LADCO`s Role in State Air Quality Planning

LADCO’s Role in
State Air Quality Planning
Donna Kenski
Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium
June 13-15 AQAST Meeting, Madison WI
About LADCO
• The Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) was established
in 1990 by the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin. In
March 2004, the states added Ohio as a member, and Minnesota
joined in Feb 2012
• The main purpose of LADCO is to
– provide technical assessments for and assistance to its member
states on problems of air quality;
– provide a forum for its member states to discuss air quality issues.
• LADCO's major pollutants of concern are ozone, fine particles,
regional haze and their precursors
• Problems related to other pollutants (such as air toxics) may be
assessed at the direction of the member states.
• Geographic focus is our member states and any areas which affect air
quality in our member states.
Technical Support
• Schedule dictated by regulatory requirements
• Four components:
– Emissions inventory development,
– Photochemical modeling,
– Data analysis,
– Monitoring and special projects
• All work is done in collaboration with the
states, via workgroups
EMISSIONS INVENTORIES
2007 Regional Emissions Inventory (TPY)
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
area
on-road
MAR
3,000,000
nonroad
nonEGU
EGU
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
NOX
ROG
SO2
PM2.5
Commercial Marine
100%
80%
60%
Great Lakes
40%
Inland Waterways
20%
0%
NOx (MT) SOx (MT)
HC (MT)
PM (MT)
Using model performance to improve inventories
Base K
2005
Base A
2007
Base M1
Base M2
EGU Temporal, Biogenics, NH3
model for Farms
Biogenics , Onroad OC
Base B
Chemical Speciation, MOVES
Base C
Better MOVES
Emission Inventory Priorities
Sector
Biogenics
Agricultural Ammonia
On-road
EGU Point
Nonroad
Area
Marine/aircraft
rail
Fires
Future Improvements
(1)Need better handling of SOA precursors
(2) Process based models(get the physics right)
to accurately represent variability in emissions based on
meteorology and activity
(3) Need faster MOVES model, national link-level networks
(4) Need better growth models
(5) Need better processing techniques that capture day -specific
activities.
(6)ERTAC and high spatial resolution( beyond counties)
(7)High spatial resolution(links, shipping routes)
(8)National inventories built with state prescribed fire activity with
more unified data.
PHOTOCHEMICAL MODELING
Model Overview
Models:
CAMx/WRF/CONCEPT(EMS)
Domain/Grid: N. America (36 km),
Midwest (12 km), Great Lakes (4 km)
12 km
Base Year: 2007 (->2011)
Future Years: 2015, 2020, 2030 (?)
36 km
10
Ozone
Attainment
Test
Kenosha County, WI
MONITORING AND DATA ANALYSIS
Ozone Design Values: 8-Hour
2001-2003
2009-2011
Meteorologically Adjusted Ozone Trends
Chicago
Milwaukee
Detroit
Indianapolis
Cleveland
Cincinnati
18
Winter Nitrate Study
Purpose: Improve understanding of role of
emissions (NOx and ammonia) and
meteorology in winter PM2.5 episodes
Tasks
(1) Sampling: Collect continuous
measurements of NH3, HNO3, NOy, sulfates,
and nitrates at two sites in Wisconsin
(December 2008 – March 2009)
Mayville
Milwaukee
(2) Data Analysis: Examine spatial and
temporal relationships of ammonia and
particulate nitrate, and assess relative
effectiveness of reductions in ammonia and
nitric acid on PM2.5 – final reports (2) at
http://www.ladco.org/reports/pm25/winter_nitrate/index.php
19
January 22, 2009
January 24, 2009
20
Key Findings
• Conceptual model of winter PM2.5 nitrate episodes
• Meteorology: shallow, stable boundary layer, increases in temperature and
humidity (especially, temperatures near freezing and regional snow cover
resulting in fog), light winds, cloud cover
• Pollutants: NOx (nitric acid production) and ammonia
• Episodes in Wisconsin showed strong enhancements in both
primary and secondary compounds
• Nitrate, in particular, was 2-3 times higher during episodes
• Significant differences in winter PM2.5 episode frequency and
chemical composition between urban and rural sites
• Winter PM2.5 events in upper Midwest vary by year
• Emissions sensitivity of episodes indicate the importance of both
ammonia and nitrate
• Under (sulfate) control scenario, greater sensitivity to nitrate
21
Biomass Project
Goal: Develop biomass emission factors based on
emission measurements at three power plants in WI
Bay Front
Ashland, WI
Schedule: Stack testing - September 2010 (Bay
Front and Nelson Dewey)
Ambient monitoring - July 2010-June 2011
* PM2.5-spec, PM2.5-cont, NOx, SO2, NH3, HNO3, BC, met
Data analysis – fall 2011
Final report – February 2012
Xcel Energy Bay Front
Alliant Energy Nelson Dewey
Nelson Dewey & Stoneman
Cassville, WI
DTE Energy Stoneman
22
Wood Smoke Project
Goal: Assess impacts of wood smoke on
winter PM2.5 in a community, develop
standard approach for responding to wood
smoke complaints
Tasks: (1) Prepare “toolkit” with basic
information, easy-to-use monitors,
recommended actions
(2) Conduct case study in community
impacted by OWBs, wood stoves, other
wood or vegetation burning
Grand
Rapids
Grand Rapids, WI
23
Preliminary source apportionment
from wood smoke study
Mercury Deposition Monitoring
Red sites are recently closed; black sites are operating as of 2012
#
%
%#
%
%
%
%
%
% %
%
#
%
#
#
%
%
%
#
%
#
#
#
#
%
# #
#
%
#
#
%
%
%
%
%
% #%
% %
%
#
%
%
%
%%
%
Under grant from Great Lakes Commission:
1. Re-start two (2) of IN mercury sites
2. Assess mercury network in Midwest
* Spatial analyses: correlation, unmonitored area, area/population served
* Emissions inventory analysis
* Trends analysis
* Back trajectories
25
Hg Emissions Density, lbs/yr/sq.mi
Current challenges
• State Implementation Plan (SIP) development and support
(figuring out how to meet tighter AQ standards)
– improving photochemical model performance and validation through
higher resolution grids, better met modeling (needs more QA and
validation); chemistry to improve SOA
– emission inventory improvements, especially for biogenics, NH3,
and mobile sources
• New monitoring requirements for ozone, NO2, SO2 (doing
more monitoring with less money)
• Assessing AQ impacts from fracking, natural gas pipelines
• Continuing efforts to develop conceptual models of PM2.5,
especially wrt winter nitrate, wood smoke, and SOA
QUESTIONS?