe) + 3.5 (refueling) + 0.83 (dist.) = 304 g
NOx - 10,500 g
PM - 750 g
CO - 3,000 g
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total - 14,554 g

I like how they don't list PM for the Civic even though they are there. And how they just say PM not PM 10 or PM 2.5 which makes a huge difference when talking health effects.