A modeling analysis of alternative primary and secondary US ozone standards in urban and rural areas

AbstractThis study employed the High-Order Decoupled Direct Method (HDDM) of sensitivity analysis in a photochemical grid model to determine US anthropogenic emissions reductions required from 2006 levels to meet alternative US primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) ozone (O3) standards. Applying the modeling techniques developed by Yarwood et al. (2013), we specifically evaluated sector-wide emission reductions needed to meet primary standards in the range of 60–75 ppb, and secondary standards in the range of 7–15 ppm-h, in 22 cities and at 20 rural sites across the US for NOx-only, combined NOx and VOC, and VOC-only scenarios. Site-specific model biases were taken into account by applying adjustment factors separately for the primary and secondary standard metrics, analogous to the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) relative response factor technique. Both bias-adjusted and unadjusted results are presented and analyzed. We found that the secondary metric does not necessarily respond to emission reductions the same way the primary metric does, indicating sensitivity to their different forms. Combined NOx and VOC reductions are most effective for cities, whereas NOx-only reductions are sufficient at rural sites. Most cities we examined require more than 50% US anthropogenic emission reductions from 2006 levels to meet the current primary 75 ppb US standard and secondary 15 ppm-h target. Most rural sites require less than 20% reductions to meet the primary 75 ppb standard and less than 40% reductions to meet the secondary 15 ppm-h target. Whether the primary standard is protective of the secondary standard depends on the combination of alternative standard levels. Our modeling suggests that the current 75 ppb standard achieves a 15 ppm-h secondary target in most (17 of 22) cities, but only half of the rural sites; the inability for several western cities and rural areas to achieve the seasonally-summed secondary 15 ppm-h target while meeting the 75 ppb primary target is likely driven by higher background O3 that is commonly reported in the western US. However, a 70 ppb primary standard is protective of a 15 ppm-h secondary standard in all cities and 18 of 20 rural sites we examined, and a 60 ppb primary standard is protective of a 7 ppm-h secondary standard in all cities and 19 of 20 rural sites. If EPA promulgates separate primary and secondary standards, exceedance areas will need to develop and demonstrate control strategies to achieve both. This HDDM analysis provides an illustrative screening assessment by which to estimate emissions reductions necessary to satisfy both standards