Gateway Cities Air Quality Action Plan FINAL REPORT

Transcription

1 Gateway Cities Air Quality Action Plan FINAL REPORT

2

3 The Gateway Cities Air Quality Action Plan Final Report June 2013 P REPARED FOR: The Gateway Cities Council of Governments Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) P REPARED BY: ICF International

4

5 Table of Contents Executive Summary... ES 1 1. Introduction Air Quality Action Plan Background Air Quality Action Plan Purpose and Work Products Overview of the Air Quality Action Plan Study Process Current and Future Emissions Methodology Results for Results for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Current and Future Air Quality Methodology Criteria Pollutant Results Air Toxics Results Current and Future Health Impacts Introduction Health Risk Assessment Process Results of Cancer Risk Assessment Related to Air Quality Results of Non Cancer Risk Assessment Related to Air Quality PM2.5 Health Risk Assessment Results Equity Analysis Uncertainty Toolkit of Measures to Further Improve Air Quality Introduction Goal 1: Reduce Particulate Emissions from Charbroiling and Wood Burning Goal 2: Control Dust Emissions Goal 3: Reduce Arsenic Emissions Goal 4: Accelerate Deployment of Low and Zero Emission Trucks Goal 5: Accelerate Deployment of Low and Zero Emission Cargo Handling Equipment Goal 6: Further Reduce Ocean Going Vessel Emissions Goal 7: Implement Other Near Term Measures under Local Control Summary of Findings and Toolkit Implementation Steps Summary of Existing Air and Health Quality Setting Summary of the Effectiveness of Planned Near Term Air Quality Improvements Summary of New (or Emerging) Air Quality Improvements or Strategies ICF International i June 2013

6 6.4 Conceptual Plan to Implement and Measure Air Quality Improvements Consensus for the Plan Next Steps Endnotes ICF International ii June 2013

7 Acronyms and Abbreviations μg/m 3 AB AHI AMECS APUs AQAP AQMD ARB ATCM BACT CAAQS CAAQS CALMET CEC CEQA CH 4 CHE CHI CHP CNG CO DECS DPF EIR/EIS EPA e RTG ESPs ESS EVSE GCCOG GVW HEPA HHD hp HQ HRA HVAC IMO kg micrograms per cubic meter Assembly Bill acute hazard index Advanced Maritime Emissions Control Systems auxiliary power units Air Quality Action Plan South Coast Air Quality Management District California Air Resources Board Airborne Toxic Control Measure best available control technology California Air Quality Standard California Air Quality Standard California Meteorological California Energy Commission California Environmental Quality Act methane cargo handling equipment chronic hazard index California Highway Patrol compressed natural gas carbon monoxide Diesel Emissions Control Device system diesel particulate filter Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Electric RTG electrostatic precipitators Energy storage systems electric vehicle service equipment Gateway Cities Council of Governments gross vehicle weight high efficiency particulate air Heavy Heavy Duty horsepower hazard quotient health risk assessment heating, ventilation, and air conditioning International Maritime Organization kilograms ICF International iii June 2013

8 km lbs LHD LNG MATES Metro MHD MOU MMT NAAQS NATA NEPA NESHAPS NO 2 N 2 O NO X O&M OEHHA OGV OPC OR DEQ PM PM10 PM2.5 ppb ppm psi REL RTG SCAG SCR SO 2 SO X SR TOG TRUs VMT kilometer pounds Light Heavy Duty liquefied natural gas Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Medium Heavy Duty Memorandum of Understanding million metric tons National Ambient Air Quality Standards National scale Air Toxics Assessment National Environmental Policy Act National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants nitrogen dioxide nitrous oxide nitrogen oxide operations and maintenance Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Ocean Going Vessel Oversight Policy Committee Oregon Department of Environmental Quality particulate matter coarse particulate matter fine particulate matter parts per billion parts per million pounds per square inch reference exposure level Rubber tired gantry Southern California Association of Governments selective catalytic reduction sulfur dioxide sulfur oxides State Route total organic gases Transport Refrigeration Units vehicle miles traveled ICF International iv June 2013

9 Tables Table ES 1. Summary of 2009 Air Pollution Health Risk... ES 2 Table ES 2. Summary of 2035 Air Pollution Health Impacts... ES 4 Table ES 3. Summary of Toolkit Implementation Steps... ES 5 Table 2 1. Pollutants Included in Emissions Inventory Table 2 2. Criteria Pollutant Emissions Used in the 2009 Air Quality Modeling of the Gateway Cities Study Area by Major Source Category (kilograms [kg]/day) Table 2 3. Air Toxics Emissions Used in the 2009 Air Quality Modeling of the Gateway Cities Study Area by Major Source Category (kg/day) Table 2 4. Criteria Pollutant Emissions Used in the 2035 Air Quality Modeling of the Gateway Cities Study Area by Major Source Category (kg/day) Table 2 5. Difference in Criteria Pollutant Emissions between 2009 and 2035 for the Gateway Cities Study Area by Major Source Category (kg/day) Table 2 6. Air Toxics Emissions Used in the 2035 Air Quality Modeling of the Gateway Cities Study Area by Major Source Category (kg/day) Table 2 7. Difference in Air Toxic Emissions between 2009 and 2035 for the Gateway Cities Study Area by Major Source Category (kg/day) Table 3 1. Gateway City Criteria Air Pollutant Air Quality Concentrations in 2009 and 2035 Compared to National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Table 3 2. Gateway City Annual Average and Maximum Modeled Air Toxic Concentrations in 2009 and 2035 and the 2005 NATA National Average Concentration Table 4 1. Cancer Potency Factors from the OEHHA and the EPA Table 4 2. Reference Exposure Levels from the OEHHA and Reference Concentrations from the EPA Table 4 3. Gateway Cities Chronic Hazard Indices (CHI) Table 4 4. Gateway Cities Acute Hazard Indices (AHI) Table 5 1. Recommended New Measures by Strategy Type Table 5 2. Summary of Impact of Charbroiling Measure on Gateway Cities, Table 5 3. Summary of Impact of Wood Combustion Measure on Gateway Cities, Table 5 4. Summary of Impact of Street Sweeping Measure on Gateway Cities, Table 5 5. Summary of Impact of Construction Road Dust Measure, Table 5 6. Summary of Impact of Construction and Demolition Measure, Table 5 7. Summary of Impact of Glass Manufacturing Measure, Table 5 8: Emissions Reductions per Truck using Battery Electric Technology, 2035 (kg/year) ICF International v June 2013

10 Table 5 9. Cost Effectiveness of a Battery Electric Port Drayage Truck ($ per ton per year) Table Emission Control Effectiveness of Advanced Heavy Duty Vehicle Technologies, per Truck Table Cost and Cost Effectiveness of Emission Reduction ($ per ton per year) Table Cost Effectiveness of Yard Hostler Technology Options Table Cost Effectiveness of RTG Crane Technology Options Table Emission Reduction from Low/Zero Emission TRUs (kg/day) Table Cost Effectiveness of Zero Emission TRU Options Table Emissions Reductions from OGV At Berth Measure, 2035 (kg/day) Table Cost Effectiveness of Clean Ship Measure, Table Summary of Requirements for Metro s Green Construction Policy Table 6 1. Summary of 2009 Air Pollution Health Risk Table 6 2. Summary of 2035 Air Pollution Health Impacts Table 6 3. Maximum Emission Reductions from New Measures in 2035 (kg/day) Table 6 4. Cost Effectiveness of New Emission Reduction Measures ($ per ton) Table 6 5. Summary of Toolkit Implementation Steps ICF International vi June 2013

11 Figures Figure ES 1. Estimated Annual Average DPM Concentrations in 2009 and ES 3 Figure 1 1. AQAP Process Flow Chart Figure 2 1. AQAP Study Area Figure 2 2. Change in Gateway Cities Criteria Pollutant Emissions, 2009 to 2035 (all sources) Figure 2 3. PM2.5 Emissions in 2035 by Source Type Figure 2 4. GHG Emissions in 2009 and 2035 by Source Figure 3 1. Estimated Annual Average PM2.5 Concentrations in 2009 and Figure 3 2. Emission Source Contributions to PM2.5 Concentrations, Figure 3 3. Estimated Annual Average PM2.5 Concentrations in the Gateway Cities in 2009 (μg/m 3 ) Figure 3 4. Estimated Annual Average PM2.5 Concentrations in the Gateway Cities in 2035 (μg/m 3 ) Figure 3 5. Estimated Annual Average DPM Concentrations in 2009 and Figure 3 6. Emission Source Contributions to DPM Concentrations, Figure 3 7. Estimated Annual Average DPM Concentrations in the Gateway Cities in 2009 (μg/m 3 ) Figure 3 8. Estimated Annual Average DPM Concentrations in the Gateway Cities in 2035 (μg/m 3 ) Figure 4 1. Gateway Cities potential air pollution lifetime cancer risk per million Figure 4 2. Gateway Cities Residential Air Pollution Lifetime Cancer Risk in Comparison with Selected U.S. Urban Counties Figure 4 3. Contributions to the Residential Average Air Pollution Lifetime Cancer Risk from Each Pollutant, 2009 and Figure 4 4. Contributions to Average Residential Air Pollution Lifetime Cancer Risk from Each Emission Source Category, 2009 and Figure 4 5. Residential Air Pollution Lifetime Cancer Risk by U.S. Census Block Groups in the Gateway Cities, 2009 and Figure Average and Range of Residential Air Pollution Lifetime Cancer Risk in the Gateway Cities Figure Average and Range of Residential Air Pollution Lifetime Cancer Risk in the Gateway Cities Figure 4 8. Estimated Developmental Chronic Hazard Index by U.S. Census Block Groups, 2009 and ICF International vii June 2013

12 Figure 4 9. Estimated Gateway Cities Annual Mortality and Hospitalization Risk from PM2.5 Inhalation Figure Contributions to the Estimated PM2.5 Annual Mortality and Hospitalization Risk from Each Emission Source Category, 2009 and Figure Estimated PM2.5 Annual Mortality Risk for the 30+ Population by U.S. Census Block Groups, 2009 and Figure Average and Range of PM2.5 Annual Mortality Risk for the 30+ Population in the Gateway Cities Figure Average and Range of PM2.5 Annual Mortality Risk for the 30+ Population in the Gateway Cities Figure Demographic Distribution of the Estimated Residential Air Pollution Lifetime Cancer Risk Among the Gateway Cities Population, 2009 and Figure 5 1. Current Alternative Vehicle Fueling Stations in Gateway Cities ICF International viii June 2013

13 Executive Summary Located in southeastern Los Angeles County, the Gateway Cities sub region is home to more than 2 million residents and 700,000 jobs. The Gateway Cities Council of Governments (GCCOG) is a California joint powers authority made up of 27 cities and the County of Los Angeles. The Gateway Cities subregion is a locus for much of the trade and transportation that supports the Southern California and national economy. Due in part to the heavy concentration of goods movement and industry in and around the Gateway Cities, the sub region has historically experienced the adverse impacts of air pollution. The Gateway Cities Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) study was first requested by the Oversight Policy Committee of the I 710 Major Corridor Study, which was managed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). When the I 710 Major Corridor Study was approved in 2005, the Oversight Policy Committee requested that the GCCOG initiate the development of an Air Quality Action Plan for all of Gateway Cities that would focus on the following five objectives: 1. Determine and quantify existing air and health quality setting. 2. Determine effectiveness of planned near term air quality improvements. 3. Analyze and determine possible new (or emerging) air quality improvements or strategies, including estimated costs, time lines, and responsibilities. 4. Develop a conceptual plan to implement and measure air quality improvements for the region. 5. Work with regional, state, and federal agencies responsible for air pollution control and enforcement and industry stakeholders along with local communities to develop consensus for this plan. The first phase for the development of AQAP was completed in 2007 and documented in a Preliminary Report. The full AQAP study was initiated in The study has resulted in more than 10 interim reports and related work products. The AQAP Final Report contains the major findings of the AQAP study. The Final Report demonstrates that the AQAP study has complied with all five objectives of the original Oversight Policy Committee motion, as summarized below. Objective 1. Determine and Quantify Existing Air and Health Quality Setting The AQAP study found significant levels of air pollution and adverse health impacts for the base year of analysis (2009). The pollutants of greatest concern are fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and diesel particulate matter (DPM). Nitrogen oxide (NO x ) emissions are also a concern because they contribute to regional ozone concentrations as well as formation of particulate matter in the atmosphere. In 2009, air quality modeling shows that much of the Gateway Cities experienced annual average PM2.5 concentrations greater than 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ), compared to the current federal standard of 12 μg/m 3. The highest modeled concentration in 2009 was 41.6 μg/m 3. Virtually all the subregion north of SR 91 and along the I 710 exceeded the current federal PM2.5 standard in ICF International ES 1 June 2013

14 In terms of DPM, the modeled annual average 2009 concentration across the Gateway Cities was 4.9 μg/m 3 and the highest was 15.1 μg/m 3. The Gateway Cities average DPM concentration was more than five times the national average for urban areas and more than double the Los Angeles County average in Table ES 1 presents a summary of the estimated 2009 air pollution health risks. Across the entire Gateway Cities, the 2009 lifetime cancer risk from air pollution was 1,328 per million, higher than the average cancer risk in most other metropolitan areas included in a recent U.S. EPA study. The highest air pollution cancer risk in the sub region was 5,032 per million. The Gateway Cities average risk for mortality (premature death) due to PM2.5 was 503 per million. PM2.5 was also found to cause unscheduled hospitalizations for respiratory and cardiovascular problems among residents age 65 and older. Table ES 1. Summary of 2009 Air Pollution Health Risk Health Risk Type Gateway Cities Average Risk (per million) Gateway Cities Maximum Risk (per million) Cancer Risk Residents 1,328 5,032 Non Resident Workers Mortality (30+) 503 1,741 PM2.5 Health Risk Respiratory Hospitalization (65+) Cardiovascular Hospitalization (65+) Objective 2. Determine the Effectiveness of Planned Near Term Air Quality Improvements By 2035, air quality in the Gateway Cities is projected to improve significantly, with corresponding reductions in health risk. Between the time the AQAP was first requested in 2005 and the AQAP analyses in , many new rules and regulations were adopted to control air pollutant emissions. In particular, these regulations target all the major sources of diesel emissions including heavy duty trucks, ships, off road construction equipment, cargo handling equipment, and railroad locomotives. As these regulations take effect over the next two decades, they will result in large reductions in diesel emissions. The Ports have also implemented a number of programs and projects that are reducing emissions. Additionally, the proposal for an I 710 freight corridor with zero emission trucks (an assumption that is incorporated into the AQAP study) will contribute to further emission reductions. The projected 2035 annual average PM2.5 concentration will be lower than the federal standard of 12 μg/m 3 in nearly all of the Gateway Cities, with the exception of a few select locations in South Gate, Bellflower, Downey, and Norwalk. The highest concentration will drop from 41.6 μg/m 3 in 2009 to 13.5 μg/m 3 in ICF International ES 2 June 2013

15 DPM concentrations will also drop dramatically by Averaged across the entire Gateway Cities, the DPM concentration is predicted to drop from 4.0 μg/m 3 in 2009 to 0.9 μg/m 3 in 2035, a 78% reduction. Figure ES 1 shows the modeled DPM concentrations in 2009 and Figure ES 1. Estimated Annual Average DPM Concentrations in 2009 and ICF International ES 3 June 2013

16 Table ES 2 summarizes the estimated air pollution health impacts in 2035 and the change relative to The Gateway Cities average cancer risk will be 68% lower than the 2009 estimate. The sub region average mortality risk due to PM2.5 will decline 59%, and the risk of unscheduled hospitalizations will decline 9%. Table ES 2. Summary of 2035 Air Pollution Health Impacts Gateway Cities Average Gateway Cities Maximum Health Risk Type Risk per Million Change from 2009 Risk per Million Change from 2009 Cancer Risk PM2.5 Health Risk Residents % 2,769 45% Non Resident Workers 82 68% % Mortality (30+) % % Respiratory Hospitalization (65+) 271 9% % Cardiovascular Hospitalization (65+) 174 9% % Objective 3. Analyze and Determine Possible New (or Emerging) Air Quality Improvements or Strategies The projected improvements in air quality and associated health risk in the Gateway Cities are large. Yet some adverse health impacts will remain, particularly in locations near major transportation facilities. To address these health impacts, new emission control measures can be implemented. Development of new control measures should focus on the three pollutants that contribute most to air pollution and health risk in the Gateway Cities and throughout Southern California: PM2.5 (associated with non cancer adverse health effects), DPM (the largest contributor to air pollution cancer risk), and NO x (a contributor to regional ozone as well as fine particulate formation). Reducing NO x emissions is the single greatest air quality challenge for the entire South Coast Air Basin that includes most of Los Angeles County. The 2012 Air Quality Management Plan indicates that the region must reduce projected NO x emissions by about 65% by 2023, and 75% by 2032, to attain the national ozone standards as required by federal law. 1 The AQAP study determined that additional air quality and health risk improvements in 2035 can best by achieved through new measures that achieve one or more of the following 6 goals: 1. Reduce Particulate Emissions from Charbroiling and Wood Burning 2. Control Dust Emissions 3. Reduce Arsenic Emissions 4. Accelerate Deployment of Low and Zero Emission Trucks ICF International ES 4 June 2013

17 5. Accelerate Deployment of Low and Zero Emission Cargo Handling Equipment 6. Further Reduce Ocean Going Vessel Emissions The largest PM2.5 emission reductions can be achieved through measures to address charbroiling and residential wood burning. The largest DPM reductions come from measures targeting heavy duty trucks. The largest NO X reductions come from measures targeting ships and also heavy duty trucks. The AQAP study quantified the emissions benefits in 2035 of 14 potential new control measures. Many of the analyzed measures are scalable, meaning they could be implemented to a greater or lesser extent depending on available funding. If all the analyzed measures were implemented to the maximum extent possible, the suite of measures would reduce 13% of PM2.5 emissions, 53% of DPM emissions, and 23% of NO x emissions in the sub region in These reductions are on top of the reductions already projected to occur due to the implementation of adopted regulations and planned improvement projects like the I 710 freight corridor. The most cost effective measures to reduce PM2.5 emissions are those that target charbroiling emissions, wood burning, and fugitive dust emissions. However, these types of measures do not reduce DPM or most other pollutants of concern. For reducing DPM and NO X, the most cost effective approaches are deployment of zero emission transportation refrigeration units (TRUs), natural gas heavy duty trucks, and plug in hybrid electric trucks. Measures that target ship emissions can potentially offer large emission reductions but currently appear to have poor cost effectiveness; research and development is needed to reduce the costs of these technologies. Objective 4. Develop a Conceptual Plan to Implement and Measure Air Quality Improvements for the Region Implementation of most new air quality improvement measures would be led by regional or state agencies, such as AQMD, the Ports, or ARB. For such measures, the primary role of Gateway Cities is that of advocate. Table ES 3 lists possible new control measures that would achieve the 6 goals outlined above. The table summarizes the primary implementation steps for each measure as well as the likely role of the Gateway Cities. The last four measures listed in Table ES 3 were developed as part of the Early Action Plan; implementation would be led by the municipalities and the GCCOG. Table ES 3. Summary of Possible New Measures and Implementation Steps Goal Possible New Control Measure Primary Implementation Steps Gateway Cities Role Reduce PM from Charbroiling and Wood Burning Adopt New Charbroiling Emission Controls Require Low Emission Fireplaces and Woodstoves AQMD adopt proposed Rule 1138 AQMD amend Rule 445 Education and outreach Advocate for rule adoption Use permitting to require technology adoption for new restaurants Education and outreach Advocate for rule change ICF International ES 5 June 2013

18 Goal Possible New Control Measure Primary Implementation Steps Gateway Cities Role Control Dust Emissions Expand Municipal Street Sweeping to Reduce Road Dust Implement Best Management Practices to Reduce Road Dust from Construction Expand Rules and Best Management Practices to Reduce Dust from Building Construction and Demolition Municipalities increase frequency and effectiveness of street sweeping AQMD amend Rule 403 AQMD amend Rule 403 Increase frequency and effectiveness of street sweeping (if feasible) Education and outreach Advocate for rule change and increased enforcement (as feasible) Education and outreach Advocate for rule change and increased enforcement (as feasible) Reduce Arsenic Emissions Adopt New Rules for Glass Manufacturing AQMD promulgate a rule Advocate for rule adoption Accelerate Deployment of Low and Zero Emission Trucks Encourage Zero Emission Port Trucks Encourage Low Emission Trucks in the Gateway Cities Communities Provide Alternative Fuel Infrastructure for Trucks Ports require zero emissions vehicles ARB or CEC expand grant funding Metro require zero emission trucks for I 710 freight corridor ARB or CEC expand grant funding ARB or CEC expand grant funding Advocate for funding to offset truck purchases Advocate for federal or state funding Advocate for new funding Support new fueling infrastructure through permitting or cooperation Accelerate Deployment of Zero Emission Cargo Handling Equipment Replace Diesel Yard Hostlers with Hybrid and Electric Alternatives Electrify Rubber Tire Gantry Cranes Promote Zero Emission Transport Refrigeration Units Ports expand requirements for clean CHE technologies in terminal leases Ports expand requirements for clean CHE technologies in terminal leases AQMD or ARB establish new grant funding for TRUs Advocate for expanded Port and/or state programs Advocate for expanded Port and/or state programs Advocate for expanded Port and/or state programs ICF International ES 6 June 2013

