WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
EPA PM2.5 Modeling Guidance for Attainment Demonstrations Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS February 20, 2007.
Advertisements

Natural Background Visibility Feb. 6, 2004 Presentation to VISTAS State Air Directors Mt. Cammerer, Great Smoky Mtn. National Park.
Regional Haze Rule Guidance: Tracking Progress & Natural Levels Overview of the concepts currently envisioned by EPA working groups by Marc Pitchford;
Weight of Evidence Checklist Review AoH Work Group Call June 7, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
BACKGROUND AEROSOL CONCENTRATIONS AND VISIBILITY DEGRADATION IN THE UNITED STATES Rokjin Park Motivated by EPA Regional Haze Rule Quantifying uncontrollable.
WRAP Regional Haze Analysis & Technical Support System IMPROVE Steering Committee Meeting September 27, 2006.
NATURAL AND TRANSBOUNDARY INFLUENCES ON PARTICULATE MATTER IN THE UNITED STATES: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE EPA REGIONAL HAZE RULE Rokjin J. Park ACCESS VII,
2004 Technical Summit Overview January 26-27, 2004 Tempe, AZ.
Modeling Aerosol Formation and Transport in the Pacific Northwest with the Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System Susan M. O'Neill Fire.
Aerosol Extinction Assessment and Impact on Regional Haze Rule Implementation Douglas Lowenthal Desert Research Institute Pat Ryan Sonoma Technology, Inc.
University of California Riverside, ENVIRON Corporation, MCNC WRAP Regional Modeling Center WRAP Regional Haze CMAQ 1996 Model Performance and for Section.
CALIFORNIA CASE STUDIES WRAP Implementation Working Group Meeting San Diego, California ♦ April 17-19, 2007.
Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Goals I.Overview II.Complications III.Simplifying Approaches Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the WRAP Reasonable.
WRAP Regional Modeling Center April 25-26, 2006 AoH Work Group Meeting Regional Modeling Center Status Report AoH Workgroup Meeting Seattle, WA April 25-26,
MANE-VU states, Virginia and West Virginia Regional Haze Trend Analyses Latest available (December 2011) IMPROVE DATA (for TSC 5/22/2012) Tom.
Projects:/WRAP RMC/309_SIP/progress_sep02/Annex_MTF_Sep20.ppt Preliminary Mobile Source Significance Test Modeling Results WRAP Regional Modeling Center.
AoH/MF Meeting, San Diego, CA, Jan 25, 2006 Source Apportionment Modeling Results and RMC Status report Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang, Mohammad Omary, Chao-Jung.
1 Options for Estimating Natural Background Visibility in the VISTAS Region Ivar Tombach with benefit of material prepared by Jim Boylan and Daniel Jacob.
WRAP Modeling. WRAP Setup Two-pronged approach Jump start Regional Modeling Center (RMC) Jump start contractor MCNC/ENVIRON RMC UCR/ENVIRON.
University of California Riverside, ENVIRON International Corporation, MCNC WRAP Regional Modeling Center Overview of WRAP Regional Haze Modeling Activities.
Section 309 Mobile Source Significance Test Modeling Results WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC) University of California at Riverside, CE-CERT ENVIRON.
1 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb ppt Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Projection of Visibility Changes and Modeling Sensitivity Analysis.
Draft, 2 June NATURAL HAZE LEVELS SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT 1. Project Overview Ivar Tombach Regional Haze Data Analysis Workshop 8 June 2005.
AoH Conference Call October 8, 2004 Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
1 Brian Finneran, Oregon DEQ WRAP IWG Meeting, Santa Fe December 2006 Update on Regional Haze 308 SIP Template.
Regional Air Quality Modeling Results for Elemental and Organic Carbon John Vimont, National Park Service WRAP Fire, Carbon, and Dust Workshop Sacramento,
Source Attribution Modeling to Identify Sources of Regional Haze in Western U.S. Class I Areas Gail Tonnesen, EPA Region 8 Pat Brewer, National Park Service.
