PROGRAM REVIEW
lERL-RTP's ACID DEPOSITION
RESEARCH PROGRAM
FEBRUARY 6, 1984
EPA
600/
1984.6
-------
*
TABLE OF CONTENTS
b
Page
I. Introduction
Agenda 1
Objectives of IERL-RTP 2
IERL-RTP Organization Chart 3
NAPAP Task Groups Supported 4
Key IERL-RTP Personnel 5
IERL-RTP Budget Summary 6
| II. Emission Inventory (Task Group B)
FY84 Project Description 7
Project Output Plan • 8
FY84 R&D Task Descriptions 9
Accomplishments 11
YTask Group B Budget Summary 16
Areas Requiring Management Attention ... 17
'/ III. Emission Modeling (Task Group B)
y*s A. General
,^ FY84 Project Description 19
[c^ Project Output Plan 20
,-!
-------
AGENDA
IERL-RTP ACID DEPOSITION PROGRAM REVIEW
February 6, 1984
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
10:00 Introduction
10:15 Emission Inventory
11:00 Emission Modeling
12:00 LUNCH
1:30 Control Technology
2:00 Peer Review Activities
2:30 General Areas Requiring Management Attention
3:00 Outlook
3:15 General Discussion
3:45 Summary of Action Items
4:00 Adjourn
-------
Goal
The goal of IERL-RTP's acid deposition program is to characterize man-
made emissions of acid deposition precursors and assess techniques to
reduce these emissions.
Objectives
1. Provide an accurate and complete inventory of emissions from man-
made sources believed to be important in acid deposition processes
with adequate geographic, temporal, species, and sectorial resolution.
2. Provide models which predict emissions as well as the emissions
reduction potential, cost and other impacts of alternative strategies
for control of acid deposition.
3. Provide an adequate information base on the cost and performance of
techniques for control of acid deposition precursor emissions from
man-made stationary sources.
-------
p
.3
-------
National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program
Task Groups
A. Natural Sources
*B. Man-Made Sources
C. Atmospheric Processes
D. Deposition Monitoring
E. Aquatic Effects
F. Terrestrial Effects
G. Materials Effects
*H. Control Technologies
*I. Policy and Assessments
J. International Activities
*IERL-RTP actively supporting
-------
Key Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory Personnel
Frank T. Princiotta
Director, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory/RTP
Chairman, NAPAP Task Group H - Control Technologies
Chairman, Work Group 3B - Emissions, Costs and Engineering
U.S. Canadian MOI
Everett L. Plyler
Director, Utilities and Industrial Processes Division
EPA Member, NAPAP Task Group H - Control Technologies
Michael A. Maxwell
Chief, Emissions/Effluent Technology Branch
SPA Member, NAPAP Task Group B - Man-Made Sources
J. David Mobley
Program Manager
Alternate EPA Member, NAPAP Task Group B - Man-Made Sources
John 0. Mllliken
Program Manager
Alternate EPA Member, NAPAP Task Group H - Control Technologies
-------
IEKL-RTP NAPAP
Budget Summary
FY82
FY83 FY84
FY85
Emission Inventory
Emission Modeling
Control Technology
50
50
0
100
230
820
0
1050
240
850
0
1090
600
450
600
1650
-------
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
revision 1—11/09/83
c
DU Code: N !_££ [Multimedia - Energy ]
"*BJ Code: TT"~ {.Estimate Emissions from Man-Made Sources
PA Code: U1__ [Comprehensive Emission inventory
RC Code: F
J
LIERL-RTP
T
PROJ Code: 01_ _
MANAGER: J. David Mobley
SHORT TITLE: Emissions Data
ITltlesj
YR: 8 4 Version: 0 P L A H [(Check one) NEW EXISTING X]
PHONE:629-2578
LONG TITLE; comprehensive Emissions Inventories and Supporting Data
PLANNED START:! 0/80 PLANNED END:0 9/89
RESOURCES:
TV:
PFTE
OPFTE
SAE
RAD
TOTAL
TV:
SUPERFUND
ADP
REIMBURSA8LES
ABATEMENT A CONTROL
CARRYOVER
Ft
^./RATIONALE/APPROACH:
GOAL: This project win provide a central, quality assured data base of erols-
if
signs of pollutants of interest for acia deposition modeling a analysis. The
project win assemble or develop needed emissions information, disaggregated
as appropriate by geographic region, time period, & chemical species. The
roject will support the related activities of the National
ssessment Program (NAPAP). RATIONALE; Detailed emissions information is a
critical lnput~to atmospheric processes research & also supports evaluation of
historic effects, trends, & planning of monitoring research programs.
This
Information is also used In policy assessments of the relative Importance of
various pollutants, geographic regions, a source types* APPROACH; The ba'stc"
approach Is to utilize existing sources of Information where possible and^to""
conduct comparisons or alternative sources where avaTlabie as a means of
quality assurance. The project will assemble or develop needed emissions
information, d1segregated as appropriate by geographic region, time period,
chemical species. The uncertainties associated with the elements in th
ana
tnTs
inventory at each degree of resolution win be specified.
************************
[Laboratory Director Approval] [Date] [Office Director Approval] [Date]
[Frank T. PHnclotta ] [ 09/27/83 ] [ ] [ ]
-------
C
Page of
PROJECT OUTPUT PLAN
OU Code: £.]_££ OBJ Code: £ PPA Code: £1 RC Code: IF PROJ Code: £ ]_
ITEM I: £ £ 1 2TJV3 PROD Code: A £ 3[ Project Report ]
DESCRIPTOR:NAPAP Historical Emission Inventory
DUE DATE: 0 6/8 4 FUND Code: C [A = Advanced; C « Continuing]
[Requestor: NAPAP TGary Foley) ] CUST Code: ff 9 0 [ ORD 3
CORD Project Officer; J. David Mobley ]
[Lab Draft I: ~ tab HorKplan f; 3142"" Contract/Grant/IAS I: 68-02-3511/31 J
***********************
ITEM #: £ £ 3_ 1C£3 PROD Code: £ £ £ [ Project Report
DESCRIPTOR:NAPAP Emission Inventory for the 1980 Base Year to Support
Lagranglan Atmospheric Models
!2J
HOC
DUE DATE: 0 6/8 4 FUND Code: C [A = Advanced; C = Continuing]
tRequestor: NKPATnEary Foley) 3 CUST Code: IT 9 0 C ORD 3
CORD Project Officer: J. David Mobley ]
CLab Draft I: """ Lab worKplan f: 314^ Contract/Grant/IAS #: 68-02-3509/40 3
ITEM f: 0 2 3 4CA3
PROD Code: A 0 3 C Project Report
DESCRIPTOR; Preliminary Emission Inventory to Support Testing
ment of an EuTerian Atmospheric Model
Develop-
DUE DATE: 0 3/8 5 FUND Code: C [A = Advanced; C = Continuing]
C Requestor: NA?APTG?ry Foley) 3 CUST Code: TT 9 £ C ORD 3
CORD Project Officers. David HOD ley _ 3
CLab Draft #: _ ~ Lab WorKplan t: 3144" Con tract/Grant/ 1 AG #: 68-02-3509/40 J
ITEM #: 0 2 3 5[A3
PROD Code: A 0 3 CProject Report
DESCRIPTOR:NAPAP Emission Inventory for the 1984 Base Year to Support
the Eulerian Atmospheric"Model
DUE DATE: 12/85 FUND Code: C CA = Advanced; C « Continuing]
CRequestor: NAP^~{?aFy Foley) 3 CUST Code: IF £ £ [ ORD ]
"1RD Project Officer; J, David Mob fey 3
.ab Draft #: " lab workplan »: 314^ Contract/Grant/IAG #:
-------
H 84 RIO TASK DESCRIPTION
Title;
Objective: this project will provide a central, quality assured • I.
N104Q/Acid Rain
HAPAP Emission Inventory Development,
Maintenance, and Management
IDU/PA
ITASK i
IPO
I°*TE 06/21/83
{MATRIX Program Office
Hob ley
data bate of emissions of pollutants of interest for acid deposition modeling And analysis.
The project will assemble or develop needed eolaalons information, disaggregated as
appropriate by geographic region, time period, and chemical species. The project will
support the related activities of the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program
(HAPAP).
Rationale: Detailed emissions information Is a critical input to atmospheric
processes
research and also supports evaluation of historic effects, trends, and planning of
monitoring research programs. This information Is also used in policy assessments of the
relative Importance of various pollutants, geographic regions, and source types.
Primary User;
Interagency Task Force
on Acid Precipitation
Secondary User:
Office of Air
Noise & Radiation
Benefits/Uses; The outputs of this activity will be used by the Lagrangian and Eulerian
atmospheric modelers involved in analyzing acid deposition formation mechanisms and
mitigation measures.
(Contractor:
IContract f:
I
Engineering Science
68-02-3309
FY 84 RSO $
$ to Complete
100K
500K (FY8S)
Title:
FY 84 R4D fA5k DESCRIPTION
NAPAP Emission Inventory Emission Factor Assessment
1DU/PA N104o/Acid Rain
ITASK * NU 1
IPO Motley 1
(DATE 7/?n/«
IMATR1X Program Office
Objective; Develop emission factors for non-criteria pollutants,|
produce photochemical reactivity classes from the disaggregation or"vut emissions,
and allocate spatial and temporal emissions to resolute levels, and compile
the results into the NAPAP Emission Inventory. The project will utilize existing
emission factor calculation methods developed for EADS and will use the EADS
as the mechanism for storing and analyzing any test data used to produce
emission factors.
Rationale: in order to provide an emissions inventory for the Naitonal Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program (NAPAP) with the appropriate specie, temporal, and spacial
resolution, development of emission factors will be required.
Primary User;
Interagency Task Force
on Acid Precipitation
Secondary User:
Office of Air
Noise S Radiation
Benefits/Uses: The outputs of this activity will be used by Lagrangian and Eulerian
atmospheric modelers involved in analyzing acid deposition formation mechanisms
and mitigation measures.
I Contractor:
(Contract t:
I
SCA, Inc.
68-02-3168
FY 84 RiD $
$ to Complete
90.0
50QK (FTB&T
-------
(Title:
FT 84 RAO TASK DESCRIPTION
Objective: Thc SAPAP Emission
HAPAP Emission Inventory Review and Critique
N104Q/ACld Rain
DU/PA
TASK I
PO Mob ley
DATE 06/21/83
MATRIX Program Office
important inputs into the assessment framework for evaluating acid deposition and
alternative* for it* control. Accordingly, an independent and objective assessment
of the accuracy end validity of the inventory is needed.
