Residential Wood Combustion Emissions Inventory Project for the MANE-VU Region Megan Schuster,...
-
Upload
clementine-williamson -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
4
Transcript of Residential Wood Combustion Emissions Inventory Project for the MANE-VU Region Megan Schuster,...
Residential Wood Combustion Residential Wood Combustion Emissions Inventory ProjectEmissions Inventory Project
for the MANE-VU Region for the MANE-VU Region
Megan Schuster, MARAMA
Annual RPO Meeting, St. Louis, MO
November 4-6, 2003
RWCRWC
Background Information Survey methodology and sample frameSurvey results Two approaches to analyze dataIssues/ Problems
Residential Wood Combustion Residential Wood Combustion Project BackgroundProject Background
Origin of RWC project: Assessment of Emissions Inventory Needs for Regional Haze Plans
RWC Emissions– High contribution to regional haze– Contribute approx. 8% of PM fine in MANE-VU
region– Large uncertainty – Important local source to Class I areas – States have the potential to improve the activity data
RWCRWC
EIIP suggested methodology: Survey Project Intent: To estimate activity data and
an emissions inventory from residential wood combustion in the MANE-VU Region through survey methodology
Contract: E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc.
SurveySurvey
Telephone approach (CATI)Survey questionnaire based on previous
studies (esp. CARB study)Intended to obtain information on wood
burning equipment type and wood type
Survey Sample FrameSurvey Sample Frame
Sample frame– Includes important variables that affect activity (i.e.,
annual wood consumption) Urban, suburban, or rural locations Type of housing (single versus multi-family homes) Forested versus non-forested areas Latitude
Minimum sample size per cell = 61 completed surveys– Based on level of precision +/- 13.3%
RWC Sample Frame and RWC Sample Frame and (Number of Respondents)(Number of Respondents)
Rural-Forested Rural-Non-Forested Suburban Urban Geographic Zone
Single-Family
Other Single-Family
Other Single- Family
Other Single-Family
Other
High HDD Cell 1 61
(173)
Cell 2 61
(64)
Cell 3 61
(87)
Cell 4 61
(66)
Cell 5 61
(61)
Cell 6 61
(72)
Cell 7 61
(69)
Cell 8 61
(69) Low HDD Cell 9
61 (150)
Cell 10 61
(62)
Cell 11 61
(118)
Cell 12 61
(69)
Cell 13 61
(76)
Cell 14 61
(67)
Cell 15 61
(75)
Cell 16 61
(62) Med HDD Cell 17
61 (87)
Cell 18 61
(60)1
Cell 19 61
(91)
Cell 20 61
(64)
Cell 21 61
(71)
Cell 22 61
(60)1
Cell 23 61
(63)
Cell 24 61
(68)
1Number of responses ended up being less than the target value of 61 due to either: changes in the Disposition of one or more responses (i.e., change of address from the original sample); or dropping a response out of the final database (i.e., following QA of that response)
HDD Zones for MANE-VU HDD Zones for MANE-VU RegionRegion
MA
NE
-VU
Re
gio
nM
AN
E-V
U R
eg
ion
HD
D Z
on
es
HDD Zones4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
8500
9000
9500
10000
Fig
ure
2.
E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc.Date: January 28, 2003.
Source: 2000 U.S. Census.
0 40 80 120 16020Miles
Survey Results Survey Results - Activity Data- Activity Data
Summary of Wood Burners in MANE-VU Region
22%
10%
68%
Burns wood
Has wood burningequipment, did not burnwood
No equipment, does notburn wood
Respondents Reporting Respondents Reporting Usage of Indoor Burning Usage of Indoor Burning
EquipmentEquipmentRural-Forested Rural-Non-
Forested Suburban Urban Geographic
Zone Single-
Family Other Single
Family Other Single
Family Other Single
Family Other
High HDD Cell 1
67 Cell 2
4 Cell 3
28 Cell 4
3 Cell 5
11 Cell 6
0 Cell 7
10 Cell 8
2 Low HDD Cell 9
62 Cell 10
1 Cell 11
28 Cell 12
2 Cell 13
20 Cell 14
3 Cell 15
10 Cell 16
5 Med HDD Cell 17
29 Cell 18
5 Cell 19
22 Cell 20
4 Cell 21
26 Cell 22
2 Cell 23
4 Cell 24
0
Pechan’s AnalysisPechan’s Analysis User Fraction: fraction of households that actually burn wood
– Wood consumers = 1– Respondents that do not burn wood = 2– Significant Difference b/w UF
Single vs Multi unit households Geographic locations (U/S/RF/RNF)