Technical Projects Update WRAP Board Meeting Salt Lake City, UT November 10, 2004.
Regional Haze Rule Promulgated in 1999 Requires states to set RPGs based on 4 statutory factors and consideration of a URP URP = 20% reduction in manmade.
IMPROVE Algorithm for Estimating Light Extinction Draft Recommendations to the IMPROVE Steering Committee.
Weight of Evidence Discussion AoH Meeting – Tempe, AZ November 16/17, 2005.
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver CO 7/22/04 Introduction to the the RMC Source Apportionment Modeling Effort Gail Tonnesen,
Implementation Workgroup Meeting December 6, 2006 Attribution of Haze Workgroup’s Monitoring Metrics Document Status: 1)2018 Visibility Projections – Alternative.
2018 Emission Reductions from the Base 18b Emission Inventory Lee Gribovicz Fire Emissions Joint Forum Meeting San Diego, California February 22-23, 2007.
AoH/MF Meeting, San Diego, CA, Jan 25, 2006 WRAP 2002 Visibility Modeling: Summary of 2005 Modeling Results Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang, Mohammad Omary, Chao-Jung.
Reasonable Progress Demonstration Case Study for Saguaro Wilderness Area Arizona Regional Haze Stakeholder Meeting January 22, 2007.
Regional Haze Rule Promulgated in 1999 Requires states to set RPGs based on 4 statutory factors and consideration of a URP URP = 20% reduction in manmade.
1 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb ppt Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Regional Modeling Center (RMC) Preliminary Fire Modeling Results.
Progress on Technical Work to Support Haze SIPs Planning and Policy Group Colorado APCD October 11, 2007.
Draft, 5 June NATURAL HAZE LEVELS SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT 2. Critical Evaluation of Current Approach for Estimating Natural Conditions Ivar Tombach.
AoH Work Group Weight of Evidence Framework WRAP Meeting – Tucson, AZ January 10/11, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Sulfate Discussion WRAP Meeting – Tucson, AZ January 10/11, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Regional Haze SIP Template: Mobile Sources Edie Chang California Air Resources Board WESTAR Fall Technical Conference September 2002.
CALIFORNIA Regional Haze SIP Development Progress Report IWG Meeting Portland, Oregon August 29-31, 2006.
Nitrate Discussion WRAP Meeting – Tucson, AZ January 10/11, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
WRAP Technical Work Overview
Alternative title slide
ENVIRON, Alpine Geophysics and UC Riverside
Alternative title slide
Mobile Source Contributions to Ambient PM2.5 and Ozone in 2025
Review upcoming Teach-Ins and participation in WRAP Regional Haze Planning Work Group - Jay Baker and Tina Suarez-Murias.
A Conceptual Approach to Address Anthropogenic / Non-Anthropogenic Emission Sources to Help Develop a More Accurate Regional Haze Program Glidepath Control.
BART Overview Lee Alter Western Governors’ Association
Reasonable Progress: Chiricahua NM & Wilderness Area
AoH Phase 2 Update AoH Meeting – San Diego, CA January 25, 2006
Evaluating Revised Tracking Metric for Regional Haze Planning
Tom Moore (WESTAR and WRAP) and Pat Brewer (NPS ARD)
Adjusting the Regional Haze Glide path using Monitoring and Modeling Data Trends Natural Conditions International Anthropogenic Contributions.
Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Regional Haze Rule: Natural Conditions Concepts & Approaches
IMPROVE Data Processing
PM2.5 Annual primary standard currently 15 ug/m3
TAF Regional Haze Plan Update
WRAP Stationary Sources Forum Meeting November 14-15, 2006
Results from 2018 Preliminary Reasonable Progress Modeling
Guidance on Attainment Tests for O3 / PM / Regional Haze
Implementation Workgroup April 19, 2007
EPA’s Roadmap for the Second Planning Period
Alaska Visibility Analysis
Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Presentation transcript:

Preliminary 2018 Visibility Projections using WRAP CMAQ Base18a and Plan02a Emission Inventories WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC) University of California at Riverside ENVIRON International Corporation University of North Carolina/Carolina Environmental Program Modeling Forum Meeting San Diego, California January 25-26, 2006

2018 Visibility Projections 2018 Base18a Emissions Inventory Not all source sectors projected to 2018 Some potential errors 2002 Plan02a Inventory Typical Fires and EGU Emissions 2018 Visibility Projections CMAQ 2018/2002 Simulations CAMx runs TBD EPA Draft Guidance (2001), It Will Change Several Projection Methods Have been Developed

2018 Visibility Projections: Caveats Results are preliminary Became available January 2006 Minor emission errors in WRAP States identified Other issues identified in Non-WRAP emissions On-Road Mobile Overstated Further QA planned The following emissions are held constant Sources outside the U.S. (Canada and Mexico) Ocean-going vessels (off-shore and in-port) Biogenics, Wind Blown dust, and Fires (Wx, Rx, ag)

2018 Visibility Projections Emission changes limited to known / certain controls on stationary, area, and land-based mobile sources (On-the-Books; OTB). In WRAP region, this equates to annual change of: - 51,000 tons of SO2 (-5%) - 1,040,000 tons of NOx (-28%) 635,000 tons of PM10 (31%) 424,000 tons of VOC (14%)

SO2 Total: Base18a – Plan02a

NO Total: Base18a – Plan02a

NO On-Road Mobile: 18a–02a

Projections Procedures Baseline Conditions: Represent average visibility for Worst 20% and Best 20% days. RHR uses 5-years of IMPROVE monitor data for 2000-2004 (EPA, 2003a) Starting point in 2004 for glide path to Natural Conditions in 2064 – Use 2000-2004 5-Year Baseline Period Natural Conditions: Estimates of visibility conditions for Best/Worst 20% days in the absence of human-causes impairment (2064 goal) End point in 2064, for now use EPA default values (EPA, 2003b)

Converting Measured PM to Extinction Organic Matter [OM or OMC] Elemental Carbon [EC or LAC] Other Fine Particulate [SOIL or IP] Coarse Matter [CM] Use IMPROVE Aerosol Extinction Equation SO4 [assume (NH4)2SO4] NO3 [assume NH4NO3]

Converting PM to Extinction For each Class I area and each 24-h IMPROVE measurement, calculate extinction due to PM: bSulfate = 3 x f(RH) x [SO4] bNitrate = 3 x f(RH) x [NO3] bEC = 10 x [EC] bOM = 4 x [OM] bSoil = 1 x [Soil] bCM = 0.6 x [CM] Total daily extinction (bext) is sum plus Rayleigh: bext = bRay + bSulfate + bNitrate + bEC +bOM + bSoil + bCM Haze Index = HI = 10 ln(bext/10) in deciview (dv) Monthly and Class I area specific RH adjustment factors [f(RH)] are used

2000-2004 Visibility Baseline For each Class I area and year from the Baseline, the daily measured bext/dv using monthly f(RH) and IMPROVE PM components is ranked and the Worst 20% (Best 20%) days identified (identify Worst 20% visibility days for each year from 2000-2004) The annual average visibility for the Worst 20% days for each year is obtained by averaging the daily deciview visibility across the Worst 20% days (averaging in dv across Worst 20% days in each year) The Baseline Conditions is obtained by averaging the 5-years of annual average deciview for the Worst 20% days (average 5-years of annual average dv for Worst 20% days)

Visibility Projections Use model in a relative sense to scale observed IMPROVE PM species concentrations in the Baseline based on the relative change in modeling results from current- to future-year Use Relative Reduction Factors (RRFs) defined as the ratio of 2018 to 2002 modeling results SO4(2018) = Observed_SO4(Current) x RRF(SO4) RRF(SO4) = [Model_SO4(2018)]/[Model_SO4(2002)]

