Residential Wood Combustion Emissions Inventory Project for the MANE-VU Region

Residential Wood Combustion Residential Wood Combustion Emissions Inventory ProjectEmissions Inventory Project

for the MANE-VU Region for the MANE-VU Region

Megan Schuster, MARAMA

Annual RPO Meeting, St. Louis, MO

November 4-6, 2003

RWCRWC

Background Information Survey methodology and sample frameSurvey results Two approaches to analyze dataIssues/ Problems

Residential Wood Combustion Residential Wood Combustion Project BackgroundProject Background

Origin of RWC project: Assessment of Emissions Inventory Needs for Regional Haze Plans

RWC Emissions– High contribution to regional haze– Contribute approx. 8% of PM fine in MANE-VU

region– Large uncertainty – Important local source to Class I areas – States have the potential to improve the activity data

RWCRWC

EIIP suggested methodology: Survey Project Intent: To estimate activity data and

an emissions inventory from residential wood combustion in the MANE-VU Region through survey methodology

Contract: E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc.

SurveySurvey

Telephone approach (CATI)Survey questionnaire based on previous

studies (esp. CARB study)Intended to obtain information on wood

burning equipment type and wood type

Survey Sample FrameSurvey Sample Frame

Sample frame– Includes important variables that affect activity (i.e.,

annual wood consumption) Urban, suburban, or rural locations Type of housing (single versus multi-family homes) Forested versus non-forested areas Latitude

Minimum sample size per cell = 61 completed surveys– Based on level of precision +/- 13.3%

RWC Sample Frame and RWC Sample Frame and (Number of Respondents)(Number of Respondents)

Rural-Forested Rural-Non-Forested Suburban Urban Geographic Zone

Single-Family

Other Single-Family

Other Single- Family

Other Single-Family

Other

High HDD Cell 1 61

(173)

Cell 2 61

(64)

Cell 3 61

(87)

Cell 4 61

(66)

Cell 5 61

(61)

Cell 6 61

(72)

Cell 7 61

(69)

Cell 8 61

(69) Low HDD Cell 9

61 (150)

Cell 10 61

(62)

Cell 11 61

(118)

Cell 12 61

(69)

Cell 13 61

(76)

Cell 14 61

(67)

Cell 15 61

(75)

Cell 16 61

(62) Med HDD Cell 17

61 (87)

Cell 18 61

(60)1

Cell 19 61

(91)

Cell 20 61

(64)

Cell 21 61

(71)

Cell 22 61

(60)1

Cell 23 61

(63)

Cell 24 61

(68)

1Number of responses ended up being less than the target value of 61 due to either: changes in the Disposition of one or more responses (i.e., change of address from the original sample); or dropping a response out of the final database (i.e., following QA of that response)

HDD Zones for MANE-VU HDD Zones for MANE-VU RegionRegion

MA

NE

-VU

Re

gio

nM

AN

E-V

U R

eg

ion

HD

D Z

on

es

HDD Zones4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

7500

8000

8500

9000

9500

10000

Fig

ure

2.

E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc.Date: January 28, 2003.

Source: 2000 U.S. Census.

0 40 80 120 16020Miles

Survey Results Survey Results - Activity Data- Activity Data

Summary of Wood Burners in MANE-VU Region

22%

10%

68%

Burns wood

Has wood burningequipment, did not burnwood

No equipment, does notburn wood

Respondents Reporting Respondents Reporting Usage of Indoor Burning Usage of Indoor Burning

EquipmentEquipmentRural-Forested Rural-Non-

Forested Suburban Urban Geographic

Zone Single-

Family Other Single

Family Other Single

Family Other Single

Family Other

High HDD Cell 1

67 Cell 2

4 Cell 3

28 Cell 4

3 Cell 5

11 Cell 6

0 Cell 7

10 Cell 8

2 Low HDD Cell 9

62 Cell 10

1 Cell 11

28 Cell 12

2 Cell 13

20 Cell 14

3 Cell 15

10 Cell 16

5 Med HDD Cell 17

29 Cell 18

5 Cell 19

22 Cell 20

4 Cell 21

26 Cell 22

2 Cell 23

4 Cell 24

0

Pechan’s AnalysisPechan’s Analysis User Fraction: fraction of households that actually burn wood

– Wood consumers = 1– Respondents that do not burn wood = 2– Significant Difference b/w UF

Single vs Multi unit households Geographic locations (U/S/RF/RNF)

– No Significant Difference b/w HDD level Annual Consumption: Amount of wood burned per household

(cords/yr, or BTUs/yr) -- Normalized by HDD level – Significant Difference b/w HDD level

Low response rate in certain cells prompted Pechan to try to combine cells that were not significantly different

