Regional Haze Rule Guidance: Tracking Progress & Natural Levels Overview of the concepts currently envisioned by EPA working groups by Marc Pitchford;

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Natural Haze Sensitivity Study “Final” Update Ivar Tombach RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup Call 8 May 2006.
Advertisements

Attribution of Haze Phase 2 and Technical Support System Project Update AoH Meeting – San Francisco, CA September 14/15, 2005 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource.
Technical Support System Review / / RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup Conference.
1 Estimates of worst 20% natural condition deciview: application of the new IMPROVE algorithm and a revised statistical approach Rodger Ames, CIRA
Weight of Evidence Checklist Review AoH Work Group Call June 7, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Update on Natural Levels II Technical Review Committee By Marc Pitchford for the June 12 th RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis Conference Call.
BACKGROUND AEROSOL CONCENTRATIONS AND VISIBILITY DEGRADATION IN THE UNITED STATES Rokjin Park Motivated by EPA Regional Haze Rule Quantifying uncontrollable.
NATURAL AND TRANSBOUNDARY INFLUENCES ON PARTICULATE MATTER IN THE UNITED STATES: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE EPA REGIONAL HAZE RULE Rokjin J. Park ACCESS VII,
Effects of Pollution on Visibility and the Earth’s Radiation Balance John G. Watson Judith C. Chow Desert Research Institute Reno,
Reason for Doing Cluster Analysis Identify similar and dissimilar aerosol monitoring sites so that we can test the ability of the Causes of Haze Assessment.
1 WRAP Fire Tracking Systems Draft Intent of WRAP FTS Policy – Assist states/tribes to address emissions inventory and tracking associated with fire in.
Aerosol Extinction Assessment and Impact on Regional Haze Rule Implementation Douglas Lowenthal Desert Research Institute Pat Ryan Sonoma Technology, Inc.
PM2.5 Model Performance Evaluation- Purpose and Goals PM Model Evaluation Workshop February 10, 2004 Chapel Hill, NC Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS.
An Update on the Colorado Regional Haze SIP Process and Outcomes Presented at: WRAP – Implementation Work Group San Francisco, CA March 2005.
Update on IMPROVE Light Extinction Equation and Natural Conditions Estimates Tom Moore, WRAP Technical Coordinator May 23, 2006.
Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Goals I.Overview II.Complications III.Simplifying Approaches Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the WRAP Reasonable.
MANE-VU states, Virginia and West Virginia Regional Haze Trend Analyses Latest available (December 2011) IMPROVE DATA (for TSC 5/22/2012) Tom.
Jenny Hand CIRA Acadia National Park, ME Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
Next Steps in Regional Haze Planning in the Western U.S. Prepared by the WESTAR Planning Committee for the Fall Business Meeting, Tempe, AZ October 31,
1 Options for Estimating Natural Background Visibility in the VISTAS Region Ivar Tombach with benefit of material prepared by Jim Boylan and Daniel Jacob.
RPO Monitoring Issues by Marc Pitchford, Ph.D. WRAP Ambient Monitoring & Reporting Forum Co-chair.
Regional Haze SIP Development Overview AQCC Presentation July 2005.
Project Outline: Technical Support to EPA and RPOs Estimation of Natural Visibility Conditions over the US Project Period: June May 2008 Reports:
Draft Final Annex to the GCVTC Report September 25, 2000.
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.
VISIBILITY ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS FEDERAL LAND MANAGERS’ AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUES WORKGROUP.
AoH Phase 2 and TSS Project Update WRAP Technical Analysis Forum Las Vegas, NV February 6, 2007.
1 Conducting Reasonable Progress Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule Kathy Kaufman EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards January 11,
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.
NATURAL AND TRANSBOUNDARY POLLUTION INFLUENCES ON AEROSOL CONCENTRATIONS AND VISIBILITY DEGRADATION IN THE UNITED STATES Rokjin J. Park, Daniel J. Jacob,
IMPROVE Algorithm for Estimating Light Extinction Draft Recommendations to the IMPROVE Steering Committee.
1 Brian Finneran, Oregon DEQ WRAP IWG Meeting, Portland August 2006 Suggested Changes to IWG Section 308 SIP Template.
Natural Background Conditions: Items for discussion with the Inter-RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup Naresh Kumar EPRI 5 March 2004.
Air Quality Relative Values Data Summaries Graphical summaries of the current air quality status and trends in National Parks and other federal lands.
Weight of Evidence Discussion AoH Meeting – Tempe, AZ November 16/17, 2005.
VISIBILITY SIPS The Regional Haze Rule Requirements for Fire The Role of the RPOs Opportunities for Participation US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Dennis Haddow.
Implementation Workgroup Meeting December 6, 2006 Attribution of Haze Workgroup’s Monitoring Metrics Document Status: 1)2018 Visibility Projections – Alternative.
Attribution of Haze Report Update and Web Site Tutorial Implementation Work Group Meeting March 8, 2005 Joe Adlhoch Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Ambient Monitoring & Reporting Forum Plans for 2005 Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the WRAP Planning Team Meeting (3/9 – 3/10/05)
Air Quality and Seney National Wildlife Refuge Jill Webster June 14, 2007.
1 RPO Data Analysis/Monitoring Grant Guidance Review Extracted from the EPA’s 3/5/02 RPO 4 th Year Policy, Organizational & Technical Guidance.
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.
308 Outline (a) Purpose (b) When are 1st plans due (c) Options for regional planning (d) Core requirements (e) BART requirements (f) Comprehensive periodic.
Sulfate Discussion WRAP Meeting – Tucson, AZ January 10/11, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Weight of Evidence Approach: Soil and Coarse Mass Case Studies WRAP Workshop on Fire, Carbon, and Dust May 24, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists,
Nitrate Discussion WRAP Meeting – Tucson, AZ January 10/11, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Shawn McClure, Rodger Ames and Doug Fox - CIRA
Weight of Evidence for Regional Haze Reasonable Progress
Monitoring/Data Analysis Discussion Group June 10, 2005
Review upcoming Teach-Ins and participation in WRAP Regional Haze Planning Work Group - Jay Baker and Tina Suarez-Murias.
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.
Causes of Haze Assessment Brief Overview and Status Report
Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Regional Haze Rule: Natural Conditions Concepts & Approaches
IMPROVE Data Processing
WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC)
Workshop Technical and Policy Studies to Support the Annex
Summary of RH-LTS Requirements (d)(3)
Status of Preliminary Reasonable Progress Analysis
Sulfate Contributions to Regional Haze in the WRAP Region
EPA’s Roadmap for the Second Planning Period
Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Species-Specific Data Trends
Presentation transcript:

Regional Haze Rule Guidance: Tracking Progress & Natural Levels Overview of the concepts currently envisioned by EPA working groups by Marc Pitchford; August 2001

Tracking Progress: Regional Haze Rule Constraints Haze metric –Haziness in deciview units –Determined from aerosol species concentrations –Mean of the 20% best & the 20% worst days each year averaged for 5 years Progress determination –5-year mean best days should not degrade –5-year mean worst days should improve at the SIP- identified rate –Baseline period is compared with each separate 5-year period thereafter

Tracking Progress: Guidance Document Topics Calculation of haze metric –Data requirements Parameters - IMPROVE species data to determine 6 major aerosol components Completeness - all 6 components are needed Substitution for missing components – mean value substitution if demonstrated that the haze values are not affected much –Approach to handle humidity effects on haze Site-specific monthly adjustment values from historic RH data Humidity adjustments applied to sulfate & nitrate species only

Tracking Progress: Guidance Document Topics Calculation of haze metric (continued) –Algorithm to calculate daily extinction -- Algorithm to calculate deciview

Tracking Progress: Guidance Document Topics Determination of mean of best & worst 20% –Completeness requirements for each year & for five year means –Approaches to deal with completeness deficiencies Development of the progress goals Utility of tracking trends in aerosol species trends

Natural Haze Levels Guidance: Regional Haze Rule Constraints Clean Air Act national goal is to prevent future & remedy existing man-made visibility impairment Natural haze is what is left when man-made impacts have been eliminated (the goal) – natural levels reflect contemporary conditions & land use patterns, not historic conditions Reasonable rate of progress must be determined by considering the constant rate needed to bring worst day current conditions to estimated natural levels in 60 years

Natural Haze Levels Guidance: Estimation Approaches Default approach –Based on natural levels of the six aerosol components estimates for the East & the West, taken from the NAPAP State of Science Report (1990) –Uses same algorithms & humidity adjustments as in the Tracking Progress Guidance –Statistical adjustment of the annual average dv values to the best & worst day values assumes normal distributions of natural conditions with known standard deviation –Default approach has already been applied to every class I area & will be provided in the guidance

Default Approach for Estimating Natural Haze Conditions

Natural Haze Levels Guidance: Estimation Approaches Refined default approach (must be based on credible technical information) --- Options are: –Improved annual average natural concentration estimates for any of the 6 major aerosol species –Use of temporally varying natural concentrations estimates (e.g. seasonally, by sample period, or for extreme natural events) for any of the 6 aerosol species –All approaches must use the same algorithms for estimating natural levels as used for tracking progress

Natural Haze Levels Guidance Advantages of the default approach –No states assessment required to adopt –Default values are good enough where current levels are much higher than estimated natural conditions Advantages of the refined default approach –Permits better accounting of regionally-specific natural sources (e.g. ocean aerosol at coastal sites) –Can account for variations in natural emissions –Incorporates more recent technical information States can improve their natural haze estimates, as needed, with any of their SIP submittals

Regional Haze Rule Guidance: Tracking Progress & Natural Levels Public review drafts for both guidance documents are anticipated by early October 2001.