19 Goal Possible New Control Measure Primary Implementation Steps Gateway Cities Role Further Reduce Ocean Going Vessel Emissions Early Action Items Expand Control of At Berth Ship Emissions Develop and Deploy Clean Ship Engine Technologies Require Low Emission Equipment for Public Construction Contracts Enforce Anti Idling Regulations Reduce Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Diesel Exhaust Expand Air Quality Monitoring Along the I 710 Corridor Ports install additional shoreside electrical infrastructure Ports establish incentives for marine shipping lines Ports require additional shore power or exhaust bonnets in terminal leases Ports continue research and development of ship technologies Ports incentivize use of feasible technologies Advocate for expanded Port and/or state programs Advocate for expanded Port and/or state programs Cities include clean construction requests and/or requirements in bid specifications Use Metro s Green Construction Policy as model, if feasible GCCOG provide information on funding opportunities for construction fleets Cities adopt ordinances to empower law enforcement to enforce state idle rule GCCOG work with ARB to develop MOU Cities provide training and education on idle limits and enforcement options Cities identify locations of sensitive receptors using Sensitive Receptors by City report Consult ARB and AQMD resources on reducing exposure of sensitive receptors Encourage HVAC filter retrofits in conjunction with building energy efficiency upgrades Designate truck routes that avoid sensitive receptors GCCOG coordinate for sub region and work with AQMD to expand monitoring network Objective 5. Develop Consensus for the Plan The AQAP study was developed with involvement by state and regional air quality agencies, the Ports, elected officials, environmental and health services professionals, private sector transportation and goods movement representatives, and community and environmental advocates. Input and guidance from these stakeholders has helped to shape the study methodology and results. This draft AQAP Report was presented to the Gateway Cities Environmental Committee, and subsequently to the Gateway Cities Transportation Committee and Board of Directors. ICF International ES 7 June 2013

20 ICF International ES 8 June 2013

21 1. Introduction Located in southeastern Los Angeles County, the Gateway Cities sub region is home to more than 2 million residents and 700,000 jobs. The Gateway Cities sub region is one of 14 sub regions identified by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The Gateway Cities Council of Governments (GCCOG) is a California joint powers authority made up of 27 cities and the County of Los Angeles, formed to provide members with a platform to engage in regional and cooperative planning and coordination of government services for the collective benefit of the area s residents. The Gateway Cities sub region is a locus for much of the trade and transportation that supports the Southern California and national economy. The nation s two busiest container ports, the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach (collectively known as the San Pedro Bay Ports), lie adjacent to the Gateway Cities. Major freeway corridors such as I 710, I 405, and I 605 crisscross the sub region, carrying heavy volumes of freight trucks as well as passenger cars. Major freight rail yards and rail lines, including the Alameda Corridor, are also located in or adjacent to the sub region. In addition to transportation activity, the Gateway Cities are home to extensive manufacturing, warehousing, and other industrial facilities. Due in part to the heavy concentration of goods movement and industry in and around the Gateway Cities, the sub region has historically experienced the adverse impacts of air pollution. The entire South Coast Air Basin, which includes the Gateway Cities, is designated as a nonattainment area with respect to the federal air quality standards for both ground level ozone (smog) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). 1.1 Air Quality Action Plan Background The Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) has its roots in a planning process that began more than 10 years ago to improve and modernize the I 710 freeway. The I 710 is the primary route for heavy trucks that serve the San Pedro Bay Ports. The I 710 was completed in 1975, and since that time the Ports have grown tremendously in terms of cargo throughput and truck traffic. As truck traffic and congestion on the I 710 have increased, so has concern about the associated public health impacts on neighboring residents. Numerous studies have shown a linkage between exposure to exhaust pollutants from diesel trucks and other sources and adverse health effects such as cancer, aggravated asthma, chronic bronchitis, and cardiovascular problems. Concern about diesel particulate matter was elevated with completion of the South Coast Air Quality Management District s (AQMD s) Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES) III, which found that 70% of the air pollution inhalation cancer risk in the region was caused by diesel particular matter. 2 In 2000, the I 710 Major Corridor Study was initiated to explore the feasibility of options for improving the I 710, from Long Beach to State Route 60. The Study was managed by Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and was guided by an extensive public input process. The Oversight Policy Committee (OPC) advised the GCCOG and Metro on the results and recommendations from the I 710 Major Corridor Study. A separate report, The I 710 Tier 2 Community Advisory Committee Final Report, provided additional findings and guidance to the OPC. After an ICF International 1 1 June 2013

22 extensive public input process, the OPC established guiding principles for the Study, one of which was to: Identify and minimize both immediate and cumulative exposure to air toxics and pollution with aggressive advocacy and implementation of diesel emissions reduction programs and use of alternative fuels as well as in project planning and design. When the I 710 Major Corridor Study was approved in 2005, the OPC also requested that the GCCOG initiate the development of an Air Quality Action Plan for all of Gateway Cities that would focus on the following five objectives: 1. Determine and quantify existing air and health quality setting. 2. Determine effectiveness of planned near term air quality improvements. 3. Analyze and determine possible new (or emerging) air quality improvements or strategies, including estimated costs, time lines, and responsibilities. 4. Develop a conceptual plan to implement and measure air quality improvements for the region. 5. Work with regional, state, and federal agencies responsible for air pollution control and enforcement and industry stakeholders along with local communities to develop consensus for this plan. The first phase for the development of AQAP was completed in 2007 and documented in a Preliminary Report. 3 The AQAP Preliminary Report contained a review of air quality improvement measures that were proposed and/or approved during , an outline for the recommended content of the AQAP, and a list of recommendations for early actions that stakeholders could take to improve air quality while the full AQAP was being developed. 1.2 Air Quality Action Plan Purpose and Work Products The primary purpose of the AQAP is to assess current and future air quality and associated health conditions in all of the Gateway Cities and recommend strategies to continue to improve air quality and public health. The full AQAP study was initiated in This document contains the major finding of the AQAP. The study has also resulted in a variety of interim reports and related work products, including the following: Modeling Protocol Report, which laid out the proposed methodology for the air quality modeling and health risk assessment. Compendium Update Report, which provides an update on the status of items listed in the Compendium of Existing and Proposed Near Term Air Quality Improvement Strategies for the I 710 Corridor, originally created in 2006 as part of the AQAP Preliminary Report. The Compendium Update Report found that, of the 154 measures listed in the original Compendium: 106 have been fully implemented 31 have been partially implemented 17 have not been implemented ICF International 1 2 June 2013

23 Early Action Plan, which describes near term strategies for improving air quality and reducing health risk that are implemented at the local level for all of the Gateway Cities. Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment Report, which provides detailed information on the methodology and results of the emission inventory development, air quality modeling, and health risk assessment. New Measures Analysis Report, which describes the analysis of 18 potential new measures to further improve air quality in 2035 in terms of emissions benefits, costs, and cost effectiveness (selected from 53 potential new measures). Community Medical Needs Assessment, which profiles the existing health conditions in the Gateway Cities, assesses the effectiveness of medical care, and assesses future community medical need in the Gateway Cities. Sensitive Receptors by City Report, which identifies in each city the location of facilities containing population groups that are particularly sensitive to air pollution exposure, such as schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. I 710 Health Impact Assessment, which provides a qualitative comparison of several I 710 project alternatives in terms of six health determinants: mobility, air quality, noise, traffic safety, jobs and economic development, and access to neighborhood resources. I 710 Construction Staging and Phasing Report, which estimates emissions associated with phased construction of the I 710 Corridor Project. I 710 Near Roadway Modeling Report, which assesses the ability of micro scale air dispersion models to return results similar to monitored air quality in the near roadway. Ultrafines Research Report, which summarizes the current state of knowledge of ultrafine particles in terms of regulations, health effects, monitoring, and controls. The latter four products were intended to inform the development of the I 710 Corridor Project Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS), which was being developed in These products were provided to Caltrans. It should be emphasized that, while the AQAP study produced material to inform the development of the I 710 Draft EIR/EIS and the AQAP study also makes use of some I 710 Draft EIR/EIS technical studies, the AQAP is distinct from the I 710 Draft EIR/EIS in several key respects. First, the AQAP is not a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document. It was prepared to inform the Gateway Cities and other stakeholders about air quality and health risk issues within a sub region, not to satisfy any legal or regulatory requirements for a project. Second, the geographic scope of the AQAP encompasses the entire Gateway Cities sub region, not just the I 710 corridor. Third, the AQAP considers the air pollution and health impacts of all emissions sources within the study area, not just roadways or transportation. All of the interim work products listed above have supported the development of this AQAP report. However, this report is primarily a summary of findings from the Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment ICF International 1 3 June 2013

24 Report, the Early Action Plan, and the New Measures Analysis Report, which together constitute the bulk of the AQAP study analytical effort. All the reports prepared for the AQAP can be found on the Gateway Cities COG website. 1.3 Overview of the Air Quality Action Plan Study Process This section provides a brief overview of the entire AQAP study process. Stakeholder Input The AQAP study has involved the efforts of state and regional air quality agencies, the Ports, elected officials, environmental and health services professionals, private sector transportation and goods movement representatives, and community and environmental advocates. Input and guidance from these stakeholders has helped to shape the study methodology and results. Specifically, the study received feedback and guidance from two groups: Advisory Roundtable a broad based group consisting of 24 members representing public and private sector agencies, environmental and community groups, and academics. Technical Roundtable a technically focused group consisting of representatives of federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. In addition, the GCCOG Environmental Committee received period briefings on the project and provided recommendations and feedback. The chair of the Environmental Committee is Councilman William DeWitt of South Gate. The committee is comprised of the Health Deputies from the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors; representatives from the Gateway Cities City Managers, Public Works, and Planning Directors Committees; Long Beach Public Health Department; representatives from the Gateway Cities Technical Advisory Committees for various highway corridor studies; and members selected from the AQAP Roundtables. The final AQAP Report was presented to the GCCOG Transportation Committee and then to the Board of Directors. Modeling Protocol An initial step in the AQAP study was preparation of a Modeling Protocol Report. The air quality modeling and health risk assessment portions of the study are technically complex and could be conducted using a variety of methodological options. The Modeling Protocol Report was prepared to ensure transparency and allow communication on technical issues among various stakeholders, and to facilitate consensus on the technical tools and methodologies to be employed throughout the study. Development of the Modeling Protocol Report was done with input from the AQMD, the California Air Resources Board (ARB), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Port of Los Angeles, and the Port of Long Beach; it was finalized in 2011, prior to the start of the analysis. ICF International 1 4 June 2013

25 Methodology Overview In simplest terms, the AQAP study involved four major steps: 1. Estimation of air pollutant emissions from all sources 2. Modeling to determine air pollutant concentrations 3. Health risk assessment to determine health impacts for all of Gateway Cities and for each community 4. New measures analysis to identify and evaluate potential additional strategies to further improve air quality and reduce adverse health impacts Figure 1 1 shows a flow chart that depicts the AQAP study process. Chapters 2 through 5 of this report provide further information on the methodology associated with each of the four major study steps. Detailed information on methods is contained in the Modeling Protocol Report, the Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment Report, and the New Measures Analysis Report, all of which are available on the GCCOG website. Figure 1 1. AQAP Process Flow Chart Analyses performed as part of AQAP study Study inputs from other sources AQMD emission inventory Travel demand model output (from SCAG 2008 RTP) Adjustments for recent rules and regulations Emissions calculations EMFAC emission factor model Location of results in AQAP Report Criteria pollutant emission inventory, 2009 and 2035 Air toxics emission inventory, 2009 and 2035 ARB speciation profiles Chapter 2 Emissions Meteorological station data Meteorological model Air dispersion model Criteria pollutant concentrations, 2009 and 2035 Air toxics concentrations, 2009 and 2035 Toxicity values Chapter 3 Air Quality Comparison with NAAQS PM mortality and hospitalization risk assessment Comparison with NATA Cancer risk assessment Non cancer health risk assessment Chapter 4 Health Effects New measures identification New measures analysis Chapter 5 Toolkit of New Measures ICF International 1 5 June 2013

26 2. Current and Future Emissions An analysis of air quality and health risk usually begins with an estimate of emissions. An emissions inventory quantifies the amount of emissions by their source and pollutant type. Additional processing is used to estimate the geographic location and temporal profile (time of day) of the emissions. The resulting emissions files are the key inputs to the air dispersion modeling used to simulate air quality. For the AQAP, the emissions inventory was developed for three categories of pollutants: Criteria air pollutants air pollutants for which explicit air quality standards have been developed. Air toxics also known as hazardous air pollutants, air toxics can cause serious adverse health effects even in low quantities, but are not subject to air quality standards. Greenhouse gases emissions that contribute to global climate change. Table 2 1 lists the pollutants included in the emission inventory. Note that there are hundreds of air toxics and not all could be included in this study; the air toxics portion of this study focused on the six air toxics shown in Table 2 1 because they are collectively responsible for more than 96% of the air pollution cancer risk in the South Coast Air Basin, according to AQMD. Table 2 1. Pollutants Included in Emissions Inventory Criteria Air Pollutants Air Toxics Greenhouse Gases Carbon monoxide (CO) Nitrogen oxides (NO X ) Sulfur oxides (SO X ) Total organic gases (TOG) Coarse particulate matter (PM10) Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Lead (Pb) Diesel particulate matter (DPM) Formaldehyde 1,3 butadiene Benzene Hexavalent chromium (Cr6) Arsenic Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) Methane (CH 4 ) Nitrous oxide (N 2 O) In addition to the pollutants listed above, the AQAP study also included a research report that summarized the current state of knowledge regarding ultrafine particles. Ultrafine particles have a size less than 100 nanometers (0.1 micrometers). There is a significant body of health studies providing suggestive evidence linking ultrafine particles to adverse health effects. However, there remain many gaps in the knowledge of ultrafine particles, and they were not included in the AQAP emission inventory and air quality modeling. The AQAP ultrafine particles research report was intended to provide a better understanding of major trends, a summary of findings from Los Angeles basin exposure studies, and an assessment of the prospects for any regulation of ultrafine particles. No widely accepted standards for measuring ultrafines have yet been established, but GCCOG will continue to be monitored in subsequent Air Quality modeling efforts. All emissions within the Gateway Cities were included in the study. In addition, the study included emissions coming from outside the sub region (i.e., other parts of Los Angeles and Orange Counties) ICF International 2 1 June 2013

27 that could significantly affect air quality in the Gateway Cities. Figure 2 1 shows the study area boundaries for emission inventory development purposes. The red/green line is the border of the Gateway Cities sub region. The blue line reflects a 5 kilometer (km) buffer around the Gateway Cities; all emissions within this buffer were included in the study because they can potentially influence air quality within the Gateway Cities. In addition, some larger emissions sources located more than 5 miles from the Gateway Cities were also included in the analysis; the maximum extent of these additional emissions sources is shown with the yellow line. Figure 2 1. AQAP Study Area Port of Los Angeles Port of Long Beach 2.1 Methodology For the purposes of creating an emission inventory, sources of emissions are grouped into the following four categories: Area Sources stationary sources of emissions not associated with a specific location, including residential and commercial natural gas combustion, restaurants, automobile refinishing, consumer and commercial products, and road dust. ICF International 2 2 June 2013

28 Point Sources stationary sources of emissions associated with a specific location, such as petroleum refineries, electrical generation stations, and large industrial boilers. On Road Mobile Sources motor vehicles, such as automobiles, trucks, and buses. Off Road Mobile Sources transportation sources other than on road vehicles, including ships, trains, and off road construction equipment. This section summarizes the methods used to estimate emissions of criteria pollutants and air toxics; GHG emissions are discussed in Section 2.4. Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions For Area, Point, and Off Road Mobile Sources, the criteria pollutant emissions inventory files for 2009 and 2035 were obtained from AQMD. These files were the basis for the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan and were considered the best information available at the time this analysis was performed. The Point Source emissions were assigned to the specific location of the facility that generates the emissions. The Area Source emissions were assigned to a grid cell (4 km by 4 km). The Off Road Mobile Source emissions were either assigned to the area causing the emissions (e.g., a rail yard, airport, seaport) or a grid cell (e.g., yard hostlers, forklifts, construction equipment, portable generators). For On Road Mobile Sources, the criteria pollutant emissions files were developed using a different process in order to capture planned roadway improvements associated with the I 710 Corridor Project and all of the planned improvements from the Southeast Los Angeles County (State Route 91/I 605/I 405) Freeway Corridors Major Corridor Study. SCAG s travel demand model was used to simulate traffic on every roadway in and around the Gateway Cities. Travel model outputs were then paired with emission factors from ARB s EMFAC2011 model. For 2035, modeling reflects Alternative 6B in the I 710 Draft EIR/EIS, which assumes trucks with zero tailpipe emissions on the Zero Emission Freight Corridor. Particulate matter forms through chemical reactions in the atmosphere in addition to direct emissions from sources like vehicles, industry, and road dust. A large fraction of the secondary PM in the Gateway Cites is formed from the oxidation of sulfur oxides (SO X ), which creates sulfate aerosols (small particles) that appear as sulfuric acid or ammonium sulfate. Other secondary PM is formed when nitrogen oxides (NO X ) emissions react with atmospheric ammonia, oxygen, and water vapor to form nitrate aerosols. This secondary particulate matter accounts for approximately half of the fine particulates experienced in the Gateway Cities. For this study, a database of secondary particulate matter by grid cell was obtained from AQMD based on modeling performed for the MATES III study. Air Toxics Emissions The emissions inventories for air toxics were calculated based on emissions of total organic gases (TOG) and coarse and fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5, respectively). This calculation uses speciation profiles from ARB, which provide estimates of the chemical composition of emissions. The speciation profiles were applied to the TOG and particulate matter (PM) emission inventories and matched against each emissions source code, resulting in 2009 and 2035 emissions inventories for air toxics. A slightly different process was used for hexavalent chromium to reflect the latest research. ICF International 2 3 June 2013

29 Both the base year (2009) and future year (2035) emissions inventories are intended to reflect all the rules and regulations affecting emissions that have been adopted to date. Therefore, the emission inventory files received from AQMD were adjusted to account for several recent regulations that were not in force at the time AQMD originally develop the inventory. These regulations include the following: EPA s Locomotive Emission Standards ARB s In Use Off Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation ARB s Ocean Going Vessel (OGV) Diesel Auxiliary Engine At Berth Regulation ARB s OGV Main and Auxiliary Engine Low Sulfur Regulations ARB s Advanced Clean Cars Program International Maritime Organization s (IMO) North American Emission Control Area 2.2 Results for 2009 Table 2 2 shows the emission inventory for the base year (2009) for each criteria air pollutant by major source category. Base year emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) and NO X are dominated by on road vehicles, while most SO X emissions are from ships operating at the Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles. TOG emissions come primarily from area sources, such as solvent use, degreasing, and architectural coatings. PM10 emissions have large contributions from area sources, on road vehicles, and road dust. PM2.5 is dominated by area source emissions (much of it associated with commercial cooking) and on road vehicles. Table 2 2. Criteria Pollutant Emissions Used in the 2009 Air Quality Modeling of the Gateway Cities Study Area by Major Source Category (kilograms [kg]/day) Source Category CO NO X SO X TOG Lead PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources 27,364 22, , ,010 14,301 Point Sources 8,663 2, , ,717 1,534 On Road Vehicles 385, , , ,240 5,520 Aircraft 27,003 12,567 1,208 3, Airport Ground Support Equipment 8,496 1, Railyards 1,676 1, Trains 3,030 10, , Watercraft 58,795 46,156 7,993 13, ,195 1,994 Other Off Road Equip. 333,586 55, , ,393 3,000 Road Dust ,602 3,394 Total 853, ,578 11, , ,939 30,478 Table 2 3 shows the base year (2009) emission inventory for air toxics emissions. Benzene emissions come from a variety of source categories, with the single largest contributor being other off road ICF International 2 4 June 2013

30 equipment, particularly gasoline fueled construction equipment. Emissions of 1,3 butadiene are dominated by on road vehicles. Formaldehyde comes from a variety of source categories, with aircraft the single largest source but with many other categories contributing important amounts. Note that, like particulate matter, formaldehyde can also be formed through chemical reaction in the atmosphere. Arsenic emissions are dominated by point source emissions; within that category, glass manufacturing is responsible for more than half the emissions. Other significant sources of arsenic emissions are oil and gas extraction, foundry operations (castings), and battery recycling. Diesel particulate matter is dominated by two categories: on road heavy duty vehicles and off road construction vehicles and equipment. Hexavalent chromium originates both from point sources (mostly chrome electroplaters) and brake wear from on road vehicles. Table 2 3. Air Toxics Emissions Used in the 2009 Air Quality Modeling of the Gateway Cities Study Area by Major Source Category (kg/day) Source Category Benzene Butadiene Formaldehyde Arsenic DPM CR 6 Area Sources Point Sources On road Vehicles , Aircraft Airport Ground Support Equipment Railyards Trains Watercraft Other Off Road Equip ,533 0 Total 1, , , In addition to DPM, combustion of diesel fuel by locomotives produces emissions of benzene, butadiene, formaldehyde, and possibly arsenic. Because the cancer and chronic health risk assessment for diesel is based on whole diesel exhaust, the emissions reported here are for DPM only as a surrogate for whole diesel exhaust. 2.3 Results for 2035 Table 2 4 shows the 2035 emissions inventory for criteria pollutants. Because of regulations requiring cleaner vehicles, CO and NO X emissions will no longer be dominated by on road vehicle sources in the future. Ships will be the single largest source of NO X emissions in 2035, followed by other off road equipment. The regulations governing marine fuel sulfur levels will lead to large reductions in ship SO X emissions, such that ships will no longer be the single largest source of SO X by Emissions of TOG will continue to be dominated by area sources. PM10 emissions will see little net change compared to 2009 levels, with most continuing to come from area sources and road dust. PM2.5 in 2035 emissions will continue to be dominated by area sources, with significant contributions from road dust and onroad vehicles, but will be lower than in ICF International 2 5 June 2013

