1 / 60

Reasonable Progress Demonstration Case Study for Saguaro Wilderness Area

Reasonable Progress Demonstration Case Study for Saguaro Wilderness Area. Arizona Regional Haze Stakeholder Meeting January 22, 2007. Saguaro Wilderness Area. Saguaro West (SAWE). Saguaro NM (SAGU). Source: VIEWS website http://vista.cira.colostate.edu.

kasie
Download Presentation

Reasonable Progress Demonstration Case Study for Saguaro Wilderness Area

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. Reasonable Progress Demonstration Case Studyfor Saguaro Wilderness Area Arizona Regional Haze Stakeholder Meeting January 22, 2007

  2. Saguaro Wilderness Area Saguaro West (SAWE) Saguaro NM (SAGU) Source: VIEWS website http://vista.cira.colostate.edu Source: WRAP Causes of Haze Website (http://coha.dri.edu)

  3. SAGU Baseline Extinction Budget Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Monitoring >> Composition http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/

  4. SAWE Baseline Extinction Budget Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Monitoring >> Composition

  5. 20% Best Day Compositionat SAWE and SAGU Source: Chart made from two spreadsheets posted at: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Monitoring >> Composition

  6. 20% Worst Day Compositionat SAWE and SAGU Source: Chart made from two spreadsheets posted at: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Monitoring >> Composition

  7. Reasonable Progress Under the Federal Regional Haze Rule • States set reasonable progress goals based on: • Consideration of 4 statutory factors • Costs • Time necessary for compliance • Energy and non-air quality environmental impacts • Remaining useful life of potentially affected sources • The uniform rate of progress (measured in deciviews) necessary to attain natural conditions by 2064 • States adopt long-term strategies to achieve these goals • States implement BART

  8. Uniform Rate of Progress (worst days) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Monitoring >> Trends

  9. Uniform Rate of Progress (worst days) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Monitoring >> Trends

  10. Uniform Rate of Progress • Essentially a 20% reduction in manmade haze (dv) per planning period (10 years) • Heavily dependent on: • Assumptions regarding future natural conditions • Contribution of non-WRAP sources to baseline • Representativeness of 2000-04 baseline • 24 of the 77 Class I sites have no more than 3 years of data in baseline period • These issues more accute in the West • Haze rule promulgated in 1999

  11. A Species-Based Approach to RP • Isolate some of the URP issues previously noted • Species differ significantly from one another in their: • Contribution to visibility impairment • Spatial and seasonal distributions • Source types • Contribution from natrual and international sources • Emissions data quality • Atmospheric science quality • Tools available for assessment and projection

  12. Draft WRAP Protocol for Demonstrating Reasonable Progress • For each site and species … • Estimate progress expected from Base Case + BART in 2018 • Determine any other LTSs which may be reasonable for that pollutant and recalculate 2018 species concentration • Add up improvements from all species into dv • This becomes the RPG for the 20% worst days • Explain why this is less than URP • Large international and natural contributions, large uncertainties in dust inventory preclude action, etc.

  13. Determine URP for a species Is Base+BART projection better than URP? Is WRAP Anthro reduction > 20%? N N Evaluate emission & air quality trends more closely Y Y Interstate coop key. Identify LTSs for these sources considering the 4 RPG and other factors identified in the RHR. Are there any important uncontrolled or undercontrolled sources? Are there any important uncontrolled sources? Y Y Adopt, commit to adopt, or commit to further evaluation. N* N Determine reductions at C1A. Repeat for other species. Add up all species reductions to get a RPG for worst days. Eplain why it’s less than default URP but still reasonable. Set goal for best days. * Note, if no LTS beyond BART is developed, then the 4 RPG factors are inherently taken into account via BART.