Rationale: the emission inventory for the Hationel Acid Precipitation Assessment Program
(HAPAP) will be reviewed and critiqued to ensure that it he* the accuracy end specificity
needed to satisfy potential users. In addition, support to IERL-RTP personnel on Task
Groups B, H, end I will be provided on critical issues.
1Primary User;
Interagency Task Force
on Acid Precipitation
Secondary User;
Office of Air
Noise & Radiation
Benefits/Uses: The develooers of the emission i
the output* of this project along with members
ensure that resources are expended in the most
Contractor: To Be Determined
(Contract f: To Be Determined
1
Inventory and emission factors will utilise
of the Task Force to guide activities to
productive manner.
FY 84 R40 $ 40K
; to complete SOK (FYSS)
I
10
-------
Emission Inventory Accomplishments
1. Worked closely with EPA/OAQPS personnel on the development and planning
of NAPAP emission inventory activities.
2. Completed "NAPAP Emissions Inventory Implementation Plan" 08/83
Final Report, TRW Contract No. 68-02-3174, Task 96.
3. Made significant progress on compiling the NAPAP Emission Inventory
for the 1980 Base Year.
a. Established the initial version of NAPAP Emission Inventory - 03/83.
b. Improved the NAPAP Emission Inventory for the 1980 Base year:
i. incorporated latest EPA emission factors (through Supplement 14
of AP-42)
ii. substituted other NEDS point source data that more represented
calendar year 1980 for 12 .states
ill. added county centroid latitude and longitude for point sources
with missing or incorrect UTM data
iv. updated fuel type, quantity and quality, source classification
code, control equipment and efficiency, and boiler capacity for
all boilers that could be matched in Pechan Unit Inventory (1980),
v. Updated seasonal throughput for all boilers matched in Pechan
Unit Inventory using FPC Form 4 data for 1980.
vi. Updated copper smelters to reflect SC>2 emissions in Work Group
3B inventory (1980).
vii. Substituted plants in NECRMP inventory (1980) for those in
NAPAP. Did not substitute for power plants in NAPAP .containing
boilers updated with Pechan data. Examined largest S02
emitters in NECRMP in relation to NAPAP and only selected data
in NECRMP that was an improvement over NAPAP. Incorporated
through Supplement 14 emission factors in NECRMP data selected.
viii. Added seasonal factors for 31 major area source categories.
c. Delivered computer tape of the 1980 NAPAP Emission Inventory to
support Lagrangian modelers - 12/31/83
d. Documented "Development of the Emission Inventory for the 1980
Base Year" 02/84 Draft Report, Engineering Science Contract No.
68-02-3509, Tasks 40, 57, and 58.
11
-------
4. Awarded an Interagency Agreement to Brookhaven National Lab for
"Analysis of the Uncertainty of the NAPAP Emission Inventory."
5. Made significant progress on emission factors
a. "Assessment of the Technical Feasibility of Adapting the NECRMP
Allocation Factors for the NAPAP Emission Inventory" 05/83 Technical
Memorandum, GCA Contract No. 68-02-3168, Task 90.
*
b. "NOX Emissions from Direct-Fired Heaters Using Air Preheat" 05/83
Technical Memorandum, GCA Contract No. 68-02-3168, Task 90.
c. "Development of Emission Factors for Anthrapogenic Sources of Ammonia
Emissions" 06/83 Draft Report, GCA Contract No. 68-02-3168, Task 90.
d. "Assessment of Emission Factors for the NAPAP Emissions Inventory"
08/83 Draft Report, GCA Contract No. 68-02-3168, Task 90.
e. "Primary Sulfate Emission Factors for the NAPAP Emissions Inventory"
09/83 Draft Report, TRW Contract No. 68-02-3174, Task 96.
f. "Allocation Factors and Algorithms for the NAPAP Emission Inventory"
10/83 Technical Memorandum, GCA Contract No. 68-02-3168, Task 90.
g. "Assessment of NOX Emission Factors for Direct-Fired Heaters" 01/84
Draft Report, GCA Contract No. 68-02-2693, Task 24.
h. "Assessment of Ammonia, HC1, and HF Emission Factors for the NAPAP
Emission Inventory" 02/84 Draft Report, GCA Contract No. 68-02-3168,
Task 90.
6. Made significant progress on the historical emission inventory
by documenting "Historic Emissions of Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxides in
the United States from 1900 to 1980," 10/83 Draft Report, PES Contract
No. 68-02-3511, Task 31.
7. Maintained extensive coordination activities:
a. Coordinated with DOE Task Group B Leadership
i. Specification Document
ii. Review/Reconciliation Plan
iii. Internal Review Panel
iv. Accuracy Workshop
v. Peer Reviews
b. Coordinated with ESRL/TGC personnel on atmospheric modeling needs
of the emission inventory (ongoing).
c. Focused DOE/PETC work to in-house testing for improvement of
sulfate and chloride emission factors (04-08/83).
d. Coordinated with Canadians on emission inventory activities
(highlighted by 08/83 trip to Canada by OAQPS personnel).
8. Provided current and historical emission inventory information to
a host of interested parties.
12
-------
EDITING AND
VALIDATION
A
1.
2.
3.
4.
COMPARATIVE
ASSESSMENTS
1980 MAP3S
INVENTORY
NECRMP
US/CANADA WG3B
PECHAN EMISSION
SUMMARY
1
UNCERTAINTY
ESTIMATES
1980
NEDS FILES
S02, NOX> VOC
EIS/PS
EIS/AS
INVENTORY
IMPROVEMENTS AND
ADDITIONS
\f
PRIMARY SULFATE
EMISSION FACTORS
1980
NAPAP ACID DEPOSITION
EMISSIONS INVENTORY
S02, S0|, NOX, VOC
1980 CANADIAN
EMISSIONS
INVENTORY
SEASONAL
EMISSIONS
DISTRIBUTIONS
INVENTORY
OUTPUT TO USERS
TAPE
ACCESS THROUGH NCC
FY83 ACTIVITIES
13
-------
1980
NAPAP ACID DEPOSITION
EMISSIONS INVENTORY
S0
2,
^, NOX, VOC
HOURLY EMISSIONS AND
SPATIAL SOURCE
ALLOCATIONS WITHIN
NECRMP DOMAIN
INVENTORY
IMPROVEMENTS AND
ADDITIONS
HC1, Hr, NH3
EMISSION FACTORS
VOC PHOTOCHEMICAL
REACTIVITY CLASS
DISAGGREGATION
WITHIN NECRMP
DOMAIN
S0
1980
NAPAP ACID DEPOSITION
EMISSIONS INVENTORY
2, SOg, HC1, HF, NH3,
VOC PHOTOCHEMICAL RXN CLASSES
INVENTORY
OUTPUT TO USERS
TAPE
ACCESS THROUGH NCC
FY84 ACTIVITIES
14
-------
HOURLY EMISSIONS
AND
SPATIAL SOURCE
ALLOCATIONS
EDITING AND
VALIDATION
UNCERTAINTY
ESTIMATES
1980
NEDS FILES
S02, NOX, VOC, PARTICULATES
EIS/PS
EIS/AS
INVENTORY
IMPROVEMENTS AND
ADDITIONS
1980
NAPAP ACID DEPOSITION
EMISSION INVENTORY
S02, S0|, NO, N02,
HC1, HF, NH3
VOC PHOTOCHEMICAL
RXN CLASSES
ALKALINE DUST,
BIOGENIC SULFUR
INVENTORY
TO USERS
505, N02, HC1, HF, NH3,
ALKALINE DUST
EMISSION FACTORS
VOC PHOTOCHEMICAL
REACTIVITY
CLASS DISAGGREGATION
1984 CANADIAN
INVENTORY
NATURAL SOURCES
INVENTORY
TAPE
ACCESS THROUGH NCC
FY85 ACTIVITIES
15
-------
Task Group B
Emission Inventory
Budget Summary
($K)
Organization FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85
EPA
DOE
50
300
230
300
240
260
600
450
Total
350
530 500 1050
16
-------
Emission Inventory Areas Requiring Management Attention
\
1. The emission inventory is currently being developed for the 1980 base
year. Should a funding initiative be submitted to develop a comparable
emission inventory for 1981, 1982, etc.?
2. An emission inventory was initially planned for the 1984 base year to
coincide with a dry deposition monitoring program to support validation
of the Eulerian model. What year, if any, is appropriate currently
for planning purposes?
3. The memo on "Highlights of Program Management Review of Task Groups D
and I" (Bill Cogger, 01/25/84) contains the statement: "A memo from
Courtney Riordan to EPRI will be prepared to ensure that the update
of the 1980 emissions inventory to 1982 will be ready for the 1985
assessment." What does this mean and what action does this Imply for
Task Group B and EPA?
4. The emission Inventory has been designed to provide hourly profiles
of typical weekday and weekend days for each season. However, it has
been suggested by some (and contradicted by others) that atmospheric
models may be executed for specific time periods (e.g., June 1-7,
1983) and that actual emissions for that period will be required.
What is the actual situation and should any funding initiatives be
submitted in this regard?
5. The emission inventory was planned to have indications of the probable
error of the emission estimates and to advance the state-of-the-art a
modest amount In this area. However, this planned effort does not
appear to be commensurate with the current emphasis within NAPAP (and
its peer review community) on accuracy, precision, uncertainty, etc.
Should a funding initiative be submitted In this regard?
6. The emission inventory was designed to provide detailed species,
spatial, and temporal resolution within the NECRMP domain by 09/30/84.
However, the modelers have requested that the entire U.S. be covered
by this time and have requested the following additional pollutants:
CO, total mass aerosols, graphitic carbon, organic carbon, nitrate,
iron, manganese, and alkaline dusts plus 14 VOC splits. Should a
funding initiative by submitted In this regard?
7. The Work Group 3B activity indicated that the probabl" °rror of the
estimate for S02 emission estimates at the state level on an annual
average basis was about 14%. Recognizing that the annual average S02
inventory is the best of the various species for a given time period,
the measure of uncertainty for other species for shorter time periods
and smaller geographic areas will be enormous (I.e., formaldehyde
emissions for a one hour period on a summer weekend day on a specific
20x20 km grid). Is this going to be adequate to support the Eulerian
model?
17
-------
8. The current budget for emission inventory development does not allow
for field testing to develop emission factors. This has forced
reliance on existing information for the various species, temporal
and spatial allocations, and source categories. In many cases,
available information is sparce and of questionable quality since
priorities have not been placed on acquiring such information
previously. Should a funding initiative be submitted to develop
improved emission factors?