31 Table 2 4. Criteria Pollutant Emissions Used in the 2035 Air Quality Modeling of the Gateway Cities Study Area by Major Source Category (kg/day) Source Category CO NO X SO X TOG Lead PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources 27,923 17,472 1, , ,257 15,864 Point Sources 9,160 2, , ,915 1,715 On Road Vehicles 82,134 23, , ,078 3,176 Aircraft 31,528 13,756 1,324 4, Airport Ground Support Equipment 10, Railyards 15, Trains 5,298 12, , Watercraft 107,035 35, , ,284 1,831 Other Off Road Equip. 353,698 25, , , Road Dust ,602 3,394 Total 643, ,169 3, , ,886 27,482 Figure 2 2 illustrates the change in Gateway Cities criteria pollutant emissions from 2009 to In percentage terms, the largest drop is SO X emissions ( 67%), due largely to the ARB requirements for low sulfur marine fuels and change in operations at the ports. NO X emissions are also projected to drop steeply ( 51%), due largely to the federal emissions standards for heavy duty trucks that took effect beginning with model year 2010 vehicles. PM10 will see no net change in emissions because growth in area source emissions will offset reductions in mobile source emissions. Emissions of PM2.5 will decline slightly ( 10%); large reductions in PM2.5 emissions from vehicles and off road equipment will be partially offset by growth in area source emissions. Table 2 5 shows the change in criteria pollutant emissions between 2009 and ICF International 2 6 June 2013

32 Figure 2 2. Change in Gateway Cities Criteria Pollutant Emissions, 2009 to 2035 (all sources) 900, , , ,000 25% kg/day 500, , , ,000 51% 16% 100, % 67% 10% CO NOx SOX TOG PM10 PM2.5 Table 2 5. Difference in Criteria Pollutant Emissions between 2009 and 2035 for the Gateway Cities Study Area by Major Source Category (kg/day) Source Category CO NO X SO X TOG Lead PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources 560 5, , ,247 1,563 Point Sources , On Road Vehicles 302,985 89, , , ,344 1 Aircraft 4,525 1, Airport Ground Support Equipment 2, Railyards 14,137 1, Trains 2,269 1, Watercraft 48,240 10,611 7,567 2, Other Off Road Equipment 20,111 29, , ,249 2,075 Road Dust Total 210, ,409 7,450 42, ,996 1 The greater reduction in PM2.5 emissions for on road category is due the overall increase in brake wear emissions, which have a larger fraction in the coarse mode size category. 2 PM10 emissions from watercraft are projected to increase slightly while watercraft PM2.5 is projected to decrease slightly. The reason for this is as follows: There will be large reductions in PM emissions from ships and commercial boats (diesel fueled), which have about equal fractions of PM10 and PM2.5, while the pleasure craft emissions are projected to have a net growth in emissions. The vast majority of pleasure craft are non catalyst gasoline fueled, such that the ratio of PM10 to PM2.5 is much higher (about 1.5:1), leading to a net increase in PM10 while still having a decrease in PM2.5. ICF International 2 7 June 2013

33 Figure 2 3 provides more detail on the sources of Gateway Cities PM2.5 emissions in Area sources (shown in blue shades) contribute 58% of the PM2.5 emissions, with 26% coming from commercial charbroiling. Residential wood burning (fireplaces and wood stoves) contributes 7% of PM2.5 emissions, and building construction and demolition another 6%. Road dust, on road vehicles, and off road mobile sources will each contribute 12 13% of PM2.5 emissions in Figure 2 3. PM2.5 Emissions in 2035 by Source Type Off Road Mobile Sources 12% Road Dust 13% Commercial charbroiling 26% On Road Vehicles 12% Point Sources 6% Other Area Sources 9% Residential wood burning 7% Building construction and demolition 6% Residential natural gas combustion 4% Other wood burning 5% Table 2 6 shows the 2035 emissions inventory for air toxics. Compared to 2009, total benzene emissions will drop by 22%, with the contribution by source type similar to Butadiene emissions also decrease (13%), but the net reduction is small due to increases in aircraft and point sources. Formaldehyde emissions will drop across all categories, except aircraft, with the largest reduction from on road mobile source emissions. Arsenic emissions are forecast to increase by 16% due to growth in the point source emission inventory. Emissions of hexavalent chromium are projected to increase by about 28% for point sources and 7% for on road emissions (this is almost entirely from brake wear), with an overall increase of 15%. ICF International 2 8 June 2013

34 Table 2 6. Air Toxics Emissions Used in the 2035 Air Quality Modeling of the Gateway Cities Study Area by Major Source Category (kg/day) Source Category Benzene Butadiene Formaldehyde Arsenic DPM CR 6 Area Sources Point Sources On road Vehicles Aircraft Airport Ground Support Equipment Railyards Trains Watercraft E Other Off Road Equip E Total 1, , , In addition to DPM, combustion of diesel fuel by locomotives produces emissions of benzene, butadiene, formaldehyde, and possibly arsenic. Because the cancer and chronic health risk assessment for diesel is based on whole diesel exhaust, the emissions reported here are for DPM only as a surrogate for whole diesel exhaust. Table 2 7 shows the change in air toxics emission between 2009 and The largest changes are with the DPM emissions. Total DPM emissions will decline by more than 3,200 kg/day, or 69%, due mostly to the implementation of emission standards for diesel engines and the use of alternative fuels and power sources. DPM emissions from the other off road category (e.g., construction equipment) will drop by 90%. On road DPM emissions (i.e., heavy trucks) are also expected to drop about 46%, with the effect of emission standards partially offset by the projected 72% increase in on road diesel vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Railyard DPM emissions are 70% lower in 2035, and watercraft (ships) emissions are down 49%. Table 2 7. Difference in Air Toxic Emissions between 2009 and 2035 for the Gateway Cities Study Area by Major Source Category (kg/day) Source Category Benzene Butadiene Formaldehyde Arsenic DPM CR 6 Area Sources Point Sources On road Vehicles Aircraft Airport Ground Support Equipment Railyards N/A N/A N/A N/A 31 N/A Trains N/A N/A N/A N/A 182 N/A Watercraft Other Off Road Equip , Total , ICF International 2 9 June 2013

35 2.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were estimate for all sources in the study area. GHG emissions are reported in CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 e) by multiplying the emissions by their respective global warming potential value (1 for CO 2, 21 for CH 4, and 310 for N 2 O). For on road vehicles, CO 2 emission factors were obtained from EMFAC2011; vehicle emission factors for CH 4 and N 2 O were taken from the California Climate Action Registry s General Reporting Protocol. 4 Most off road GHG emissions were estimated from the criteria pollutant inventory on a grid cell and source category basis using the NO X to CO 2 ratios available in ARB s OFFROAD model. Because the OFFROAD model does not include emissions from locomotives, ships, and aircraft, the appropriate NO X to CO 2 ratios were obtained from EPA guidance. For all other emission sources, GHG emissions were estimated according to the method used to develop AQMD s Rule 1315 EIR/EIS GHG inventory. 5 This approach estimates GHG emissions based on the ratio of GHGs to SO x emissions, given that SO X emissions result primarily from sulfur contained in fossil fuels. Total Gateway Cities GHG emissions in 2009 are 39.5 million metric ton (MMT) per year. This represents about 8.6% of the State of California GHG emissions in By 2035, GHG emissions will fall approximately 25%, to 29.8 MMT per year. Figure 2 4 shows the major source types contributing to 2009 and 2035 GHG emissions. The single largest source of GHG emissions is light duty vehicles followed by electric power generation. These two categories alone are responsible from almost 60% of the GHG emissions in 2009 and 47% in Other large contributors are heavy duty vehicles, petroleum refining, and other stationary sources. ICF International 2 10 June 2013

36 Figure 2 4. GHG Emissions in 2009 and 2035 by Source 39.5 MMT Petroleum Refining 12% Other Off Road Sources 3% Other Stationary Sources 12% Electric Utilities 24% Railyards and Rail Lines 1% Heavy Duty Vehicles 8% Ports of LA and LB 1% Light Duty Vehicles 35% Airports 4% 25% 29.8 MMT Other Stationary Sources 15% Petroleum Refining 9% Electric Utilities 14% Other Off Road Sources 5% Railyards and Rail Lines 3% Ports of LA and LB 2% Light Duty Vehicles 33% Heavy Duty Vehicles 14% Airports 5% ICF International 2 11 June 2013

37 3. Current and Future Air Quality The emissions inventory described in Chapter 2 serves as an input to air quality modeling. Air quality refers to the concentration of pollutants in the atmosphere. The modeling results can be compared to federal and state air quality standards to identify potential problem locations and pollutants. The air quality modeling results also serve as an input to the health risk assessment discussed in Chapter 4. This chapter presents a brief description of the air quality modeling methodology and a summary of results. Detailed information on the methodology and results are contained in the Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment Report. Note that the AQAP study was not able to model or otherwise evaluate ground level ozone (smog) concentrations. Ozone formation is a regional phenomenon; for example, pollutants emitted in Los Angeles County affect ozone concentrations in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. The geographic scale necessary to accurately model ozone is much larger than the Gateway Cities study area, and such modeling was beyond the scope of the AQAP study. Region wide, ozone concentrations are expected to continue to decline due to reductions in emissions of ozone precursors (NOx and VOCs). 3.1 Methodology An air dispersion model combines information on emissions and their location with meteorological data to simulate how pollutants are mixed and dispersed after being released into the atmosphere. Air dispersion models simulate these physical processes using mathematical expressions. The quantity of emissions released from each sources is simulated in the air dispersion model as it is transported and mixed into the atmosphere to estimate the air concentrations of each pollutant. The predicted concentrations are reported at locations (called receptors) of interest within the study area. For the AQAP study, the CALPUFF model system was selected as the air dispersion model, in consultation with ARB and AQMD. CALPUFF was selected in part because of the model s ability to represent the complex wind patterns that occur in and around the Gateway Cities. CALPUFF also has the ability to simulate multiple air pollutants, and was considered to be the most appropriate choice of model given the size of the modeling domain (56 km by 56 km). To prepare the emission inventory files to use as inputs to CALPUFF, each emissions source type was characterized in terms of the typical release height (distance from the ground). Emissions are also characterized by the time of day of release. A key component of the CALPUFF model system is the California Meteorological (CALMET) model. CALMET prepares the meteorological inputs for running CALPUFF, including wind and temperature fields, mixing heights, and precipitation rates. The calibration of CALMET requires observations from meteorological stations in and around the Gateway Cities, collected over the period The performance of the model is then evaluated based on how well it replicates observed wind speeds and directions. Detailed information on the methodology and results of the air quality modeling is contained in the Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment Report. ICF International 3 1 June 2013

38 3.2 Criteria Pollutant Results Criteria pollutants are those with established air quality standards, so a first step in the analysis of air quality modeling results is a comparison to the relevant standards. Table 3 1 shows the current air quality modeling results as compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for each pollutant. For CO, lead, PM10, and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), the highest modeled concentrations in 2009 and 2035 do not exceed the federal standards. Therefore, the causes and impacts of these air pollutants were not subject to additional analysis. In 2035, the NAAQS would be exceeded at some receptors by the annual average PM2.5 and 1 hour nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) concentrations these values are shown in bold in the table. However, exceedances of the 1 hour NO 2 standard are limited to only five receptors, all located in the city of South Gate. Exceedances of the annual PM2.5 standard occur at 65 receptors, spread across multiple cities. Thus, because PM2.5 is the pollutant with greatest potential to violate federal air quality standards, and because the South Coast Air Basin is currently designated a Nonattainment Area for PM2.5, the remainder of this section focuses on changes and source contributions predicted for PM2.5. Table 3 1. Gateway City Criteria Air Pollutant Air Quality Concentrations in 2009 and 2035 Compared to National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Pollutant Averaging Time NAAQS Carbon Monoxide Highest Concentration in GCCOG hour 9 ppm 5.7 ppm 8.0 ppm 1 hour 35 ppm 20.5 ppm 25.2 ppm Lead Rolling 3 month average 0.15 μg/m μg/m μg/m 3 Nitrogen Dioxide PM2.5 1 hour 100 ppb 230 ppb 151 ppb Annual 53 ppb 148 ppb 25 ppb Annual 12 μg/m μg/m μg/m 3 24 hour 35 μg/m μg/m μg/m 3 PM10 24 hour 150 μg/m μg/m 3 86 μg/m 3 Sulfur Dioxide 1 hour 75 ppb 43 ppb 48 ppb Note: concentrations are expressed in parts per million (ppm), parts per billion (ppb), or micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) Figure 3 1 shows the modeled PM2.5 concentration in all of the Gateway City study area in 2009 and In 2009, the highest annual average PM2.5 concentration in the Gateway Cities is a little over 20 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ), shown in the red areas in Figure 3 1. These concentrations occur in both Vernon and Commerce. By 2035, most of the Gateway City study area is below the annual NAAQS of 12 μg/m 3. Concentrations in excess of this standard are shown in yellow in Figure 3 1, with the highest concentration (13.5 μg/m 3 ) found in South Gate. Concentrations above the standard also occur in parts of Bellflower, Downey, and Norwalk. Overall, the PM2.5 concentration averaged across the entire Gateway Cities will decrease from 14.5 μg/m 3 in 2009 to 11.4 μg/m 3 in 2035, a reduction of 21%. ICF International 3 2 June 2013

39 Figure 3 1. Estimated Annual Average PM2.5 Concentrations in 2009 and ICF International 3 3 June 2013

40 Figure 3 2 shows the emissions sources that contribute to the modeled PM2.5 concentrations in Nearly half (46%) of the PM2.5 in the atmosphere will be secondary PM particulates that are not directly emitted but rather are produced by chemical reactions in the atmosphere. About one quarter of the PM2.5 comes from area sources. Roadway dust and on road vehicles each contribute 12% of the PM2.5 concentration. Figure 3 2. Emission Source Contributions to PM2.5 Concentrations, 2035 Area Sources 24% Secondary Particulates 46% Roadway Dust 12% On Road Vehicles 12% Point Sources 2% Watercraft 2% Other Off Road Mobile Sources 2% Figures 3 3 and 3 4 show the annual average PM2.5 concentrations for each city and neighborhood in the Gateway Cities study area in 2009 and 2035, respectively. The colored components of each bar reflect the various sources that contribute to PM2.5 concentrations. Figure 3 3 shows that in 2009, average PM2.5 concentrations exceed the federal standard of 12 μg/m 3 in most of the sub region s cities and neighborhoods. By 2035 however, the average PM2.5 concentrations will be below the standard in every community. Note that these are city wide averages; as discussed above and shown in Figure 3 1, 2035 PM2.5 concentrations will still exceed 12 μg/m 3 in a few specific locations in Bellflower, South Gate, Downey, and Norwalk. Figure 3 4 shows that secondary PM remains the largest contributor to ambient PM2.5 concentrations in every community, ranging from 37 to 49% of the total PM2.5. The cities vary in terms of the relative contributions from other PM sources such as motor vehicles and watercraft. On road motor vehicles will contribute as much as 20% of the PM2.5 concentration in Commerce, Santa Fe Springs, and West Whittier Los Nietos; and as little as 7% in Walnut Park. Watercraft is the highest contributor to PM2.5 concentrations in Wilmington (11% of total PM2.5) followed by Long Beach (5%) and Signal Hill (4%). ICF International 3 4 June 2013

41 Figure 3 3. Estimated Annual Average PM2.5 Concentrations in the Gateway Cities in 2009 (μg/m 3 ) Artesia Bell Bell Gardens Bellflower Carson Cerritos Commerce Compton Cudahy Downey East La East Rancho Dominguez East Whittier Florence Graham Hawaiian Gardens Huntington Park La Habra Heights La Mirada Lakewood Long Beach Lynwood Maywood Montebello Norwalk Paramount Pico Rivera Santa Fe Springs Signal Hill South El Monte South Gate South Whittier Vernon Walnut Park West Rancho Dominguez West Whittier Los Whittier Wilmington Willowbrook PM2.5 NAAQS 12 µg/m 3 Area Sources Point Sources On Road Vehicles Watercraft Other Off Road Mobile Sources Roadway Dust Secondary Particulates ICF International 3 5 June 2013

42 Figure 3 4. Estimated Annual Average PM2.5 Concentrations in the Gateway Cities in 2035 (μg/m 3 ) Artesia Bell Bell Gardens Bellflower Carson Cerritos Commerce Compton Cudahy Downey East La East Rancho Dominguez East Whittier Florence Graham Hawaiian Gardens Huntington Park La Habra Heights La Mirada Lakewood Long Beach Lynwood Maywood Montebello Norwalk Paramount Pico Rivera Santa Fe Springs Signal Hill South El Monte South Gate South Whittier Vernon Walnut Park West Rancho Dominguez West Whittier Los Nietos Whittier Wilmington Willowbrook PM2.5 NAAQS 12 µg/m 3 Area Sources Point Sources On Road Vehicles Watercraft Other Off Road Roadway Dust Secondary Particulates ICF International 3 6 June 2013

43 3.3 Air Toxics Results Unlike the criteria air pollutants, air toxics are not subject to federal or state air quality standards. In order to assess the modeled air toxics concentrations, the analysis used nationwide and Los Angeles County average concentrations estimated for 2005 as part of EPA s National scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA). Table 3 2 shows this comparison in terms of both the maximum and annual average concentration within the Gateway City study area. The modeled 2009 Gateway City average concentrations are fairly similar to the 2005 Los Angeles County averages from the NATA, which suggests the AQAP study is producing reasonable results. The higher 2009 concentration of DPM in the Gateway Cities is to be expected, given the intensity of goods movement activity in the sub region. The 2009 Gateway Cities DPM concentration is about 5 times higher than the NATA national average. By 2035, Gateway Cities average concentrations of 1,3 butadiene, benzene, formaldehyde, and DPM will be significantly lower than 2009 levels. An exception is arsenic, which is projected to increase slightly. Note, however, that there is large uncertainty in the current and future estimates of arsenic emissions. The arsenic emissions in the 2009 emission inventory are based on AQMD estimates developed around Subsequent investigation by AQMD suggests that current arsenic emissions in the Gateway Cities are much lower, possibly due to closure of some glass manufacturing facilities or other industries. The estimate for arsenic emissions in the 2035 inventory assumes that the 2006 sources remain present in the sub region. It is quite possible that some large sources would relocate or close by Table 3 2. Gateway City Annual Average and Maximum Modeled Air Toxic Concentrations in 2009 and 2035 and the 2005 NATA National Average Concentration 2009 Concentration (μg/m 3 ) 2035 Concentration (μg/m 3 ) 2005 NATA Concentration (μg/m 3 ) Pollutant Average Maximum Average Maximum National Average LA County Average 1,3 Butadiene Benzene Formaldehyde Arsenic Diesel Particulate Matter Chromium Total chromium Diesel particulate matter is the primary driver of air pollution cancer risk. AQMD s MATES III study, for example, found that DPM was responsible for 82% of the air pollution cancer risk across the South Coast Air Basin. Therefore, the remainder of this section focuses on the atmospheric concentrations and source contributors to DPM. Figure 3 5 shows the DPM concentration for the Gateway City study area in 2009 and In 2009, the highest annual average DPM concentration in the Gateway Cities is 15.1 μg/m 3. The highest DPM concentrations occur along the I 710 near the junctions with I 5 and I 405, at the I 5/I 605 junction, and ICF International 3 7 June 2013

44 at the Ports. By 2035, most of the sub region will be exposed to levels of DPM of less than 1 μg/m 3. Relatively higher concentrations remain in the I 710 corridor. Averaged across the entire Gateway Cities, the concentration is predicted to drop from 4.0 μg/m 3 in 2009 to 0.9 μg/m 3 in 2035, a 78% reduction. Figure 3 5. Estimated Annual Average DPM Concentrations in 2009 and ICF International 3 8 June 2013

45 Figure 3 6 shows the contributors to ambient DPM concentrations in About half of the DPM concentration is due to emissions from activity associated with travel on roadways (virtually all from heavy trucks). Other off road sources (e.g., construction equipment) are responsible for 15% of the DPM. Locomotive emissions (rail lines) and rail yards contribute another 16%. Note that the contribution of on road vehicles (heavy trucks) to 2035 atmospheric DPM concentration (54%) is higher than the contribution of on road vehicles to the DPM emission inventory (38%) presented in Chapter 2. One reason for this is that point sources of DPM contribute relatively less to atmospheric concentrations because point source emissions are better dispersed than on road mobile sources due to their release from elevated stacks, higher exit velocities, and higher stack temperatures. Another reason is that DPM emissions from watercraft (ships) tend to occur farther away from the populated areas of the Gateway Cities, and thus contribute less to atmospheric concentrations in the sub region than their share of the emission inventory. As a result, on road vehicles (heavy trucks) have a disproportionately large contribution to DPM air pollution and health risk. Figure 3 6. Emission Source Contributions to DPM Concentrations, 2035 Area Sources 5% Point Sources 3% Rail Lines and Rail Yards 16% Other Off Road Mobile Sources 15% On Road Vehicles 54% Watercraft 7% There is large spatial variation in DPM concentrations within the Gateway Cities. Figures 3 7 and 3 8 show the DPM concentrations averaged by city and neighborhood for 2009 and 2035, respectively. The red line on these figures reflects the Gateway Cities average. In 2009, the highest city average DPM concentration occurs in Commerce (nearly 9 μg/m 3 ); East Los Angeles, Santa Fe Springs, and Vernon also have city average DPM concentrations over 6 μg/m 3. The communities with the lowest average DPM ICF International 3 9 June 2013

46 concentrations are La Habra Heights, East Whittier, Hawaiian Gardens, Lakewood, Walnut Park, and Whittier. In most cities, on road vehicles account for at least half of the DPM concentrations. Figure 3 7. Estimated Annual Average DPM Concentrations in the Gateway Cities in 2009 (μg/m 3 ) Artesia Bell Bell Gardens Bellflower Carson Cerritos Commerce Compton Cudahy Downey East La East Rancho Dominguez East Whittier Florence Graham Hawaiian Gardens Huntington Park La Habra Heights La Mirada Lakewood Long Beach Lynwood Maywood Montebello Norwalk Paramount Pico Rivera Santa Fe Springs Signal Hill South El Monte South Gate South Whittier Vernon Walnut Park West Rancho Dominguez West Whittier Los Nietos Whittier Wilmington Willowbrook Gateway City Average DPM Concentration 4.0 µg/m 3 Area and Point Sources On Road Vehicles Watercraft Rail Lines Railyards Other Off Road Mobile Sources By 2035, the average DPM concentrations are projected to drop dramatically compared to Most cities will see a four to five fold reduction in average DPM concentration. As in 2009, Commerce is projected to have the highest city wide average in 2035 (2.2 μg/m 3 ). Other communities projected to have higher than average DPM concentrations are East Los Angeles, Maywood, Santa Fe Springs, and West Whittier Los Nietos. On road vehicles will continue to be the largest contributor to DPM concentrations in nearly all cities. Although they will decline in terms of the magnitude of emissions, rail lines will be responsible for a larger share of DPM concentration in In percentage terms, rail lines will contribute the greatest share in East Whittier (29%), Florence Graham (28%), and Huntington Park (31%). Watercraft (primarily ICF International 3 10 June 2013

