Aerosol Extinction Assessment and Impact on Regional Haze Rule Implementation Douglas Lowenthal Desert Research Institute Pat Ryan Sonoma Technology, Inc.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Analysis of 12 years of IMPROVE data in the Columbia River Gorge By Dan Jaffe University of Washington Northwest Air Quality Photo from the Wishram IMPROVE.

Advertisements

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

Natural Background Visibility Feb. 6, 2004 Presentation to VISTAS State Air Directors Mt. Cammerer, Great Smoky Mtn. National Park.

1 Recent PM 2.5 Trends in Georgia André J. Butler Mercer University EVE 290L 14 April, 2008.

Regional Air Quality Modeling Patrick Barickman, Air Quality Modeler Tyler Cruickshank, Meteorologist/Modeler Utah Department of Environmental Quality.

BRAVO - Results Big Bend Regional Aerosol & Visibility Observational Study Bret Schichtel National Park Service,

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

1 Estimates of worst 20% natural condition deciview: application of the new IMPROVE algorithm and a revised statistical approach Rodger Ames, CIRA

Map of the Guadalupe Mountains Region NEW MEXICO TEXAS Guadalupe Mtns. Park Map To Carlsbad To El Paso To I-10 Visibility Degradation in Guadalupe Mountains.

IMPROVE Report 2006 L. Debell, K. Gebhart, B. Schichtel and W. Malm.

Update on Natural Levels II Technical Review Committee By Marc Pitchford for the June 12 th RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis Conference Call.

Illumination Independent Aerosol Optical Properties n Extinction Scattering Absorption n Volume scattering function (phase) n Transmittance.

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.

Alternative Approaches for PM2.5 Mapping: Visibility as a Surrogate Stefan Falke AAAS Science and Engineering Fellow U.S. EPA - Office of Environmental.

Modeling Aerosol Formation and Transport in the Pacific Northwest with the Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System Susan M. O'Neill Fire.

Characterization of Aerosol Physical, Optical and Chemical Properties During the Big Bend Regional Aerosol and Visibility Observational Study (BRAVO) Jenny.

Update on IMPROVE Light Extinction Equation and Natural Conditions Estimates Tom Moore, WRAP Technical Coordinator May 23, 2006.

Causes of Haze Update Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the 5/24/05 AoH conference call.

Properties of Particulate Matter Physical, Chemical and Optical Properties Size Range of Particulate Matter Mass Distribution of PM vs. Size: PM10, PM2.5.

Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Goals I.Overview II.Complications III.Simplifying Approaches Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the WRAP Reasonable.

Background Aerosol in the United States: Natural Sources and Transboundary Pollution Naresh Kumar, Ph.D. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA Presented at MANE-VU/MARAMA.

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)

Brief Description of CALPUFF Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency.

1 Options for Estimating Natural Background Visibility in the VISTAS Region Ivar Tombach with benefit of material prepared by Jim Boylan and Daniel Jacob.

VISTAS Data / Monitoring Overview Scott Reynolds SC DHEC- Larry Garrison KY DNREP Data Workgroup Co-Chairs RPO National Technical Workgroup Meeting – St.

Draft, 2 June NATURAL HAZE LEVELS SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT 1. Project Overview Ivar Tombach Regional Haze Data Analysis Workshop 8 June 2005.

Model Evaluation Comparing Model Output to Ambient Data Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, California.

AoH Conference Call October 8, 2004 Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

Aerosol Composition and Trends Andrew Martahus. Particulate Matter: Solid or Liquid Particles in Air Size and Composition Although particulate matter.

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.

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.

REGIONAL VISIBILITY IN THE UNITED STATES AND ITS VARIABILITY: NATURAL AND TRANSBOUNDARY POLLUTION INFLUENCES Rokjin Park with support from EPRI, NASA,

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.

Implementation Workgroup Meeting December 6, 2006 Attribution of Haze Workgroup’s Monitoring Metrics Document Status: 1)2018 Visibility Projections – Alternative.

Ambient Monitoring & Reporting Forum Plans for 2005 Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the WRAP Planning Team Meeting (3/9 – 3/10/05)

NATURAL AND TRANSBOUNDARY INFLUENCES ON PARTICULATE MATTER IN THE UNITED STATES: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE EPA REGIONAL HAZE RULE Daniel J. Jacob and Rokjin.

Draft, 5 June NATURAL HAZE LEVELS SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT 2. Critical Evaluation of Current Approach for Estimating Natural Conditions Ivar Tombach.

Introduction Instruments designed and fabricated at the Desert Research Institute, Reno Emphasis on the Integrating Nephelometer for scattering measurements.

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.

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt CRGAQS: CAMx Sensitivity Results Presentation to the Gorge Study Technical Team By ENVIRON International Corporation.

number Typical aerosol size distribution area volume

Properties of Particulate Matter

Nitrate Discussion WRAP Meeting – Tucson, AZ January 10/11, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

A Basis for Control of BART Eligible Sources

Brian Timin- EPA/OAQPS

Attribution Of Haze Case Study for Nevada Jarbidge Wilderness Area

Asian Dust Episode (4/26/2001)

ATMOSPHERIC AEROSOL: suspension of condensed-phase particles in air

Review upcoming Teach-Ins and participation in WRAP Regional Haze Planning Work Group - Jay Baker and Tina Suarez-Murias.