9. The emission inventory was planned to pull together the best emission
information available (NEDS, NECRMP, WG3B, DOE/Pechan, etc.). Should
a funding initiative be submitted to obtain verification by the States
of the NAPAP emission inventory?
10. The MATEX, or similar programs, will place new demands on emission
inventories. Are plans that are being developed allocating resources
for the emission inventory components of such experiments?
11. The historical emission inventory was planned to estimate S0£ and NOX
emissions for each state in five year increments from 1900 to 1980. At
the Boston Peer Review Meeting, Information was distributed which
'indicated Task Group I's expectations from Task Group B included:
o Detailed historic emissions of S02 and 804 for 10 or more recent
years for each county and month by mid 1984
o Historic SOX and NOX emissions for the past 50-100 years for each
year and state by early 1984
It is now apparent that finallzation of the current draft report and
delivery of the additional milestones cannot be met with high quality
products with currently available resources. Which is preferred —
quality or quantity?
12. Workshops and seminars have been considered to inform users and other
interested parties of the capabilities and contents of the inventory.
What priority do you place on emission inventory information transfer
activities?
18
-------
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
revision 1—11/09/83
DU Code: M 1 0 £ [Multimedia - Energy _ 3
"UJJ Code: £[Estimate Emissions From Man-Hade sources
PA Code: U 2 Isource sector Models 4 Methods
RC Code: F~
PROJ Code: £1_
MANAGER: M.A. Maxwell
LIERL/RTP J
LTItlesj
YR: 8 4 Version: 0 P L A N [(Check one) NEW
EXISTING X]
PHONE:629-2578
SHORT TITLE: Source Models
LONG TITLE: Source Sector Models and Methods
PLANNED START:! o /a o PLANNED END:O 9/39
RESOURCES:
PFTE
OPrTE
S4E
RiO
TV:
$ , .
$~~,75ff.TJ
TOTAL $~",7gP\ff
SUPERFUND
ADP
REIMBURSABLES
ABATEMENT & CONTROL
CARRYOVER
TV:
$ ,
tL/RATIONALE/APPROACH:
GOAL; The goal Is to develop state-of-the-art analytical models to support EPA
amTNAPAP policy analysts and assessments. The objectives of the models are;""
TTTto simulate the distribution a characteristics of man-made sources of acicT
lepositlon precursors for varying conditions of economic growth, fuel supply,"
emissions regulations a control
hnlques;and (2) to estimate the cost and
II
otner impacts of alternate control strategies. Emphasis will be on modeling
the utility & industrial combustion sectors, since these are major sources of
emissions of su? and NUX.
RATIONALE: inese models are needed to enable assessment of the cost and
effectiveness of alternative acid deposition control strategies.
APPROACH; The approach is to develop individual sectoral models [e.g..
Advanced utility Simulation Model and industrial combustion Emissions Model),
and to Integrate these Into a multlsector model.
************************
[Laboratory Director Approval] [Date] [Office Director Approval] [Date]
[Frank T. Prlndotta ] [ 09/27/83 ] [ ] [ ]
19
-------
Li:
Page 1 of 2
PROJECT OUTPUT PLAN
OU Code: N 1 0 4 OBJ Code: C PPA Code: 0 2 RC Code: F PROJ Code: 0 1
ITEM #: 0 2 3 6[A]
PROD Code: A 0 5[ Unpublished Report
DESCRIPTOR; Operational State Level AUSH A Data Bases to Support 1985
Assessments
1
If
1
»
p
1 '
1
K
1
;\
DUE DATE: 04/84 FUND Code: C
[Requestor: NAPAFTGary Foley) 3 CUST Code: ff
LORD Project Officer: j.o. MI I'M teen j
(.Lab Draft f : Lab Workpian #: 3146
ITEM #: 0 2 3.7[A] _- PROD Code:
DESCRIPTOR: Final Report for State-Level AUSM
DUE DATE: 0 9/8 4 FUND Code:
[Requestor: NAFAPTGary Foley) 3 CUST Code:
LORD Project Officer: j.o. Mil liken j
[Lab Draft f: Lab Workpian #: 3147
[A = Advanced; C = Continuing]
9 0 [ ORD ]
Contract/6rant/IAG f : CR 808 514 3
A 0 3 C Project Report J
C [A = Advanced; C « Continuing]
IT 9 0 [ ORD 1
Contract/Grant/IAG #: CR 808 514 1
ITEM #: 0 2 3 8[£] PROD Code: A £ 2 [ Research Report
DESCRIPTOR; Final Report for National Level AUSM
DUE DATE: 06/85 FUND Code: C [A * Advanced; C - Continuing]
[Requestor: NAPAF TGary Foley) ] CUST Code: ff£j) CORD 3
CORD Project Officer; J.o. MllllReTT ] "
[Lab Draft #: """ Lab Workpian 9'. 3148~" Contract/Grant/IAG #: CR 808 514
ITEM #: 0 2 3 9[A]
PROD Code: £ £ 2_ [ Project Report
DESCRIPTOR;Project Report < Computer Code on Initial ICE Model for
IndustrialBoilers
DUE DATE: 0 3/8 5 s FUND Code: C [A * Advanced; C = Cont1nu1ng3
[Requestor: NAPATnSaFy Foley) 2 CUST Code: J 9 0 [ ORD . ]
1RD Project Officer; J. David Mo"bTey 3
.ab Draft #: "" Lab Workpian f: 3147 Contract/Grant/IAG #: 68-02-3930
20
-------
Page J2 of _2
PROJECT OUTPUT PLAN
!iSode: Jll£i OBJ Code: £ PPA Code: QZ RC Code: £ PROJ Code:
TEM f: 0 2 4 0[A] PROD Code: A 0 3[ Project Report
DESCRIPTOR; Project Report & Computer Code for Initial ICE Model for
Industrial Boners and Process Heaters
DUE DATE: 0 3/8 6 FUND Code: C [A » Advanced; C = Continuing]
[Requestor: NAPAP TGTry Foley) 3 CUST Code: ff 9 £ [ ORD ]
CORD Project Officer; J. pay id nob fey" ] ™
[Lab Draft *: ~Lab Workplan f: 315(T Contract/Grant/IAG #: 68-02-3930
ITEM #: 0 2 4 1[A] PROD Code: A 0 3 [ Project Report
DESCRIPTOR: Project Report A Computer Code on Completed ICE Model to
"Support the 1987 and 1989 Assessments
( DUE DATE: 0 3/8 7 FUND Code: C [A * Advanced; C = Continuing]
[Requestor: IffAFTGary Foley) 3 CUST Code: IF 9 0 [ ORD 3
[ORD Project Officer: j. pavid Hobtcy 3
[Lab Draft #: "" Lab HorKplan »; 31 bf Contract/Grant/IAG I: 68-02-3930 3
ITEM f: £ £ £ 5CA] PROD Code: A 0 _3 [ Project Report
DESCRIPTOR: Project Report * Computer Code for Retirement Age Forecast
Model
DUE DATE: 0 4/8 5 FUND Code: C [A = Advanced; C = Continuing]
[Requestor: NAPAF' TGlry Foley) 3 CUST Code: IT£ 0 [ ORD ]
[ORD Project Officer; J. 0. HllfTEen 3 ~ ~~
[Lab Draft #: ~" Lab worXplan f; 3157" Contract/Grant/IAG #:
ITEM f: [ ] PROD Code: [
DESCRIPTOR: Project Report & Computer Code for Industrial VOC Model
DUE DATE: 03/86 FUND Code: C [A = Advanced; C = Cont1nu1ng3
r Requestor: flflPftP"TEary Foley) 3 CUST Code: 0" 9 Q_ [ORD 3
iRD Project Officer; J. uavid Mo"Frey 3
.•.ab Draft #: ~~ Lab woricplan 9: Contract/Grant/IAG #:
21
-------
Task Group B
Emission Modeling
Budget Summary
($K)
Project
AUSM
Ind NOX/SOX
Ind VOC
Tran/Res/Com
Retirement
Forecast Driver
Tech. Penetration
Long Range Forecast DOE
Integration
Subtotal
Total
rganizatlon
EPA/HQ
EPA/RTP
EPA/RTP
EPA/RTP
EPA/HQ
DOE
EPA/RTP
DOE
DOE
DOE
EPA/HQ
EPA/RTP
EPA/HQ
DOE
FY82 FY83 FY84
820
450 400*
50 370 300
60
30
60
200
50 820 820*
820 • 0 230
000
FY85
100
150
200
100
50
50
100
150
450
150
300
870
820
1050*
900
*Includes 200K Supplement from EPA Funding
22
-------
Modeling Areas Needing Management Attention
1. The funding for the EPA .modeling program went from $1050K to $600K
from FY84 to FY85 (Task Group B, $850K to $900K) while the NAPAP .
funding doubled. Since increased demands are being placed on the
modeling program, should a funding initiative be submitted to allow
the modeling program to keep pace with demands from NAPAP and EPA?
2. As the models become available for testing and validation, it is
anticipated that extensive requests for model runs will be received
from EPA, NAPAP, and others. What policy should be adopted with
respect to funding and access to the models and their preliminary
results?
3. Since the NAPAP models are not the only ones likely to be used by EPA
personnel, what policy should be pursued regarding'potential conflicts
(e.g., IGF vs AUSM, IFCAM vs ICE)?
4. The planned model testing and validation activities do not appear to
be commensurate with the current emphasis within NAPAP (and its peer
review community). Should a funding initiative be submitted in this
'** regard?
5. It has been proposed by some (and contradicted by others) that the
atmospheric modelers will need detailed emission information for
future years (such as 2000) similar to what is being provided for
1980 (such as speciated VOC emissions with hourly profiles and
20x20 km griding). What is the actual situation and should a funding
initiative be submitted in this regard?
6. The April 1983 IERL/RTP peer review panel emphasized the importance
of accelerating the integrated modeling effort. The problems of
combining independently developed and differently structured sectoral
models into an integrated model were pointed out. Would It make
sense to centralize the development of the component and integrated
emission models at IERL/RTP?
23
-------
FT 84 RaD TASK DESCRIPTION
Itle;
Advanced Utility Simulation Model
This project will produce an advanced simulation model
IDU/PA
ITASK
IPO
Multimedia/Acid Raih
N30
Milliken
06/21/83
(MATRIX £rQg.rain Of f ice
I
of the electric utility industry. This model will be fully operational, documented, and
running on the EPA computer. By using detailed data bases on electric utility generating
units and coal reserves, the model will simulate current and future utility industry
behavior and operating practices. The model will be transparent to users, explainable
and dependable, and will provide policy analysts with a valuable analytical tool.