Visibility Projections Use model derived species-specific and Class I area-specific RRFs to scale daily observed PM components for Worst 20% days in Baseline to obtain 2018 daily PM concentrations for the Worst 20% days Calculated daily extinction using projected 2018 24-hr PM species concentrations and IMPROVE aerosol extinction equation then convert to dv Average dv across Worst 20% days in each year in Baseline to obtained 5-years of annual dv Average annual average dv across 5-years from Baseline to obtain projected 2018 visibility estimates for Worst 20% days (same approach for Best 20% days)

Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) Glide Path to Natural Conditions How to define 2018 visibility Reasonable Progress Goal (RPG) to judge visibility progress? Assume linear glide path from the Baseline Conditions (2000-2004) to 2064 Natural Conditions (both in deciview – dv) For now use EPA default Natural Conditions for Worst 20% days States/Tribes can define alternatives if justified States/Tribes can assume different glide paths toward Natural Conditions than linear and justify them in their SIP/TIP

Visibility Projections Have developed several Methods for Visibility Projections Species and Class I Area specific Relative Reduction Factors (RRFs) are used to scale (project) 24-hour average measured PM concentration for the Worst 20% Days in 2000-2004 to obtain projected 2018 PM concentrations from which extinction and deciview (dv) are obtained

Approaches for RRFs Method 1: Average RRF Approach For each Class I area and Observed Worst 20% days from 2002 take the ratio of the average modeled 2018 to 2002 PM species concentrations across the Observed Worst Days from 2002 Applied to observed daily PM components for each day Worst 20% Days from 2000-2004 to obtained 2018 projected PM components: (1) IMPROVE equation to get Bext; (2) turn into dv; (3) average for each year; and (4) average across 5-years to obtain 2018 HI projection

Summary of Approaches (Method 1 used for WRAP) Methods Average RRF Approach for Worst 20% Days Quarterly Average RRF Approach for Worst 20% Day-Specific RRF Approach for Worst 20% 2002 (Baseline C only) Weighted RRF Approach (Methods 4-2 and 4-3 only) Average Quarterly RRF using all Data Averaging of Extinction not dv (also changes Baseline) Baseline 2000-2004 5-Years in Official Baseline Considerations ext = use RRFs based on extinction not PM components wmpe = do not use a PM component in the RRF on days when the pred/obs PM-species differ by over a factor of 2 wmpe2 = do not use any PM components in RRF on days when pred/obs bext > factor of 2 alt_d = use proposed new IMPROVE equation (Big and Little SO4, NO3 and OC)

2018 Visibility Projections “Dot Plots” are used to display visibility projections for several Class I areas at once using several methods and approaches Express 2018 visibility projections in terms of percentage of achieving the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) 2018 Goal Not pass/fail type grade, just one component of Reasonable Progress

Modeled 2018 URP Goal Modeled 2018 URP Goal not met at Western Class I Areas Some 2018 emissions kept constant Large component of uncontrollable PM in Worst 20% Days visibility Fires Dust Biogenic International Transport Unlike Eastern US where Sulfate dominates Need to define WOE “Reasonable Progress”

Note tiny increase in modeled Soil and CM

Visibility Projections 2018 Visibility projection has little sensitivity to emissions controls Need to examine effects on controllable portion of visibility for the Worst 20% Days Use Change in Extinction Between 2000-2004 Baseline to 2018 Projections for Worst 20% Days as indicator

 Are these projected Soil and CM increases meaningful

Next Steps: Visibility Projections Update/Corrections to 2018 Emissions Base18b Non-WRAP Mobile Sources Other Corrections Proposed New IMPROVE Equation VISTAS Analysis sees Little Effect Other Methods (e.g., New IMROVE equ)? Should we not use CM and Soil RRFs? Define Worst 20% Days in 2002 for IMPROVE Monitors that do not meet EPA’s completeness criteria for developing RRFs (~50 sites)