47 ocean going ships) will have the highest contribution to DPM concentrations in Wilmington (19%), Signal Hill (16%), and Long Beach (13%). Figure 3 8. Estimated Annual Average DPM Concentrations in the Gateway Cities in 2035 (μg/m 3 ) Artesia Bell Bell Gardens Bellflower Carson Cerritos Commerce Compton Cudahy Downey East La East Rancho Dominguez East Whittier Florence Graham Hawaiian Gardens Huntington Park La Habra Heights La Mirada Lakewood Long Beach Lynwood Maywood Montebello Norwalk Paramount Pico Rivera Santa Fe Springs Signal Hill South El Monte South Gate South Whittier Vernon Walnut Park West Rancho Dominguez West Whittier Los Nietos Whittier Wilmington Willowbrook Area and Point Sources On Road Vehicles Watercraft Rail Lines Railyards Gateway City Average DPM Concentration 0.9 µg/m 3 Other Off Road Mobile Sources ICF International 3 11 June 2013

48 ICF International 3 12 June 2013

49 4. Current and Future Health Impacts 4.1 Introduction Purpose This study includes a multi pathway human health risk assessment (HRA). A human health risk assessment is the process used to estimate the nature and probability of adverse health effects in humans who may be exposed to chemicals in contaminated environmental media. A human health risk assessment addresses questions such as these: What types of health problems may be caused by environmental stressors? What is the chance that people will experience health problems when exposed to different levels of environmental stressors? Is there a level below which some chemicals don't pose a human health risk? What environmental stressors are people exposed to and at what levels and for how long? The answers to these types of questions help decision makers, whether they are parents or public officials, understand the possible human health risks from environmental pollution. HRAs are useful tools for evaluating changes in public health risks that result from proposed policies or projects. The air quality analysis portion of this study (presented in Chapter 3) provides information about expected future improvements in air quality. The HRA provides information about the associated changes in public health risk for a subset of the pollutants of concern those for which there are wellestablished relationships between exposure concentrations and health risks. These include diesel particulate matter, benzene, 1,3 butadiene, formaldehyde, arsenic, hexavalent chromium, and PM2.5. This chapter presents a brief description of the HRA methodology and a summary of results. Detailed information on the methodology and results are contained in the Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment Report. Types of Health Risks For this study, air pollution health risks were estimated for the toxic air contaminants listed in Table 2 1. These toxic air contaminants may generate several different types of health risks. Acute health effects are characterized by sudden and severe exposure. Normally, a single large exposure is involved. Acute health effects are often reversible. Acute health risks that can result from exposure to air pollution include respiratory problems such as sensory irritation to the eyes and development problems such as decreased intellectual function in children. Chronic health effects are characterized by prolonged or repeated exposures over many days, months, or years. Symptoms may not be immediately apparent. Chronic health effects are often irreversible. Examples of chronic health risks that can result from exposure to air pollution are increased incidence of respiratory diseases such as lung inflammation, reproductive problems ICF International 4 1 June 2013

50 such as low fertility, and development problems such as decreased intellectual function in children. Cancer is one important type of chronic air pollution health risk. Cancer is a complex group of diseases with many possible causes. In addition to air pollution exposure other known causes of cancer are genetic factors; lifestyle factors such as tobacco use, diet, and physical activity; certain types of infections; and other environmental exposures to different types of chemicals and radiation. For this study, the potential lifetime cancer health risk from chronic exposure to air pollution was estimated. In addition to health risk from exposure to toxic air pollutants, this study also estimated health risks from inhalation of fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Three types of PM2.5 health risk were estimated. Mortality: the probability of premature death due to chronic inhalation exposure to PM2.5 for persons at least 30 years old. Cardiovascular disease: the probability of unscheduled hospitalization for cardiovascular problems due to short term inhalation exposure to PM2.5 for persons at least 65 years old. Respiratory disease: the probability of unscheduled hospitalization for respiratory problems due to short term inhalation exposure to PM2.5 for persons at least 65 years old. 4.2 Health Risk Assessment Process The health risk assessment process has three phases: problem formulation, analysis, and risk characterization. The first phase (problem formulation) comprises the initial planning and scoping activities and definition of the problem, which results in the development of a conceptual model. This phase included the selection of pollutants of potential health concern. These pollutants were selected based on the findings of studies conducted by AQMD, namely the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan and the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES III). The second phase (analysis) is divided into two general steps: exposure assessment and toxicity assessment. The exposure assessment for this study consisted of the air quality assessment, which estimated the annual average pollutant concentrations of six selected toxic air pollutants and PM2.5 at the center of each census block group in the Gateway Cities. For this study, it was assumed that residents are exposed to the ambient concentration at the center of their block group continuously for 350 days per year for 70 years. For those that work in the Gateway Cities but do not live there (i.e., offsite workers ) it was assumed that they are exposed only 8 hours per day, 245 days per year, for 40 years. Pollutant toxicity is typically characterized by a dose response relationship (that is, the relationship between exposure to an agent and incidence of an adverse health effect in exposed populations). In quantitative carcinogenic risk assessment, the dose response relationship is used to calculate the probability or risk of cancer associated with an estimated continuous lifetime dose or exposure concentration. A lifetime is assumed to be 70 years. It is assumed in cancer risk assessments that risk is ICF International 4 2 June 2013

51 directly proportional to dose (e.g., if you double the dose, the risk is doubled) and that there is no threshold for carcinogenesis (i.e., no matter how low the dose, there is still some non zero risk of cancer). California s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has compiled cancer potency factors, which are used in this study; they are listed in Table 4 1 along with corresponding values from the EPA. Table 4 1. Cancer Potency Factors from the OEHHA 7 and the EPA 8 Toxic Compound Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) OEHHA Risk Factor (risk per μg/m 3 ) OEHHA Cancer Slope (risk per mg/kg/day) EPA Risk Factor (risk per μg/m 3 ) EPA Equivalent Cancer Slope 1 (risk per mg/kg/day) 3.0E E+0 N/A N/A Benzene 2.9E E E 06 to 7.8E E 03 to 2.7E 02 1,3 Butadiene 1.7E E E E 01 Hexavalent Chromium 1.5E E E E+01 Formaldehyde (primary and secondary) 6.0E E E E 02 Arsenic (inorganic) 3.3E E E E+01 1 Calculated from EPA risk factor based on the ratio between OEHHA risk factor and OEHHA cancer slope (i.e., assuming the same breathing rate). In the third phase (risk characterization), a synthesis of the outputs of the exposure and toxicity assessments is used to characterize health risks. Cancer risk characterization consists of combining the 70 year average exposure concentration with either the cancer risk factor or the cancer slope factor. For this study, the estimated annual average concentration at the center of the block group is assumed to be the 70 year average exposure concentration (i.e., exposure is assumed to persist for 70 years). Calculating the non cancer chronic hazard index (CHI) is a two step process. First, the annual average concentration in the vicinity of the individual s residence is compared to the chronic reference exposure level (REL) to calculate the hazard quotient (HQ) for the pollutant. The REL is the threshold exposure concentration below which no health impact is likely. Thus, an HQ greater than 1.0 indicates that the exposure concentration exceeds the REL. The second step is to sum the hazard quotients for all pollutants impacting the same target organ to calculate the CHI. For the non cancer acute hazard index (AHI), the maximum 1 hour or 8 hour average concentration is compared to the corresponding acute REL. Chronic and acute REL values are used for the toxic air contaminants included in this study as compiled by OEHHA; they are shown in Table 4 2. ICF International 4 3 June 2013

52 Table 4 2. Reference Exposure Levels from the OEHHA 9 and Reference Concentrations from the EPA 10 Toxic Compound Type OEHHA REL (μg/m 3 ) EPA Reference Concentration (μg/m 3 ) Diesel Particulate Matter Chronic Benzene Acute 1,300 N/A Benzene Chronic ,3 Butadiene Chronic 20 2 Hexavalent Chromium Chronic (particles) Formaldehyde (primary and secondary) Acute 55 N/A 8 hour 9 N/A Chronic 9 N/A Arsenic (inorganic) Acute 0.2 N/A Arsenic (inorganic) 8 hour N/A Arsenic (inorganic) Chronic N/A In addition to the inhalation exposure pathway, arsenic can present a chronic health risk from the four exposure pathways: soil ingestion, dermal (skin) absorption, food ingestion, and water ingestion. This study used the arsenic multi pathway factors specified by SCAQMD for Rules 1401 and 212 analyses. For PM2.5, health risks dose response relationships were taken from epidemiological studies. Epidemiological studies relate the change in the number of adverse health effect incidences in a population to a change in pollutant concentration experienced by that population to develop a doseresponse relationship. For example, a dose response relationship for PM2.5 mortality used for this study was developed from a study of the distribution of PM2.5 concentrations and mortality in Los Angeles by Jerrett et al. (2005). 11 Details about the selection of the mortality risk dose response relationship, as well as the dose response relationships for cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease risk, are contained in the Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment Report. 4.3 Results of Cancer Risk Assessment Related to Air Quality Population cancer risk is typically expressed in terms of the potential health incidence per million people exposed. For example, a lifetime risk of 1 per million means that for every million people exposed over a lifetime, one cancer case is expected. Figure 4 1 presents the estimated potential air pollution lifetime cancer risks across the Gateway Cities for 2009 and As noted above, residential and sensitive receptors are assumed to be exposed 24 hours/day, 350 days per year, for 70 years. The estimated 2009 average lifetime cancer risk of 1,328 per million is reduced by 68% to 420 per million in The range of lifetime cancer risk related to air quality over all the Gateway Cities census block groups for 2009 is 444 to 5,032 per million, and for 2035 is 141 to 2,769 per million. The cancer risk values for offsite workers are approximately 80% lower than for residents, due to shorter lifetime exposure durations. Offsite workers are assumed to be exposed only 8 hours per day, 245 days per year, for 40 years. For 2009 the average lifetime cancer risk for offsite workers is 259 per million ICF International 4 4 June 2013

53 with a range of 87 to 983 per million. For 2035 the average lifetime cancer risk for offsite workers is 82 per million with a range of 27 to 541 per million. Figure 4 1. Gateway Cities potential air pollution lifetime cancer risk per million 6000 Lifetime Risk (per million) max average blue and red bars: average black line: maximum for any block group 0 Residential and Sensitive Receptors Offsite Worker Receptors Figure 4 2 presents a comparison of the Gateway Cities estimated cancer risks with estimates from other studies for other geographic areas. Although the estimates do not correspond exactly, since the model years and estimation methods differ, the comparison provides some perspective on the magnitude of air pollution lifetime cancer risk in the Gateway Cities. The 2009 estimated average and range of air pollution potential lifetime cancer risk for the Gateway Cities is similar to EPA s estimate for Los Angeles County based on EPA s NATA study, but the average is somewhat higher than AQMD s MATES III estimate for Los Angeles County. The 2009 estimated Gateway Cities average and range are higher than that for the other selected U.S. metropolitan counties, except for the five New York boroughs and Chicago s Cook County. However, the Gateway Cities 2035 average estimate is lower than the 2005 estimates for all of the other selected U.S. metropolitan counties, with a similar or lower range. ICF International 4 5 June 2013

54 Figure 4 2. Gateway Cities Residential Air Pollution Lifetime Cancer Risk in Comparison with Selected U.S. Urban Counties AQAP Analysis of Gateway Cities Gateway Cities: 2035 Gateway Cities: 2009 South Coast AQMD s MATES III Analysis (2005) Los Angeles (Los Angeles Co) South Coast Air Basin US EPA s National Air Toxics Assessment (2005)* Los Angeles (Los Angeles Co) Oakland (Alameda Co) San Francisco (San Francisco Co) Philadelphia (Philadelphia Co) Dallas (Dallas Co) Atlanta (Fulton Co) Boston (Suffolk Co) Chicago (Cook Co) Houston (Harris Co) District of Columbia New York (5 boroughs) 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 Risk per million * Values based on NATA estimated concentrations of diesel particulate matter, CR 6, arsenic, benzene, 1,3 butdiene, and formaldehyde (primary and secondary), combined with OEHHA cancer risk factors. Blue bar shows the average; black line shows the range for census block groups or census tracts. Figure 4 3 presents the contributions to the estimated average air pollution lifetime cancer risk from each pollutant for 2009 and In both 2009 and 2035, the risk is dominated by diesel particulate matter, contributing 89 and 69%, respectively. In 2009 each of the other pollutants contributes no more than 3% to the total risk. In 2035 the relative contribution from arsenic increases to 10%, primarily from glass manufacturing, and from CR 6 to 11%, primarily from brake wear. Note that further investigation into the CR 6 concentrations suggests that this risk may be overestimated. The chromium speciation data for brake wear has a high level of uncertainty, and comparison of air quality model output to monitor data suggest that the actual chromium concentrations and health risk are likely lower than the values modeled. Figure 4 4 presents the contributions to the estimated average air pollution lifetime cancer risk from each emission source category for 2009 and On road vehicles are responsible for 63% of the cancer risk in 2009, dropping to 54% by This reduction is due to both implementation of diesel vehicle emission reduction measures and the assumed construction of an I 710 zero emission truck freight corridor. Other off road mobile sources (e.g., construction equipment) will also decline in ICF International 4 6 June 2013

55 contribution, from 22 to 11%, as more stringent particulate emissions standards for diesel equipment take effect. Note that secondary formaldehyde is included as a separate emission source because it is formed in the atmosphere from precursor compounds that may originate anywhere in the region. In 2035 the point source contribution to cancer risk increases to 15%, primarily representing the arsenic emissions from glass manufacturing, oil and gas extraction, foundry operations (castings), and battery recycling. While the magnitude of emissions from all other source categories is projected to drop between 2009 and 2035, point source emissions are project to rise, and therefore they account for a significantly larger share of Gateway Cities cancer risk in Note that cancer risk from arsenic emissions includes both inhalation and non inhalation exposure pathways, as discussed in Section 4.2. ICF International 4 7 June 2013

56 Figure 4 3. Contributions to the Residential Average Air Pollution Lifetime Cancer Risk from Each Pollutant, 2009 and ,3 Butadiene 3% Benzene 2% Formaldehyde 1% Arsenic 2% Chromium 6 3% 1,3 Butadiene 4% Benzene 4% Formaldeh yde 2% Arsenic 10% Diesel Particulate Matter 89% 68% Diesel Particulate Matter 69% Chromium 6 11% Note: Chromium estimates include new brake wear PM emission data from EMFAC 2011 and chromium speciation data from ARB s PM Prof database. Chromium speciation data for this emission source has a high level of uncertainty. Model to monitor comparisons suggest that the risk may be overestimated. ICF International 4 8 June 2013

57 Figure 4 4. Contributions to Average Residential Air Pollution Lifetime Cancer Risk from Each Emission Source Category, 2009 and 2035 Watercraft 3% Railyard and Rail Lines 7% Secondary Formaldehyde 0.6% Other Off Road Mobile Sources 22% Area Sources 1% On Road Vehicles 63% Point Sources 4% 68% Other Off Road Mobile Sources 11% Watercraft 5% Secondary Formaldehy de 2% Railyard and Rail Lines 10% Area Sources 3% On Road Vehicles 54% Point Sources 15% ICF International 4 9 June 2013

58 Figure 4 5 uses color coding to present the spatial distribution of the estimated residential air pollution lifetime cancer risks across the census block groups of the Gateway Cities for 2009 and In 2009, risk in most of the Gateway Cities block groups is between 800 and 2,000 per million (color coded yellow). The highest air pollution potential cancer risks (i.e., greater than 3,000 per million; color coded red) occur in the vicinity of freeway interchanges, such as I 710 and I 5 (Commerce and East Los Angeles), I 710 and I 405 (Long Beach), I 605 and I 5 (Santa Fe Springs), I 605 and I 105 (Downey), and I 605 and SR 91 (Bellflower and Artesia). In 2035 estimated air pollution lifetime cancer risk is less than 800 per million in almost all Gateway Cities block groups (color coded light green or dark green). The exceptions are the same locations with the highest risk in But in 2035 those risks have been reduced to less than 2000 per million (colorcoded yellow), except for three block groups near the I 710 and I 405 interchange with risks between 2,000 and 3,000 per million (color coded orange). Figures 4 6 and 4 7 present the estimated average (blue bar) and range (black line) of residential air pollution lifetime cancer risk for each Gateway City for the 2009 and 2035 scenarios, respectively. Figure 4 6 shows that in 2009 many of the Gateway Cities have a large range of risk, indicating a great amount of spatial variation both between and within cities. In contrast, Figure 4 7 shows that in 2035 the risk level is more uniform throughout the Gateway Cities, with the exception of the small number of relatively high risk block groups in Long Beach. ICF International 4 10 June 2013

59 Figure 4 5. Residential Air Pollution Lifetime Cancer Risk by U.S. Census Block Groups in the Gateway Cities, 2009 and ICF International 4 11 June 2013

60 Figure Average and Range of Residential Air Pollution Lifetime Cancer Risk in the Gateway Cities GCCOG Average = 1328 GCCOG Average = 1328 ARTESIA LONG BEACH BELL LYNWOOD BELL GARDENS MAYWOOD BELLFLOWER MONTEBELLO CARSON NORWALK CERRITOS PARAMOUNT COMMERCE PICO RIVERA COMPTON SANTA FE SPRINGS CUDAHY SIGNAL HILL DOWNEY SOUTH EL MONTE EAST LOS ANGELES EAST RANCHO DOMINGUEZ SOUTH GATE SOUTH WHITTIER EAST WHITTIER VERNON FLORENCE GRAHAM HAWAIIAN GARDENS HUNTINGTON PARK LA HABRA HEIGHTS LA MIRADA LAKEWOOD WALNUT PARK WEST RANCHO DOMINGUEZ WEST WHITTIER LOS NIETOS WHITTIER WILLOWBROOK WILMINGTON Cancer Risk (per million) Cancer Risk (per million) ICF International 4 12 June 2013

61 Figure Average and Range of Residential Air Pollution Lifetime Cancer Risk in the Gateway Cities GCCOG Average = 419 ARTESIA BELL BELL GARDENS BELLFLOWER CARSON CERRITOS COMMERCE COMPTON CUDAHY DOWNEY EAST LOS ANGELES EAST RANCHO DOMINGUEZ EAST WHITTIER FLORENCE GRAHAM HAWAIIAN GARDENS HUNTINGTON PARK LA HABRA HEIGHTS LA MIRADA LAKEWOOD Cancer Risk (per million) GCCOG Average = 419 LONG BEACH LYNWOOD MAYWOOD MONTEBELLO NORWALK PARAMOUNT PICO RIVERA SANTA FE SPRINGS SIGNAL HILL SOUTH EL MONTE SOUTH GATE SOUTH WHITTIER VERNON WALNUT PARK WEST RANCHO DOMINGUEZ WEST WHITTIER LOS NIETOS WHITTIER WILLOWBROOK WILMINGTON Cancer Risk (per million) 4.4 Results of Non Cancer Risk Assessment Related to Air Quality As discussed in Section 4.1, non cancer health risks are categorized as acute or chronic. Chronic noncancer health effects can include respiratory problems such as lung inflammation, reproductive problems such as low fertility, and development problems such as decreased intellectual function in children. Acute health effects include respiratory problems such as irritation to the eyes and development problems such as decreased intellectual function in children. ICF International 4 13 June 2013

62 Non cancer health risk is expressed as the percentage of the residential population with chronic hazard index or acute health index greater than 1.0. Table 4 3 presents the estimated maximum residential chronic hazard indices (CHI) and populations with CHIs greater than 1.0 in the Gateway Cities for 2009 and For respiratory impacts in 2009, the fraction of the population with CHI greater than 1.0 is 40%, but this risk is reduced in 2035 by more than 99%. For developmental impacts, the CHI is greater than 1.0 for the entire Gateway Cities population for both 2009 and In contrast, the estimated reproductive CHI is below 1.0 for the entire Gateway Cities population for both 2009 and Table 4 3. Gateway Cities Chronic Hazard Indices (CHI) Year Population Fraction with CHI > 1.0 Residential and Sensitive Receptors Respiratory Developmental 1 Reproductive Maximum Population Fraction with CHI > 1.0 Maximum Population Fraction with CHI > 1.0 Maximum % % 46 0% % % 53 0% Change in Population or Maximum Risk 99% 45% 0% +15% n/a 3% Note (1): Developmental risk may be significantly overstated. See report text for details. The summary results presented above suggest that developmental problems are currently the most significant chronic non cancer health risk associated with air toxics. Nearly 100% of this health risk is caused by arsenic, with 94% coming from point sources, 4% from airports, and 2% from other sources. It is important to note, however, that there is a large uncertainty associated with development CHI, and the actual risk may be significantly lower than that presented in Table 4.3. The arsenic emissions in the 2009 emission inventory are based on AQMD estimates developed around Subsequent investigation by AQMD suggests that current arsenic emissions in the Gateway Cities are much lower, possibly due to closure of some glass manufacturing facilities or other large sources. The estimate for arsenic emissions in the 2035 inventory assume that the 2006 emissions remain constant, and more residents are exposed as the population of the Gateway Cities grows. It is quite possible that some large sources facilities would relocate or close by Another large source of uncertainty in the development CHI estimates is the use of the multi pathway factor for arsenic. As noted in Section 4.2, the health risk calculations for arsenic assume human exposure occurs not just through inhalation but also through soil ingestion, skin absorption, food ingestion, and water ingestion. The arsenic multi pathway factor specified by AQMD for chronic noncancer health risk is 40.87, meaning that the resulting risk is approximately 41 times higher than it would be if only inhalation were considered. While this approach is consistent with current AQMD guidance, the multi pathway factor has a large uncertainty, and the CHI results are thus highly uncertain. Table 4 4 shows the estimated 2009 and 2035 maximum residential acute hazard indices (AHI) and populations with AHIs greater than 1.0 for both the 1 hour and 8 hour concentrations. For sensory ICF International 4 14 June 2013

