Health-Benefits Analysis in Support of the Georgia SIPs for O 3 and PM 2.5

Similar documents
8-Hour Ozone and PM 2.5 Modeling to Support the Georgia SIP

Estimating the Benefits of EPA s Air Pollution Regulations

Non-attainment in Georgia

EPD Air Protection Overview

Department of the Environment. The 2006 Healthy Air Act New Clean Air Act Power Plant Requirements Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Act of 2009

Agenda. Background PM2.5 Attainment Plan Public Workshop

Air Quality Modeling and Health Impacts Assessment for Southeastern North Carolina

Presentation for CMAS Conference September 29, 2005

NAAQS Attainment & PSD Modeling Update

Modeling Committee Update

ECONOMIC IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH AIR QUALITY

Executive Summary PM2.5 Plan. SJVUAPCD Executive Summary. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

State Implementation Plans for Federal 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 Standards San Joaquin Valley Eastern Kern County

Assessment of regional air quality and health impacts from the NARA aviation biofuel supply chain

Air Quality Management (AQM) Clean Air Act (History, Objectives, NAAQS) Non-attainment regions

Evolution of Air Pollution Monitoring in Ottawa

The Health and Related Economic Benefits of Attaining Healthful Air in the San Joaquin Valley

The Role of Health Co-Benefits in EPA s Regulatory Impact Analyses. Scott Bloomberg Vice President

CBA: progress, major issues and challenges

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)

Relative risk calculations

Fine Particles in the Air

Air Quality Rules Update: CAIR CAMR

NO 2 Primary NAAQS Final Rulemaking

Air Quality and GHG Emission Impacts of Stationary Fuel Cell Systems

ARTICLE IN PRESS. Lauraine G. Chestnut*, David M. Mills. Stratus Consulting Inc., P.O. Box 4059, Boulder, CO , USA

Air Quality in the San Joaquin Valley

Railroads: emissions, analysis, impacts, and the potential for improvement

Time 05/31 (Friday) Lead 08:45 10:30 AM Taiwan Emission Cost Analysis System (TECAS) Overview and demo/hands-on (Regional Partner breakfast meeting)

Ozone 101. Maricopa County Air Quality Department. September 4, Tom Moore WRAP Air Quality Program Manager WESTAR Council

AIR STRATEGY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: AN INTEGRATED SCREENING TOOL FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING

Understanding the NAAQS and the Designation Process

Residential Wood Combustion Workshop

Permit & Photochemical Modeling Update James W. Boylan Georgia EPD Air Protection Branch Unit Coordinator, Data and Modeling Unit

Transportation Impacts on Air Quality

Air Quality Monitoring: Ozone Attainment Status

SEMAP 2018 Ozone Projections and Sensitivity to NO x & VOC Emissions

Economics, Public Health and the Environment: State of the (Applied) Science

Measuring Environmental Impacts - Air

Key findings of air pollution health effects and its application

Vehicle Emissions and Health: A Global Perspective on Effects, Placed in an Indian Context

Contributions of Interstate Transport of Air Pollutants to Air Pollution-related Mortality in the Mid-Atlantic U.S.

MODELING THE CO-BENEFITS OF CARBON STANDARDS FOR EXISTING POWER PLANTS

Reducing Air Pollution Protecting Public Health. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation

Chapter 5 FUTURE OZONE AIR QUALITY

Final Updates to National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone. October 2015

Report to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment: An Update in Support of the Canada-wide Standards for Particulate Matter and Ozone

EPA Regional Modeling for National Rules (and Beyond) CAIR/ CAMR / BART

Improving Urban Air Quality using a Cost-Efficiency and Health Benefit Approach

Commanding Clean Air. The Clean Air Act of 1970 as a Model for U.S. Environmental Policy Clean Air Act

Air Quality Update on the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Small Business Compliance Advisory Committee January 27, 2016 Harrisburg, PA

Final Revisions to the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 )

What is the Transport Rule?

