1 / 42

Presented by: Ralph Morris WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC )

Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Projection of Visibility Changes and Modeling Sensitivity Analysis. Presented by: Ralph Morris WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC ) University of California/ENVIRON Corp. rmorris@environcorp.com Presented at: RPO National Workgroup Meeting

irving
Download Presentation

Presented by: Ralph Morris WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC )

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Projection of Visibility Changes and Modeling Sensitivity Analysis Presented by: Ralph Morris WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC) University of California/ENVIRON Corp. rmorris@environcorp.com Presented at: RPO National Workgroup Meeting November 4-6, 2003 St. Louis, Missouri Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  2. WRAP Visibility Objectives • §309 SIP/TIP due 2004 • 9 “Grand Canyon” states may opt-in (AZ, CA, CO, ID, NV, NM, UT, and WY). • Focus on 16 Class I Areas on the Colorado Plateau • §308 SIP/TIP due 2007 • 2000-2004 visibility baseline • 2018 end of first planning period • Show progress toward natural visibility conditions by 2064 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  3. Section 309 SIP/TIP Modeling Requirements • Demonstrate that SO2 Annex Milestone control strategy is better than BART with Uncertainty • Estimate visibility improvements in 2018 due to §309 Scenarios 1 & 2 • Analyze “significance” of Mobile Source and Road Dust at 16 Class I Areas • Evaluate PM/NOx point source controls • Evaluate alternative fire management practices Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  4. WRAP CMAQ and REMSAD Modeling Domains Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  5. Projecting Future-Year Visibility • Follow EPA draft guidance for projecting future-year visibility (EPA, 2001a,b,c) • Use model in a relative fashion to scale the current (1996 or 1997-200l) observed visibility for the Best 20% and Worst 20% days based on the ratio of the 2018 to 1996 modeling results • Relative Reductions Factors (RRFs) • Class I Area specific (map IMPROVE data) • Specific for each component of light extinction (SO4, NO3, EC, OC, Soil, and CM) Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  6. Mapping of IMPROVE Data to Class I Areas Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  7. Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  8. Projecting Future-Year Visibility • Deviations from EPA Guidance for §309 SIP • 2000-2004 Baseline for W20%/B20%? • 1996 Modeling Baseline: • Use 1996 W20%/B20% obs days to define RRF 2018 projection factors • Use two observed visibility baselines • W20%/B20% days from 1996 • W20%/B20% days from latest 5-yrs (1997-2001) Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  9. Projecting Future-Year Visibility • Deviations from EPA Guidance for §309 SIP • No wind blown fugitive dust in inventory • Major component of Soil and CM • Some observed Soil and CM impacts likely sub-grid scale (< 36 km) • Model estimated RRFs for Soil and CM are in error • Set RRFs for Soil and CM to unity • RRF(Soil) = RRF(CM) = 1.0 • Assumes 2018 Soil and CM identical to current year Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  10. 2018 §309 Control Scenarios 1 & 2 • Area sources, base case • Road dust base case • Off-Road, base case • On-Road base case • 1996 Biogenic base case • “Typical year” Wildfires base case • Point source control case (SO2 Annex Milestones combined with Pollution Prevention) • Mexico inventory (area/point) • Agricultural and Rx fires: • Scenario 1: Base Smoke Management (BSM) • Scenario 2: Optimal Smoke Management (OSM) Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  11. Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  12. 2018 §309 Control Scenarios 1 & 2 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  13. Calculation of 2018 Visibility Goals • Glide Path Slope to Natural Conditions (NCs) in 2064 • 2000-2004 Observed Baseline Visibility Conditions (Anchors Glide Path Slope) • Worst 20% Days: Progress toward Natural Visibility Conditions in 2064 with Planning Periods ending at 2018, 2028, 2038, 2048, 2058, and 2064 • Best 20% Days: No Degradation in Visibility • Glide Path Slope Values assumes linear progress from 2004 observed visibility to NCs in 2064 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  14. Preliminary Glide Path Slope Values to NCs • Use most current 5-yrs of observed visibility to anchor Glide Path in 2004 • 1997-2001 IMPROVE data currently most recent • Map Observed Visibility Conditions from IMPROVE Monitors to Nearby Class I Areas • Use current EPA draft guidance for natural conditions (NC) for worst days (EPA, 2001) • Needs to be evaluated for appropriateness • Sea salt, wind blown dust, wildfires, Asian dust, Saharan dust, geogenic, biogenic Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  15. Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  16. Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  17. Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  18. Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  19. Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  20. Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  21. Mobile Source Significance • Change in extinction due to Mobile Sources over the EPA Natural Conditions (Worst 20% Days) • Applied to 13 urban areas and California to estimate “significance” at 16 Class I Areas on Colorado Plateau • No On-Road and Off-Road Mobile Source Emissions (“Zero-Out”) modeling priorities: • 9 Grand Canyon (GC) States (Cumulative) • California • Phoenix, Arizona (Maricopa County) • Las Vegas, Nevada (Clark County) Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  22. Summary of 2018 Anthropogenic Emissions in 9 Grand Canyon (GC) States Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  23. Comments on 2018 Emissions in 9 GC States • 47% NOX due to “Mobile Sources” • 64% Off-Road vs. 36% On-Road • 21% SO2 due to “Mobile Sources” • Almost all (97%) due to Off-Road Sources • Off-Road gas engines use low sulfur gasoline • Upcoming Off-Road Rules for some Off-Road equipment expected before 2018 not accounted for (e.g., S reduction) • Mobile PM2.5 is 12% of total but consists of EC & OC with high light extinction efficiencies • New EPA NONROAD model results in substantial reductions in emissions over old NONROAD Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  24. What is a significant visibility impact? • A 2 deciview (dv) or 20% change in extinction is believed to be a perceptible change • PSD Class I Area visibility AQRV analysis uses a 10 % change in extinction over natural conditions threshold for cumulative impacts • Definition of natural conditions a point of controversy • e.g., how to treat weather interference • Use two visibility backgrounds • EPA natural conditions • 2018 Base Case conditions Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  25. Cumulative Mobile Source Significance Test9 GC States, EPA Natural Conditions, & 2018 WRAP Base Case Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  26. Estimate On-Road & Off-Road Contributions9 GC States for Petrified Forest, Capitol Reef, and Grand Canyon Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  27. Road Dust Significance Results • Road Dust mainly in Soil and CM components so cannot use scaled modeling results • Currently Road Dust is 20% of PM10 emissions in 9 GC States (w/o wind blown dust) • Missing wind blown dust • Some of Road Dust impacts likely subgrid-scale • Use Absolute Modeling Results • Can’t use RRFs as RRF(CM)=RRF(Soil)=1.0 • Cumulative impact range from 0.80% to 3.13% Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  28. Road Dust Emissions Significance TestUsing W20 Absolute Model Results (No RRFs) Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  29. Stationary Source Sensitivity • NOx and/or PM10 emission changes on major stationary sources (> 100 TPY) • 50% reduction in NOx emissions • 50% reduction in PM10 emissions • 25% increase in NOx & PM10 emissions • Purpose: • §309 must analyze stationary source NOx/PM controls • evaluate NOx/PM control strategies • assess impacts of such controls on visibility • evaluate the need for NOx/PM control program Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  30. Stationary Source Sensitivity -- Conclusions • Stationary source PM emissions contribute approximately 2% on average to visibility impairment • Stationary source NOx emissions contribute: • 2-5% to impairment on average at Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau • larger contributions on some of the haziest days • ~20% at some Class I areas in the Pacific Northwest and California Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  31. Utility Boilers Utility ICEs Industrial ICEs 91% of the emissions > 100 tpy Industrial Boilers Industrial Processes Stationary Source NOx Emissions > 100 TPY Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  32. Stationary Source NOx Emissions > 100 TPY Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  33. 50% NOx Control on Ammonium Nitrate Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  34. 1996 Annual (NH4)2NO3 @ IMPROVE Sites Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  35. % Light Extinction due to Nitrate W20% Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  36. Utility Boilers Industrial Boilers Mineral Products Chemical Manufacturing 78% of the emissions > 100 tpy Primary Metal Production Industrial Processes Stationary Source PM10 Emissions > 100 TPY Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  37. Stationary Source PM10 Emissions > 100 TPY Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  38. 50% PM10 Control on PM10 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  39. 1996 Annual PM10 @ IMPROVE Sites Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  40. % Annual Extinction due to Coarse Matter Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  41. §309 Stationary Source NOx/PM Analysis • §309 Stationary Source PM/NOx Report • available at: www.wrapair.org • Starting point for multi-year process • Determination of BART eligible NOx/PM sources • Identification of NOx/PM control options • Assessment of visibility improvements due to alternative stationary source NOx/PM controls • progress toward 2064 natural conditions goal • better modeling needed • nitrate performance issues • PM performance issues Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

  42. EPA Visibility Projection Procedure • Calculated only at Class I Areas • Implies model spatial and temperal accuracy • Ignores visibility/PM changes over most of domain • Model vs observed W20%/B20% days • Need for Additional Vvisibility Metrics • Spatial plots of visibility “Improvements” • Other days than observed W20%/B20% • Other? Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt

More Related