The electric utility industry is clearly the major source category for acid
•'deposition precursor emissions and must be considered in any effort to evaluate alternative
Control strategies to mitigate acid deposition. Due to the complexity of th* source
tategory, a computer model is needed to anlayze the impacts of alternative control
trategies.
f,
fmary User;
Interagency Task Force
on Acid Precipitation
Secondary User;
Office of Air
Noise & Radiation
|»ef *tS/Uses; The outputs of the project will be used by researchers and policy analysts
Westigating the acid deposition issue. The primary benefit will be identification of
le most cost-effective control strategy.
tractor:
tract #:
University of Illinois
CR808514-03-1
FY 84 R&D $
$ to Complete
400K
1QOK (FY8M
24
-------
AUSM - FY84 DETAILED TASK LIST
University of Illinois Project Office (Stukel, Badger)
STATE-LEVEL TASKS
0 Complete analytical, programmer, and model maintenance documentation of the
state-level ADSM
0 Expand report generators for all modules in state-level AUSM
0 Develop a state-level scenario generator
0 Improve efficiency of the state-level model
0 Continue sensitivity analyses of the state-level ADSM
0 Expand and refine report options
0 Develop professional quality graphic output
0 Develop a user's workshop for training AUSM users to operate the AUSM on
EPA's computer
0 Adapt AUSM to deal with effluent charges—Transferable Discharge Permits
0 Integrate and test all new and revised code provided by module developers.
This will include:
0 new LIKB models developed by Ed Rubin
0 dry PGD models revised by Ed Rubin
0 new models developed by Ed Rubin to allow switching from high- to low-
sulfur oils
0 new least-emissions merit-order dispatch module developed by Sarosh
Talukdar
0 a least-emissions l.p. dispatching module revised by Sarosh Talukdar to
include least-emissions of TSP and IX)
, Ji
0 new l.p. dispatching routine developed by Sarosh Talukdar for the simul-
taneous least-emissions dispatch of coal-fired plants and least-cost
dispatch of non-coal plants
0 demand module revised by Tim Mount to correct anomolies
0 the revised Finance module that was received from Duane Chapman after
the Year 3 AUSM was completed
0 Finance module revised by Duane Chapman address alternate taxation and
regulatory policies
25
-------
University of Illinois Project Office (Stukel, Badger)
NATIONAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT TASKS
0 Assist Sarosh Talukdar in the design of the regional modules and in the
establishment of coding standards for these modules
0 Expand AUSMR, the report generator/ to include summary reports across
states
0 Develop all necessary interface programs between the regional modules and
the energy and employment ijnpacts module
0 Develop all necessary interface programs between the regional modules and
the state-level AUSM
0 Modify energy and employment module where necessary to meet URGE software
standards and to assure portability
0 Prepare analytical, programmer, and model maintenance documentation
0 Carry out testing, validation, and debugging of the national model
26
-------
Carnegie-Mellon (Sarosh Talukdar)
STATE-LEVEL TASKS -
0 Complete analytical, programmer, and model maintenance documenation
of the state-level AUSM
0 Examine feasibility of starting l.p. dispatch with last year's generation
levels, where known, in order to reduce the number of iterations in the
dispatch routine
0 Implement least-emissions dispatch of TSP and NO emission in AUSM
A
0 Implement simultaneous least-emissions dispatch of coal-fired plants
and least-cost dispatch of non-coal plants
0 Develop a least-emission merit order routine
NATIONAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT TASKS
0 Develop regional planning modules
0 Develop regional module outputs which provide the following information
for each state within the region for each simulation time period:
0 emission caps for TSP, S0?, and NO
w />
0 transfers of electrical energy into or out of the state
0 state-level target fuel choices
0 state-level target plant building mixes
0 state-level target plant conversions and/or retirements
0 plant-level caps for each pollutant for each aggregated plant category
in each state
0 Provide for additional constraints in regional l.p. formulation, e.g.,
use for uncertainty analysis
0 Develop subroutines to aggregate plants in the plant inventory into proper
categories for input to the regional model
0 Transfer regional planning modules to Project Office
0 Prepare analytical, programmer and model maintenance documentation
0 Carry out testing, validation and debugging of the regional module
27
-------
Cornell (Timothy Mount)
STATE-LEVEL TASKS
0 Complete analytical, programmer, and model maintenance documenation
of the state-level AUSM
0 Correct demand module anomolies in state-level model
0 Recalculate inputs to demand module to reflect most recent BEA
statistics
NATIONAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT TASKS
0 Implement procedures for
0 specifying the demand in each state for each period and i-th subperiod
in the national model
0 prepare a subroutine that is compatible with the regional model to
calculate the required energy demands
0 provide default values for the energy demands
0 linking the national-level demand formulation to the energy and
employment impacts module
0 disaggregating demand from the regional demand regions to the state
level
0 Transform NERC information into regional data
0 Prepare subroutine to translate national energy demand scenario parameters
into state and/or regional growth rates
0 Prepare subroutine to translate national economic information (employment,
income, and population) into state-level information
0 Prepare analytical, programmer and model maintenance documentation
0 Carry out testing, validation and debugging of the national model
28
-------
Carnegie-Mellon (Edward Rubin)
STATE-LEVEL TASKS
0 Complete analytical, programmer, and model maintenance documentation
of the state-level AUSM
0 Implement and test models of a dry FGD system
0 Implement and test models of a LIMB system
0 Develop new models to allow switching from high to low sulfur oils at
oil-fired power plants, using an existing fuel supply data base ,
"0 Examine the feasibility of adapting the control module to implement
regional emission reduction strategies as well as unit specific policies
NATIONAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT TASKS
0 Implement procedures for
0 providing costs, efficiencies and other characteristics of a limited
number of pollution control technologies for each state and period
0 Prepare analytical, programmer, and model maintenance documentation
0 Carry out testing, validation and debugging of the national model
29
-------
Cornell (Duane Chapman).
STATE-LEVEL TASKS
0 Complete analytical, programmer, and model maintenance documentation
of the state-level AUSM
0 Examine the linkage between new debt and its effect on the interest
rate and revenue requirement in AUSM
STATE-NATIONAL MODEL LINKAGES
0. Modify the financial module to address alternate taxation and regulatory
policies affecting air pollution control
NATIONAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT TASTS
0 Prepare analytical, programmer and model maintenance documentation
0 Carry out testing, validation and debugging of the national model
30
-------
University of Illinois (Clark Bullard)
STATE-LEVEL TASKS
0 Complete analytical, programmer, and model maintenance documentation
of the state-level AUSM
0 Examine changes to criteria used to simulate utility coal selection
0 Transfer coal supply module (without depletion capabilities) to EPA
0 Adapt capacity planning module to deal with future plant construction as
well as unit construction
0 Review 23 plant technology types currently in capacity planning for possible
reduction of the list
STATE-NATIONAL MODEL LINKAGES
0 Implement economically based plant conversion and retrofit criteria used
for the national model
0 Investigate the linkages between pollution control and capacity planning
to deal with criteria for selecting plants for early retirement
-------
University of Illinois (Clark Bullard)
NATIONAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT TASKS
0 Implement procedures for
0 providing cost, availability, heating value and pollution content of
a limited number of coals for each state and each period
0 providing coal prices at regional level
0 providing costs and other characteristics of a limited number of
classes of generating plants in each state and for each period. This
will include data on the unit cost, performance and available capacities
of convertible oil- and gas-fired plants in each state
0 providing capacities of transmission lines between demand regions and
their transmission efficiencies
0 Interface with ANL on the plant retirement criteria study
0 Review and evaluate county level weighting factors developed by ORNL for
siting, modify these factors as necessary for the AUSM
0 Develop an accounting method for capital costs associated with a multi-
state, multiperiod plan
0 Prepare analytical, programmer and model maintenance documentation
0 Carry out testing, validation and debugging of the national model
32
-------
AUSM Selected Accomplishments
1. Draft final documentation for state level AUSM received in January 1984.
Includes analytical documentation, appendices on unit inventory and
coal reserves data base, and methodology used for coal cleaning analysis*
2. Analysis of HR3400 for 4-state region (Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvaia,
and New York) conducted, and presented to User's Group in December 1983.
3. Analysis of least-emissions dispatching scenario for 12-state North-
eastern U.S. region (computer runs completed in 1 week, analysis of
results in progress).
4. Analysis of Senate Emission Reduction Bill (S-3041) for West Virginia
conducted and presented to User's Group in October 1983.
5. Multi-period, multi-state national level AUSM design document completed
in September 1983.
33
-------
AUSM Areas Requiring Management Attention
1. Program offices (e.g., OPA, ORD) and other users (e.g., states of
Minnesota, New York, and Florida, and Environment Canada) have requested
access to AUSM documentation as well as requested EPA to conduct model
runs. This activity is likely to grow. Should a separate initiative
to support these needs be prepared?
2. Further enhancements to AUSM (e.g., capability to analyze transferable
discharge permits) will be required to deal with new policy options.
Should a funding initiative be submitted to support these needs?
3. Further independent model review and assessment is needed to accomplish
quality assurance goals recommended by peer review committees. Should
a funding initiative be submitted?
34
-------
I
imie:
FT 84 KiU TASK DESCRIPTION
N38
Objective: A retirement decision model will be constructed based I
Identify and Evaluate Major Factors Affecting
Retirement Ages for Energy Facilities
1DU/PA Multimedia/Acid RaTrj
|TASK f
IPO
(DATE 06/21/83
(MATRIX Program Office
Milliken
on those retirement factors which are deemed to be most important. A literature survey of
current analytical capabilities available to project retirement ages will be conducted
along with development of a data base of announced retirement plans. The model will be
exercised to determine the impact of retirement on acid deposition precursor emission
rates.
Rationale: Great uncertainty exists in attempts to project future emission rates for acid
deposition precursors. A major factor which produces this uncertainty is the lack of an
established methodology for estimating the retirement age of major emitting facilities.
This project is necessary in order to remove some of this uncertainty.
Primary User;
Interagency Task Force
on Acid Precipitation
Secondary User:
Office of Air
Noise & Radiation
Benefits/Uses; The outputs of this project will be used by researchers and policy analysts
investigating the acid deposition issue. The primary benefit will be identification of
the most cost-effective control strategy.