Wildfires: Smoke Impacts and Public Health Protection

Americans on Ground Level Ozone

Human Health and Environmental Effects of the Clear Skies Initiative

PM2.5 Designations: Evaluating Contribution of Multiple Pollutants Using the Weighted Emissions Score

Air Pollution and Acute Respiratory Infections among

ExternE : Methodology and Results

CO-BENEFIT MODELING AND OPTIMIZATION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL IN ISKANDAR MALAYSIA: A METHODOLOGY USING BenMAP

Spatial and temporal patterns in air pollution in Pittsburgh: Traffic and point sources

Hydrofracking: Air Issues and Community Exposure

Influence of Air Quality Model Resolution on Uncertainty Associated with Health Impacts

Ozone Air Quality Standards: EPA s Proposed January 2010 Revisions

Applications of Source Contribution and Emissions Sensitivity Modeling to Assess Transport and Background Ozone Attribution

Tier 3 Vehicle and Fuel Standards: Final Rule. March 2014

D.C. Agrawal President, D.C. Agrawal Consulting, LLC Princeton, New Jersey

PM Concentration and Health Impacts

Health Co-benefits of Carbon Standards for Existing Power Plants

EPA s Proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone Georgia Environmental Protection Division Comments

Assessment of Environmental Benefits (AEB) Modeling System

State of Ozone Attainment for Central Texas

Air Quality, Ecosystem, and Health Impacts of Power Plant Carbon Standards

Model Evaluation and SIP Modeling

Comparing the Benefits of Clean Car Regulations

The Dangers of the Dirtiest Diesels: The Health and Welfare Impacts of Nonroad Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines and Fuels

Trends in Hourly Ozone and Ozone Health Metrics across the United States and the European Union

AIR QUALITY CONTROL RULES. Chapter September 2008 AIR PROTECTION BRANCH FOR

AIR POLLUTION: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Prepared for Capital Area Council of Governments (CAPCOG) P.O. Box Austin, TX and

Implementation Issues for the PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards PM 2.5 NAAQS

Valoración ambiental y económica de la infraestructura verde en las ciudades de Estados Unidos y su replicabilidad en Ciudades Chilenas

Prepared for Capital Area Council of Governments (CAPCOG) P.O. Box Austin, TX and

Ozone Pollution and Human Health

Air Quality on High Electric Demand Days & What We Can Do About It. Chris Salmi, NJDEP February 6, 2007

5. Health risk assessment of transport-related air pollution

02/12/2011, Brussels

2012 Air Quality Management Plan

OZONE IN NORTH TEXAS AND THE CLEAN AIR ACT

NSR Enforcement Cases. David Rosskam U.S. Dept. of Justice

Air pollution health impact assessment: PM 2.5 exposures, sources and components

Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule for the 1997 PM2.5 Standards. Paul T Wentworth, P.E. EPA Region 3 October 31, 2007

Single Source Ozone/PM2.5 Impacts in Regional Scale Modeling & Alternate Methods

Executive Summary. Even though pollution from coal plants demonstrably harms human health and the environment, many of the

November 5, Department of Environmental Quality

Maryland VOC Standards for Roof Coatings

Analysis of the Potential Health Impacts of Reducing Ozone Levels in the OTR Using BenMAP

MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change

Air pollution and children s respiratory health: Do English parents respond to air quality information?

Transcription:

CMAQ/BenMAP-based Health-Benefits Analysis in Support of the Georgia SIPs for O 3 and PM 2.5 Amit Marmur 5 th Annual CMAS Conference, October 16-18, 2006

Overview Overview of BenMAP Summary of O 3 and PM 2.5 sensitivity analysis Quantifying the health benefits from O 3 and PM 2.5 control strategies Preliminary findings and future research

Benefits Analysis with BenMAP: A US-EPA Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program Modeled (or measured) reductions in pollutant levels Reduced morbidity, mortality, health costs

BenMAP Flow Diagram Population based GIS Measured or modeled AQ data examine benefits of various control strategies using AQ modeling examine benefits of reducing measured ambient concentrations to specific levels Concentration-response functions, incident rates and valuation estimates to quantify changes in health endpoints and associated $-benefits Can produce estimates at the population grid scale, county, state, or national level

Reasons to Assess Benefits Evaluate and prioritize various attainment strategy options Consider air quality management across multiple pollutants and regions Communicate impacts to decision-makers, stakeholders and public

Health Effects Quantified in BenMAP Health endpoint Mortality Chronic Bronchitis Nonfatal heart attacks Hospital admissions Asthma ER visits Acute respiratory symptoms Asthma attacks Work loss days Worker productivity School absence rates PM Ozone

Current Mean Values for Health Effects (2000 $) * ** * - WTP: Willingness to pay ** - COI: Cost of illness

Summary of O 3 and PM 2.5 sensitivity analysis

Emission Sensitivities Sensitivity of ozone (ppb) and PM 2.5 (µg/m 3 ) Summer Episode: May 25 - June 25, 2002 (2009) Winter Episode: Nov 19 - Dec 19, 2002 (2009) Regional 10% Emission Reductions Mobile (on-road/non-road), area, non-egu NOx, VOCs, SO 2, NH 3, and primary carbon (PC) Atlanta (full & sub), Macon (full & sub), Chattanooga (full & sub), Floyd County Point Emission Reductions Additional SCRs (NO x ) and Scrubbers (SO 2 ) at seven largest Power Plants in Georgia

