California air quality

[scottbombedout]

Questions from across the pond..........

Over in the US there are Federal air quality standards to adhere to.

Does every State then set their own standards and would California have the strictest standards of all the States?

Ta
Scott

[Joe Bob]

You can't relax Federal AQ regs. They CAN be stricter. MOST manufacturers make vehicles that comply with CA standards. Easier to manufacture...the end user is the wild card. Aftermarket go fast parts....they CAN be used in CA if they have a CARB certification.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by scottbombedout

Does every State then set their own standards and would California have the strictest standards of all the States?

Ta
Scott

In the Port of Long Beach air quality goals and rules are stricter than other ports. We might have more smog equipment on a lawnmower than others. CA Air Resources Board (CARB) has outlawed 2-clycl mini scooters and such.

Yeah, I think we are quite a bit stricter.

[Ronbo]

Some other states have adopted the CA standards.

[Joe Bob]

Originally Posted by Ronbo

Some other states have adopted the CA standards.

The reason is that it's cheaper to adopt CA rules than to spend money and research for rules unique to their areas. One case in point, vapor recovery nozzles on gas pumps.

[Jim Bremner]

I'm a 46 year old California native. When I was in elemantry school our air was so bad that there weree days that the schools wouldn't let us play on he playground! It was a rare day that you could see the Mountains from Long Beach.

Todays air quality is so much better.

[porwolf]

Originally Posted by Jim Bremner

I'm a 46 year old California native. When I was in elemantry school our air was so bad that there where days that the schools wouldn't let us play on he playground! It was a rare day that you could see the Mountains from Long Beach.

Todays air quality is so much better.

Yes, California air has improved immensely since the 70's! I remember one drive north from Los Angeles through the San Fernando Valley in the late afternoon when I had to stop driving because I literally choked, suffered chest pains, and could not see straight because of itching eyes!

[Joe Bob]

You can get that scenario now in Mexico City, Denver and most of China.

[RWebb]

Yes, states can be stricter. SoCal has its own air quality management district IIRC. SoCal has to be more stringent than, say, Vacuous, Montana because Vacuous has little industry, cars, etc. and the wind blows away what little pollution is generated there.

In contrast, SoCal is a big basin that holds in polluted air (we use a name "airshed" to talk about an area with similar air characteristics; it is borrowed from the term "watershed"). Another big problem is that SoCal is HOT - that means that emitted chemicals interact to form smog. Something that does not happen in cold areas.

So you have federal stds., state stds. and even smaller areas. For example, in my town we have our very own air quality authority -- the only place in the state of Oregon that does. Portland does not, but the state does impose vehicle testing on cars in/near Portland (also Medford in So. Oregon IIRC) because the number of cars (and in Medford, heat) requires that in order to meet the federal stds.

Now... different parts of the US also have different stds. even beyond this - for example, some areas of national Parks and wilderness are Class I; other places are lower classes. This is ind. of what state they are in.

Finally, there are types of pollution that are entirely unregulated, and are natural in origin. One famous example here was when President Reagan said something about haze in the Great Smokey mountains being natural in origin. He caught a lot of guff for that remark, but he was partly correct - a lot of the haze there is natural, and is generated by the conifer trees that grow there (terpenes).

Where I live, the worst pollution is "semi-natural." It is the pollen generated by grass (the grass is grown for grass seed further north in the Willamette Valley). The valley had some grass before agri-biz moved in but not nearly so bad. The pollen causes a great deal of suffering, and medical problems for about a million people here and costs tens of millions of dollars in treatment. I was just talking to an allergist (both a researcher and a clinician) yesterday, and they have found that the overall size of the pollen "sack" is 25 um -- if you are aware of the EPA regs on diesel & wood smoke particulates, those are set at 2.5 um and 10 um. So, the pollen sacks are not a huge issue (major bronchi affected)... until it rains and they burst. Then, they release micro-granules of pollen which are only 0.1 um. That tiny size means they are highly respirable and go way way deep into tiny passages in the lungs. Yet, the TV weathermen keep telling everybody that the rain is "washing the pollen out of the air so enjoy!" but in fact, the air is much worse!

Many people around here also wear masks, which do nothing at all to filter the air for pollen or diesel exhaust particles.

If you would like more complex and confusing info, just ask!

[widebody911]

Originally Posted by porwolf

Yes, California air has improved immensely since the 70's! I remember one drive north from Los Angeles through the San Fernando Valley in the late afternoon when I had to stop driving because I literally choked, suffered chest pains, and could not see straight because of itching eyes!

F*ckin' liberals with all their regulations!