  14. SAGU Species Trendsand URP Glidepaths (Worst Days) Peak day for OC on 10/30/03. Peak day for CM on May 31, 2003.

  15. SAWE Species Trendsand URP Glidepaths (Worst Days) Peak day for OC on 10/30/03. Peak day for CM on May 31, 2003.

  16. SAGU Upwind Residence TimeOn 20% Wost Visibility Days (2000-04) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potential

  17. Ammonium Nitrate (NO3)

  18. NO3 • Is the Base+BART projection better than URP? • Yes: CMAQ base case projections for 2018 show a 20% reduction in extinction due to NO3. • Results do not yet include BART • Results not yet available on TSS • Precise projection method not yet finalized • WRAP anthro reduction is 28% • See PSAT results on next slide

  19. NO3 • Are there any important uncontrolled upwind sources? • Use TSS to examine inventory upwind • PSAT results • PMF results • WEP results • Emission inventories

  20. SAGU NO3 PSAT Results2002 and 2018 base cases Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> SOx/NOx Tracer

  21. SAWE NO3 PSAT Results2002 and 2018 base cases Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> SOx/NOx Tracer

  22. Source: Chart made after manipulation of data posted on WRAP Causes of Hase Website: http://coha.dri.edu/web/general/tools_PMFModeling.html

  23. SAGU NO3 WEP Results (2000-04) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

  24. SAWE NO3 WEP Results (2000-04) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

  25. Major NOx Sources in the 2018 Arizona Point Source Pivot Table Source: WRAP website: Emissions Forum pivot tables: http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/pivot.html

  26. Most Likely NOx Sources Significantly Contributing to NO3 at SAGU On the 20% Worst Visibility Days

  27. Ammonium Sulfate (SO4)

  28. SO4 • Is the Base+BART projection better than URP? • No: CMAQ base case projections for 2018 show only a 6% reduction in extinction due to SO4. • Sources outside the WRAP have a large influence • Results not yet available on TSS • Is WRAP anthro reduction > 20%? • No: PSAT apportionment shows only a 9% reduction from WRAP anthro SO2 sources • BART not fully included yet • Need to correct (reduce) 2018 Hayden emissions

  29. SO4 • Are there any important uncontrolled or undercontrolled upwind sources? • Use TSS to examine inventory upwind • PSAT results • PMF results • WEP results • Emission inventories

  30. SAGU SO4 PSAT Results2002 and 2018 base cases Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> SOx/NOx Tracer

  31. SAWE SO4 PSAT Results2002 and 2018 base cases Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> SOx/NOx Tracer

  32. Source: Chart made after manipulation of data posted on WRAP Causes of Hase Website: http://coha.dri.edu/web/general/tools_PMFModeling.html

  33. SAGU SO4 WEP Results (2000-04) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

  34. SAWE SO4 WEP Results (2000-04) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

  35. Changes In Point and Area Source SO2 Emissions In AZ Area Source Changes

  36. Most Likely SO2 Sources Significantly Contributing to SO4 at SAGU On the 20% Worst Visibility Days

  37. Organic Carbon (OC)

  38. SAGU OC CMAQ Results2002 and 2018 base cases AORGA Change = +6% (secondary anthropogenic OC) AORGB Change = +1% (secondary biogenic OC, inc. smoke) AORGPA Change = -1% (primary OC, inc. smoke) Source: WRAP Technical Support System

  39. SAWE OC CMAQ Results2002 and 2018 base cases AORGA Change = 0% (secondary anthropogenic OC) AORGB Change = +2% (secondary biogenic OC, inc. smoke) AORGPA Change = -1% (primary OC, inc. smoke) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Organic Aerosol Tracer

  40. Source: Chart made after manipulation of data posted on WRAP Causes of Hase Website: http://coha.dri.edu/web/general/tools_PMFModeling.html

  41. SAGU OC WEP Results (2000-04) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

  42. SAWE OC WEP Results (2000-04) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

  43. Dust

  44. SAGU CM WEP Results (2000-04) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

  45. SAWE CM WEP Results (2000-04) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

More Related