(Contractor:
(Contract #:
Argonne National Lab.
To Be Determined
FY 84 R«D $
$ to Complete
60K
-0-
35
-------
Analysis of Retirement Ages - Accomplishments
1. Initiated Interagency Agreement project with Argonne National Laboratory
to conduct retirement age study for electric utility boilers, and to
apply results of study to AUSM.
2. Completed and reviewed a work plan for retirement age analysis to
supplement AUSM.
3. Work plan reviewed by URGE (Bullard).
4. Coordinated ANL project personnel with URGE staff.
36
-------
Analysis of Retirement Ages -
Areas Requiring Management Attention
Assumptions about utility boiler retirement ages, refurbishment
schedule, and derating history can have a significant effect on total
emissions, and on economic impacts of control programs. The current
funding for the ANL program may not be adequate to address this
complex issue. Should an initiative to upgrade this project be , .
prepared?
The current retirement age study addresses only the utility sector.
Retirement ages of industrial sources and mobile sources are also
Important parameters. Should the project be expanded to include
these source categories?
37
-------
|T1tle:
FT 84 R4U TASK DESCRIPTION
Industrial Combustion Emissions Model for SOX and NOX
1DU/PA Multimedia/Acid Rai»
|TASK * N32
|PO Mobley
IDATE 06/21/83
(MATRIX
I
Program Office.,
[Objective; Th« objective of this project is to develop an
analytical tool to assess the cost and effectiveness of alternative acid deposition control
strategies relative to control of NOX and SOX emissions from industrial boilers, industrial
process heaters, and industrial processes.
Rationale: Tjje industrial combustion sector is second in importance only to the utility
sector with respect to acid deposition precursor emissions. Therefore, it is imperative
to be able to access the impacts and the emission reduction potential of controlling this
sector.
| Primary User:
Interagency Task Force
on Acid Precipitation
Secondary User;
Office of Air
Noise & Radiation
I °_enf' Its/Uses I Outputs of this project will be used by researchers and policy analysts
investigating acid deposition control alternatives. Primary benefits will be identifica-
tion of the most cost-effective control strategy.
[Contractor:
[Contract #:
Energy & Environmental Analysis
68-02-3930
FY 84 R&O $
$ to Complete
300K
150K (FY85)
38
-------
Industrial NOX/SOX Emission Modeling
Accompli shments
1. Completed "Development of an Industrial Combustion Emissions (ICE)
Model for Acid Rain Analyses" Draft Task 1 Report, 02/83, EEA Contract
No. 68-02-3930.
2. Effective Use of ICE Model Technical Advisory Committee consisting
of EPA (R&D, Policy, and Regulatory), DOE (Fossil Energy, Policy,
EIA.ERA), National Lab, and contractor personnel.
3. Award of a Cooperative Agreement to the University of Iowa on
"Applications of Discrete Choice Analysis to Environmental Policy
Problems."
4. Approval of a Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and DOE to allow
access to confidential data on industrial boilers for development of
the "Fuel Choice Decision Module."
5. Acceleration of the industrial sector modeling by contract modification
to cover NOX and SOX emissions from industrial processes and process
heaters.
6. Modified IFCAM to become the ICE Model by:
o Adding State level resolution
o Adding sulfate emission prediction capability
o Adding projection capability to 2000
o Adding capability for evaluating cost and emission reduction
potential of retrofit control strategies for industrial boilers
7. Coordinated with other involved contractors including Pechan, Radian,
Argonne, University of Illinois, and University of Iowa.
39
-------
Proposed Framework
for
Industrial NOX/SOX Emissions Model
Industrial NO^/SO,, Model
Common
Economic & Energy
Assumptions
ICE Model
New & Retrofit Industrial Boilers
State/Major Industry Detail
S02, NOX, Sulfates
Baseline & Controlled Emissions
Cost of Control
Industrial Processes Model
Industrial Processes & Process Heaters
Region/Industrial Equipment Detail
S02, NOX
Baseline Emissions
No Costs
Industrial NOy/SO^ Model
Common Emission
Projections from
Industrial Sector
40
-------
Industrial NOX/SOX Modeling Areas Needing Management Attention
1. The ICE Model is being developed to determine generic costs and
emission reduction potential of alternative control strategies for new
and retrofit controls on industrial boilers. This technique does not
identify the cost of controlling specific plants. Is this approach
adequate?
2. The industrial processes model is currently being developed to project
emissions by industry group within a region. Is it necessary to
develop a sophisticated prediction capability to the state level?
Should a funding initiative be submitted in this regard?
3. The industrial processes model is currently being developed to predict
emissions but does not have the capability for analysis of cost of
control options. Is this approach adequate?
41
-------
JTItle:
{Objective; The objective of the project is to develop an analytical.
PY 84 R&D TASK DESCRIPTION
N39
Industrial VOC Emissions Model
(DU/PA Multimedia/Acid Raii
ITASK I
IPO
IDATE 06/21/83
IMATRIX Program Office
Hobley
tool to access the cost and effectiveness of alternative acid deposition control strategies
relative to control of VOC emissions from industrial processes.
I Rationale: voc emissions from the industrial sector are thought to play a critical role in
the formation mechanisms leading to acid deposition. Therefore, it is necessary to be
able to predict future VOC emission levels and the impact of alternative regulatory options
on the industrial sector and on emission levels.
jPrimary User;
Interagency Task Force
on Acid Precipitation
Secondary User;
Office of Air
Noise & Radiation
jBenef1ts/UseS: Outputs of this project will be used by researchers and policy analysts
investigating acid deposition control alternatives. Primary benefits will be
identification of the most cost-effective control strategy.
jContractor:
Contract #:
To Be Determined
To Be Determined
FY 84 RAD $
$ to Complete
9 OK
200K (FY8_5_>_
42
-------
Industrial VOC Emission Modeling
Accomplishments
1. Completed scoping study on industrial VOC emissions in 10/83
(Schwengels/Pechan).
2. Assessed available analytical techniques for VOC emission modeling
and determined that none were adequate.
3. Initiated development of model framework with Radian Corporation
in 01/84.
. 4._. Coordinated with involved parties including Radian, Pechan, Argonne,
Engineering Science, GCA, EEA, and OAQPS.
43
-------
Industrial VOC Modeling Areas Requiring Management Attention
The US/Canadian Work Group 3B report indicated that the industrial
VOC source emissions were almost half of VOC emlsions, and an indus-
trial VOC modeling project was initiated. Further investigation
using the NECRMP data base indicated only about 25% of VOC emissions ,
was from the industrial sector and that about 25% was from the
commercial sector.
% of VOC Emissions
WG3B NECRMP
Industrial Sources 48 25
Utility Sources 5 1
Transportation . 34 38
Other 13
Commercial/Other — 36
100 100
DOE has the lead role for emission modeling from the commercial,
residential, and transportation sectors. Hence, the issue emerges
as to whether VOC emissions will be handled properly by the current
approach. Specifically, should DOE or EPA have responsibility for
all VOC emission modeling, or should EPA and DOE split the respon-
sibility in some manner?
In the "Acid Precipitation Task Force Paper," it was noted that there
was a fair amount of regulatory activity underway in the industrial
VOC category and that it did not seem reasonable to consider additional
VOC control strategies as part of an acid deposition control strategy.
Is this still considered a reasonable approach (i.e., is it necessary
to build cost of additional and/or retrofit VOC control into the
industrial VOC model)?
VOC Regulatory Actions*
Type Existing Under Development
NSPS 6 19
NESHAPS 1 . 7
CTG Z\_ _8
28 34
*As of 06/83
44
-------
Control Technology - Task Group H
o Goal: Evaluate cost, performance, and applications of techniques
for control of acid deposition precursor emissions.
o Specific Objectives:
- Develop engineering cost and performance data for S02 and NOX
controls on fossil fuel combustion sources
- Evaluate technologies for control of precursor emissions other
than S02 and NOX
- Evaluate technologies for control of precursor emissions from
industrial processes
o Budget Summary: FY82 - $OK; FY83-- $OK; FY.84 - $OK; FY85 - $600K
o NAPAP Role and Coordination: Provide state-of-the-art control technology
cost and performance assessment data needed for the NAPAP policy analysis
and assessment program. Control technology assessment data used by
Task Groups I and B.
o Task Group H Staffing:
- Management. Program planning and budgeting conducted by Chairman
F. T. Princiotta with direct support from IERL management (E.L. Plyler,
M.A. Maxwell) and operating staff (J.O. Milliken, J.D. Mobley).
- Program Implementation. FY85 program to be administered by lERL's
Utilities and Industrial Processes Division, Emissions/Effluent
Technology Branch. Designated project officers for FY.85 projects
are J. Milliken and D. Mobley.
- Steering Committee Function. Provided by full membership of Task
Group H which includes representatives from EPA, TVA, and DOE.
45;
-------
Task Group H's Projects and Budget Summary
Potential Role of Coal Cleaning
for Additional S(>2 Reduction
Assessment of Current S(>2 and NOX
Control Technologies
Control of Directly Emitted Acidic
Materials
Technology Combinations and
Modifications for Moderate S02
Control at Low Cost
Evaluation of Passive (Non-Hardware)
Control Options
Technical and Economic Evaluation
of LIMB
Assessment of the Adequacy of VOC
Control Techniques
Assessment of Control Technologies
for Industrial Processes
Base Budget
Supplements
Total
FY8A FY85
$250K* $300K*
200K
100K
10GK
200K
100K*
100K*
200K*
0
250K*
600K
700K*
$250K $1300K
*Not Funded
-------
TASK GROUP H MAJOR DELWERABLES
Major Deliverables
Needed by
Contributes to:
Year Expected Task Group Objective Assessment
(Year)
Assessment of the Merits of Coal
Cleaning as a Control Option
State-of-the-Art Report on S02
and NOX Controls for New and
Retrofit Applications on
Combustion Sources
Report on the Adequacy of
Techniques for Control of Directly
Emitted Acidic Materials
(Sulfates & Chlorides)
Assessment of Technology Com-
binations and Modifications
for Moderate Control at Low Cost
Evaluation of Passive (Non-
Hardware) Control Options Such
as Load Dispatching, Fuel
Switching, Conservation, Bubbling,
and Early Retirements
Conduct a Technical and Economic
Evaluation of LIMB as a Control
Option
Report on the Adequacy of VOC
Emission Control Techniques
Report on Assessment of Control
Techniques for Industrial Processes
Site-Specific Assessment Report on
Control Options for Major Sources
State-of-the-Art Report on
Control Technologies
FY85
85
FY85
FY86
FY86
FY86
FY87
FY87
FY87
FY88
FY88
B
B, I
B, I
B, I
B, I
B
B
B, I
B, I
1, 2, 3
1, 2, 3
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
89
89
47
-------
Task Group H - Areas Requiring Management Attention
1. The FY84 supplement of $250K to initiate the coal cleaning assessment
study is no longer viable. Should an FY85 supplement be submitted to
accommodate this important study or should this be a priority item on
the FY86 budget proposal for Task Group H?