UF Cell by Cell ComparisonUF Cell by Cell Comparison

LSD TestUser Fraction by cell

cell 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

1 RF - HDD high single - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 173

2 RF - HDD high multi * - * * * * * * * 64

3 RNF - HDD high single * - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 87

4 RNF - HDD high multi * * - * * * * * * * 66

5 S - HDD high single * * * - * * * * * * * * * * 61

6 S - HDD high multi * * * - * * * * * * * * 72

7 U - HDD high single * * * - * * * * * * 69

8 U - HDD high multi * * * - * * * * * * 69

9 RF - HDD low single * * * * * * - * * * * * * * * * * * * * 150

10 RF - HDD low multi * * * * * - * * * * * 62

11 RNF - HDD low single * * * * * * * - * * * * * * * * * * 118

12 RNF - HDD low multi * * * * * - * * * * 69

13 S - HDD low single * * * * * * * * * - * * * * * * * * 76

14 S - HDD low multi * * * * * * - * * * 67

15 U - HDD low single * * * * * * - * * * * 75

16 U - HDD low multi * * * * * - * * * 62

17 RF - HDD med single * * * * * * * * * * * - * * * * * 87

18 RF - HDD med multi * * * * * * - * * 60

19 RNF - HDD med single * * * * * * * * * * * * - * * * * * 91

20 RNF - HDD med multi * * * * * * * - * 64

21 S - HDD med single * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - * * * 71

22 S - HDD med multi * * * * * * * * * - 60

23 U - HDD med single * * * * * * * * - 63

24 U - HDD med multi * * * * * * * * * * * - 68

Even cell numbers=apartments * p<= .05 1904Uneven cell numbers=single family homes

AC Cell by Cell ComparisonAC Cell by Cell Comparison

LSD TestBTU/ yr-HDD RF

- HDD h

igh sin

gle

RF -

HDD high multi

RNF - H

DD high sin

gle

RNF - H

DD high multi

S - H

DD high sin

gle

S - H

DD high multi

U - HDD h

igh sin

gle

U - HDD h

igh multi

RF -

HDD low si

ngle

RF -

HDD low m

ulti

RNF - H

DD low si

ngle

RNF - H

DD low m

ulti

S - H

DD low si

ngle

S - H

DD low m

ulti

U - HDD lo

w si

ngle

U - HDD lo

w m

ulti

RF -

HDD med

sing

le

RF -

HDD med

multi

RNF - H

DD med

sing

le

RNF - H

DD med

multi

S - H

DD med

sing

le

S - H

DD med

multi

U - HDD m

ed si

ngle

U - HDD m

ed m

ulti

comp pe

r cell

cell 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

1 RF - HDD high single - * * * 67

2 RF - HDD high multi _ * * * * * * 4

3 RNF - HDD high single - * * * * * * * * 28

4 RNF - HDD high multi - 3

5 S - HDD high single - 11

6 S - HDD high multi - no cases7 U - HDD high single * * * - * * 10

8 U - HDD high multi - 2

9 RF - HDD low single * - * 62

10 RF - HDD low multi - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - excluded11 RNF - HDD low single * - 28

12 RNF - HDD low multi - 2

13 S - HDD low single * * * - * 20

14 S - HDD low multi - 3

15 U - HDD low single * * * * - * 10

16 U - HDD low multi * * - 5

17 RF - HDD med single * * * - * 29

18 RF - HDD med multi - 5

19 RNF - HDD med single - 22

20 RNF - HDD med multi * * - 4

21 S - HDD med single * - 26

22 S - HDD med multi - 2

23 U - HDD med single * * * - 4

24 U - HDD med multi - no casesEven quota numbers=apartments * p<= .05Uneven quota numbers=single family homes

Indoor Burning Equipment Indoor Burning Equipment Reported (% burned) Reported (% burned) Rural-Forested Rural-Non-Forested Suburban Urban Geographic