63 irritation, the fraction of the population with 1 hour average AHI greater than 1.0 is low for both 2009 and 2035: 3.3 and %, respectively. Nearly the entire Gateway Cities population (92%) has an 8 hour sensory irritation AHI greater than 1.0, but the population fraction is reduced to just 2% in For developmental impacts in both 2009 and 2035, the fraction of the population with 1 hour average AHIs greater than 1.0 is low: 1.9 and 2.5%, respectively. The corresponding values for the 8 hour average AHIs are much higher: 40 and 48%, respectively. In both cases the increase in the populations at risk between 2009 and 2035 results from projected growth in arsenic emissions. The estimated 1 hour reproductive AHI is well below 1.0 for the entire Gateway Cities population for both 2009 and Table 4 4. Gateway Cities Acute Hazard Indices (AHI) Year Sensory Irritation Developmental 1 Reproductive Population Fraction with AHI > 1.0 Maximum 1 hour Average Concentration Maximum Population Fraction with AHI > 1.0 Maximum Population Fraction with AHI > 1.0 Maximum % % 4.8 0% % % 4.8 0% 0.13 Change in Population or Maximum Risk Maximum 8 hour Average Concentration 100% 59% 32% 0% n/a 9% % % 25 n/a n/a % % 25 n/a n/a Change in Population or Maximum Risk 98% 45% +20% 0% n/a n/a Note (1): Developmental risk may be significantly overstated. See report text for details. As with the CHI, the acute developmental impacts are subject to large uncertainty, and the actual risk may be significantly lower than that presented in Table 4.4. Figure 4 8 presents the spatial distribution of the estimated developmental CHI across the census block groups of the Gateway Cities for 2009 and In both 2009 and 2035, the CHI in most of the Gateway Cities block groups is between 1.0 and 5.0. The highest respiratory CHI (i.e., greater than 15) occurs in the vicinity of Maywood, Commerce, Huntington Park, East Los Angeles, and Downey, as well as a small section of Long Beach. In 2035, this high developmental CHI also occurs in parts of Bell, Vernon, and Carson. ICF International 4 15 June 2013

64 Figure 4 8. Estimated Developmental Chronic Hazard Index by U.S. Census Block Groups, 2009 and ICF International 4 16 June 2013

65 4.5 PM2.5 Health Risk Assessment Results As discussed in Section 4.1, inhalation of fine particulate matter can result in premature death (mortality), respiratory disease, and cardiovascular disease. Like cancer risk, PM2.5 health risk is expressed in terms of the potential health incidence per million people exposed. Figure 4 9 shows the estimated 2009 and 2035 PM2.5 health risks across the Gateway Cities. For annual mortality (premature death) to persons at least 30 years old, the Gateway Cities average risk per million drops from 503 in 2009 to 208 in 2035, a 57% reduction. The maximum risk represents the single highest block group in the Gateway Cities; the maximum risk drops 80% between 2009 and The risk for PM2.5 to cause unscheduled cardiovascular hospitalization to persons at least 65 years old is projected to be 271 per million in 2035, averaged across the entire sub region. The average risk for unscheduled respiratory hospitalizations among residents age 65 and older is 174 per million. For both types of hospitalizations, the Gateway Cities average risk drops 9% between 2009 and 2035 and the maximum risk (single highest block group) is reduced by 44%. Figure 4 9. Estimated Gateway Cities Annual Mortality and Hospitalization Risk from PM2.5 Inhalation Annual Risk (per million) maximum (single highest block group) sub region average Mortality (30+) Respiratory Hospitalization (65+) Cardiovascular Hospitalization (65+) The remainder of this section presents more detail about PM2.5 mortality risk for people age 30 or older. Figure 4 10 presents the contributions to the estimated annual PM2.5 mortality and morbidity risks from each emission source category for 2009 and In both years, the risks are dominated by secondary PM2.5, which is formed in the atmosphere from precursor compounds that may be emitted from any locations in the region, not necessarily in the Gateway Cities. Much of the secondary PM in the Gateway Cites is formed from the oxidation of SO X, which can result in sulfuric acid or ammonium sulfate. Other secondary PM is formed when NO X emissions react with atmospheric ammonia, oxygen, and water vapor to form nitrate aerosols. In 2035, on road vehicle exhaust and dust each contribute 12% of the risk. ICF International 4 17 June 2013

66 Figure Contributions to the Estimated PM2.5 Annual Mortality and Hospitalization Risk from Each Emission Source Category, 2009 and 2035 Secondary Particulates 51% Area Sources 18% Point Sources 1% Roadway Dust 9% On Road Vehicles 15% Watercraft 1% Other Off Road Mobile Sources 5% 57% Secondary Particulate s 46% Roadway Dust 12% Area Sources 24% On Road Vehicles 12% Point Sources 2% Other Off Road Mobile Sources 2% Watercraft 2% ICF International 4 18 June 2013

67 Figure 4 11 presents the spatial distribution of the PM2.5 annual mortality risks across the census block groups of the Gateway Cities for 2009 and In 2009, the highest risks (i.e., greater than 750 per million) occur along the I 5, I 605, I 105, I 710 and SR 91. North of SR 91, much of the sub region has PM2.5 mortality risk over 500 per million. By 2035, all of the Gateway Cities census block groups will have a PM2.5 mortality risk of less than 400 per million. The highest 2035 risk locations occur mostly in La Habra Heights, Bellflower, and South Gate. Figures 4 12 and 4 13 show the average PM2.5 annual mortality risk by individual city and neighborhood for 2009 and 2035, respectively. The blue bars depict the city average risk; the black bars show the minimum and maximum value within that city. The values are compared against the risk corresponding to the current NAAQS and California Air Quality Standard (CAAQS) for PM2.5 of 318 per million, shown with the red dashed line. In 2009, many of the Gateway Cities have an average risk greater than the current NAAQS and CAAQS level, and all but three cities (Hawaiian Gardens, Lakewood, and Signal Hill) have a maximum (i.e., at least one census block group) that exceeds the NAAQS and CAAQS level of 318 premature deaths per million. By 2035, every city and neighborhood in the Gateway Cities has an average PM2.5 mortality risk that is less than the current NAAQS and CAAQS. Maximum risk values slightly exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS in hot spot locations in a few communities such as La Habra Heights, Bellflower, and South Gate. ICF International 4 19 June 2013

68 Figure Estimated PM2.5 Annual Mortality Risk for the 30+ Population by U.S. Census Block Groups, 2009 and ICF International 4 20 June 2013

69 Figure Average and Range of PM2.5 Annual Mortality Risk for the 30+ Population in the Gateway Cities BELL GARDENS BELLFLOWER EAST LOS ANGELES EAST RANCHO DOMINGUEZ EAST WHITTIER FLORENCE GRAHAM HAWAIIAN GARDENS HUNTINGTON PARK LA HABRA HEIGHTS NAAQS/CAAQS Risk = 318 ARTESIA BELL CARSON CERRITOS COMMERCE COMPTON CUDAHY DOWNEY LA MIRADA LAKEWOOD Annual Mortality Risk (per million) LONG BEACH LYNWOOD MAYWOOD MONTEBELLO NORWALK PARAMOUNT PICO RIVERA SANTA FE SPRINGS SIGNAL HILL SOUTH EL MONTE SOUTH GATE SOUTH WHITTIER VERNON WALNUT PARK WEST RANCHO DOMINGUEZ WEST WHITTIER LOS NIETOS WHITTIER WILLOWBROOK WILMINGTON NAAQS/CAAQS Risk = Annual Mortality Risk (per million) ICF International 4 21 June 2013

70 Figure Average and Range of PM2.5 Annual Mortality Risk for the 30+ Population in the Gateway Cities NAAQS/CAAQS Risk = 318 NAAQS/CAAQS Risk = 318 ARTESIA BELL BELL GARDENS BELLFLOWER CARSON CERRITOS COMMERCE COMPTON LONG BEACH LYNWOOD MAYWOOD MONTEBELLO NORWALK PARAMOUNT PICO RIVERA SANTA FE SPRINGS CUDAHY SIGNAL HILL DOWNEY SOUTH EL MONTE EAST LOS ANGELES EAST RANCHO DOMINGUEZ EAST WHITTIER SOUTH GATE SOUTH WHITTIER VERNON FLORENCE GRAHAM HAWAIIAN GARDENS HUNTINGTON PARK LA HABRA HEIGHTS WALNUT PARK WEST RANCHO DOMINGUEZ WEST WHITTIER LOS NIETOS WHITTIER LA MIRADA WILLOWBROOK LAKEWOOD Annual Mortality Risk (per million) WILMINGTON Annual Mortality Risk (per million) ICF International 4 22 June 2013

71 4.6 Equity Analysis The AQAP study assessed the extent to which air pollution health risk falls disproportionately on disadvantaged populations in the Gateway Cities. To conduct this assessment, the Gateway Cities population was divided into quarters according to risk. The demographic parameters used to identify potentially disadvantaged populations are as follows: Minority race or ethnicity No high school diploma for persons older than 25 Limited or no English speaking ability Household income below the poverty level Population younger than 18 Population older than 65 Figure 4 14 presents the demographic distribution of the estimated air pollution cancer risk among the Gateway cities population for the 2009 and 2035 scenarios. In each chart, the leftmost set of bars shows the demographic composition of the 25% of the population with the highest risk, while the rightmost set of bars reflects the 25% of the population with the highest risk. In both 2009 and 2035, for each risk quartile, the proportion of the population in each demographic category is similar. This suggests there is little evidence of disproportionate cancer risk for disadvantaged populations in either year, particularly with respect to minority status, income, and seniors. An exception is the somewhat lower fraction of low education and limited English in the lowest risk group compared to the other 3 groups. ICF International 4 23 June 2013

72 Figure Demographic Distribution of the Estimated Residential Air Pollution Lifetime Cancer Risk Among the Gateway Cities Population, 2009 and Population Percentage 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 25% of Population with Highest Risk Risk per million Risk per million Risk per million 25% of Population with Lowest Risk Risk per million Minority No HS diploma (25+) Limited or no English (5+) Below poverty Under 18 Over Population Percentage 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 25% of Population with Highest Risk Risk per million Risk per million Risk per million 25% of Population with Lowest Risk Risk per million 4.7 Uncertainty Every step in the emissions analysis, air quality modeling, and health risk assessment is subject to some degree of uncertainty. There are two general approaches to assessing uncertainty. One approach is to quantify the uncertainty of each component of the analysis and try to determine its impact on the uncertainty of the resulting risk estimate in other words, a bottom up approach. For example, the uncertainties of the emissions estimates, the representativeness of the meteorological data, the air dispersion modeling algorithms, and the toxicity factors could all be estimated separately. These uncertainty estimates could then be combined to provide an estimate of the uncertainty of the health risk predictions. However, combining the separate uncertainty estimates is generally very difficult to do: the uncertainty of any one component can have a non linear effect on the risk estimate. Moreover, both cancer and non cancer dose response assessments account for several sources of uncertainty in the development of cancer and non cancer toxicity factors. Adjustments for these uncertainties are incorporated directly into the estimates to make them more health protective in other words, they are more likely to overestimate than underestimate health risk. For cancer risk, this is accomplished by using the 95th percentile upper bound estimate and by applying age dependent adjustment factors. For non cancer reference concentrations, uncertainty factors are applied to adjust for uncertainties inherent in various required extrapolations and other data limitations. Because the ICF International 4 24 June 2013

73 uncertainty is incorporated into the factor itself instead of being quantified separately, it would be difficult to combine the uncertainty of this component with that of other components Another approach is to estimate uncertainty in an integrated way by comparing model predictions to measured values in other words, a top down approach. This is not a practical approach for evaluating the health risk estimate itself because reliable methods do not currently exist for attributing observed health outcomes to specific risk factors such as environmental hazards. However, such a top down approach can be done with air quality predictions by comparing with monitored air quality values. An air quality model to monitor comparison integrates the uncertainty due to emissions source activity estimates, emission factor estimates, meteorology characterization, and dispersion modeling algorithms. A monitor to model comparison was conducted for the AQAP study and is described in the Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment Report. The overall conclusion from the comparison is that the Gateway City modeling shows good overall model performance for most air contaminants and that future year modeling using this modeling system should provide good indication of the expected air quality in the Gateway Cities. In terms of the toxicity factors, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has estimated an uncertainty range for DPM cancer risk that suggests that the recommended value used for this study could range from an overestimate by a factor of 2.5 to an underestimate by a factor of 5. Moreover, OEHHA derived their carcinogenic risk factors as 95 th percentile upper confidence limits. That is, the values are deliberately conservatively estimated so as to be much more likely to be overestimates of the true mean values rather than underestimates. Uncertainty can be assessed by comparison to other studies. The AQAP estimates of potential lifetime cancer risk for the Gateway Cities were compared with estimates for Los Angeles County from AQMD s MATES III study and EPA s NATA study, as shown in Figure 4 2. For both the MATES III and NATA studies, the modeling domain was larger than for this study and the modeled year earlier. Nevertheless, the comparison can provide a rough indication of the uncertainty of the estimates. The 2009 Gateway Cities average potential cancer risk estimate was 1,343 per million. The values for Los Angeles County for 2005 were 1,152 from NATA (14% lower) and 912 from MATES III (32% lower). Given the discrepancies in modeling domain and model year, the results are in reasonably good agreement. The AQAP study also included an analysis of the combined uncertainties in the peer reviewed health studies that were used estimate PM2.5 mortality risk. This analysis used a Monte Carlo simulation approach, and is presented as Appendix B in the Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment Report. This analysis suggests that the estimates of PM2.5 mortality based on the Jerrett et al. (2005) study are more likely to be overestimates than underestimates. Based on 95% probability intervals, the uncertainty of overall PM2.5 mortality estimates would range from an overestimate by a factor of about 15 to an underestimate by a factor of about 7. ICF International 4 25 June 2013

74 ICF International 4 26 June 2013

75 5. Toolkit of Measures to Further Improve Air Quality 5.1 Introduction The air quality modeling and health risk assessment presented in Chapters 3 and 4 show the major improvements expected to occur in the Gateway Cities between 2009 and The gains are a product of the emissions and fuel standards being implemented at federal, state, and regional levels as well as programs, investments, and advocacy spearheaded by the Ports, the GCCOG, AQMD, and Metro. Although these improvements are substantial, the results show that some adverse health impacts from air pollution will persist in the Gateway Cities in This chapter discusses some additional control measures that can further improve air quality and reduce health risk in 2035, which were vetted in the AQAP community participation process. For the purposes of developing the AQAP, New Measures were defined as regulations, policies, programs, or investments that will reduce emissions, can be implemented by 2035, and are not currently required as part of existing rules and regulations. New Measures could require implementation by state, regional, or local agencies. This section describes these measures and documents the expected 2035 emission reductions, costs, and cost effectiveness of selected New Measures, as well as implementation steps. In addition to these measures with long term benefits, this chapter also describes several near term measures under local control that can be implemented immediately. These Early Action Items were developed as part of the Early Action Plan Report and could be implemented immediately or within a very short time horizon. Taken together, the New Measure and the Early Action Items, as well as related documents and resources, constitute a toolkit available to the GCCOG members, other public agencies, community groups, and businesses that are interested in furthering air quality and public health improvements in the Gateway Cities. This toolkit should be considered a living resource, to be expanded and refined over time as new measures and programs are identified and recommended measures are implemented. The New Measure and the Early Action Items are not an obligation or a requirement for local communities, GCCOG, or other agencies to implement. Process for Selection of New Measures There are likely hundreds of opportunities for further reducing emissions and improving future air quality in the Gateway Cities. This study focuses on a relatively small set of measures considered to offer the greater potential benefit in The selection of these measures began with the identification of the pollutants of greatest concern, based on the air quality modeling and health risk assessment results. These pollutants are: Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5). As presented in Chapter 4, PM2.5 contributes to significant mortality (premature death) and morbidity (unscheduled hospitalization) effects. The concentrations of PM2.5 exceed the EPA s standard (12 μg/m 3 ) in some locations in the Gateway Cities. ICF International 5 1 June 2013

76 Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM). DPM is by far the greatest contributor (68%) to air pollution cancer risk in GCCOG in Nitrogen Oxides (NO X ). NO X is the primary contributor to ozone, which remains Southern California s greatest air quality challenge. Although ozone formation is a regional phenomenon and was not within the scope of the AQAP, reducing NO X is a key objective in the development of new control measures. The 2012 Air Quality Management Plan indicates that the region must reduce NO x emissions by about 65% by 2023, and 75% by 2032, to attain the national ozone standards as required by federal law. 12 NO X emissions also contribute to the formation of secondary PM2.5; secondary particulates will account for about half of the atmospheric concentration of PM2.5 in the Gateway Cities in Other Air Toxics, particularly Arsenic. Arsenic accounts for 10% of 2035 air pollution cancer risk across the entire Gateway Cities, and is also responsible for chronic developmental problems that will be the most significant non cancer health risk associated with air toxics in The full process used to identify the recommended new measures involved the following steps: 1. Evaluate the air quality modeling and health risk assessment to understand pollutants and emissions sources of concern. 2. Identify the largest contributors to 2035 air pollution and health risk. 3. Identify potential new measures that target these large contributors. 4. Review past and on going work on emission reduction measures in order to assess progress to date. 5. Prepare an initial list of potential New Measures; 53 were identified. 6. Convene a workshop to receive stakeholder input on the candidate measure list. 7. Screen potential new measures based on emission source size (kilograms per day), estimated emission control effectiveness, and ease of implementation; a set of 18 measures for analysis were recommended as part of the AQAP public participation process. 8. Analyze candidate New Measures in terms of expected emission reductions, costs, and costeffectiveness. The selection and analysis of New Measures is discussed in detail in the New Measures Analysis Report (2013). In addition to the New Measures for improving air quality in 2035, the AQAP study assessed near term measures under local control. These early actions were developed through consultation with local governments and other stakeholder groups that focused on how the early action strategies could be successfully implemented at the local level. Full details on these measures are contained in the Early Action Plan. ICF International 5 2 June 2013

77 Summary List of New Measures Through the processes outlined above, 18 recommended new measures were identified, grouped under 7 goals via consensus by the stakeholders. Table 5 1 lists these goals and recommended measures. Table 5 1. Recommended New Measures by Strategy Type Goal 1. Reduce Particulate Emissions from Charbroiling and Wood Burning 2. Control Dust Emissions Measure Name Adopt New Charbroiling Emission Controls Require Low Emission Fireplaces and Woodstoves Expand Municipal Street Sweeping to Reduce Road Dust Implement Best Management Practices to Reduce Road Dust from Construction Expand Rules and Best Management Practices to Reduce Dust from Building Construction and Demolition Primary Pollutants Affected PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 PM Reduce Arsenic Emissions Adopt New Rules for Glass Manufacturing Arsenic 4. Accelerate Deployment of Lowand Zero Emission Trucks 5. Accelerate Deployment of Lowand Zero Emission Goods Movement Equipment 6. Further Reduce Ocean Going Vessel Emissions 7. Implement Other Near Term Measures under Local Control Encourage Zero Emission Port Trucks DPM, NO X Encourage Low Emission Trucks in Gateway Cities Communities Provide Alternative Fuel Infrastructure for Trucks Replace Diesel Yard Hostlers with Hybrid and Electric Alternatives DPM, NO X DPM, NO X DPM, NO X Electrify Rubber Tire Gantry Cranes DPM, NO X Promote Zero Emission Transport Refrigeration Units Expand Control of At Berth Ship Emissions Develop and Deploy Clean Ship Engine Technologies Require Low Emission Equipment for Public Construction Contracts DPM, NO X DPM, NO X DPM, NO X DPM, NO X Enforce Anti Idling Regulations DPM, NO X Reduce Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Diesel Exhaust Expand Air Quality Monitoring along the I 710 Corridor DPM Multiple ICF International 5 3 June 2013

78 5.2 Goal 1: Reduce Particulate Emissions from Charbroiling and Wood Burning Commercial charbroiling and wood burning are major contributors to PM2.5 in the Gateway Cities, and will continue to be so without additional control measures. Together, these sources are projected to contribute 37% of all primary PM2.5 emissions in Measure: Adopt New Charbroiling Emission Controls Overview Restaurants will remain a significant source of PM2.5 emissions in the Gateway Cities in Of all primary PM2.5 emissions, commercial charbroiling accounts for 26% of these emissions, or 7,234 kilograms per day. Emissions from charbroiling come primarily from two types of sources, chain driven (conveyorized) charbroilers and under fired charbroilers. Chain driven charbroilers have been regulated since 1999 and represent a small share of total emissions. Under fired charbroilers currently are responsible for approximately 89% of the emissions from commercial charbroiling. 13 Without further control, PM2.5 emissions from under fired charbroilers are projected to be 6,455 kilograms per day, or approximately 23% of all primary PM2.5 emissions in the Gateway Cities in AQMD has proposed an amendment to Rule 1138 that would apply to new and existing under fired charbroilers in the South Coast Air Basin. This rule would require pollution control equipment that would reduce PM2.5 emissions by a least 85% from under fired charbroilers. TOG emissions reductions would also result from this rule. Potential technologies to reduce charbroiling emissions include high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters, wet scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators, and ultra violet light technologies. Initial analysis from AQMD suggests that scrubbers may be the most effective technology, although more comprehensive tests of all of these technologies are ongoing. 14 AQMD s proposed Amended Rule 1138 would apply to new and existing under fired charbroilers that cook 1,250 or more pounds of beef per week on a 3 month rolling average. For the entire South Coast Air Basin, this rule was estimated to affect 930 of the 13,300 restaurants using under fired charbroilers. The rule would thus reach 7% of the restaurants using under fired charbroilers; these restaurants are responsible for 22% of the emissions from charbroiling. Emissions Benefits The benefits of this measure could be substantial. It is assumed the rule would apply to 22% of the total emission inventory for restaurants using under fire charbroiling in the Gateway Cities (6,455 kilograms per day), similar to the South Coast Air Basin overall. Assuming that control technologies reduce 85% of ICF International 5 4 June 2013