2. Recent EPA Headquarters requests for control technology cost and
performance data on selected fuel switching techniques have pointed
out our lack of capability to quickly respond with credible information
in this area. Information is either insufficient or nonexistent in the
following areas: (1) Capital Investment cost impacts and boiler
performance problems (e.g., derating) associated with conversion of
high sulfur coal-fired boilers to low sulfur coal; (2) cost premium
for low sulfur oil relative to currently fired high sulfur residual
oil being used in numerous northeastern U.S. utility boilers; and (3)
capital investment, boiler performance effects, and fuel price premiums
associated with adding natural gas firing capability to existing
coal-fired boilers. The lack of supportable engineering data in these
areas greatly reduces our capability to provide current and near-term
support to EFA policy and regulatory analysis needs, as well as long-
term support for NAPAP assessments. What approach should be taken to
fill these data gaps?
3. Major opportunities for the development of significantly lower cost
approaches to control of acid deposition precursor emissions are not
being exploited because of the lack of fundamental bench-scale
characterization of novel concepts. For example, preliminary data
indicate good potential for charged sorbent droplets to achieve con-
current S02 capture and enhanced particulate capture in existing ESPs.
Development and commercialization of this concept could have tremendous
implications in reducing the overall cost of a retrofit control program
to reduce SC>2 emissions. Although we are planning to address this need
in the Task Group H FY86 budget proposal, should an initiative be
submitted for a possible FY85 supplement to support this activity.
4. Methods and costs of reducing emissions from non-industrial non-utility
sources are not well characterized (e.g., further NOX reduction from
auto, VOC reduction from commercial sources). Should Task Group H
expand scope in FY86 program?
48
-------
Project Descriptors for Task Group H Program
The following Project Descriptors, which describe the FY85 Level I, II,
and III, and FY84 Supplement Projects, are attached:
(1) Potential Role of Coal Cleaning for Additional SO2
Reduction
(2) Assessment of Current S(>2 and NOX Control Technologies
(3) Control of Directly Emitted Acidic Materials
(4) Technology Combinations and Modifications for Moderate
S(>2 Control at Low-Cost
(5) Evaluation of Passive (Non-Hardware) Control Options
(6) Technical and Economic Evaluation of LIMB
(7) Assessment of the Adequacy of VOC Control Techniques
(8) Assessment of Control Techniques for Industrial Processes
49
-------
I. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE; POTENTIAL ROLE OF COAL CLEANING FOR ADDITIONAL S02 REDUCTION
NAPAP Code; Hl-1
Funding Agency; EPA
Project Officer; John 0. Mil liken
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (MD-61)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-7716
FTS/629-7716
Period of Perf o raance ; Begin: October 1983; End: September 1984
FY85 - Supplement - $250K (?); FY86 - $300K
Priority Ranking Within Task Group; 1
11 • IMPORTANCE ; There is an Increasing Interest in the possible use of coal
cleaning for achieving additional S02 reductions, primarily from utility coal
combustion. However, there is considerable uncertainty concerning the potential
S02 reductions which can be achieved by additional coal cleaning. Additionally,
information is needed on the costs of cleaning at different sulfur removal
levels, and on the cost benefits associated with reduced boiler operating and
maintenance costs and increases in boiler availability, which result from coal
cleaning.
III. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES;
(1) To provide an assessment of current practice in physical coal cleaning.
This assessment will address how much coal is currently being washed and
what the costs of this washing are. It will also describe the current
status of the coal cleaning industry in terms of the number and type of
plants, and plant utilization data. (FY84)
(2) To estimate additional S02 reductions possible with physical coal cleaning,
and the cost of achieving these reductions. This estimate will be made
on a regional and state level, and will address additional SO 2 reductions
possible with different levels of cleaning. (FY84)
IV. TECHNICAL APPROACH; Coal preparation plant data will be aggregated on a
county, state, and regional level to provide estimates of current coal cleaning
practices. These data will be matched with information from data bases on
coal cleanability, coal reserves, and coal deliveries to utilities. Engineering
studies will be used to provide estimates for the cost of upgrading existing
plants and constructing new plants. Improved estimates of cost benefits
resulting from coal cleaning will be developed. This project will be coordinated
with Canadian control technology researchers who have expressed an interest in
coal cleaning as applied to reduction of S02 emissions.
50
-------
Potential Role of Coal Cleaning for Additional SC>2 Reduction (Continued)
J
V. DELIVERABLES;
(1) Report on the assessment of current coal cleaning practice—by June 198A.
(2) Report on the estimate of additional SC>2 reductions possible with coal
cleaning and the cost of achieving these reductions—by September 1984.
VI. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER WORK; Information developed by this project will be
used primarily by Task Groups B and I in assessing the relative costs of
various control programs to reduce SC>2 emissions. The coal cleaning information
is needed to augment the cost and performance data for other control technologies
in order to determine and describe least cost approaches to reductions in
S(>2 emissions from coal combustion*
VII. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS; The current data base on coal cleaning practice is
incomplete and out-of-date. In order to estimate the additional SC>2 reductions
possible with increased coal cleaning, an assessment of how much coal is
currently washed and at what levels is needed. Although the technical feasibility
of achieving an additional 2.5 million tons per yr SC>2 reduction is generally
acknowledged, the economic feasibility of additional S02 reductions above
1.5 million tons of S(>2 per year is more ambiguous.
51
-------
I. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE; ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT S02 AND NOX CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
NAPAP Code; Hl-2
Funding Agency; EPA
Project Officer; John 0. Mllliken
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (MD-61)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-7716
FTS/629-7716
Period of performance; Begin: October 1984; End; September 1985
Funding; FY85 - Level I - $200K
Priority Ranking Within Task Group; 2
II. IMPORTANCE; Any possible control program to reduce emissions of acid
deposition precursors would probably focus on control of major existing
sources of S02 and NOX, although the control of other precursors (e.g.,
sulfates, chlorides, and VOC) may be important, especially for deposition
associated with local sources* A NAPAP objective is to be able to estimate
the effect and cost of possible control programs. To meet with objective,
Task Group H will provide control technology cost and performance data for
existing state-of-the-art and emerging advanced control technologies.
III. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE; To develop engineering cost and performance information
Id r cur rent and near-t e rm emerging SOj and NOX control technologies that
could be applied to existing and new fossil fuel combustion sources. (FY85)
IV. TECHNICAL APPROACH; Engineering cost and performance data developed for
existing and emerging technologies will be adapted by Task Group H for use
by the ITFAP in conducting preliminary assessments of possible control
programs to reduce emissions of SO? and NOX. The cost and performance data
for specific control technologies (viz., lime/limestone FGD, dual alkali
FGD, lime spray drying, physical coal cleaning, low NOX burners, LIMB, and
coal switching) will be developed in a format suitable as input to the
policy assessment models being developed by Task Groups B and I. Cost data
provided will include total capital investment, annual operating expenses,
annualized and levelized costs, and major factors affecting cost. Existing
cost data will be adapted to a uniform format; that is, costing methodology
and assumptions will be consistent for each technology addressed. Major
variables affecting cost of control technology, with emphasis on cost
penalties for retrofit applications, will be described.
V. raLIVESABLES; Report on state-of-the-art S02 and NOX controls for new and
retrofit applications to combustion sources—delivered by September 1985.
VI. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER WORK; The control technology cost and performance
data developed by this project has direct application to the assessment
models being developed by Task Groups B and I. This information is essential
to NAPAP assessments of the cost of possible regulatory programs to control
emissions of S02 and NOX from major man-made sources.
p
VII. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS; Current control technology cost and performance
data is based primarily on information designed for the control of new
sources. This is appropriate for existing air quality regulatory programs.
However, this may not be appropriate information for developing least cost
control programs for achieving reductions of S02 and NOX emissions called
for by possible acid precipitation regulatory programs.
52
-------
DESCRIPTIVE TITLE: CONTROL OF DIRECTLY EMITTED ACIDIC MATERIALS
NAPAP Code:
Hl-3
Funding Agency:
Project Officer;
EPA
J. David Mobley
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (MD-61)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-2578
FTS/629-2578
Period of Performance; Begin: October 1984; End: September 1985
Funding; FY85 - Level II - $100K
Priority Ranking Within Task Group; 3
II. IMPORTANCE; For directly emitted acidic compounds (e.g., sulfates and
chlorides;, very little information is available on the type and effectiveness
of control techniques that could be used to reduce these emissions. These
emissions could be very significant in determining the local vs long range
transport/deposition issue. If it is determined through other components of
the NAPAP program that directly emitted acidic materials are significant
contributors to acid deposition, then assessments of control strategies to
reduce these emissions will be needed. Because the technology and associated
costs of reducing directly emitted acidic materials will not be the same as
controlling precursors such as S02 and NOX, the type, cost, and mix of control
technologies employed in a strategy to reduce acid deposition will also be
substantially different.
III. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES; To identify and evaluate the adequacy of controls for
reducing sulfates and chlorides and to quantify the relative importance of
directly emitted acidic materials. The performance and cost of control tech-
nologies to reduce emissions of sulfates and chlorides will be described.
IV. TECHNICAL APPROACH; Available information on the effectiveness of controls
for reducing sulfates and chlorides is limited. The approach to developing
this information for NAPAP purposes will be to review and analyze existing
data for sulfate and chloride reduction efficiencies as determined on full-
scale sources. Additionally, pilot- and laboratory-scale data may be used to
adapt control efficiency information where needed.
V. DELIVERABLES: Report on the adequacy of controls for reducing emissions of
sulfates and chlorides from fossil-fuel combustion sources and industrial
processes—by September 1985.
VI. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER WORK; Information developed by this project will be
provided to Task Group B for direct use in the sectoral models that predict
emission trends and cost of possible control programs.
VII. RESULTS AND CONCLUSI_0_N_S; For directly emitted acidic compounds such as
sulfates and chlorides, very little information is available on the effective-
ness of conventional control technologies. The significance of these sources
in terms of acid deposition impacts is also largely unknown, and constitutes a
major research question for other components of the NAPAP.