– No Significant Difference b/w HDD level Annual Consumption: Amount of wood burned per household
(cords/yr, or BTUs/yr) -- Normalized by HDD level – Significant Difference b/w HDD level
Low response rate in certain cells prompted Pechan to try to combine cells that were not significantly different
UF Cell by Cell ComparisonUF Cell by Cell Comparison
LSD TestUser Fraction by cell
cell 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1 RF - HDD high single - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 173
2 RF - HDD high multi * - * * * * * * * 64
3 RNF - HDD high single * - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 87
4 RNF - HDD high multi * * - * * * * * * * 66
5 S - HDD high single * * * - * * * * * * * * * * 61
6 S - HDD high multi * * * - * * * * * * * * 72
7 U - HDD high single * * * - * * * * * * 69
8 U - HDD high multi * * * - * * * * * * 69
9 RF - HDD low single * * * * * * - * * * * * * * * * * * * * 150
10 RF - HDD low multi * * * * * - * * * * * 62
11 RNF - HDD low single * * * * * * * - * * * * * * * * * * 118
12 RNF - HDD low multi * * * * * - * * * * 69
13 S - HDD low single * * * * * * * * * - * * * * * * * * 76
14 S - HDD low multi * * * * * * - * * * 67
15 U - HDD low single * * * * * * - * * * * 75
16 U - HDD low multi * * * * * - * * * 62
17 RF - HDD med single * * * * * * * * * * * - * * * * * 87
18 RF - HDD med multi * * * * * * - * * 60
19 RNF - HDD med single * * * * * * * * * * * * - * * * * * 91
20 RNF - HDD med multi * * * * * * * - * 64
21 S - HDD med single * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - * * * 71
22 S - HDD med multi * * * * * * * * * - 60
23 U - HDD med single * * * * * * * * - 63
24 U - HDD med multi * * * * * * * * * * * - 68
Even cell numbers=apartments * p<= .05 1904Uneven cell numbers=single family homes
AC Cell by Cell ComparisonAC Cell by Cell Comparison
LSD TestBTU/ yr-HDD RF
- HDD h
igh sin
gle
RF -
HDD high multi
RNF - H
DD high sin
gle
RNF - H
DD high multi
S - H
DD high sin
gle
S - H
DD high multi
U - HDD h
igh sin
gle
U - HDD h
igh multi
RF -
HDD low si
ngle
RF -
HDD low m
ulti
RNF - H
DD low si
ngle
RNF - H
DD low m
ulti
S - H
DD low si
ngle
S - H
DD low m
ulti
U - HDD lo
w si
ngle
U - HDD lo
w m
ulti
RF -
HDD med
sing
le
RF -
HDD med
multi
RNF - H
DD med
sing
le
RNF - H
DD med
multi
S - H
DD med
sing
le
S - H
DD med
multi
U - HDD m
ed si
ngle
U - HDD m
ed m
ulti
comp pe
r cell
cell 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1 RF - HDD high single - * * * 67
2 RF - HDD high multi _ * * * * * * 4
3 RNF - HDD high single - * * * * * * * * 28
4 RNF - HDD high multi - 3
5 S - HDD high single - 11
6 S - HDD high multi - no cases7 U - HDD high single * * * - * * 10
8 U - HDD high multi - 2
9 RF - HDD low single * - * 62
10 RF - HDD low multi - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - excluded11 RNF - HDD low single * - 28
12 RNF - HDD low multi - 2
13 S - HDD low single * * * - * 20
14 S - HDD low multi - 3
15 U - HDD low single * * * * - * 10
16 U - HDD low multi * * - 5
17 RF - HDD med single * * * - * 29
18 RF - HDD med multi - 5
19 RNF - HDD med single - 22
20 RNF - HDD med multi * * - 4
21 S - HDD med single * - 26
22 S - HDD med multi - 2
23 U - HDD med single * * * - 4
24 U - HDD med multi - no casesEven quota numbers=apartments * p<= .05Uneven quota numbers=single family homes
Indoor Burning Equipment Indoor Burning Equipment Reported (% burned) Reported (% burned) Rural-Forested Rural-Non-Forested Suburban Urban Geographic
Zone
Single-Family
Other Single-Family
Other Single- Family
Other Single-Family
Other
High HDD Cell 1 FP= 34 WS= 67 F/B= 21 PS= 4
Cell 2 FP= 75 WS= 75 F/B= 0 PS= 0
Cell 3 FP= 43 WS= 76 F/B= 7 PS= 0
Cell 4 FP= 33 WS= 67 F/B= 0 PS= 0
Cell 5 FP= 36 WS= 64 F/B= 18 PS= 0
Cell 6 FP= 0 WS= 0 F/B= 0 PS= 0
Cell 7 FP= 80 WS= 30 F/B= 0 PS= 0
Cell 8 FP= 100 WS= 0 F/B= 50 PS= 0
Low HDD Cell 9 FP= 60 WS= 65 F/B= 5 PS= 2
Cell 10 FP= 100 WS= 0 F/B= 0 PS= 0
Cell 11 FP= 61 WS= 54 F/B= 4 PS= 4
Cell 12 FP= 50 WS= 50 F/B= 0 PS= 0