Zone

Single-Family

Other Single-Family

Other Single- Family

Other Single-Family

Other

High HDD Cell 1 FP= 34 WS= 67 F/B= 21 PS= 4

Cell 2 FP= 75 WS= 75 F/B= 0 PS= 0

Cell 3 FP= 43 WS= 76 F/B= 7 PS= 0

Cell 4 FP= 33 WS= 67 F/B= 0 PS= 0

Cell 5 FP= 36 WS= 64 F/B= 18 PS= 0

Cell 6 FP= 0 WS= 0 F/B= 0 PS= 0

Cell 7 FP= 80 WS= 30 F/B= 0 PS= 0

Cell 8 FP= 100 WS= 0 F/B= 50 PS= 0

Low HDD Cell 9 FP= 60 WS= 65 F/B= 5 PS= 2

Cell 10 FP= 100 WS= 0 F/B= 0 PS= 0

Cell 11 FP= 61 WS= 54 F/B= 4 PS= 4

Cell 12 FP= 50 WS= 50 F/B= 0 PS= 0

Cell 13 FP= 70 WS= 35 F/B= 0 PS= 5

Cell 14 FP= 67 WS= 0 F/B= 0 PS= 33

Cell 15 FP= 90 WS= 10 F/B= 0 PS= 0

Cell 16 FP= 100 WS= 0 F/B= 0 PS= 20

Med HDD Cell 17 FP= 55 WS= 66 F/B= 7 PS= 7

Cell 18 FP= 60 WS= 60 F/B= 0 PS= 0

Cell 19 FP= 59 WS= 45 F/B= 0 PS= 9

Cell 20 FP= 100 WS= 0 F/B= 0 PS= 25

Cell 21 FP= 81 WS= 27 F/B= 8 PS= 4

Cell 22 FP= 50 WS= 50 F/B= 0 PS= 0

Cell 23 FP= 100 WS= 0 F/B= 0 PS= 0

Cell 24 FP= 0 WS= 0 F/B= 0 PS= 0

Collapsed Sample Frame for Collapsed Sample Frame for Indoor Equipment UseIndoor Equipment Use

Rural-Forested Rural-Non-Forested

Suburban Urban Geographic Zone Single

Family Other Single

Family Other Single

Family Other Single

Family Other

High HDD Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8

Low HDD Cell 9 Cell 10 Cell 11 Cell 12 Cell 13 Cell 14 Cell 15 Cell 16

Med HDD Cell 17 Cell 18 Cell 19 Cell 20 Cell 21 Cell 22 Cell 23 Cell 24

Issues/ ProblemsIssues/ Problems

1. Collapsing data cells should only be based on statistical analysis

2. Subdividing cells by equipment type necessitates a larger sample size

Alternative Analysis ApproachAlternative Analysis Approach

1. Calculate emissions per survey response (based on equipment and wood type)

2. Analysis of Variance

Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance Corrected Mean Household Emissions for a cell =

M + Ai + Bj + Ck + Dij + Ejk + Fik

M = Overall mean of household emissions

Ai = Mean of each applicable housing type for that cell – M

Bj = Mean of each applicable geographic location (U/S/RF/RNF) – M

Ck = Mean of each applicable HDD level – M

Dij = mean of ith house type /jth geo location – mean ith house type – mean of j geo location + M

Eik = mean of ith house type/ kth HDD level – mean ith house type – mean kth HDD + M

F jk = mean of jth geo location/kth HDD level - mean of jth geo location – mean of kth HDD level + M

Future ImplicationsFuture Implications

Sample frame and minimum response rate requirement critical in obtaining useful information

Survey questionnaire should not be too specific

Improve EIIP to include suggested data analysis for survey methodology

Additional MANE-VU EI Additional MANE-VU EI ProjectsProjects

Calculation sheets – Develop calculation sheets using the preferred calculation method for the top area source categories and three non-road categories– Final Sheets – January 2004

Open Burning Project – Improve emission estimates from open burning sources (Yard Waste – Household Brush and Leaf Burning; MSW or Household Waste Burning; and Municipal Yard Waste Burning) through survey methods – completed– Final Revised Report – November 2003– NIF 3.0 – January 2004


Ammonia EI Project – Pechan is creating an emissions inventory for the MANE-VU region for industrial refrigeration, cement plants, POTWs and composting

– Final EI and Report – January 2004 Mobile Inventory - Pechan is creating a mobile

emissions inventory for onroad and nonroad mobile sources

– Default data based on 2002 NEI – January 2004– Onroad MOBILE6 input files, 2002 VMT database and

Nonroad input files – April 2004– Draft Final Inventory – December 2004


Compilation of 2002 Area and Point Modeling Inventories– Basis : State CERR submittals (June 2004)– Augmented with other data gathered from EI Projects

(Ammonia, RWC, Open Burning), and CEM data – Absent data will be supplemented with 1999 NEI

grown to 2002 (from EPA)– Final Inventory will be used for modeling PM fine and

regional haze – Fall 2004

Draft Strawman Timeline

Key

Preparation / Follow Up

Core Activity

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1.0 PM- 2.5 Designations

2.0 Estimate Natural & Baseline Conditions

3.0 Develop SIP Template

4.0 Ongoing Technical Support Activities

5.0 Prepare Final Technical Support Documents

6.0 Identify & Analyze

Alternatives for Goals & Strategies

7.0 Develop Model Rules for Selected Sources and Adopt Rules

8.0 Develop Reasonable Progress

Goals

9.0 Develop Long- term Strategy Agreement, Rules, &

SIP

10.0 Submit SIP