"53~
-------
I. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE; TECHNOLOGY COMBINATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS FOR MODERATE
S02 CONTROL AT LOW-COST
NAPAP Code: Hi-4
Funding Agency:
Project Officer;
EPA
J. David Mobley
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (MD-61)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-2578
FTS/629-2578
Period of Performance; Begin: October 1984; End: September 1985
Funding; FY85 - Level II - $100K
Priority Ranking Within Task Group; 4
II. IMPORTANCE; Existing technology to control acid deposition precursors emitted
from coal-fired utility boilers is expensive. Engineering research and deve-
lopment by EPA has identified low-cost applications of "scaled-down" FGD, and
a number of advanced control technologies that can be integrated into low-cost
control systems. For example, coal preparation integrated with limestone
injection multi-stage burners or post-combustion lime spray dryers has the
potential to provide multi-pollutant control at low-cost. Additionally,
recent developments in low-cost particulate control including precharging and
large diameter electrodes and electrostatically augmented fabric filtration
need to be coupled with advanced S02 control concepts (e.g., LIMB or lime
spray drying) to investigate low-cost integrated control systems.
III. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost and performance of innovative and
integrated approaches to SOo control for possible acid deposition control
strategies—by September 1985.
IV. TECHNICAL APPROACH; A number of concepts for combined control systems being
investigated under other EPA programs (e.g., integrated air pollution control
systems) will be identified as potential candidates for retrofit to coal-fired
boilers for an acid deposition control program. These combinations would
include, for example, coal cleaning with LIMB, LIMB with spray drying, and
simultaneous NOX/SOX control. Additionally, this project will identify and
describe the theoretical costs and performance of modified conventional control
systems. For example, a low-cost lime/limestone FGD to give moderate (50-
70 percent) S02 reduction may be an appropriate control approach for a retrofit
based control program. Additionally, flue gas conditioning to restore fly ash
resistivity properties needed for removal with electrostatic precipitators
will be investigated for coal switching.
V. DELIVEFABLES: Report on the cost and performance characteristics of selected
technology combinations and low-cost, moderate control technology modifica-
tions—by September 1985.
VII. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS; Existing, NSPS-type control technology to reduce
SO? is very expensive. Combinations of technologies or modifications of
existing control technologies may lead to a more cost-effective approach to
controlling emissions of S02 for an acid deposition control program.
54
-------
I. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE; EVALUATION OF PASSIVE (NON-HARDWARE) CONTROL OPTIONS
NAPAP Code; Hl-5
Funding Agency; EPA
Project Officer; John 0. Milliken
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (MD-61)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-7716
FTS/629-7716
Period of Performance; Begin; October 1984; End: September 1985
Funding; FY85 - Level II - $200K
Priority Ranking Within Task Group; 5
II. IMPORTANCE; Most control strategies being considered for use in a possible
acid deposition regulatory program consist of both control technology hardware
and passive or non-hardware approaches to reducing emissions of acid deposition
precursors. The evaluation of hardware technologies (e.g., wet scrubbing,
lime spray drying, and LIMB) is straightforward in terms of assessing emissions
reduction performance and engineering cost. Passive control options which
include least emissions load dispatching, fuel switching, conservation, bubbling,
and early retirement are more difficult to evaluate in terms of emissions
reduction relative to a non-control baseline, and especially in terms of
assessing the cost impact. In order to be able to assess the emission reduction
and cost impacts of passive options on the same basis as the hardware control
technology approaches, an engineering evaluation of the implementation of the
various passive control options is needed. In general, the passive control
options are perceived to be lower cost control approaches, and hence they are
viewed as playing a major role in any possible regulatory program to reduce
emissions of acid deposition precursors. Therefore, assessment of the cost
and other impacts of passive controls is important to achieving the NAPAP Task
Group H goal of evaluating control technology.
III. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE: To develop engineering cost and performance information
for passive (non-hardware) control options for reducing emissions of acid
deposition precursors. The passive control options evaluated will include
load dispatching, fuel switching, conservation, bubbling, and early retirement.
IV. TECHNICAL APPROACH; A complete list of passive or non-hardware options will
be developed and each of these options will be described in detail. The
implementation problems anticipated for each passive .control option will be
identified. For example, the effect of fuel switching on boiler capacity and
operating conditions will be evaluated, and a cost impact of these factors
will be estimated. Hidden cost penalties associated with passive options such
as load dispatching and early retirement will be identified and guidelines for
estimating the quantitative value of these cost estimates will be provided.
The cost data developed for each of the passive control options will detail a
list of major equipment items required, the total capital investment for
these equipment items, additional annual operating expenses associated with
passive controls, and the annualized and levelized costs. Additionally, major
factors affecting these costs on a site-specific basis will be Identified.
Cost data will be adapted to a uniform format.
55
-------
Evaluation of Passive (Non-Hardware) Control Options (Continued)
V. DELIVERABLES; Report that describes the cost and performance of passive
contrb1 options for both new and retrofit applications to utility and
industrial power generation sources—delivered by September 1985.
VI. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER WORK; Control technology cost and performance data
developed by this project has direct application to the assessment models
being developed by Task Groups B and I. This cost information is essential
NAPAP assessments of the cost of possible regulatory programs to control
emissions of S0£ and NOX from major man-made sources.
to
VII. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: An engineering evaluation of the cost and performance
of pas sive "cdhtrol" op tions such as load dispatching, fuel switching, conserva-
tion, bubbling, and early retirement has not been conducted. This type of
cost and performance data needs to be put on an equivalent basis with the
engineering assessment data for hardware control technology options. The cost
data are particularly important as inputs to NAPAP sectoral models that
support policy analysis.
56
-------
I. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE; TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF LIMB
NAPAP Code; Hl-6
Funding Agency;
Project Officer;
EPA
John 0. Milliken
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (MD-61)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-7716
FTS/629-7716
Period of Performance; Begin: October 1984; End: September 1985
Funding; FY85 - Level III - $100K
Priority Ranking Within Task Group; 6
II. IMPORTANCE; Simultaneous control of S02 and NO, with limestone injection
multi-stage burners is viewed as a promising technology to cost-effectively
reduce emissions of these acid deposition precursors. However, the current
data base for cost and performance characteristics of this technology is
limited to third party (EPRI/Combustion Engineering and DOE/Gilbert)
preliminary studies. Because of the potential cost savings of this
technology, the NAPAP assessment program should have available the most
accurate and up-to-date engineering cost data for LIMB. Additionally, the
potential impact on boiler performance in terms of derating and the effect of
LIMB on particulate control requirements needs to be assessed for the NAPAP
program.
III. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE; To conduct an engineering assessment of the technical and
economic aspects of retrofitting LIMB systems to existing coal-fired boilers—
by September 1985.
IV. TECHNICAL APPROACH; Preliminary cost, estimates for retrofit of LIMB systems
on various boiler types (e.g., wall-fired, tangential-fired) will be conducted.
The impact of sorbent injection at the burner on boiler performance and avail-
ability will be reviewed and analyzed. Additionally, the effect of LIMB on.
particulate control system requirements will be assessed.
V. DELIVERABLES: Report on the technical and economic evaluation of retrofitting
LIMBto existing coal-fired boilers—by September 1985.
VI. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER WORK; The cost and performance data developed under
this task will be used directly by Task Group B in the sectoral models that
project emission trends and costs of various control programs. Additionally,
the potential savings associated with a successful LIMB development program,
is information that will be important to policy analysis and assessment
activities of Task Group I.
VII. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS; Current cost and performance data for commercial
. applications of LIMB technology are limited. Major unknowns relate to impact
of technology on boiler performance and availability, as well as the effect of
LIMB on particulate control system requirements.
57
-------
I. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE: ASSESSMENT OF CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
NAPAF Code; Hl-8
Funding Agency: EPA
Project Officer; J. David Mobley
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (MD-61;
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-2578
FTS/629-2578
Period of Performance; Begin: October 1984; End: September 1985
Funding; FY85 - Level III - $200K
Priority Ranking Within Task Group: 8
II* IMPORTANCE; Industrial processes such as non-ferrous smelting and iron and
steel manufacturing represent significant sources of acid deposition precursors
(especially S02 and NO^) in some regions. Control technology assessment data
on emissions reduction performance and cost will be needed to support sectoral
models that will be used to integrate industrial processes into the overall
policy analysis of acid deposition control strategies.
III. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES; To identify appropriate industrial processes control
technologies, and to provide performance and cost assessment data for these
processes.
IV. TECHNICAL APPROACH; On the basis of NAPAP emission inventory data for industrial
processes, control technologies relevant to the significant industrial process
emitters of acid deposition precursors will be identified and studied. Existing
cost and performance data for these control technologies will be adapted to
the specific source categories. Cost data provided will include total capital
investment, annual operating expenses, annualized and levelized costs, and
major factors affecting cost* Existing cost data will be adapted to a uniform
format.
V. DELIVERABLES; Report on state-of-the-art controls for application to new and
retrofit sources of acid deposition precursor emissions from industrial processes-
delivered by September 1985.
VI. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER WORK; The control technology cost and performance data
developed^ly this project has direct application to the assessment models
being developed by Task Groups B and I. This information is essential to
NAPAP assessments of the cost of possible regulatory programs, to control
emissions from major industrial process sources.
VII. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS; Current control technology cost and performance
data is based primarily" on information designed for the control of new sources.
This is appropriate for existing air quality regulatory programs. However,
this may not be appropriate information for developing least cost control
programs for achieving reductions of emissions called for by possible acid
precipitation regulatory programs*
58
-------
I. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE; ASSESSMENT OF THE ADEQUACY .OF VOC CONTROL TECHNIQUES
NAPAP Code; Hi-7
Funding Agency; EPA
Project Officer; J. David Mobley
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (MD-61)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919-541-2578
FTS/629-2578
Period of Performance; Begin; October 1983; End: September 1984
Funding; FY85 - Level III - $100K
Priority Ranking Within Task Group; 7
II. IMPORTANCE; Although the role of volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the acid
deposition phenomena is not yet clearly understood, it is felt that VOC may
play an important role in the conversion of S02 and NOg to acidic species,
especially in some regions. Engineering cost and performance data of a quality
suitable to use as input to the NAPAP sectoral models that support policy
analysis will be needed in the event that VOC's are determined to play a
significant role.
III. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES; To identify VOC control technologies that would be
appropriate tor reducing emissions of VOC that are implicated in contributing
to acid deposition. Engineering cost and performance data for each of the VOC
control technologies identified will be developed.