Cell 13 FP= 70 WS= 35 F/B= 0 PS= 5
Cell 14 FP= 67 WS= 0 F/B= 0 PS= 33
Cell 15 FP= 90 WS= 10 F/B= 0 PS= 0
Cell 16 FP= 100 WS= 0 F/B= 0 PS= 20
Med HDD Cell 17 FP= 55 WS= 66 F/B= 7 PS= 7
Cell 18 FP= 60 WS= 60 F/B= 0 PS= 0
Cell 19 FP= 59 WS= 45 F/B= 0 PS= 9
Cell 20 FP= 100 WS= 0 F/B= 0 PS= 25
Cell 21 FP= 81 WS= 27 F/B= 8 PS= 4
Cell 22 FP= 50 WS= 50 F/B= 0 PS= 0
Cell 23 FP= 100 WS= 0 F/B= 0 PS= 0
Cell 24 FP= 0 WS= 0 F/B= 0 PS= 0
Collapsed Sample Frame for Collapsed Sample Frame for Indoor Equipment UseIndoor Equipment Use
Rural-Forested Rural-Non-Forested
Suburban Urban Geographic Zone Single
Family Other Single
Family Other Single
Family Other Single
Family Other
High HDD Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
Low HDD Cell 9 Cell 10 Cell 11 Cell 12 Cell 13 Cell 14 Cell 15 Cell 16
Med HDD Cell 17 Cell 18 Cell 19 Cell 20 Cell 21 Cell 22 Cell 23 Cell 24
Issues/ ProblemsIssues/ Problems
1. Collapsing data cells should only be based on statistical analysis
2. Subdividing cells by equipment type necessitates a larger sample size
Alternative Analysis ApproachAlternative Analysis Approach
1. Calculate emissions per survey response (based on equipment and wood type)
2. Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance Corrected Mean Household Emissions for a cell =
M + Ai + Bj + Ck + Dij + Ejk + Fik
M = Overall mean of household emissions
Ai = Mean of each applicable housing type for that cell – M
Bj = Mean of each applicable geographic location (U/S/RF/RNF) – M
Ck = Mean of each applicable HDD level – M
Dij = mean of ith house type /jth geo location – mean ith house type – mean of j geo location + M
Eik = mean of ith house type/ kth HDD level – mean ith house type – mean kth HDD + M
F jk = mean of jth geo location/kth HDD level - mean of jth geo location – mean of kth HDD level + M
Future ImplicationsFuture Implications
Sample frame and minimum response rate requirement critical in obtaining useful information
Survey questionnaire should not be too specific
Improve EIIP to include suggested data analysis for survey methodology
Additional MANE-VU EI Additional MANE-VU EI ProjectsProjects
Calculation sheets – Develop calculation sheets using the preferred calculation method for the top area source categories and three non-road categories– Final Sheets – January 2004
Open Burning Project – Improve emission estimates from open burning sources (Yard Waste – Household Brush and Leaf Burning; MSW or Household Waste Burning; and Municipal Yard Waste Burning) through survey methods – completed– Final Revised Report – November 2003– NIF 3.0 – January 2004
Additional MANE-VU EI Additional MANE-VU EI ProjectsProjects
Ammonia EI Project – Pechan is creating an emissions inventory for the MANE-VU region for industrial refrigeration, cement plants, POTWs and composting
– Final EI and Report – January 2004 Mobile Inventory - Pechan is creating a mobile
emissions inventory for onroad and nonroad mobile sources
– Default data based on 2002 NEI – January 2004– Onroad MOBILE6 input files, 2002 VMT database and
Nonroad input files – April 2004– Draft Final Inventory – December 2004
Additional MANE-VU EI Additional MANE-VU EI ProjectsProjects
Compilation of 2002 Area and Point Modeling Inventories– Basis : State CERR submittals (June 2004)– Augmented with other data gathered from EI Projects
(Ammonia, RWC, Open Burning), and CEM data – Absent data will be supplemented with 1999 NEI
grown to 2002 (from EPA)– Final Inventory will be used for modeling PM fine and
regional haze – Fall 2004
Draft Strawman Timeline
Key
Preparation / Follow Up
Core Activity
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
1.0 PM- 2.5 Designations
2.0 Estimate Natural & Baseline Conditions
3.0 Develop SIP Template
4.0 Ongoing Technical Support Activities
5.0 Prepare Final Technical Support Documents
6.0 Identify & Analyze
Alternatives for Goals & Strategies
7.0 Develop Model Rules for Selected Sources and Adopt Rules
8.0 Develop Reasonable Progress
Goals
9.0 Develop Long- term Strategy Agreement, Rules, &
SIP
10.0 Submit SIP