1 / 21

Technical Data for the Montana Regional Haze FIP

Technical Data for the Montana Regional Haze FIP. Laurel Dygowski and Doug Latimer TAF Meeting San Francisco, California October 11th and 12 th , 2007. Possible Structure of the TSD . Summary Section on all Class I areas based on TSS data

zaynah
Download Presentation

Technical Data for the Montana Regional Haze FIP

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. Technical Data for the Montana Regional Haze FIP Laurel Dygowski and Doug Latimer TAF Meeting San Francisco, California October 11th and 12th, 2007

  2. Possible Structure of the TSD • Summary Section on all Class I areas based on TSS data • Individual sections on all Class I areas with detailed information on monitoring, attribution, etc…based on TSS data • Section with discussion on source attribution and controllable/non-controllable sources

  3. TSD con’t • Emission Inventory Section • Section containing the numerical data from the TSS to backup graphical representations

  4. Reasonable Progress – Smoke Management, Non-BART Stationary Sources, and BART • To address non-BART stationary sources: • Worked with State on 2002 and 2005 EI • Determined highest emitters of SOx and NOx • Compiled summary permit information for each source, including permit limits and current controls • Determine Q/d for these sources • ECR will be looking at cost of controls for sources and providing a report

  5. Reasonable Progress – Smoke Management, Non-BART Stationary Sources, and BART • Smoke management • State has well developed plan and is making revisions • Relying on the plan and the review of the FLM’s to address smoke management • Determine if there are other revisions needed • FLM’s and other EPA offices have provided information on burn days in MT and Idaho • Smoke from other states: • Have used the TSS to look at best/worst days in Montana and recorded burn days • Have used back trajectories to correlate the effects of these days.

  6. Reasonable Progress – Smoke Management, Non-BART Stationary Sources, and BART • BART Sources • Relying on certified data from the sources • Using a contractor to evaluate and research BART for sources based on sources’ submitted analysis • Contractor has referenced additional control measure documents, in addition to EPA guidance and policies

  7. Montana’s Class I Areas

  8. Technical Questions • What is the impact of sources within the state to total light extinction? We use TSS. • What is the impact of sulfate and nitrate? We use PSAT results in combination with IMPROVE data regarding SO4 and NO3. • What is the impact of organic and elemental carbon? We use CMAQ and weighted emission potential results from TSS.

  9. Simple Math • Deciview (dv) = 10 ln (bext/10) • Change in dv = 10 ln (bext-contol/bext-base) • For small ext. changes delta deciview is approximately 1/10th the extinction change in percent (1.0 dv change = 10% change in bext) • Change in bext = (fractional change of species light extinction)(fraction of total bext contributed by species)

  10. Example at Medicine Lake • Percentage contributions of species’, source categories’ and states’ contributions from SO2 emissions: • Sulfate is 28% of total bext • Canada is 14% of total bext • Outside domain is 7% of total bext • North Dakota is 3% of total bext • Montana is < 1% of total bext (< 0.1 dv)

  11. Impacts of Biogenic Organics is Large

  12. Organic Aerosol • Based on CMAQ (TSS), 90% or more of the organic aerosol in western Montana is from biogenic sources: secondary aerosol formed from gaseous terpene emissions from trees and vegetation. • Of the remainder a big fraction of organics is from fire emissions, dominated by natural. • Anthropogenic secondary organic aerosol contributions are very small.

  13. What Can Controls Get Us? • The “30,000 foot view:” PSAT, CMAQ, and WEP give us estimates of the contributions of states and categories. • The view from where the “rubber meets the road:” Emissions analysis gives us information regarding what sources should be controlled. • Q/d factors in source-receptor geometry to give relative impact estimates.

  14. Potential Long-term Strategiesto make Reasonable Progress • Aggressive BART controls (beyond minimum) • Controls on largest non-BART sources • Controls on agricultural burning • Smoke management including smoke minimization through biomass utilization • Controls on diesel vehicles (on and off road) • Construction activity controls for dust

  15. What would constitute Reasonable Progress to the National Goal? • If the National Goal is no human-caused impact in Class I areas by 2064. • This implies 100% control in 2064. • We have 5 planning periods to 2064. • This implies that a reasonable goal would be to control 1/5th (20%) of human-caused emissions that cause visibility impairment in each planning period. • (This is a strawman for discussion.)

More Related