IV. TECHNICAL^APPROACH; Identification of appropriate VOC control technologies
will depend on the distribution and characteristics of VOC emission sources.
This information is planned for development under an associated Task Group B
project. When the relevant VOC emission sources have been identified, the
engineering cost and performance data will be developed. In. most cases,
engineering data for VOC control technologies will be available from previous
EPA assessments in this area, although this data may have to be adapted for
acid deposition related applications.
V. DELIVERABLES; Report on the engineering cost and performance characteristics
of VOC_ control technologies—by September 1985.
VI. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER WORK; The cost and performance data for VOC control
technologies would be used as input into the models currently being developed
by Task Group B. These models would be used principally by Task Group I for
policy analysis purposes.
VII. RSSJJLTS AND CONCLUSIONS; Engineering data on the cost and performance of VOC
control technologies that would be employed by various possible acid deposition
control programs has not been developed.
59
-------
Program Peer Reviews
1. Laboratory Peer Review of Task Group B EPA Projects
(April 1983 at RTF)
2. NAPAP Peer Review on Sources, Monitoring, and Atmospheric
Research (August 1983 at Boston)
3. Ad Hoc Committee to Review NAPAP (Deutch Panel)
60
-------
Program Peer Rev1ews
Laboratory Peer Review of Task Group B EPA Projects (April 1983 at RTF)
o Requested by ORD/OEET as part of ORD Laboratory Peer Review Process
for major R&D programs.
o Review coordinated by EETB; ORD protocol for Laboratory peer reviews
followed (per Riordan 6/1/82 memo).
o Reviewers: Weyant (Stanford Univ.), Friedman (OTA), Hawkins (NRDC),
Richels (EPRI), and Wootten (Peabody).
o Findings:
Sectoral models and emission inventories, found to be
"at or close to the state-of-the-art."
o Recommendations: (1) More emphasis on integration of component
models and acceleration of model integration.
(2) Further independent model assessment and
quality assurance. .
o Action taken:
(1) Development of integrated models accelerated
(Schwengels/Pechan).
(2) Independent engineering review of selected
AUSM component modules accomplished. Corrective
actions taken.
(3) AUSM User Group and ICE Technical Advisory
Committee activities provide additional quality
assurance support.
(4) Increased emphasis on quality assurance in
emission inventory.
61
-------
Program Peer Rev1ews (continued)
NAPAP Peer Review on Sources, Monitoring, and Atmospheric Research
(August 1983 at Boston)
o Requested by ITFAP. Purpose was to review activities and plans for
NAPAP Task Groups on Natural Sources, Man-made Sources, Atmospheric
Modeling, and Deposition Monitoring
o Coordinated by University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR).
Task Group B participation coordinated by DOE (Beecy/Trexler).
o Reviewers (for TGB): Hidy (ERT), Gordon (Univ. Maryland), Kronenberger
(Exxon), McRae (CMU), Melo (Ontario Hydro), Whitby (Univ. Minnesota).
o Findings (for TGB):
(1) Quality of Task Group B research judged to be lower
than average (2.6/5.0)
(2) Effective use of available inventories
(3) Insufficient quality assurance of emissions inventories
(4) Insufficient attention to VOC, alkaline dusts, ammonia, .nd
trace elements in emissions models
o Selected Recommendations:
(1) Improve coordination between Task Groups
(2) Strengthen research planning, direction, and coordination
(3) Greater participation of non-federal scientists
(4) New funding for research to address scientific issues that
are critical to policy analysis
o Action taken:
(1) Maintained ongoing coordination with other Task Groups
(e.g., TGC and TGI)
(2) Prepared detailed reply to NAPAP.
(3) Emphasized quality assurance aspects including participation
in accuracy workshop^
(4) Requested additional funding for emission inventory and
model validation.
62
-------
Program Peer Reviews (continued)
Ad Hoc Committee to Review the National Acid Precipitation Assessment
Program (Deutch Panel)
o Requsted by Ruckelshaus, Block, and Byrne "to review and evaluate the
technical quality of the national program and suggest further research."
o Review coordinated by EPA Science Advisory Board and NAPAP Program
Coordination Office. Task Group B activities presented at 2 meetings
by DOE (with EPA support at 2nd meeting). Task Group H and overall
federal control technology R&D program also evaluated.
o Reviewers: Deutch (MIT), Balzhiser (EPRI), Hidy (ERT), Likens (Institute
of Ecosystems Studies), Penner (Univ. Calif. San Diego),
Ruderman (Columbia), Galloway (Univ. Virginia), Klemperer
(Harvard), Oppenheimer (Env. Denfense Fund), Postma (ORNL).
o Major Findings Relative to lERL/RTP Program:
(1) "Control technology is a central component of the acid deposition
problem and is currently not included in the NAPAP program."
(2) "Present NAPAP effort on man-made sources must be strengthened."
o Corrective Action Anticipated:
(1) Task Group H program for control technology assessments to
receive initial funding in FY85.
(2) Emissions inventory funding to increase in FY85.
k
(3) Plan to request additional support for modeling via
FY86 budget proposal.
63
-------
Peer Review Related Areas Requiring Management Attention
1. Multiple program peer reviews (3 in 10 months) have expended program
resources (man-hours, travel, contractor impacts). Can NAPAP and
EFA/ORD Laboratory program reviews be coordinated to minimize costly
and sometimes redundant effort? Should resources for peer review be-
included in the Laboratory budgets and operating plans?
2. Given that the April peer review at IERL/RTP seems to have been given
limited visibility and credence, is it worthwhile to conduct another
of these reviews in September 1984?
3. With respect to Boston review and Deutch panel review, IERL/RTP
program was presented in large part by DOE Task Group leadership.
How can IERL/RTP be in better position to represent its own R&D
program?
4. To ensure effective, high-quality reviews, panels reviewing IERL/RTP
program should have membership that represents expertise in control
technology, emissions inventory development, and emissions and control
strategy models. The EPA ORD Laboratory Peer Review Process guide-
lines for peer review panel selection give explicit guidelines for
Identifying and selecting qualitled panel candidates. What can be
done to encourage NAPAP to follow similar procedures?
s
5. The Deutch Review Group has recommended a greatly increased federal
R&D program for control technologies to reduce emissions of acid
deposition precursors. Although we certainly concur with this recom-
mendation, we strongly disagree with the proposal that DOE (outside
of NAPAP) be the focus of the federal control technology research
program. EPA's superior record of accomplishment in control the
technology R&D area plus EPA's responsibility to protect public
health and the environment in the most cost-effective manner indicates
that EPA should be the lead federal agency in the control technology
area.
64
-------
r
Non-NAPAP Acid Deposition Activities
o Elkin's Task Force Activities Supported
Materials on sources and control technologies was submitted and draft
sections of the Task Force Report were reviewed and critiqued.
o Coal Cleaning Briefings
A Coal Cleaning Background and Issue Paper was prepared for OAR and
ORD. Several briefings on coal cleaning technology were given to EPA/HQ
staff (ORD, OAR, OPRM).
o Assessment of Organic Acid Enhanced FGD
Applications of high performance organic-acid-enhanced FGD as part of an
acid rain control strategy were analyzed. Several reports have been
submitted to OPRM, OAR, and ORD and a R&D plan was prepared to solidify
the data base on the technology.
o Design and Analysis of a Cost-Effectiveness Control Strategy
A method to rank order the 100 largest S02 emitters in 7 states by cost-
effectiveness of deposition reduction was designed. An exercise to
demonstrate this technique was conducted with support from ESRL.
Results were presented to EPA-HQ staff on September 2, 1983.
o OPRM and ICF Supported
Cost data for flue gas desulfurization data and NOX controls was prepared
and submitted to OPRM. An exercise to compare AUSM with the ICF utility
model was initiated. Specific runs have been made on AUSM for this
purpose and a meeting with OPRM is planned for February 9.
o Administrator's Briefing Book
Information was prepared to support Ruckelshaus for the 02/02/84 hearings
before a Senate committee considering acid deposition issues*
65
-------
General Areas Requiring Management Attention
1. IERL-RTP has not received adequate personnel, travel, or ADP
allocations to support the acid deposition program although consider-
able resources have been expended to support NAPAP and EPA Program
Offices. When will this situation be alleviated and should IERL-RTP
take any specific actions in this regard?
2. As the acid deposition program matures, needs tend to become more
demanding than was anticipated during budget planning. Thus, more
deliverables are requested without more resources being provided.
What approach should be taken in this regard?
3. IERL-RTP personnel seem to be held accountable for the NAPAP Task
Group B program when we do not have control over all components.
What improvements can be made in this regard? What actions should
be taken by IERL-RTP, EPA, and NAPAP personnel to improve the effec-
tiveness of the DOE component of Task Group B.
4. The quality vs quantity issue is constantly arising. What approach
should be taken recognizing that peer reviewers and potential users
(critics) may not appreciate the trade-offs required in this regard.
5. The trend in Task Group B funding indicates an even balance between
emission inventory and emission modeling activities is developing.
Is this the appropriate split of resources?
6. How should IERL-RTP and EPA-HQ work together in preparation of the
FY85 Supplement and FY86 budgets? What position should be taken with
.DOE on negotiation of the Task Group B budget?
66
-------
Outlook
Emissions Inventories
o FY85 funding will focus on supporting the Eulerian atmospheric
model by developing an emissions data base which will incorporate
improvements in emission factor accuracy and refinements in spatial
and temporal allocation factors.
o Historical emission inventory and policy analysis activities will
also be supported as priorities and funding permit. ,.
Emissions/Economic Forecast Models
o An initial version of the national level AUSM will be available
for final testing, validation,•and refinement.
o Work on the industrial NOX/SOX and VOC emissions models will receive
increased emphasis and attention as these models become available
for testing and assessment activities.
Control Technology Assessments
o With the initial funding for FY.85 for Task Group H, work will be
initiated to develop engineering cost and performance data for existing
state-of-the-art and emerging advanced control technologies.
o Work will also be undertaken, within funding constraints, to define
the potential role of coal cleaning in future acid deposition control
strategies.
Other
o The "Emissions, Costs, and Engineering" activities under the US/Canadian
MOI will continue to be supported to the extent required.
o EPA policy assessments on control strategies and on control technology
capabilities and limitations will occur with high priority action
items and limited time periods for response.
o Administrative support to NAPAP activities will continue to require a
high degree of management attention.
67
-------
U.S. Environmentii P
IT •
re5!
------- |