Sensitivity of PM 2.5 in Atlanta (FS#8/E.Rivers) Sensitivity 10% Atlanta PC 10% Atlanta SO2 10% Atlanta NOx 10% Atlanta NH3 10% Atlanta VOCs 2 Scrubbers at Bowen 4 Scrubbers at Branch 2 Scrubbers at McDonough 4 Scrubbers at Scherer 4 Scrubbers at Hammond 1 Scrubbers at Wansley 2 Scrubbers at Yates Summer (µg/m 3 ) 0.19 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.19 0.15 0.11 0.38 0.05 0.09 0.05 Winter (µg/m 3 ) 0.36 0.01-0.02 0.15 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.06 Annual (µg/m 3 ) 0.25 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.091 0.098 0.070 0.150 0.030 0.044 0.037 Annual (ng/m 3 /TPD) 85.7 1.9-0.09 22.5 0.11 0.50 0.63 1.39 0.56 0.42 0.44 0.71

Sensitivity of O 3 in Atlanta (Conf. Ave.) Sensitivity 10% Atlanta NO x (20 counties) 10% Atlanta NO x (5 counties) 10% Atlanta VOC (20 counties) 10% Atlanta VOC (5 counties) 2 SCRs at Plant McDonough 4 SCRs at Plant Scherer 2 SCRs at Plant Branch 3 SCRs at Plant Hammond 2 SCRs at Plant Yates Avg response (ppb) 1.36 0.95 0.08 0.07 0.42 0.41 0.07 0.03 0.11 ppt/tpd reduction 35.7 41.1 1.5 2.2 60.4 13.7 4.6 2.2 9.9

Health benefits assessments for the O 3 and PM 2.5 SIPs

Preliminary estimate of $ benefits (all GA) from NO x and VOC controls in Atlanta (20 counties) $-benefits/tpd 40,000 20,000 0-20,000-40,000-60,000-80,000-100,000-120,000 NOx (annual) NOx (summer) VOC (annual) VOC (summer)

Metrics used in O 3 health studies Health endpoint Hospital Admissions, Respiratory Emergency Room Visits, Respiratory Mortality O 3 metric used 24-hr mean; 1-hr max 24-hr mean; 8-hr max; 5-hr mean; 1-hr max 24-hr mean; 1-hr max % of $-benefits* (% w/o mortality) 1.0 (30.0) 0.0 (0.1) 96.5 (n/a) School absences Minor Restricted Activity Days 8-hr mean; 1-hr max 1-hr max 1.3 (36.6) 1.1 (33.3) * - Hubbell et al., EHP 113, 73-82, 2005 (based on ambient data)

Reductions in exposure (ppb*person/tpd) to various O 3 metrics 12,500 Reduction in exposure (ppb*person/tpd) 10,000 7,500 5,000 2,500 0-2,500-5,000-7,500-10,000 1-hr max 8-hr max 24-hr mean 1-hr max 8-hr max 24-hr mean Summer only Annual 10% ground-level NOx 10% ground level VOC SCRs at McDonough SCRs at Scherer

Diurnal patterns in O 3 concentrations: Summer 0.5 65.0 55.0 0.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour O3, ppb 45.0 35.0 25.0 Redcution in O3 (ppb) -0.5-1.0-1.5 15.0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23-2.0 Hour Base 10% NOx reduction McDonough SCR -2.5 10% ground-level NOx reduction SCR at Plant McDonough

Issues to consider (1): Threshold effects Percentage increase in daily non-accidental mortality * per 10-ppb increase in mean 24-hr O 3 * 25 ppb * - Bell et al., The Exposure-Response curve for ozone and risk of mortality and the adequacy of current ozone regulations, EHP 114, 532-536, 2006.

Issues to consider (2): Nighttime exposure 1.06 1.05 Ozone (O 3 ) Metric Comparison * Risk Ratio (per IQR) 1.04 1.03 1.02 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 2 =31.0 2 =12.9 2 =37.7 2 =25.1 2 =37.0 2 =0.6 2 =0.3 2 =6.9 2 =6.4 24-hr ave 1-hr max 8-hr max rush-hour day-time night-time 24-hr ave 1-hr max 8-hr max rush-hour day-time night-time 2 =3.5 2 =3.9 2 =5.6 RESP CVD * - Darrow et al., International conference on environmental epidemiology and exposure (ISEE/ISEA), Paris, France, 2006.

