RE: Area Sources

["Jon Dettling" <dettling@glc.org>]

Orlando,

Thanks for catching that nuance. Most of the categories that are only in the
database for one state are attributed to either MI or MN and it could well
be the inclusion of CAP data for those states that causes those sources to
show up. Where we can confirm that that is the case, I can eliminate those
from the table.

Thanks,
Jon

______________________
Jon Dettling
Great Lakes Commission
734-971-9135
dettling@glc.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Cabrera-Rivera, Orlando - DNR
[mailto:Orlando.CabreraRivera@Wisconsin.gov] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 11:16 AM
To: dettling@glc.org; Airtoxics
Subject: RE: Area Sources

Jon,

Thanks for compiling the list. I noticed that some of the SCCs in the
list are not associated with HAPs, but with criteria pollutants. Some
states included their ammonia, and criteria inventories when doing the
import. The human perspiration category is an example. Therefore, the
number of SCCs and categories is lower than what the list shows.

Orlando

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-airtoxics@great-lakes.net
[mailto:owner-airtoxics@great-lakes.net] On Behalf Of Jon Dettling
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 9:59 AM
To: 'Airtoxics'
Subject: Area Sources

Steering Committee,

On last week's conference call, we discussed briefly the prospect of
calculating some area sources at the regional level where it makes sense
to do so from a standpoint of work efficiency and overall consistency. I
mentioned that I would compile and send out a table summarizing what
area source categories have been estimated by each state/province for
the 2002 inventory to provide a better basis for further discussion. The
table is attached here and a description of how it was compiled and some
initial observations are below.

The SCCs shown are all those that anyone has reported emissions for in
2002 using source type "A." This is a query of the 2002 repository that
looked for activity records linked to "A" sources and returned the SCCs
for the processes those activities belong to. I added to that a count of
the number of sources within each state that had emissions from a
process with the each SCC. This list therefore includes only a list of
the Area Source SCCs that are actually being used, not all the potential
Area Source SCCs, of which there are probably many more.

I then went through and classified these 170+ SCCS into about 30
categories that I've called "GLC methodology category." This is intended
to be at a similar level to the distinctions we've made in putting
together the methodology documents in the past. My classification here
is probably not perfect and some feedback could be used. I also added a
column showing how many jurisdictions reported emissions for any of the
SCCs within an given methodology classification. Looking at it that way
helps minimize  the focus on differences in which SCCs people are using
and focus on whether certain types of sources are being estimated. I
also added columns for what type of activity data is required and a
column to indicate the feasibility of estimating a certain category at
the regional level rather than state-by state. These last few columns
aren't very complete at this point and input could be used there as
well. Perhaps on the next call we can try to fill some of those fields
in more fully.

Some states are in the process of adding a few area sources as part of
the b(a)p assessment and if that data hasn't yet reached the repository,
it's not reflected in the attached table.

It should also be pointed out that the table only presents information
on whether or not certain SCCs are being reported by various
states/provices and doesn't say anything about whether similar
methodologies or emission factors are used. 

The table shows that there are 5 categories that all nine
states/province have estimated and 6 more that 7-8 jurisdiction
estimated. There are 7 that
3-5 estimated and 13 that 1-2 estimated. I would say that it's generally
the case that those source types that many states are currently
estimating are those that will be the best candidates for estimating at
the regional level.
Among the others, there may be a handful that are significant categories
and easily estimated that we decide to do at the regional level also. We
can assess each on its own merits in terms of whether it's worth the
effort to inventory and whether inventorying it at the regional level
makes sense. 

It should be clear at the outset of the discussion that if we do choose
to do some of these calculations on a regional basis, we would do so
with the understanding that: 1) each state and province always has
control of it's own data and can change or omit data for a given source
if they feel the regional method isn't suitable to them; and 2) when the
calculations are done, each state would receive all the underlying data
(activity data, emission factors, emissions, etc.) so that they would
have complete ownership of the data within their own agency for future
analysis or use.

As a sidenote, Minnesota wins the award for best source category for
their inclusion of human perspiration. Michigan runs a close second for
their inclusion of beer fermentation as an area source. Is that
home-brew that you're attempting to quantify, Dennis? 

______________________
Jon Dettling
Great Lakes Commission
734-971-9135
dettling@glc.org

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
airtoxics is hosted by the Great Lakes Information Network:
http://www.great-lakes.net
To unsubscribe from this list: send mail to majordomo@great-lakes.net
with the command 'unsubscribe airtoxics' in the body of your message. No
quotes or subject line are required.
About : http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/airtoxics/airtoxics.info
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *