Substituting Sulfate for Sulfur Impact on the RHR metrics and control strategies Presented at the 2006 IMPROVE Steering Committee Meeting by B.A. Schichtel.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 NC-DAQ Educational Opportunities Series 18 March 2015 Regional Haze Discussions and Issues in North Carolina.
Advertisements

Natural Background Visibility Feb. 6, 2004 Presentation to VISTAS State Air Directors Mt. Cammerer, Great Smoky Mtn. National Park.
BRAVO - Results Big Bend Regional Aerosol & Visibility Observational Study Bret Schichtel National Park Service,
Worst 20% Hazes Across the Country Based on IMPROVE Speciation Data by Marc Pitchford August 2001.
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.
IMPROVE Report 2006 L. Debell, K. Gebhart, B. Schichtel and W. Malm.
IMPROVE Website Status and Great Things to Come Presented to the IMPROVE Steering Committee Mammoth Cave, KY September 2006 B.A. Schichtel.
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,
2004 Technical Summit Overview January 26-27, 2004 Tempe, AZ.
Aerosol Extinction Assessment and Impact on Regional Haze Rule Implementation Douglas Lowenthal Desert Research Institute Pat Ryan Sonoma Technology, Inc.
Tracking Visibility Progress in the Regional Haze Rule: Focusing the Reasonable Progress Framework on Controllable Emissions July 28 & 29, :00 –
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.
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,
Projects:/WRAP RMC/309_SIP/progress_sep02/Annex_MTF_Sep20.ppt Preliminary Mobile Source Significance Test Modeling Results WRAP Regional Modeling Center.
1 Options for Estimating Natural Background Visibility in the VISTAS Region Ivar Tombach with benefit of material prepared by Jim Boylan and Daniel Jacob.
IMPROVE Cost Savings in a Flat Funded World Scott Copeland 10/16/14.
Regional Haze SIP Development Overview AQCC Presentation July 2005.
VISTAS Emissions Inventory Overview Nov 4, VISTAS is evaluating visibility and sources of fine particulate mass in the Southeastern US View NE from.
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.
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.
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.
Georgia Institute of Technology Sensitivity of Future Year Results to Boundary Conditions Jim Boylan, Talat Odman, Ted Russell February 6, 2001.
Natural Background Conditions: Items for discussion with the Inter-RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup Naresh Kumar EPRI 5 March 2004.
Recommendations from Regional Haze Workgroup Core Issue 1: 5- Year Progress Reports The RHR requires Comprehensive SIP revision every 10 years (first in.
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.
Implementation Workgroup Meeting December 6, 2006 Attribution of Haze Workgroup’s Monitoring Metrics Document Status: 1)2018 Visibility Projections – Alternative.
VISTAS Modeling Overview Oct. 29, 2003
Attribution of Haze Report Update and Web Site Tutorial Implementation Work Group Meeting March 8, 2005 Joe Adlhoch Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Air Quality and Seney National Wildlife Refuge Jill Webster June 14, 2007.
Summary of WRAP Stationary Source (SS) NOx and PM Report Lee Alter Western Governors’ Association WRAP Board Meeting Salt Lake City, UT October 15, 2003.
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.
BACKGROUND AEROSOL IN THE UNITED STATES: NATURAL SOURCES AND TRANSBOUNDARY POLLUTION Daniel J. Jacob and Rokjin J. Park with support from EPRI, EPA/OAQPS.
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,
Informed NPS Air Quality Management Decisions in Response to a Changing Climate.
Nitrate Discussion WRAP Meeting – Tucson, AZ January 10/11, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Shawn McClure, Rodger Ames and Doug Fox - CIRA
Sulfate Attribution Methods
Attribution Of Haze Case Study for Nevada Jarbidge Wilderness Area
Reasonable Progress Demonstrations
Asian Dust Episode (4/26/2001)
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
Species Specific Reasonable Progress Analysis
Attribution Of Haze Case Study for Nevada Jarbidge Wilderness Area
Reasonable Progress: Chiricahua NM & Wilderness Area
Asian Dust Episode (4/16/2001)
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.
MONTANA REGIONAL HAZE VISIBILITY PROTECTION PLAN
IMPROVE Data Processing
WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC)
Implementation Workgroup April 19, 2007
Sulfate Contributions to Regional Haze in the WRAP Region
EPA’s Roadmap for the Second Planning Period
Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Introduction to IMPROVE and Regional Haze Data
Presentation transcript:

Substituting Sulfate for Sulfur Impact on the RHR metrics and control strategies Presented at the 2006 IMPROVE Steering Committee Meeting by B.A. Schichtel

Sulfur/Sulfate on Best & Worst Haze Days Average 3*S/SO4 on worst 20% haze days = 1 Average 3*S/SO4 on best 20% haze days = 1.05 Alaska

Worst Haze Days 3*S/SO4

Sulfur vs Sulfate at Three California Sites

Impact of Sulfate Replacement on RHR Worst 20% Haze Metric

Current Hazy Baseline – Proposed Baseline

Ammonium Sulfate’s contribution to Natural Background Light Extinction 2-15% of natural haze on the 20% haziest days is due to sulfate Sulfate replacement will have minimal impact on natural haze

Change in Control Strategy to Meet New 2018 Progress Goal To meet the NEW 2018 progress goal, anthropogenic contributions to bext need to be reduced by 0 to 0.8% more at 60 sites and 0 – 0.3% less at 50 sites. Need to reduce SO 2 emissions by Additional 0.6% to attain 2018 progress goal at Shenandoah

Conclusion Substituting sulfate for sulfur in the RHR will have little effect on control strategies to meet the 2018 progress goals – (I think)