79 these emissions, this measure would reduce PM2.5 emissions by 1,207 kilograms per day in 2035, which is about a 19% reduction in emissions from charbroiling from the 2035 baseline inventory. Cost and Cost Effectiveness AQMD has estimated that scrubber technologies have an equipment cost of $32,350 per unit. The installation cost for new facilities is $1,300 and $5,500 for retrofit of an existing facility. Annual operating and maintenance costs for scrubber systems are $3,300. Equipment and installation costs may vary for specific restaurants. AQMD has assumed the emission control equipment would have a 10 year lifetime. New installations have a cost effectiveness of $7,850 per ton of PM2.5 removed, while retrofits have a cost effectiveness of $8,400 per ton removed. Table 5 2. Summary of Impact of Charbroiling Measure on Gateway Cities, 2035 PM2.5 Emissions from Under fired Charbroiling Percent of Emission Sources Affected by Measure Control Technology Effectiveness 2035 Emissions Reductions of PM2.5 Cost Effectiveness 6,455 kg/day 22% 85% 1,207 kg/day $7,850 $8,400 per ton Implementation Steps AQMD would lead implementation of this measure through adoption and enforcement of the proposed Amended Rule The Gateway Cities could play a role by advocating for its implementation. Local communities could also use permitting to require the reduction of emissions from new or existing restaurants. The basic technologies needed to implement this strategy are known. There is ongoing research on the cost effectiveness of different technologies. The next step is to document which technologies are most effective with rigorous tests. It appears likely that this could be completed in the next year. Once costeffectiveness has been demonstrated, implementation of the strategy could occur relatively quickly. A 5 year timeline for implementation of this rule may be feasible. Measure: Require Low Emission Fireplaces and Woodstoves Overview Residential wood combustion in wood stoves and fireplaces is another large source of PM2.5 emissions in the Gateway Cities. Fireplaces and woodstoves are the second largest area component of PM2.5 emissions, contributing 12% of the projected 2035 emissions. Total emissions are expected to be 1,875 kilograms per day in 2035, if not controlled. AQMD passed Rule 445 in March 2008, requiring that EPA certified woodstoves and fireplaces be installed in all new construction in the South Coast Air Basin. In addition, after 2011, no vendor is allowed to sell a non EPA ICF International 5 5 June 2013

80 certified woodstove. 15 One option to further reduce wood combustion emissions is to adopt Oregon s approach to woodstoves and fireplaces in existing homes. Oregon requires all homeowners selling a property with a woodstove or fireplace to ensure that it is EPA certified prior to any sale. EPA certified woodstoves reduce fine particle emission more than 70%. 16 The two types of EPA certified woodstoves are catalytic stoves and non catalytic stoves. The catalytic stoves have a ceramic catalyst to help burn smoke and waste gases; non catalytic stoves use baffles and air supply designs to burn waste gases more efficiently. While the catalytic stoves are more efficient, the catalysts need to be replaced periodically to maintain a high performance. 17 Emissions Benefits While each EPA certified woodstove has a slightly different efficiency, the average PM2.5 emission reduction is estimated at 70% per unit. This measure would affect approximately 80% of the housing units in the Gateway Cities over the next 25 years based on historic purchase and sales behavior. 18,19,20 Thus, this measure would reduce emissions from residential wood burning by approximately 56%, or a PM2.5 emission reduction of 1,050 kilograms per day. Cost and Cost Effectiveness The average cost of a woodstove is $1,900 (up to a maximum of $4,500), with an additional $1,200 in piping and installation/labor. For a fireplace insert, the average cost is $2,500 (maximum of $4,500), also with an additional $1,200 for piping and installation/labor. 21 An additional cost for those who install a catalytic woodstove would be replacing the catalytic combustor every 6 8 years, at a cost of approximately $150 per replacement. 22 It is estimated that approximately 25% of the homes in the Gateway Cities have wood burning fireplaces or woodstoves installed. Some owners may choose to close off their woodstove/fireplace at a reduced cost of around $250 instead of replacing it with an EPAcertified model. Assuming 25% of the homeowners with a woodstove/fireplace choose to replace the model, and the other 75% choose to cap the chimney, the cost effectiveness of this strategy would be $6,900 per ton of PM2.5 reduced. 23 Table 5 3. Summary of Impact of Wood Combustion Measure on Gateway Cities, 2035 PM2.5 Emissions from Residential Wood Burning Percent of Emission Source Affected by Measure Control Technology Effectiveness 2035 Emission Reduction of PM2.5 Cost Effectiveness 1,875 kg/day 80% 70% 1,050 kg/day $6,900 per ton Implementation Steps This measure could be implemented by AQMD. Although the rule could be implemented within a few years, the full benefits of the rule would not be obtained for many years as housing units were sold and owners were required to upgrade their fireplace or woodstove technology. ICF International 5 6 June 2013

81 One barrier to more rapid implementation is the cost, which discourages owners from upgrading their current woodstoves and fireplaces before they are required to. This could be addressed by providing incentives, funding, and tax credits to early adopters. Additionally, showing the homeowners the possible energy savings that come with a new, more efficient woodstove may prove to be an effective incentive. 5.3 Goal 2: Control Dust Emissions Dust is a major component of PM2.5 emissions. Unlike many other sources of particulate emissions, there are no major new controls on dust emissions expected to take effect under current rules and regulations. As a result, dust emissions will account for a larger share of PM2.5 in the future. By 2035, dust emissions will be responsible for about 16% of all primary PM2.5 emissions in the Gateway Cities. Measure: Expand Municipal Street Sweeping to Reduce Road Dust Overview Road dust consists of dust from vehicle and industrial exhausts, tire and brake wear, paved roads or potholes, and construction sites. These coarse and fine particles are deposited on roadways and then made airborne by traffic. As technology has reduced the amount of PM from direct emissions, the portion of emissions from the re suspension of particles has become a more significant source of particulate matter emissions. In 2035, it is estimated that 3,394 kilograms per day of entrained road dust will be emitted into the air within the Gateway Cities. This represents 12% of all primary PM2.5 emissions. One way to reduce entrained road dust is though street sweeping. Most of the streets in the GCCOG region are already swept on a weekly basis. The expansion of existing sweeping programs can serve to further reduce PM emissions. Street sweeping reduces PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from entrained road dust. Expanded street sweeping would likely have a greater impact if targeted to high traffic areas such as central business districts. Another approach to target sweeping is to encourage citizens to use a call in number to direct sweeping activities where they are needed. Industrial areas or roads near construction sites could also be targeted. Caltrans could also sweep the freeways on a more frequent basis. There are several types of street sweeping technologies. Mechanical broom sweepers have historically been used, but are less effective at cleaning fine particles. The regenerative air sweeper is a technology that was introduced to clean fine particles. Vacuum sweepers are known as high efficiency sweepers and are more effective at fine particle control. ICF International 5 7 June 2013

82 Emissions Benefits Some cities that have moved to more frequent vacuum sweeping operations have found that volumes removed have been roughly proportional to frequency increases. For instance, the City of Dana Point increased sweeping removal amounts by 100%, moving from biweekly to weekly sweeping. 24 A handbook on dust control estimates that implementing a sweeping program with PM10 efficient vacuum sweepers is 86% efficient at sweeping materials. 25 As such, it can be conservatively assumed that doubling vacuum sweeping on the 20% of roadway segments that are dirtiest could achieve an 86% reduction in emissions on these roadway segments. PM2.5 emissions would be reduced by 584 kilograms per day in This would reduce PM2.5 emissions from entrained road dust by 17%. Cost and Cost Effectiveness The cost of a new street sweeper ranges from $100,000 for a mechanical broom sweeper to $250,000 for a high efficiency vacuum assisted machine. Street sweepers typically have a service life of 5 8 years. Including the cost of the vehicle, labor costs, fuel costs, maintenance, and other costs, there is an annual cost of $1,260 per curb mile for weekly sweeping with a vacuum sweeper. 26 If sweeping were expanded on the dirtiest 1,253 curb miles (about 20% of the Gateway Cities street mileage), adding one additional sweeping per week would result in a total estimated annual cost of $1,579,000 for the entire Gateway Cities region. The cost effectiveness of this measure would therefore be $6,700 per ton of PM2.5. Table 5 4. Summary of Impact of Street Sweeping Measure on Gateway Cities, 2035 PM2.5 Emissions from Entrained Road Dust Percent of Emission Source Affected by the Strategy Control Technology Effectiveness 2035 Emission Reduction of PM2.5 Cost Effectiveness 3,394 kg/day 20% 86% 584 kg/day $6,700 per ton Implementation Steps This strategy would be implemented directly by local governments. The technology for this strategy is already available and could be deployed immediately if it can be funded. One barrier to targeting sweeping on an ad hoc basis is parked cars, which can reduce the effectiveness of sweeping. Sweeping is most effective if operations are scheduled and instructions are provided ahead of time to owners to move their vehicles. Therefore, it may be desirable to focus on increases in scheduled sweeping, although residents may not support an increase in on street parking bans. The primary barrier to implementation is the significant increase in annual city sweeping budgets that would be required. In a tight budgeting environment, obtaining additional resources would be challenging. The Gateway Cities could benefit from case studies of similar successful programs and encouragement to expand sweeping operations. Caltrans could also help to implement this strategy with more frequent highway sweeping. Currently, most highways in the sub region are swept once per month by Caltrans District 7. Highway sweeping ICF International 5 8 June 2013

83 normally occurs between 9 am and 2 pm on weekdays. More frequent highway sweeping would require Caltrans to devote more resources to this activity. Highway sweeping can sometimes contribute to traffic delays. Measure: Implement Best Management Practices to Reduce Road Dust from Construction Overview Entrained road dust from construction and demolition is another source of PM2.5 emissions in the Gateway Cities. Most cities already require dust control at construction sites. Without further control, these emissions are estimated to be 109 kilograms per day in 2035, or approximately 1% of primary PM2.5 emissions. AQMD Rule 403 requires a menu of practices to mitigate entrained road dust from construction and demolition activities at major sites by reducing the track out of construction dirt onto paved roads. The practices can include the following: install a pad consisting of washed gravel; pave the surface extending at least 100 feet and at least 20 feet wide; utilize a wheel shaker/wheel spreading device consisting of raised dividers (rails, pipe, or grates); and install and utilize a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the site. Rule 403 could be made more stringent to require the use of the specific dust track out strategies that have been proven to be most effective, especially the installation of a pipe grid track out control device or the installation of wheel washers. Pipe grid track out control systems consist of a steel piping grate spaced appropriately to shake vehicles as they exit the site. These perform well at smaller low traffic sites, but can quickly fill with mud and lose their effectiveness. Wheel wash or truck wash systems can be more effective for larger sites, but they cost more. High pressure cleaning washers use water at pressures in excess of 150 pounds per square inch (psi) to promote cleaning efficiency and reduce water consumption. In areas where water is scarce, the volume of water used by truck wash systems can be an issue. Emission Benefits Pipe grid track out systems are estimated to have up to 80% effectiveness at reducing track out. If there are high volumes of trucks, these systems may lose some of their control effectiveness. Gravel bed track out aprons are less effective, removing on average 46% of dirt. Wheel washers are estimated to have an effectiveness of 40 70%. 27 The type of wheel washing system and the number of wheel rotations across which the washing occurs is an important determinant of their effectiveness. We focus here on high pressure washers, which are likely to have an effectiveness of 70%. ICF International 5 9 June 2013

84 Cost and Cost Effectiveness The costs of the systems vary significantly. The cost of pipe grid track out control devices is estimated at $1,820 per year to install and maintain (with a useful life of 8 years). A gravel bed track out apron, a less effective technology, would cost $1,360 per year to install and maintain. 28 Commercial tire washes cost about $20,000 to $60,000 for an automated pump system with spray manifolds and frame. 29 It is assumed most construction sites will use lower cost portable high pressure wash units, with an equipment cost of $20,000 and a system life of 8 years. Maintenance and operation costs over an 8 year lifespan will roughly double the cost of the system. More effective best management practices could be applied to an estimated 80% of construction sites. With most sites already using the gravel bed or other similarly effective method of control, applying pipe grid track out control devices could reduce PM2.5 emissions by an additional increment of 30 kilograms per day; wheel washers would reduce PM.25 emissions by 21 kilograms per day. Table 5 5. Summary of Impact of Construction Road Dust Measure, 2035 Track out Control Technology PM2.5 Emissions from Road Dust from Demolition and Construction Percent of Emission Source Affected by the Strategy Control Technology Effectiveness 2035 Emission Reduction of PM2.5 Annual Technology Unit Cost Gravel Bed 109 kg/day 80% 46% Assumed Baseline $1,360 Pipe grid Track Control Device 109 kg/day 80% 80% 30 kg/day $1,820 Wheel Washers 109 kg/day 80% 70% 21 kg/day $5,000 Implementation Steps AQMD could implement this strategy immediately by tightening the requirements of Rule 403. Alternatively, the permitting process could be used to encourage these practices. Some time to obtain stakeholder input, phase in the rule, and allow companies to train staff and purchase new equipment would be required. It is likely that this could be accomplished within a 3 5 year time frame. Measure: Expand Rules and Best Management Practices to Reduce Dust from Building Construction and Demolition Overview This measure focuses on fugitive dust caused by building construction and demolition, another important contributor to area source PM2.5 emissions in the Gateway Cities. In 2035, it is expected that emissions from this source type will total 1,768 kilograms per day, or approximately 11% of all area source PM2.5 emissions. AQMD first adopted Rule 403 in May 1976, with the most recent amendment in June 2005, to reduce the amount of particulate matter released to the ambient air due to humanmade fugitive dust sources. 30 ICF International 5 10 June 2013

85 Specific control measures put in place in Rule 403 with regards to construction and demolition include pre watering unpaved areas and soils used in cut/fill activities; stabilizing soils, staging areas, materials, and slopes; and limiting vehicular travel on unpaved areas. A combination of all of these control measures can significantly curb PM2.5 emissions. Large operations are required to employ a dust control supervisor who has successfully completed a training class. 31 Because a comprehensive rule is already in place for controlling dust from construction and demolition activities (and most cities already require this), this measure focuses on increasing enforcement through the use of additional inspections and site visits to ensure compliance, provided that funding is available. Large operations are required, under Rule 403, to maintain regular paperwork to ensure that dust management best practices are being implemented, and this paperwork is inspected to determine if the operation is compliant. Emissions Benefits Assuming that under the existing rule there is at least 20% non compliance, additional inspection and record keeping may have the potential to cut the non compliance rate in half. With 50% control effectiveness among participants, this measure has the potential to reduce building construction and demolition PM2.5 emissions by 10%, or 177 kilograms per day. Cost and Cost Effectiveness Costs required for this measure would be based on having adequate personnel to carry out additional inspections. It is assumed this measure will require an increase of one full time employee. Assuming an average annual salary of $55,000 (plus an additional $16,500 in benefits), and a salary inflation rate of 2% per year, the total cost over 25 years would be approximately $2.3 million. This would result in a cost effectiveness of $1,610 per ton. Table 5 6. Summary of Impact of Construction and Demolition Measure, 2035 PM2.5 Emissions from Building Construction and Demolition Percent of Emission Source Affected by Measure Control Technology Effectiveness 2035 Emission Reduction of PM2.5 Cost Effectiveness 1,768 kg/day 20% 50% 11 kg/day $1,610 per ton Implementation Steps This strategy could be implemented by the AQMD. The ability to obtain financial resources to hire additional staff could be a barrier to implementation. If these resources are available, hiring and training the necessary personnel could be accomplished within 1 2 years. ICF International 5 11 June 2013

86 Another potential barrier to implementation is completing the necessary number of inspections required to ensure that construction operations are in compliance. It might be helpful to lower the threshold that defines a large operation so that more construction operations maintain paperwork documenting their compliance measures; this would assist in the inspection process. 5.4 Goal 3: Reduce Arsenic Emissions Measure: Adopt New Rules for Glass Manufacturing Overview As discussed in Section 4.3, arsenic emissions are responsible for 10% of 2035 air pollution cancer risk across the entire Gateway Cities; they are also the primary cause of chronic developmental problems in the Gateway Cities. The majority of arsenic emissions comes from glass manufacturing facilities, although other sources also contribute, including oil and gas extraction, foundry operations (castings), and battery recycling. At glass manufacturers, the main source of arsenic emissions is the melting furnace, contributing over 99% of the total emissions. As of 2009, arsenic emissions from all glass manufacturers in the Gateway Cities was 4.8 kilograms per day, and are projected to rise to 6.0 kilograms per day by Arsenic emissions are mainly released with particulate matter from the melting furnace; therefore, controlling the particulate matter can be an effective way to control arsenic emissions. Glass manufacturers must comply with EPA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS), which are stationary source standards for air toxics. One approach to reducing arsenic emissions would be to adopt the add on emissions control strategy proposed by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (OR DEQ). OR DEQ proposed a new emission reduction strategy for a glass manufacturing facility in the Portland, Oregon area. 34 The strategy focuses on the use of add on particulate controls on the melting furnace in combination with a collection hood to increase the efficiency of particulate collection. OR DEQ anticipates an overall reduction in arsenic emissions of 72% using this approach. Similar reductions could likely be achieved if this strategy was applied to the facilities in the Gateway Cities region. Potential technologies to reduce arsenic emissions include high energy venturi scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), baghouses, and collection hoods. High energy venturi scrubbers are a traditional method of collecting coarse or fine particulates from volatile or hazardous gas streams; they are approximately 95% effective. ESPs are even more effective, with an efficiency of approximately 99% in removing particulates from a gas stream. Baghouses are commonly used in many facilities and also have ICF International 5 12 June 2013

87 99% efficiency. They are particularly effective in collecting very fine particles. Collection hoods can add an additional particulate collection capacity in addition to the other technologies. 35 Emissions Benefits The benefits of this measure could be substantial in terms of arsenic emissions in the Gateway Cities. There are only three major glass manufacturing facilities in the region, and this strategy could potentially be implemented at all three. Assuming that the strategy will reduce up to 72% of the glass manufacturing arsenic emissions, total emissions reductions in 2035 would be 4.3 kilograms per day. 36 Cost and Cost Effectiveness The EPA has estimated that the total capital costs associated with installing add on particulate controls to a melting furnace would be between $0.6 million and $1.8 million, with annual operation and maintenance costs of approximately $0.5 million. Actual costs will vary by facility depending on what controls are already in place, but for the purposes of this study, it is assumed these average costs are applied to the three glass manufacturing facilities in the Gateway Cities sub region. The equipment is estimated to have a 20 year lifespan. The resulting cost effectiveness is estimated to be $971,000 per ton of arsenic. 37 Table 5 7. Summary of Impact of Glass Manufacturing Measure, 2035 Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturers Percent of Emission Sources Affected by Rule Control Technology Effectiveness 2035 Emissions Reductions of Arsenic Cost Effectiveness 5.97 kg/day 100 % 72% 4.3 kg/day $971,000 per ton Implementation Steps AQMD could implement this measure through rule changes. A large investment would likely be required of the glass manufacturers. A significant period of time would likely be required for companies to plan for and install the necessary equipment. Implementation of this measure could occur in 5 8 years. 5.5 Goal 4: Accelerate Deployment of Low and Zero Emission Trucks On road heavy duty vehicles include all heavy trucks (those with at least six tires) as well as buses. Heavy duty vehicles contribute 54% of the 2035 air pollution cancer risk in the Gateway Cities. Heavy duty vehicles are also responsible for 13% of NO X emissions and about 3% of PM2.5 in Measure: Encourage Zero Emission Port Trucks Overview Currently, the vast majority of trucks serving the Ports are diesel, although about 700 natural gas trucks have been deployed since 2009 as part of the Clean Trucks Program. Port truck trips will increase in the future due to growth in container throughput. By 2035, the VMT in the Gateway Cities associated with Port trucks is projected to reach 800 million per year, or 28% of all heavy truck VMT in the sub region. ICF International 5 13 June 2013

88 Port trucks are getting substantially cleaner as a result of Port efforts and federal and state regulation. To achieve significant further emission reductions from Port trucks (or other trucks) beyond the EPA 2010 standards will require deployment of one or more advanced technologies. Options include advanced natural gas engines, hybrid and plug in hybrid technologies, and battery electric technologies. This measure would focus on deploying battery electric trucks for Port drayage service or logistics operations. Battery electric trucks are an emerging technology, with current offerings limited by the weight and cost of the batteries and the performance requirements for heavy duty freight service. Advances in battery technology are likely to enable all electric Port drayage trucks within the next years. Emissions Benefits Battery electric trucks produce zero tailpipe emissions. They will still generate a small amount of PM due to tire and brake wear; however, because of regenerative braking, PM emissions from brake wear would be lower than that of a conventional truck. Table 5 8 shows the average expected emission reduction for each battery electric truck that replaces a Port serving diesel truck. These estimates assume a Port drayage truck drives 200 miles per day, 300 days per year, consistent with the EMFAC model assumptions. Table 5 8: Emissions Reductions per Truck using Battery Electric Technology, 2035 (kg/year) PM2.5 DPM NO X TOG Emissions per Truck Baseline Control Effectiveness per Truck 80% 100% 100% 100% Emissions Reduction per Truck with measure Assuming all Port trucks were converted to battery electric technology, the maximum potential DPM reduction from this measure would be 219 kilograms per day. PM2.5 emissions would be reduced by 261 kilograms per day and NO X by 6,445 kilograms per day. Cost and Cost Effectiveness Battery electric trucks are in the nascent stages of demonstration in the heavy duty sector. The cost for vehicles is likely to remain relatively high for the next several decades. The most significant cost element of heavy duty battery electric trucks will be the battery, which will likely be sized at roughly kilowatt hours. Several studies have estimated current battery pack costs and projected cost reductions into the future. 38 The cost of battery packs is expected to decline significantly in the future as production volumes increase. The estimated cost of the battery pack for a Class 8 heavy duty truck is in the range of $75,000 to $150,000 in A battery electric truck would not have an internal combustion engine, ICF International 5 14 June 2013

