|
|
|
|
NEWS PHOTOS GET HELP PROJECTS Current Projects
|
| Background The Department of Environmental Quality has a new plan for reducing ozone in the five parish Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area. DEQ based the new plan on a study that found: 1. Trees are the primary source of the Baton Rouge ozone problem with over 80% of the ozone causing chemicals coming from trees. 2. Chemical pollution from local industries is NOT a significant part of the ozone problem, but 3. Chemical pollution from Houston IS a significant part of the Baton Rouge ozone problem. The emissions from trees, called biogenic emissions, are being blamed by DEQ for our ozone problem. DEQ is blaming the trees so they won't have to make local industries reduce their hydrocarbon emissions, which include thirty million pounds of toxic air pollution annually. So, instead of reducing local chemical plant pollution, DEQ will force chemical plants and power plants in central Louisiana to reduce their emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx). Nitrogen oxides are formed from burning fossil fuels such as natural gas and coal and can be reduced by using low NOx burners in furnaces and boilers. This NOx control approach will increase the already high energy bills in Louisiana and let all of Louisiana's citizens pay the price so industries in the Baton Rouge area can keep polluting at current levels. The DEQ sponsored Ozone Task Force used the "killer tree hypothesis" to develop the idea of having NOx reductions instead of reducing other chemical plant emissions . This idea was supported by two well paid consultants who used a computer model to show that NOx reductions were good and the only way to reduce ozone levels. These are the same two consultants who six years ago used the same computer model to show that NOx reductions were bad and would increase ozone levels. That was when industry lobbyists were fighting against NOx reductions. Now the industry lobbyists are fighting against reductions in local chemical plant pollution and the trees get the blame. Where We Went Wrong Louisiana shouldn't be using the "BIES2" data to set biogenic emissions. This data is known to be incorrect. Once the BIES2 data is used the computer model will always give the result that controlling NOx will be preferable to controlling hydrocarbon emissions. This is an artifact of the BIES2 data and may not be an accurate reflection of reality. Garbage in, Garbage out, which means the computer results are only as good as the data put into the computer model. References showing the known inadequacies of the BIES2 data include: 1. The EPA sponsored a large study by OTAG (OzoneTransport Assessment Group) which compared BEIS2 model results to measured isoprene results. The complete study can be found at: OTAG study of BIES2. The study included the Pride and Capitol sites at Baton Rouge. The results section of the study gives the following conclusion regarding the use of the BIES2 model in the Baton Rouge area: "Capitol and Pride, Louisiana (LA CAP and LA PRD): The model exhibits very poor agreement with the magnitude and diurnal variations in the observed isoprene, TNMOC, ozone, and NOx concentrations. Care should be taken is using the model to evaluate alternative control plans in this region. These sites are located in the outer 30 km resolution model grid." DEQ did exactly what is cautioned against and used the BEIS2 model to evaluate alternative control plans. 2. Because the use of BIES2 is known to be inaccurate, a conference was hosted by LADCO (Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium)to discuss biogenics and its use in SIP modeling. A report from the conference was issued dated May 22-23, 2001. The report gives the current state of applying biogneics to airshed modeling. The report states that BEIS2 isn't being used by many groups, with the EPA going to BEIS3 and Texas, California and LADCO developing their own biogenics models. The report paper can be found at: Read Report. The white paper quotes Alex Guenther, the researcher that did the original scientific work on which BEIS2 is based. Guenther's original work has now been proven to be incorrect, he took measurements from the top surface of trees but didn't correctly apply the results to the much larger tree canopy, which is shaded. Guenther has previously stated that BEIS2 can be off by as much a factor or 3 (which is 300%), and this is given as one of the conclusions of the report, which states: "The uncertainty of the current biogenic emission estimates has been reported to be about a factor of 3 (see, for example, NRC, 1991). Guenther's recent NARSTO paper (cite) notes that while this number may be a "reasonable estimate of the uncertainty associated with annual total NMVOC estimates for the contiguous U.S. but predictions for specific times, locales and compounds can be much more uncertain."
|