mlimulti-pll rd i pollutant reduction strategy pilot...
TRANSCRIPT
M l i P ll R d i Multi-Pollutant Reduction Strategy Pilot ProjectStrategy Pilot Project
A N D Y H O L L I SS C D H E C
Background• EPA asked us to participate in an analysis project to evaluate proactive multi-pollutant air quality management strategies to
g
proactive multi pollutant air quality management strategies to identify their effects on air pollution concentrations in a particular area of South Carolina.
• We chose the Upstate region for several reasons including the newly proposed ozone standard and the local coalition group’s (Ten at the Top - TATT) commitment to air quality.
• Local emission reduction measures for the Upstate that address multiple pollutants were identified by DHEC, EPA, and TATT.
• Reduction measures were applied to stationary sources only since the regulation of mobile source emissions is much more difficult from a state perspectivefrom a state perspective.
Backgroundg
• Control measures and their costs were identified.
• Modeling was conducted to assess emission reduction effects on Modeling was conducted to assess emission reduction effects on ozone, PM2.5, and other pollutants.
• Population risk exposure was assessed using the EPA’s recent p p gNational Air Toxics Assessment (not included in this presentation) and Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program – Community Edition (BenMAP–CE).
The Control Strategy Tool – “CoST”
Identifies costs associated with control strategies applied to point, area, and mobile sources of air pollutant emissions to support the analyses of air pollution policies and regulations.
An extensive suite of control strategies to area and point sources were evaluated – a “kitchen sink” strategy that would help quantify the maximum reductions available from a regulatory standpoint.
ControlsArea Sources
Low NOx Burner (1997 AQMD) Low Emission Combustion
Point SourcesQ
RACT to 25 tpy (Low NOx Burner)Low NOx Burner
Water and Space HeatersCurtailment Program aka “Burn Ban”*
Low Emission Combustion
Low NOx Burner
Curtailment Program, aka Burn BanNew gas stove or gas logs*Control Technology GuidelinesLPV Relief Valve
Selective Catalytic Reduction
Dry Injection / Fabric Filter System (DIFF)
MACTProcess ModificationReformulation (OTC Rule)Reformulation (Phase II)
Wet Scrubber
Add-on controls, work practices, and t i l f l ti / b tit tiReformulation (Phase II)
Reformulation-Process ModificationReformulation-Process Modification
(OTC Rule)S l U ili i
material reformulation/substitution
Permanent Total Enclosure (PTE)
Solvent Utilization Solvent Recovery System
Reductions
NOx – 1587 tons (of 46,179)PM2 5 222 tons (of 7 943)PM2.5 – 222 tons (of 7,943)SO2 – 766.32 tons (of 8,725)VOCs – 2727 tons (of 46 453)VOCs – 2727 tons (of 46,453)
Based on 2011 NEI Based on 2011 NEI
Emission reductions ranged from g~$300-$13,000 per ton of pollutant, and varied widely on efficacy. The total cost y yof the reductions were $20,045,222.
h h i l Photochemical ModelingModeling
Dispersion modeling
P i il d f i ll f i l ( f ) Thi Primarily used for inert pollutants from single (or a few) sources. This method is currently used extensively for permit modeling
Ozone is not an inert pollutant and is not emitted directly into the air but is Ozone is not an inert pollutant and is not emitted directly into the air, but is created by chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight. Formation of ground-level ozone is usually greatest during the summer when sunlight is stronger and
hi htemperatures are high.
Ozone ChemistryTropospheric ReactionsTropospheric Reactions
The atmospheric chemistry behind the production of ozone is fairly complicated. In order to model the formation of ozone effectively, models
t t k i t t ll h i l d t l i l f t t i must take into account all chemical and meteorological factors present in an expansive air shed
Secondary PM2.5
Likewise for PM2.5
i ll i d i Air Pollution Reduction ResultsResults
Results – PM2.55
Results – PM2.55
Monitor ID Base DV Future DV %450450009 10.6 10.39 1.9
6 2 4450450015 10.9 10.64 2.4
Results – PM2.55Monitor ID date Base DV Future DV %450450015 Q4 10 44 9 944 4 8450450015 Q4 10.44 9.944 4.8450450015 Q1 10.15 9.701 4.4450450009 Q4 9.929 9.5 4.3450450009 Q1 9.551 9.199 3.7
crustalElementalcarbon nh4
Organic carbon so4 no3 water salt
450450009 Q1 9.551 9.199 3.7
crustal carbon nh4 carbon so4 no3 water salt0.999 0.9851 0.9972 0.9615 0.9982 0.9764 0.9985 0.9955
0.9991 0.9843 0.9971 0.9558 0.9982 0.9753 0.9986 0.9944
The biggest reductions occurred in the colder months in the organic carbon species wood to natural gas control strategy likely had a lot to do with this species. wood to natural gas control strategy likely had a lot to do with this temporal and species reduction profile.
Results – PM2.5
Results - Ozone
Results - Ozone
Monitor_ID Monitor_Name Base_DV Future_DV %_ _ _ _450010001 Due West 62 61.7 0.48450070005 Big Creek 70 69.8 0.29
C 6 6450210002 Cowpens 67.3 67.2 0.15450450016 HillCrest 68 67.3 1.03450451003 Famoda Farms 65.3 65.2 0.15450730001 Long Creek 64.5 64.4 0.16450770002 Clemson 69.7 69.5 0.29
W lf C k 6 68 8450770003 Wolf Creek 69 68.8 0.29450830009 North Spartanburg 73.7 73.3 0.54
Upstate NOx Emissions by Source CategoryUpstate NOx Emissions by Source Category
BENMap Benefits and Valuation Summary(Milli f D ll )
South Carolina BenMAP CE
(Millions of Dollars)
South Carolina Zip Code Incidence
BenMAP‐CECounty Incidence
10 at the Top 10 at the Top South Carolina 12km DomainPopulation 930,000 930,000 3,000,000 43,000,000
PM Avoided Deaths(Krewski and Lepeule) 2.3‐5.3 10‐23 11‐24 16‐36
PM Benefits(Peters, 3% Discount) $23‐48 $92‐210 $97‐220 $140‐320
Ozone Avoided Deaths(Bell, 2004) <1 <1 <1 1.0
Ozone Benefits (Bell 2004 + $0 87 $3 2 $4 3 $10(Bell, 2004 + Morbidity)
$0.87 $3.2 $4.3 $10
Total PM and Ozone Benefits(95% Confidence
$23($2 7 63)
$95($9 3 260)
$101($9 8 270)
$150($15 420)(95% Confidence
Interval)($2.7‐63) ($9.3‐260) ($9.8‐270) ($15‐420)
Conclusion• While maximum daily ozone reductions can be as high as ~2 ppb. Design value reductions are typically < 1 ppb at the monitors. Less than a 1% reduction.than a 1% reduction.
• PM2.5 reductions are more significant at around a 2% reduction at the monitors for the annual standard.
• While these reductions are relatively small, they do translate into ~$150M of potential heath benefits.
• Mobile source reductions should be an area of focus for reduction strategies.
• In light ever decreasing standards, we will rely on local governments to pursue proactive transportation strategies that reduce pollutants because creating nonattainment strategies will be very pollutants…because creating nonattainment strategies will be very difficult (and expensive).