89 which would reduce that element of truck production costs. The net incremental cost for battery electric Port trucks (relative to a conventional Class 8 diesel truck) is estimated to be $50,000 to $75,000 in Applying the incremental cost range given above to 21,000 trucks estimated to be serving the Ports, the total incremental cost of upgrading the entire Port truck fleet to battery electric technology would be in the range of $1 billion to $1.5 billion. Because of this high cost, full replacement of the Port drayage truck fleet is unlikely, and the measure would focus on the most cost effective opportunities to introduce zero emission trucks at the Ports. Assuming a 15 year lifetime for battery electric drayage trucks, the cost effectiveness of this strategy is approximately $500,000 to $750,000 per ton of DPM reduced. The low and high values reflect the range of truck cost estimates. Full cost effectiveness estimates are shown in Table 5 9. Table 5 9. Cost Effectiveness of a Battery Electric Port Drayage Truck ($ per ton per year) Cost Effectiveness PM2.5 DPM NO X TOG Low $457,600 $504,800 $17,200 $132,300 High $686,400 $757,200 $25,800 $198,500 Implementation Steps The Ports could implement this strategy by restricting access to encourage zero emission trucks, similar to the restrictions currently imposed by the Clean Truck Program. Port Access restrictions would likely need to be coupled with monetary incentives to offset at least some of the incremental costs of zero emission trucks, as has been the case with the Clean Truck Program. As noted above, implementation of this strategy depends on technological advancement in battery electric trucks. It is estimated that battery electric Class 8 trucks suitable for Port service are likely to be commercially available in the time frame. Continued support from the Ports Technology Advancement Program can help accelerate development of this technology. The Gateway Cities Zero Emission Trucks Commercialization Study currently underway should also result in identifying pathways to cleaner trucks. Measure: Encourage Low Emission Trucks in Gateway Cities Communities Overview The heavy truck fleet is getting substantially cleaner as a result of federal emission standards for new trucks and regulations and programs accelerating fleet turnover. Most notable is the Statewide In Use Truck and Bus Rule, the most far reaching diesel emission regulation in California s history. The regulation calls for the phase in of best available control technology (BACT) for PM and NO X between 2011 and By 2023 all heavy duty diesel vehicles must have a 2010 model year engine or equivalent. ICF International 5 15 June 2013

90 Although new trucks sold today are much cleaner than in the past, most heavy duty trucks will continue to use diesel fuel. With the large amount of truck activity in the Gateway Cities, heavy duty trucks will continue to be a major source of air pollution in the sub region. As discussed in Chapter 4, heavy duty trucks will account for 54% of all air pollution cancer risk in the sub region, the single largest source of air pollution cancer risk in This measure focuses on accelerating the deployment of advanced technology low emission trucks that are currently available or under development. Three technologies are expected to be available: Natural gas trucks use compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG) to power an internal combustion engine with inherently low emissions. Hybrid electric trucks contain an internal combustion engine as well as an electric motor, generator, and energy storage device (e.g., a battery). The electric motor and generator absorb energy via regenerative braking and store that energy to offset acceleration and power demands of the vehicle. Plug in hybrid electric trucks differ from hybrid electric trucks in that they have a larger battery and can draw energy from the electric grid. This enables the truck to travel under all electric power for at least a portion of its range. Emissions Benefits Natural gas vehicles can reduce both NO X and PM emissions from heavy duty vehicles, and eliminate DPM. Potential NO X emission reductions are in range of 20 50%, depending on the application. PM2.5 emissions reductions are in the range of 10 30% compared to conventional diesel. Compared to gasoline trucks, natural gas offers no significant PM benefit. Hybrid electric and plug in hybrid trucks eliminate emissions from idling and low speed travel. Hybrid vehicles also reduce PM2.5 emissions from brake wear. Plug in hybrid trucks reduce emissions further by operating on all electric for part of their range. 39 Estimated emission reductions by weight class and fuel type are shown in Table ICF International 5 16 June 2013

91 Table Emission Control Effectiveness of Advanced Heavy Duty Vehicle Technologies, per Truck Emissions Benefits Weight Class 1 Reference Fuel Technology PM2.5 DPM NO X TOG Light Heavy Duty (LHD) Medium Heavy Duty (MHD) Heavy Heavy Duty (HHD) Gasoline Diesel Gasoline Diesel Advanced NGVs 20 30% Hybrid Electric Trucks 21 31% 11 21% 90 95% Plug In Hybrid Electric 43 58% 68 78% 90 95% Advanced NGVs 10 30% 100% 25 35% Hybrid Electric Trucks 9 29% 13 23% 36 56% 27 37% Plug In Hybrid Electric 26 66% 46 56% 58 78% 55 65% Advanced NGVs 25 35% Hybrid Electric Trucks 21 31% 8 18% 92 97% Plug In Hybrid Electric 34 79% 43 53% 92 97% Advanced NGVs 10 30% 100% 35 50% Hybrid Electric Trucks 4 24% 4 12% 31 41% 30 40% Plug In Hybrid Electric 9 33% 14 24% 28 58% 38 48% 1 Light heavy duty vehicles are defined as those between 8,500 and 14,000 pounds (lbs) gross vehicle weight (GVW), medium heavy duty vehicles are between 14,001 and 33,000lbs GVW, and heavy heavy duty are over 33,000 lbs GVW. Cost and Cost Effectiveness All the advanced technology trucks discussed for this measure are expected to carry a higher purchase price than their conventional fuel counterparts for the foreseeable future. Although the advanced technology costs will decline over time, incremental costs are likely to remain out to Table 5 11 shows the 2035 cost and cost effectiveness estimates for the three technology options. Incremental costs in 2035 range between $6,000 and $55,000 depending on the technology and weight class. Advanced natural gas trucks appear to be the most cost effective technology for reducing DPM, NO X, and PM2.5, particularly among the largest trucks (heavy heavy duty). Although the plug in hybrid electric trucks can achieve larger emission reductions, they are also expected to be significantly more expensive than natural gas trucks. ICF International 5 17 June 2013

92 Table Cost and Cost Effectiveness of Emission Reduction ($ per ton per year) Technology Weight Class 1 /Fuel Incremental Equipment Cost (2035) Cost Effectiveness PM2.5 DPM NO X TOG LHD/Gas $10 14k No Reduction No Reduction $1,316,000 No Reduction Advanced NGVs MHD/Diesel $20 28k $2,579,000 $566,000 $140,000 No Reduction HHD/Diesel $28 36k $1,426,000 $393,000 $32,000 No Reduction Hybrid Electric Trucks Plug In Hybrid Electric Trucks LHD/Gas $6 10k $5,178,000 No Reduction $1,371,000 $251,000 MHD/Diesel $15 20k $1,979,000 $2,291,000 $67,000 $810,000 HHD/Diesel $25 35k $1,783,000 $4,609,000 $36,000 $242,000 LHD/Gas $10 20k $4,998,000 No Reduction $563,000 $471,000 MHD/Diesel $20 30k $1,168,000 $1,155,000 $64,000 $617,000 HHD/Diesel $35 55k $1,910,000 $2,911,000 $45,000 $296,000 1 LHD = light heavy duty (8,500 14,000 lbs GVW); MHD = medium heavy duty (14,001 33,000 lbs GVW); HHD = heavy heavy duty (33,000+ lbs GVW) Implementation Steps Implementation of this measure would likely require establishing a new voluntary incentive program to encourage the purchase of advanced technology, low emission trucks. Public agencies, including ARB and the California Energy Commission (CEC) could encourage the purchase and use of low emission trucks by subsidizing new vehicle purchases. The existing Carl Moyer Program is an example of such an incentive program. Restricting access to key freight facilities to only clean trucks could provide additional incentives. These facilities could be highway segments and/or major freight terminals (e.g., ports, railyards, airports). The timing of this measure varies with the technologies and truck types. Advanced natural gas trucks and hybrid electric trucks are currently available for most applications, and are expected to be available for all applications within 2 3 years. Plug in hybrid electric trucks are at least 5 10 years away from widespread commercial availability. As with port trucks, the Gateway Cities Zero Emission Trucks Commercialization Study currently underway should also result in identifying pathways to cleaner trucks. Measure: Provide Alternative Fuel Infrastructure for Trucks Overview Any significant growth in the number of alternative fuel trucks operating in the Gateway Cities will require expansion of alternative fuel infrastructure. Heavy trucks currently enjoy and rely on an extensive network of diesel and gasoline fueling stations. Many fleets will be reluctant to invest in ICF International 5 18 June 2013

93 alternative fuel vehicles unless they are confident that the fuels will be readily available in their service areas particularly fleets that do not use a central fueling facility. This measure involves public and private investment to develop alternative fueling stations and other supporting infrastructure in the Gateway Cities. The primary focus is on CNG, LNG, and electric vehicle charging stations. Currently, there are approximately 20 public and private CNG stations and 7 LNG stations in or adjacent to the Gateway Cities, as shown on Figure 5 1. Although this represents a relatively dense network of natural gas fueling stations compared to many other regions in the nation, it will need to be expanded to serve a large natural gas fleet serving the Ports and/or the sub region s businesses. Figure 5 1. Current Alternative Vehicle Fueling Stations in Gateway Cities CNG Fueling Stations LNG Fueling Stations Electric Charging Stations Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center, New charging stations will also be needed to support plug in electric vehicles. The infrastructure required to fast charge thousands of heavy duty battery electric vehicles would be significant. Furthermore, based on existing and projected vehicle ranges, it is likely that multiple charges per vehicle will be needed throughout the day to meet range requirements, particularly for the largest (Class 8) trucks. Figure 5 2 shows the current network of charging stations in the Gateway Cities; all of these are Level 2 chargers. Emissions Benefits Investment in alternative fueling infrastructure will not, by itself, reduce emissions. This infrastructure is needed to enable the significant increase in alternative fuel trucks discussed in other measures. Thus, the emissions benefits of this measure are contained within the emission reductions presented in the two measures under this goal. Costs There is a wide range of costs associated with natural gas fueling stations. For instance, in an analysis for the Federal Transit Administration, West Virginia University reports CNG stations ranging from $320,000 to $7,400, These ranges are an indication of the unique conditions that contribute to the costs of ICF International 5 19 June 2013

94 retail fueling stations, including the tank size, type of natural gas (CNG, LNG), the compression, and the rate of fill. 41 Plug in electric vehicles will require significant charging infrastructure investments. Today, there are three levels of charging that the industry uses to characterize electric vehicle service equipment (EVSE), that is, chargers. Level 1 is essentially a standard cord and plug at a home or business. With an estimated power delivery of 1 2 kilowatts, it cannot charge a heavy duty plug in electric vehicle in sufficient time to warrant consideration. Level 2 charging can be delivered at 7.5 kilowatts. The cost of a level 2 charging station ranges between $2,000 and $8,000. DC Fast Charging is rated at greater than 19.2 kilowatts, with current equipment size varying from 60 to 150 kilowatts. 42 The cost for a DC Fast Charge station is currently around $70,000. Note, however, that there is very little experience with EVSE for heavy trucks. The size and cost of this equipment is highly uncertain at this time. Implementation Steps Implementation of this measure would require new planning and permitting by local governments, potential investments by the Ports (or others), and new public private partnerships. New natural gas fueling stations are relatively expensive, and would typically require private sector development. Private sector firms often partner with public entities to design, build, and operate CNG and LNG fueling stations. A number of California local government transit agencies, for example, have worked with private companies to develop natural gas fueling infrastructure. Electrical vehicle charging infrastructure is relatively new, and nearly all the deployment to date has focused on residential and public Level 2 chargers intended for light duty vehicles, supported with federal and state incentives. Plug in electric truck fleets would likely secure access to fast charging stations at their home base and/or regular destination points. When sufficient demand for public charging infrastructure emerges, local government can support this development by streamlining permitting processes, making required changes to zoning codes, and providing appropriate signage. The Gateway Cities Zero Emission Trucks Commercialization Study currently underway is also addressing this issue and will provide additional information for implementation. 5.6 Goal 5: Accelerate Deployment of Low and Zero Emission Cargo Handling Equipment In addition to on road trucks (discussed in Section 5.5), off road equipment used for goods movement contributes to DPM and NO X emissions in the Gateway Cities. This includes cargo handling equipment (CHE), which is used to move freight within a port or rail yard. CHE can include yard trucks (hostlers), cranes, top handlers, side handlers, forklifts, and loaders. Looking ahead, Port CHE will become cleaner as a result of federal and state regulations as well as Port efforts. By 2015, all new off road equipment must meet the EPA Tier 4 standards, requiring a roughly 90% reduction in PM and a 60% reduction in NO X over current (Tier 3) standards. However, this regulation does not affect existing equipment. ARB adopted a CHE regulation in 2005 that accelerates the introduction of cleaner equipment. The Ports Clean Air Action Plan includes performance standards for CHE, which will reduce CHE emissions beyond ARB s regulations upon terminal lease renewal. Before 2035, all CHE at the Ports are expected to meet ICF International 5 20 June 2013

95 the most stringent emission standards currently in place. Achieving additional emission reductions from CHE will require advanced technologies. Measure: Replace Diesel Yard Hostlers with Hybrid and Electric Alternatives Overview Yard hostlers (off road truck tractors) move cargo containers in a terminal. Several new low emission alternatives are emerging for yard hostlers: Hybrid electric technology increases system efficiency by introducing an electric motor and generator, an energy storage device, power electronics, and regenerative braking. Hydraulic hybrid technology increases vehicle efficiency using hydraulic accumulators to convert and store energy from braking as pressurized hydraulic fluid; the efficiency gains are realized through regenerative braking, optimized engine control, and engine shut off during deceleration and idling. Hydraulic hybrids are currently in the demonstration/prototype phase. Battery electric technology replaces the entire engine and drive train of a conventional vehicle with an electric motor and generator, powered by a battery pack. This is an emerging technology, with demonstrations occurring at the Ports. Emissions Benefits The technologies promoted by this measure would reduce emissions of DPM and all criteria pollutants. For hybrid electric hostlers, a 20% reduction in diesel fuel consumption (and thus emissions) is expected with the technology. Hydraulic hybrid hostlers are expected to reduce fuel use and emissions by 30%. 43 Battery electric hostlers would eliminate all tailpipe emissions; however, they would still generate some PM from tire and brake wear. Cost and Cost Effectiveness Hybrid and electric technologies for CHE cost more than conventional diesel technologies. While these cost differences are expected to decline in the future, incremental costs are expected to remain beyond The cost of a new standard diesel yard hostler is approximately $85,000. When produced in high volumes the cost of a new hydraulic hybrid yard hostler would likely be 15 to 20% higher, or approximately $15,000 more in The incremental cost of a hybrid electric truck is expected to be roughly $30,000 by The incremental cost of a battery electric truck is expected to be at least $50,000. Assuming replacement of all 1,690 hostlers currently operating at the Ports, the total cost of this measure would range between $25 million (hydraulic hybrids) to $85 million (battery electric). Equipment operators would gain operating costs savings due to lower fuel costs, which are not estimated here. ICF International 5 21 June 2013

96 Table 5 12 shows the estimated cost effectiveness for these technologies. Battery electric yard hostlers appear to be the most cost effective of the three technology options. However, these are emerging technologies and future costs may be different. All three options warrant further research and development. Table Cost Effectiveness of Yard Hostler Technology Options CHE Type Technology PM2.5 DPM NO X TOG Hybrid Electric $3,812,000 $3,812,000 $141,000 Yard Hostlers Hydraulic Hybrid $5,126,000 $5,126,000 $190,000 Battery Electric $2,563,000 $2,563,000 $95,000 Implementation Steps All Port CHE is owned and operated by the terminal operators at the Ports. Emissions standards for CHE are the jurisdiction of ARB and EPA. The Ports could play a role by further requiring or incentivizing terminal operators to deploy the advanced technologies as part of terminal lease agreements. The Gateway Cities would have a minimal role in implementing this measure, although the GCCOG can advocate for adoption. Hybrid and battery electric hostlers are currently in the test and demonstration phase. Implementation of this measure could begin as early as Measure: Electrify Rubber Tire Gantry Cranes Overview Rubber tired gantry (RTG) cranes are used to load and unload containers from yard trucks and container stacks. Two technology options are available to increase efficiency and reduce emissions from the current diesel hydraulic systems used in RTG cranes: Energy storage systems (ESS) on RTG cranes capture regenerated energy that would otherwise be dissipated and lost from crane braking, deceleration, etc., and use it to offset diesel engine loads. ARB estimates this technology can reduce emissions by 25%. 45 Electric RTG (e RTG) technology can result in the total or near elimination of diesel emissions. Modern RTGs are equipped with diesel generators that transform diesel fuel into electrical energy. Converting a conventional RTG into a fully electric RTG requires removing the diesel generator and powering the RTG with only electric power. The Georgia Ports Authority recently installed e RTG cranes at the Port of Savannah, the first deployment of this technology in North America. At the Port of Los Angeles, e RTG units are now entering the demonstration phase. ICF International 5 22 June 2013

97 Emissions Benefits ESS would reduce RTG crane emissions of all pollutants by an estimated 25%. For e RTGs, a switchover would eliminate all diesel fuel consumption and diesel emissions. Cost and Cost Effectiveness The RTG energy storage system is estimated to cost between $160,000 and $320,000 per crane. 46 The cost to convert to an e RTG crane is estimated to be $200,000 to $300,000, with some additional costs for the related infrastructure. An additional cost savings is expected due to fuel cost differential, but is not estimated here. Thus, the total cost to electrify Port RTG cranes would be about $30 $55 million. Table 5 13 shows the cost effectiveness of the two technology options for this measure. Table Cost Effectiveness of RTG Crane Technology Options CHE Type Technology PM2.5 DPM NO X TOG RTG Cranes Energy Storage Systems $4,938,000 $4,938,000 $183,000 Electric RTG $2,315,000 $2,315,000 $86,000 Implementation Steps The Ports and railroad companies could play a role by requiring or incentivizing terminal operators to deploy the advanced technologies as part of terminal lease agreements or operational changes. Gateway Cities could advocate for adoption. These technologies are currently available, and implementation of this measure could begin as early as Measure: Promote Zero Emission Transport Refrigeration Units Overview Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) are designed to refrigerate perishable products transported in semi trailers, truck vans, shipping containers, and rail cars. TRUs use diesel or gasoline engines ranging from 9 to 36 horsepower. Because TRUs have been identified as a significant source of NO X, DPM, and PM2.5 emissions, they have been subject to a number of recent regulations. The EPA Tier 4 emission standards for non road diesel engines in the less than 50 horsepower (hp) classification took effect on January 1, These regulations cover TRU engines, including those in the 25 to 50 hp range historically used on refrigerated trailers. The regulations require reductions of about ICF International 5 23 June 2013

98 90% in PM and 37% in NO X emissions, compared to the interim standards that have been in effect since ARB adopted an Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for TRUs and TRU generator sets in The ARB regulations require haulers to replace or upgrade refrigeration unit diesel engines more than 7 years old. This phased retrofit or replacement schedule will ensure that the entire TRU fleet operating in California will meet the ARB Ultra Low Emission standard (85% reduction in PM) by Additional emissions reductions can be obtained by incentivizing shippers and carriers to purchase zeroor low emission TRU technology when they upgrade their trucks and trailers. Several zero emission TRU technologies are available, including the following: Electric standby units for TRUs that can plug into grid power Cryogenic temperature control systems that use liquid CO 2 for cooling Emission Benefits Cryogenic liquid CO 2 TRUs have no emissions while in operation. Electric standby units also produce virtually no emissions when plugged in. If ARB guidance is followed, TRU engine operation must be eliminated at distribution centers, and is limited to less than 30 minutes at delivery points. Approximately 50% of emissions would thus be reduced from the use of electric standby units. While zero emission technologies are available from major manufacturers and can be implemented immediately, there are potential barriers to implementation. Electric standby is available as an option on most TRUs now, but users need to have access to infrastructure to plug in. The economic viability of liquid CO 2 cooling systems requires diesel prices to maintain current high levels, and some scale in purchasing is needed to keep unit liquid CO 2 prices low. 47 Therefore, the addressable market is conservatively estimated to be approximately 23%, with large private fleets being first adopters. The market size may increase as infrastructure is put in place and these strategies become more accepted and more easily implemented by smaller businesses. Table 5 14 summarizes the potential emission reduction in the Gateway Cities resulting from this measure. ICF International 5 24 June 2013