BART Overview Lee Alter Western Governors’ Association

Attribution Of Haze Case Study for Nevada Jarbidge Wilderness Area

Reasonable Progress: Chiricahua NM & Wilderness Area

Contribution of Dust to Regional Haze Based on Available IMPROVE Data From (Provided by Marc Pitchford (NOAA) and Jin Xu (DRI), 01/14/04) Mean.

Asian Dust Episode (4/16/2001)

Evaluating Revised Tracking Metric for Regional Haze Planning

Tom Moore (WESTAR and WRAP) and Pat Brewer (NPS ARD)

Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

Regional Haze Rule: Natural Conditions Concepts & Approaches

PM2.5 Annual primary standard currently 15 ug/m3

WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC)

WRAP Stationary Sources Forum Meeting November 14-15, 2006

Contribution of Dust to Regional Haze Based on Available IMPROVE Data From (Provided by Marc Pitchford (NOAA) and Jin Xu (DRI), 01/14/04) Mean.

Presentation transcript:

Aerosol Extinction Assessment and Impact on Regional Haze Rule Implementation Douglas Lowenthal Desert Research Institute Pat Ryan Sonoma Technology, Inc. Naresh Kumar Electric Power Research Institute

Proposed EPA Haze Rule Requires Reduction of Light Extinction in National Parks to Background Levels by Assessment based on reconstructed, not measured light extinction: Bext = 3 f(RH) [(NH 4 ) 2 SO4 + NH 4 NO 3 ] + 4 [1.4 OC] + 1 [PM 2.5 Soil] [Coarse (PM 10 -PM 2.5 ) Mass] + 10 [EC] + 10 Mm -1 (Rayleigh Scattering)

Dry Mass Scattering Efficiencies Assumed constant (3 m 2 /g for AMSUL and AMNIT, 4 m 2 /g for OCM, 1 m 2 /g for soil, 0.6 m 2 /g for coarse (PM 10 - PM 2.5 ), [10 m 2 /g for EC absorption]. 10 Mm -1 for Rayleigh scattering by atmospheric gases In reality, scattering efficiencies vary with particle size distribution

To Assess the IMPROVE Equation: Compare measured light scattering (Bsp) and reconstructed Bsp from 20 IMPROVE sites from

Climatological f(RH): Based on historical RH across U.S. from (>95% rollback) Actual f(RH): Based on measured hourly RH with Bsp (>95% omitted)

Are dry efficiencies constant? Use measured dry particle size distributions in BRAVO and SEAVS and measured fine Bsp to look at variations in mass efficiency (Bspf/ mass). Volume from dry size, dry density from IMPROVE chemistry, dry Bspf for SEAVS from f(RH).

Result: Mass efficiency increases with the degree of pollution (Bspf) in remote national parks.

Dry mass efficiency increases for typical pollution aerosol distributions with 0.1<diameter<0.6 μm (Watson, 2002) The shift of the ambient dry particle size distribution over this size range under more polluted conditions causes the variation in efficiency.

Implementation Effects of Regional Haze Rule Process (STI) Estimation of the Natural Background Variation from Current IMPROVE Reconstructed Extinction Parameterization of Dry Efficiencies as a Function of Ammonium Sulfate + Ammonium Nitrate Concentrations

EPA Natural Condition Approach Annual Average Aerosol Concentrations are as follows: 20% worst natural conditions (dV) determined from annual average as follows: 20% Worst (dV) = Annual Average (dV) [1.4]σ σ = 2 dV (sites in West) and 3 dV (sites in East)

STI Peer Review of Approach Review of Reported Standard Deviation of Daily Data: EPA -> σ = 2 dV (sites in West) & 3 dV (sites in East) STI - σ (dV) = Annual Average (dV); r = 0.61 Pooled West σ (dV) = 3.8; Pooled East σ (dV) = 5.3

STI Peer Review of Approach 141 site years of daily data analyzed. One part of analysis identifies: 20% Worst (dV) = Annual (dV) σ (not 1.28 σ)

Effect of STI Alternative Approach 20% worst natural condition visibility ranges from 8.8 to 13.1 dV for five sites. These estimates are 1.2 to 2.0 dV greater than those determined using the EPA default method (7.0 to 11.5 dV).

IMPROVE Reconstruction Equation Sulfate & Nitrate (S&N) Scattering Efficiency How did we arrive at concentration varying scattering efficiency? FB statistic computed varying S&N scattering efficiency by deciView range of data. OCM/OC assumed to be 2.

IMPROVE Reconstruction Equation Sulfate & Nitrate (S&N) Scattering Efficiency

Requiring uniform visibility reduction of all species to achieve Progress Goal. * Proportional Reduction of SO 2 and NO x Reflects Decreasing Dry Efficiencies as Bext is Reduced Over Time

finis