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Issues to consider (3): Model performance Summer Winter 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5/23/02 5/25/02 5/27/02 5/29/02 5/31/02 6/2/02 6/4/02 6/6/02 6/8/02 6/10/02 6/12/02 6/14/02 6/16/02 6/18/02 6/20/02 6/22/02 11/17/02 11/19/02 11/21/02 11/23/02 11/25/02 11/27/02 11/29/02 12/1/02 12/3/02 12/5/02 12/7/02 12/9/02 12/11/02 12/13/02 12/15/02 12/17/02 24hr (mod.) 24hr (obs.) 8hr max (mod.) 8hr max (obs.) 1hr max (mod.) 1hr max (obs.) 24-hr O3 mean: R=0.68 24-hr O3 mean: R=0.66 8-hr max O3: R=0.88 8-hr max O3: R=0.51 1-hr max O3: R=0.87 1-hr max O3: R=0.35 O3 (ppb) O3 (ppb) 24hr_CMAQ 24hr_JST 8hrmax_CMAQ 8hrmax_JST 1hrmax_CMAQ 1hrmax_JST

$ benefits from various O 3 control scenarios 350,000 300,000 250,000 $-benefits/tpd 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0-50,000-100,000-150,000 All Georgia Ground NOx (annual) Ground NOx (summer) Ground VOC (annual) McDonough (annual) McDonough (summer) Scherer (summer) Ground NOx (25ppb threshold) Ground NOx (summer, 1-hr metric) Ground VOC (summer) McDonough (25ppb threshold) Scherer (annual)

Reductions in exposure to PM 2.5 1.0E07 (ug/m3)*person/tpd (ug/m3)*person 1.0E06 1.0E05 1.0E04 1.0E03 1.0E02 1.0E01 Scrubbers at Branch Scrubbers at Bowen Scrubbers at Hammond Scrubbers at McDonough Scrubbers at Scherer Scrubbers at Wansley Scrubbers at Yates 10% ground-level PC 10% ground-level NH3 10% ground-level NOx 10% ground-level SO2 10% ground-level VOC 1.0E00

Sensitivity 10% Atlanta PC PM 2.5 exposure and benefits Sensitivity 1 (ng/m 3 /TPD) 85.7 10% Atlanta SO 2 1.9 11,700 2.96 10% Atlanta NO x -0.09 2,820 0.75 10% Atlanta NH 3 22.5 95,600 23.2 10% Atlanta VOC 0.11 5,40 0.14 2 Scrubbers at Bowen 4 Scrubbers at Branch 2 Scrubbers at McDonough 4 Scrubbers at Scherer 4 Scrubbers at Hammond 1 Scrubbers at Wansley 2 Scrubbers at Yates 0.50 0.63 1.39 0.56 0.42 0.44 0.71 1- calculated for the 3x3 matrix surrounding FS#8/E.Rivers sites 2- state totals exposure 2 (µg/m3)*person/tpd 324,000 4,160 4,420 7,970 5,950 4,740 4,640 5,570 million-$benefit/tpd 2 78.0 1.10 1.22 2.07 1.62 1.28 1.26 1.53

Another NO x related issue Effect on PM 2.5 Change in PM 2.5 due to a 10% NO x reduction in Atlanta (20 county)

Spatial patterns in reductions of PM2.5 10% NOx 10% PC 10% NH3 Scherer

Summary, preliminary findings and future research A coupled CMAQ/BenMAP model was used to estimate the health benefits of various O 3 and PM 2.5 control strategies. For PM 2.5 related benefits, consistency was observed and benefits were reported for all cases examined. For O 3, the choice of CR function (different O 3 metrics) and season/threshold had a substantial impact on the benefits quantification process. Issues: Ozone season or year-round effects/benefits? Threshold? Reduced nighttime exposure patterns not accounted for in BenMAP Preliminary evidence suggests no (significant) association between nighttime O 3 and health outcomes Are 24-hr RRs a reflection of peak O 3 levels? Model performance Even under the most beneficial O 3 control scenario ($340,000/ton), O 3 related benefits were still substantially lower (per-ton) than PM 2.5 benefits ($140,000-$78,000,000/ton).

Contact Information Amit Marmur, Ph.D. Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources 4244 International Parkway, Suite 120 Atlanta, GA 30354 amit_marmur@dnr.state.ga.us 404-363-7072