99 Table Emission Reduction from Low/Zero Emission TRUs (kg/day) Technology PM2.5 DPM NO X TOG Baseline TRU Emissions (2035) ,454 1,320 Baseline Percent Subject to Control 23% 23% 23% 23% Emissions Subject to Control , Cryogenic Liquid CO 2 Electric Standby Control Effectiveness 100% 100% 100% 100% Emission Reduction , Control Effectiveness 50% 50% 50% 50% Emission Reduction Cost and Cost Effectiveness New refrigeration units for single unit trucks average $16,300, and new trailer units are estimated to cost $21,600. The cost of cryogenic liquid CO 2 refrigeration units has been estimated by ARB to be within 10% of existing diesel units. 48 The incremental cost of buying such a unit, assuming a company is already upgrading, is approximately $2,000. Electric standby, ordered as option with new units, is available for most new TRU models. For a single unit truck, the cost is $350 to $1,000 for the option. For trailers, the cost is between $2,000 and $4,000. The cost of electrifying parking areas, if necessary, is not included in this cost analysis, but could range from $200 to $2,000 per space. The costs of electricity and liquid CO 2 are assumed to be offset by reductions in diesel consumption. Table 5 15 summarizes the cost effectiveness of this measure for the two technology options. Both technologies appear to be relatively cost effective, particularly for NO X reduction. Table Cost Effectiveness of Zero Emission TRU Options Cost Effectiveness ($ per ton of emission reduction) Technology PM2.5 DPM NO X TOG Cryogenic Liquid CO 2 $24,000 $34,000 $100 $1,000 Electric Standby $73,000 $103,000 $300 $2,000 Implementation Steps Implementation of this measure would likely involve a voluntary incentive based program. AQMD or the Gateway Cities could work with ARB to implement a rebate program to encourage the use of zero and low emission TRUs. Industry reluctance to adopt new technologies that are perceived as complex could ICF International 5 25 June 2013

100 be a barrier. An education and outreach campaign would likely need to accompany any voluntary incentive program. 5.7 Goal 6: Further Reduce Ocean Going Vessel Emissions Ocean going vessels (OGVs) include a variety of ship types such as container ships, passenger cruise ships, automobile carriers, bulk carriers, and tankers. OGVs are currently the largest source of DPM emissions at the Ports and a significant contributor to DPM emissions and health risk in the Gateway Cities. In 2035, OGVs are projected to emit 209 kilograms per day of DPM and about 28,000 kilograms per day of NO X in 2035, or 14 and 21% of all Gateway Cities DPM and NO X emissions, respectively. Measure: Expand Control of At Berth Ship Emissions Overview OGVs are subject to a number of EPA, ARB, and Port measures to control emissions, including requirements for cleaner fuels and cleaner engines. ARB s At Berth Regulation, adopted in 2007, focuses specifically on reducing emissions from ships while they are at berth. By 2014, operators of container ships, cruise ships, and refrigerated ships are required to shut down their auxiliary engines at berth for 50% of the fleet s vessel visits, increasing to 70% in 2017 and 80% in In some cases (e.g., ships that call infrequently), shore power may not be feasible and alternative strategies, including the exhaust intake bonnet (discussed below), should be considered. The Ports have been working to comply with the At Berth Regulation by investing heavily in the electrical infrastructure needed to support shore power. As a result of the ARB regulations and Ports efforts, OGV at berth emissions are expected to drop significantly by By 2035, OGV at berth DPM emissions in the Gateway Cities area will be 75% below 2009 levels. This measure focuses on reducing at berth emissions from the ships not covered by existing regulations, including the ARB At Berth Regulation. There are two options for reducing these emissions: Expansion of shore power would require new electric infrastructure to support the additional calls, as well as expanded vessel side retrofits to handle additional vessels not already captured by existing plans. Bonnet systems include the Advanced Maritime Emissions Control System (AMECS) being demonstrated by the Metropolitan Stevedore Company in the Port of Long Beach, which captures the ship s exhaust and treats it onshore. The system consists of the bonnet, which is lifted by crane over, and secured to, the exhaust stack of the ship where it collects the exhaust from both auxiliary engines and the boilers. A vacuum duct transports pollutants to a dock or barge mounted treatment system where they are treated by scrubbers (to control SO X, PM, and TOG) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) (to control NO X ). ICF International 5 26 June 2013

101 Emissions Benefits Use of shore power reduces OGV at berth emissions by about 95%. 49 (The small amount of remaining atberth emissions is due to the time necessary to connect and disconnect the electrical power and startup the auxiliary engines.) By 2020, 80% of container, cruise, and reefer calls are expected to use shore power under ARB s rule. For this measure, it is assumed that all remaining vessels would use shore power by Testing of an exhaust bonnet stack system was conducted at the Port of Long Beach. Results indicate that at least 95% of DPM, SO X, and NO X emissions at berth were captured from use of the system, similar to shore power reductions. 50 Table 5 16 summarizes the emission reductions for this measure. Table Emissions Reductions from OGV At Berth Measure, 2035 (kg/day) Shore Power or Exhaust Bonnet PM2.5 DPM NO X TOG Baseline Emissions ,586 1,195 Reduction Potential 95% 95% 95% 95% Emissions Reduction ,907 1,136 Cost and Cost Effectiveness The average costs of shore power have been estimated to be about $500,000 per vessel for retrofit, $3 million per terminal for infrastructure, and $800,000 for annual, incremental operations and maintenance (O&M). 51 The resulting vessel and shore side capital cost of the shore power strategy envisioned here is $77 million and $1 billion, respectively, or about $1.1 billion in total capital and O&M costs over a 30 year project lifetime. The resulting 2035 cost effectiveness is estimated to be $2.1 million per ton of PM2.5 and DPM and $7,300 per ton of NO X. Total project cost for AMECS testing at the Port of Long Beach was about $600,000. However, this was a demonstration project for an emerging technology, and the costs are likely not reflective of costs involved in large scale deployment. Thus, there is currently insufficient information to estimate the costs and costs effectiveness of this technology. Implementation Steps Implementation of this measure would be led by the Ports, who would oversee the development of shore side infrastructure. Vessel owners would be responsible for retrofitting vessels to receive shore power; Port and/or state incentives may be necessary to achieve these retrofits. The Gateway Cities would have a minimal role in implementing this measure, although the GCCOG can advocate for adoption. Implementation of exhaust bonnets requires further development of the technology to be commercially viable. One possible barrier to use of exhaust bonnets is the different configuration of exhaust stacks for various vessels. For shore power, the technology has been demonstrated as viable and is being rapidly adopted. The principal barrier to adoption is cost, especially for non frequent callers. The infrastructure ICF International 5 27 June 2013

102 configuration for shore power depends on vessel type. Ships that do not always dock in the same position or require specialized loading and unloading mechanisms (such as bulk cargo ships) can require a more flexible shore power infrastructure than other ships. Measure: Develop and Deploy Clean Ship Engine Technologies Overview A number of federal, state, and Port measures will result in future reductions in emissions from OGVs. Achieving additional reductions will require development and deployment of advanced technologies for ships, such as SCR or seawater scrubbers. SCR technology can in theory be applied to all vessels. SCR is a proven exhaust after treatment technology that works by injecting a reagent, such as ammonia or urea, into the exhaust stream and passing the mixture through a catalyst to achieve 70 90% or better NO X reduction. By 2035, the EPA Tier 3 standards for Category 3 engines will apply to U.S. flagged vessels and will largely rely on SCR. Because all U.S. flagged vessels will likely already have SCR installed by 2035, this measure applies only to non US flagged vessel calls. Image source: Hitachi Zosen Corporation, Seawater scrubbers rely on wet flue gas desulfurization principles, mixing hot exhaust flue gases in a turbulent cascade with seawater, where the alkaline water absorbs acidic gases like SO 2 and PM is removed through impaction, although less efficiently than SO 2. The scrubbing water is then filtered to remove the potentially harmful components and kept in a settling or sludge tank for later disposal. Under optimal conditions, seawater scrubbers can reduce PM by 80% or more. 52 This technology is commercially available, can be applied to various types of ships, and is considered an alternative to fuel switching for sulfur emissions. ICF International 5 28 June 2013

103 Emissions Benefits The emission control effectiveness of SCR is estimated to be 85% for NO X and 45% for PM. The technology will reduce OGV emissions in all operating modes at berth, maneuvering, and in transit. 53,54, 55 Seawater scrubbing can reduce 80% of PM emissions and 20% of NO X. Cost and Cost Effectiveness The costs of an SCR system vary with the size of the engine. Approximate costs are $100 per kilowatt of engine power, plus another $40 per kilowatt per year for the urea. 56 The bulk of the costs will be due to ship retrofits. If ships calling on the Ports were subject to this measure, total installation costs would be approximately $4 billion plus $1.7 billion in annual operating costs. Seawater scrubbers are estimated to cost $200 per kilowatt of engine power. Assuming all Port vessels are installed, the total cost of the seawater scrubbing technology would be about $9 billion. These costs could be scaled to reflect partial implementation of the measure. Table 5 17 summarizes the cost effectiveness of the two technologies. Both technologies appear to have relatively poor cost effectiveness. This is partly a reflection of the nascent state of current technology development. Although SCR is used in other diesel applications (e.g., heavy duty trucks), there has not been widespread use of SCR on large ship engines, so current costs are high. Similarly, seawater scrubbing has proven viable but has not benefitted from the widespread deployment needed to bring down costs. The cost effectiveness of this measure would likely improve with large scale installation. Table Cost Effectiveness of Clean Ship Measure, 2035 Cost Effectiveness ($ per ton of emission reduction) Technology PM2.5 DPM NO X TOG SCR $68,000,000 $68,000,000 $281,000 Seawater Scrubbers $16,000,000 $16,000,000 $487,000 Implementation Steps Implementation of this measure would likely require action by the Ports and the state. Although the federal government has authority to set emission standards for new marine vessels, federal regulations apply only to U.S. flagged ships, which account for only a small share of vessels calling on the Ports. The state can regulate the activity of ships within California waters, and the Ports can encourage clean ship technologies through incentive programs and terminal lease agreements. The two major barriers to implementation of this measure are the poor cost effectiveness and the technological hurdles. As noted above, there is potential to reduce costs with further development of technologies and large scale deployment. One technological barrier is the deck space requirements for installation. Ship engines are very large, and SCR or scrubber equipment necessary for ship engines requires substantial space. Many existing ships simply do not have enough space to install these control technologies without major reconfiguration. ICF International 5 29 June 2013

104 5.8 Goal 7: Implement Other Near Term Measures under Local Control The measures discussed above under Goals 1 6 are focused on further reducing emissions and improving air quality in 2035 the forecast year selected for the AQAP study. Most of these longer term measures require implementation by the state, AQMD, the Ports, or the railroads. In addition to these New Measures for improving future air quality, the AQAP study included an Early Action Plan that describes actions that can be taken by local governments in the Gateway Cities in the near term. The combination of early action strategies and implementation tools available to local governments fall into four categories: Education and Outreach. These tools include methods that increase knowledge of air quality problems and solutions, or create education and outreach opportunities among city staff, the private sector, or communities. Support and Coordination. These tools include methods that cities and other local agencies can use to influence policy or programs in other agencies, or to support actions occurring in other agencies. If the Education and Outreach tools can be considered reaching out to the community, then the Support and Coordination tools can be considered reaching up to regional, state, and federal agencies. Incentives and Funding. These tools include methods that cities or other local agencies can use to fund air quality improvement programs and projects. An individual city s ability to directly finance large air quality programs is very limited, so the opportunities focus on leveraging funding that is available from other agencies. Planning and Regulations. These tools refer to actions that a city agency can take to improve air quality in its jurisdiction. Planning refers to actions taken by a city either in the short term (through permits, for example) or in the long term (by incorporating into long range plans, for example). Regulations include requirements, licenses, and ordinances that a city has the authority to issue. The remainder of this sub section summarizes four specific measures included the Early Action Plan. Measure: Require Low Emission Equipment for Public Construction Contracts Overview Off road construction equipment is a large source of DPM and NO X emissions. EPA regulations set emissions standards for new offroad equipment at the time of sale. At the state level, the In Use Off Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation (the Off Road Rule) was adopted to reduce emissions from in use (i.e., existing) equipment used in construction, mining, and industrial operations. This rule will speed the introduction of cleaner equipment into construction ICF International 5 30 June 2013

105 fleets in California. However, the full benefits of the federal and state regulations will not be realized until around Local governments can achieve near term emissions benefits by requesting and/or requiring the use of low emission construction equipment for their contracts when it makes financial sense. An example of this approach is Metro s Green Construction Policy, adopted in The Green Construction Policy commits Metro to using less polluting construction equipment and vehicles for construction projects performed on Metro properties and rights of way. 57 Metro s Green Construction Policy establishes emissions performance standards for construction equipment, to be introduced in three phases. All construction equipment with more than 50 horsepower is affected. Prior to 2012 (Phase 1), equipment must meet the EPA Tier 2 emission standards and be retrofitted with an ARB verified Level 3 Diesel Emissions Control Device System (DECS), which is effectively a diesel particulate filter (DPF). In (Phase 2), the standard is raised to EPA Tier 3. Beginning in 2015 (Phase 3), equipment must meet the EPA Tier 4 standards and, if not already supplied with a factory equipped DPF, must be outfitted with BACT devices certified by ARB. The Green Construction Policy also sets emissions requirements for on road equipment with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 19,500 pounds (i.e., Class 6, 7, and 8 trucks). Table 5 18 summarizes the policy requirements. Table Summary of Requirements for Metro s Green Construction Policy Equipment Type Phase Enforcement Date EPA Emission Standards Equipment 1 Before December 31, 2011 Tier 2 Level 3 DECS (DPF) Off Road 2 January 1, 2012 December 31, 2014 Tier 3 Level 3 DECS (DPF) 3 January 1, Tier 4 BACT On Road 1 Before December 31, PM standard 2 January 1, PM and NO X standard For a given construction company, the cost to comply with a local government low emission construction equipment policy will depend on many factors, such as the size and age of the company s fleet and the type of equipment involved. For example, a contractor with a large fleet is likely to have a greater mix of new and old equipment; this might enable the contractor to deploy equipment that already complies with the policy without having to retrofit or replace any of its fleet. In contrast, it may be difficult for smaller companies to comply. Compliance costs will also depend on the calendar year in which the fleet is required to comply. With EPA emission standards for new equipment sold and normal fleet turnover, construction equipment in Southern California is getting cleaner each year. As a result, the costs to comply with this measure will generally decline over time. ICF International 5 31 June 2013

106 Implementation Steps To implement this measure, cities would write clean construction requirements into bid specifications, requesting and/or requiring contractors to use cleaner equipment, adopt cleaner construction practices, or take other steps to mitigate construction emissions. A simple option would be for cities to require that contractors comply with Metro s Green Construction Policy for contracts above a size threshold. The cost of new clean construction equipment can be significant, and a number of government programs provide funding to help offset these costs. GCCOG could play the role of a clearinghouse, collecting information on funding opportunities, and consolidating project funding announcements and requests for proposals in one location. This information can be disseminated to the cities for use with local contractors. Measure: Enforce Anti Idling Regulations Overview Idling of trucks contributes to air pollutant emissions in the Gateway Cities. Trucks idle while waiting to pick up or deliver a load, sometimes to provide heat or cooling, to power other cab amenities, or simply out of habit. In some cases, a driver may be unable to avoid idling if the truck is stuck in a slow moving queue. But in many instances, extended truck idling is unnecessary. California s current anti idling regulation was adopted in The regulation specifies a 5 minute idling limit for diesel engines on commercial trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight greater than 10,000 pounds. The regulation also prohibits diesel powered auxiliary power units (APUs) that are often used in trucks for cab comfort during resting hours. The regulation provides some exceptions for traffic and weather conditions, inspection and maintenance, and when idling is necessary to operate equipment on the truck powered by the engine. The 5 minute idling restriction is enforced by ARB inspectors at border crossings, truck stops, ports, and industrial complexes. However, ARB does not have the resources to consistently enforce the 5 minute idling restriction on city streets on a daily basis. Although citizens can directly report idling trucks via the ARB website, citations are not issued as a result of citizen reports; ARB can only contact the registered vehicle owner with information on anti idling regulations. Air quality management districts also have the power to enforce the 5 minute idling restriction; however, in the case of South Coast AQMD, the agency does not actively pursue it. AQMD s enforcement division focuses exclusively on point source emissions, and inspectors are engaged in responding to complaints from the public. Until 2007, ARB and air quality management districts were the only agencies empowered to enforce the 5 minute idling regulation. The passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 233 in 2007 empowered local law enforcement agencies and the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to issue citations to those in violation of ICF International 5 32 June 2013

107 ARB s 5 minute restriction. Local law enforcement officers may use the citing authority under Vehicle Code for excess smoke; however, most officers are reluctant to do so because the code does not specifically mention idling. In addition, municipal staff are not empowered to enforce state regulations and are therefore unable to assist local law enforcement with the monitoring and citing of trucks and buses. Implementation Steps Individual cities could adopt municipal ordinances to give local law enforcement clear authority to cite diesel trucks and buses for idling longer than 5 minutes. They could also empower municipal staff, such as parking authorities, to monitor and enforce idling restrictions within city limits. Collaboration between the Gateway Cities to establish and support a model ordinance that enforces ARB s 5 minute idling regulation and potentially establishes additional parameters for idling restrictions can help improve air quality across the sub region. The GCCOG could work collaboratively with ARB to craft a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on behalf of all municipalities in the Gateway Cities sub region. This MOU would empower local law enforcement agencies in the Gateway Cities sub region to enforce the ARB idling regulation, thereby freeing them from the precarious reliance on the excessive smoke prohibition in the Vehicle Code. It could also extend enforcement power to other city agencies. This model has already been established with the MOU between ARB and the City of Los Angeles Harbor Department for enforcement of drayage port rules in and around the Port of Los Angeles. To be able to implement the enforcement, cities may need to secure additional funding from other sources. Cities could also support implementation of this measure through education and training. In order to effectively enforce anti idling regulations, an education and training program can be rolled out to local public safety officers, providing information on idle limitations and the options available for enforcement and citations. Measure: Reduce Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Diesel Exhaust Overview Exposure to DPM and other pollutants can be especially damaging to sensitive populations such as children, seniors, and people with respiratory problems. Unfortunately, facilities where these sensitive populations congregate, such as day care facilities, schools, senior centers, clinics, and hospitals, are often near major transportation corridors. If a location is being chosen for a new facility, the proximity to emissions sources should be considered. In a developed urban area such as the Gateway Cities, it may be infeasible to relocate sensitive populations away from pollution sources or to move polluting facilities away from sensitive receptors. In this situation, other strategies and technologies can reduce the impacts of air pollution. Options include the following: Limiting truck travel on certain routes or within sensitive neighborhoods. Using a High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filter retrofit program for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems where other mitigation strategies are not practical. This option ICF International 5 33 June 2013

108 should be implemented in conjunction with energy efficiency upgrades to ensure the filters would be effective. Requiring new sensitive receptors to evaluate proximity to high emitting locations (freeways, warehouses, rail yards, ports). Developing new land use/zoning restrictions that minimize conflicts between sensitive receptors and high emitting sources. Evaluating the additional retrofit of school buses and senior transport vehicles to reduce exposure in vehicle cabins. The benefits of these actions are primarily a reduction in health risk to population groups. For sensitive populations, even small reductions in exposure can result in large public health improvements. Implementation Steps In order for a city to develop effective programs to reduce exposure of sensitive populations, cities need to know the location of sensitive receptors within city boundaries. The number of sensitive receptor sites within a city schools, hospitals, parks, daycare centers will illustrate the magnitude of this problem, and the location of these sites will inform the selection of geographic areas for focus. One product of the AQAP study is a report that identifies the location of sensitive receptors in each of the Gateway Cities, including maps of each city and a listing of the number and type of receptors in each city. 59 The report is a valuable resource for cities seeking to reduce air pollution exposure. Because the challenges surrounding sensitive receptor sites are large and potential strategies for addressing these challenges are broad, several agencies have created information clearinghouses and compendia for local governments. Before embarking on a sensitive receptor mitigation program, Gateway Cities can consult the following sources for more information on potential strategies and their effectiveness: ARB maintains a clearinghouse of information focused on community health, including case studies of mitigation measures utilized by state agencies and local municipalities. 60 Several of the case studies illustrate how sensitive receptor plans are compatible with the CEQA environmental permitting process. ARB has also prepared the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, which provides recommendations for how far to locate sensitive receptors from various air pollution sources. 61 ICF International 5 34 June 2013

109 AQMD provides a clearinghouse of information regarding regional and local long range general plans, specifically plans that incorporate air quality elements into the document. For each city included in the clearinghouse, links to the general plan and city contact information are provided. AQMD has also prepared the Air Quality Issues in School Site Selection guidance document, which focuses specifically on the issue of school siting in relation to air pollution sources. 62 Throughout California, several agencies and companies have joined a coalition to improve home energy efficiency. The initiative, called Energy Upgrade California, is an alliance among California counties, cities, non profit organizations, and utilities. Home upgrades funded by this project can also target indoor air quality. Incentives to replace older HVAC systems with more efficient systems using better filtration are generally part of bundled incentives to upgrade the energy efficiency of homes under the Energy Upgrade California program. There are generally three levels of upgrades basic, advanced, and enhanced; the HVAC upgrades are bundled into the advanced upgrade. The current incentive in Los Angeles County runs from about $1,000 to $6,000 per household. Modifying the location of truck routes is another potential mitigation strategy. Cities have already identified and designated preferred truck routes. However, these truck routes may deviate from the fastest route through the community, but they are designed to provide access to industrial areas while avoiding, to the extent possible, residential areas. Such plans could be further analyzed to include requirements that trucks be rerouted away from schools, senior centers, medical facilities, etc., or specify regions that are diesel truck free zones. Measure: Expand Air Quality Monitoring along the I 710 Corridor Overview Air quality in the I 710 corridor is widely believed to be among the worst in the South Coast Air Basin, which is one of the most polluted air basins in the United States. In addition to the AQAP study, numerous other studies have recently pointed to the deleterious health impacts of air pollution in Southern California, including AQMD s MATES II and MATES III and ARB s Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure Assessment Study for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Unfortunately, many of the conclusions in these studies are extrapolated from relatively limited sets of air quality monitoring data that have been collected from a handful of monitoring stations scattered throughout the South Coast Air Basin. For instance, for the groundbreaking MATES II study, data was collected from only three air quality monitoring stations in the Gateway Cities sub region (North Long Beach, Compton, and Huntington Park) and one nearby (Hudson School in Wilmington). In addition the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach operate four monitoring stations. This measure focuses on expanding the network of air quality monitoring stations in the I 710 corridor and maximizing the use of collected monitoring data. AQMD plays a lead role in air quality monitoring throughout the region, so this action item builds on the ICF International 5 35 June 2013