[look 171]

Originally Posted by Joe Bob

You can get that scenario now in Mexico City, Denver and most of China.

Hey look at their geography, very similar to ours. They mts trap smog.

[Joe Bob]

Well....Denver has a worse inversion problem than LA does.

Mexico and China still burn leaded fuel and do not control power plant emissions, burn trash, have fireplaces for heating, burn high sulfuric Diesel fuel, burn animal and human waste and basically control nothing.

Japan is impacted by Chinese emissions.

[scottbombedout]

Thanks for the replies.

Randy you nailed it, especially with regard the wood smoke.

There is currently an 80MW biomass power station planned for the field next to my house (hence all my recent questions ).

We have a massive campaign against it. One argument put forward (against our campaign) is that our (UK) air quality regulations are fantastically strict, therefore no problem emission wise.
A local Doctor is trying to tell us that the UK air quality is stricter than the US. However, the more I look in to that, the more I see that actually yes, federally it is stricter. But your States seem to regulate air quality more than the federal government.

Just trying to formulate my reply. Ideas from anyone more than welcome.

[KNS]

I believe California has the most strict emissions regulations in the world..(?).

I'm about the same age as Jim and grew up in LA, the air was awful back then! I remember "3rd stage smog alerts", you could take a deep breath and your chest would hurt.

They have come a long way....

[Rick V]

Don't forget to mention noise, destruction of natural environment, effect on property values, etc.

[Jim Bremner]

California regulates charcoal starter fluid, small garden engines, Barbecue restaurants as well as aerosol cans. I'm sure that there's far greater ones that I've missed.



The Los Angeles basin has a range of mountains and hills that forms a ) around LA that stops the smog from dissipating.

One of the things about this ) is that there's several airports in the basin. LAX,Long Beach, John Wayne, Ontario, Van Nuys, Los Alamitos, & Burbank are just some of the ones that are major. A Large jet takes 7,000 pounds of fuel in the first 15 minutes of flight. Now if we moved the airports outside of the LA basin and used the airports as parking lots and had railways to the new airports this would remove a ton of airborne pollution.

[Joe Bob]

Glad you feel that Randy 'nailed it'.....

There are six criteria air pollutants.
Ozone
Particulate Matter
Carbon Monoxide PM10 and/2.5
Nitrogen Oxides
Sulfur Dioxide
Lead

Limits are set based on how destructive each pollutant is. Air monitoring tells you what you have in a particular air basin. Control rules are then introduced to control sources of those emissions.

Precursors to ozone are VOCs (volatile organic compounds), gasoline vapors, paint fumes, etc. Controls are vapor recovery for underground tanks and refueling of vehicles, water based paints, higher transfer efficiency paint application, etc.

Lead...no more lead in paints and gas....etc....

PM10/2.5 controls on powerplants and other sources of burning

CO and NO2 vehicular controls....

The above is overly simplified and by no means inclusive. Each source of control adds to the whole. Ratcheting down on smaller sources like lighter fluid may seem picky but that stuff adds up.

Airplanes are Federally regulated and States can't touch them...but they are getting cleaner every generation of engine.

Believe it or not....ships and trains are subject to controls if within the 12 mile limit (ships...duh) or if the train smokes too much and needs to use low Sulfur fuel.

In the US there is an engineering analysis which is public record and there are hearings prior to construction. You should have that right in the UK as well.

[scottbombedout]

I did say thanks for the replies Bob.

But anyway.

Thanks for the replies!

[scottbombedout]

Originally Posted by Joe Bob

Believe it or not....ships and trains are subject to controls if within the 12 mile limit (ships...duh) or if the train smokes too much and needs to use low Sulfur fuel.

Thats important because shipping pollution is exacerbated when it combines with sunshine and more importantly sea air.

We are surrounded by the sea on 3 sides and the plant is 100 metres from the shore. Therefore I'm thinking chloride from the sea will combine with nitrogen oxide from the plant to form nitryl chloride.

But thats for another question

[RWebb]

ships...duh -- ships burn a very low grade & high pollution fuel "bunker fuel" -- you can get sammy to fill in the blanks but it is essentially a step or two above asphalt when you crack crude

Scott - now that I know exactly where you are headed with this, I may be able to get more (and more specific info) to you.

I will check & see - but... I have to tell you that they put in a big biomass burner here -- it was very controversial and opposed by the enviros here, so I checked into it - the emissions were pretty low; in fact, I ran some calculations after getting data from the air resources agency and the biomass burner emitted only as much as 80 wood stoves. There are 100,000 wood stoves here...