Regional Modeling for Stationary Source Control Strategy Evaluation WESTAR Conference on BART Guidelines and Trading September 1, 2005 Tom Moore -

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
RH Requirement for BART  §308 (e) contains BART requirements for regional haze visibility impairment…. The State must submit an implementation plan containing.
Advertisements

Identification of BART-Eligible Sources in the WRAP Region A Summary of the April 4, 2005 Draft Report.
1 Policies for Addressing PM2.5 Precursor Emissions Rich Damberg EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards June 20, 2007.
Template Development and Testing of PinG and VBS modules in CMAQ 5.01 Prakash Karamchandani, Bonyoung Koo, Greg Yarwood and Jeremiah Johnson ENVIRON International.
EPA PM2.5 Modeling Guidance for Attainment Demonstrations Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS February 20, 2007.
Estimating the impacts of emissions from single sources on secondary PM 2.5 and ozone using an Eulerian photochemical model 1 James T. Kelly, Kirk R. Baker,
Issues on Ozone Planning in the Western United States Prepared by the WESTAR Planning Committee for the Fall Business Meeting, Tempe, AZ October 31, 2011.
1 WRAP Fire Tracking Systems Draft Intent of WRAP FTS Policy – Assist states/tribes to address emissions inventory and tracking associated with fire in.
1 WRAP Policy Fire Tracking Systems Draft December 9, 2002 FEJF Meeting December 10-11, 2002 Jackson, WY.
2004 Technical Summit Overview January 26-27, 2004 Tempe, AZ.
The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) WRAP formed in 1997 as the successor organization to Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) –
Final Amendments to the Regional Haze Rule: BART Rule Making June 16, 2005.
Fire Emissions Joint Forum –Section 308 Strategies for Fire Coordinating efforts of states changing or developing smoke management strategies for regional.
Oil and Gas Workgroup Summary October 21-23, 2009 Denver.
2004 Workplan WRAP Regional Modeling Center Prepared by: Gail Tonnesen, University of California Riverside Ralph Morris, ENVIRON Corporation Zac Adelman,
PM2.5 Model Performance Evaluation- Purpose and Goals PM Model Evaluation Workshop February 10, 2004 Chapel Hill, NC Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS.
EFFICIENT CHARACTERIZATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CONTROL STRATEGY IMPACT PREDICTIONS EFFICIENT CHARACTERIZATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CONTROL STRATEGY IMPACT PREDICTIONS.
An Update on the Colorado Regional Haze SIP Process and Outcomes Presented at: WRAP – Implementation Work Group San Francisco, CA March 2005.
November 7, 2013 WRAP Membership Meeting Denver, CO Tom Moore WRAP Air Quality Program Manager WESTAR Council.
Stationary Sources Joint Forum Update Eric Massey Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Lee Alter and Patrick Cummins Western Governors’ Association.
Sound solutions delivered uncommonly well Understanding the Permitting Impacts of the Proposed Ozone NAAQS Pine Mountain, GA ♦ August 20, 2015 Courtney.
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,
BART Guideline Overview WESTAR August 31, 2005 EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Todd Hawes
REGIONAL HAZE BART – Key Issues For Consideration Eric Massey, Arizona DEQ Lee Alter, WGA SSJF Meeting June 3, 2004 Denver, Colorado.
1 Colorado BART APCD. 2 Class 1 Areas National Parks and Wilderness Areas 12 in Colorado 4 National Parks 8 Wilderness Areas.
Regional Haze SIP Development Overview AQCC Presentation July 2005.
Regional Modeling Center Workplan Fire/Carbon/Dust Workshop May 24, 2006.
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.
§309 Technical Support Document “Table of Contents” First Draft Tom Moore WESTAR Fall Technical Conference September 19, 2002.
Current and Future Air Quality Issues Facing the States Bart Sponseller Air Management Bureau Director Joseph Hoch Regional Pollutants Section Chief NASA.
WRAP Workshop July 29-30, 2008 Potential Future Regional Modeling Center Cumulative Analysis Ralph Morris ENVIRON International Corporation Novato, California.
Technical Projects Update WRAP Board Meeting Salt Lake City, UT November 10, 2004.
BART SIP Development: Example from Colorado Rocky Mountain National Park WRAP IWG Meeting, Denver, CO August 29, 2007 Presented by: Ray Mohr and Curt Taipale.
Air Quality Policy Division D P A Q 1 Regional Haze Update WESTAR September 17-19, 2007 EPA Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards.
EPA – Regional Haze Issues IWG Meeting April 17 th Keith Rose and Laurel Dygowski.
Evaluation of the VISTAS 2002 CMAQ/CAMx Annual Simulations T. W. Tesche & Dennis McNally -- Alpine Geophysics, LLC Ralph Morris -- ENVIRON Gail Tonnesen.
1 Modeling Under PSD Air quality models (screening and refined) are used in various ways under the PSD program. Step 1: Significant Impact Analysis –Use.
Reproposal of the Regional Haze Rule and BART Guidelines.
Opening Remarks -- Ozone and Particles: Policy and Science Recent Developments & Controversial Issues GERMAN-US WORKSHOP October 9, 2002 G. Foley *US EPA.
Summary of June 15, 2005 Revisions to RH BART and BART Guidelines.
Modeling Forum Status Report WRAP Planning Team Meeting February 22-23, 2006 John Vimont, Mary Uhl, & Kevin Briggs, Forum Co-Chairs.
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver CO 7/22/04 Introduction to the the RMC Source Apportionment Modeling Effort Gail Tonnesen,
Update on the PM2.5 Designations Process and the PM2.5 Implementation Rule Joseph Paisie WESTAR April 8, 2004.
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.
Operational Evaluation and Model Response Comparison of CAMx and CMAQ for Ozone & PM2.5 Kirk Baker, Brian Timin, Sharon Phillips U.S. Environmental Protection.
WESTAR 2003 Fall Technical Conference Introduction to Class I Area Impact Analyses September 16, 2003 John Bunyak National Park Service.
Western Regional Technical Air Quality Studies: support for Ozone and other Air Quality Planning in the West Tom Moore Air Quality Program Manager Western.
1 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb ppt Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Regional Modeling Center (RMC) Preliminary Fire Modeling Results.
Technical Support System Review Board Meeting March 8, 2007.
Work Items for §309 SIPs WESTAR Fall Technical Conference September 19, 2002 Tom Moore & Brian Finneran.
Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt Modeling Options for Proposed BART Rule Two roles for modeling in proposed BART rule > Does a potential BART-eligible.
Informed NPS Air Quality Management Decisions in Response to a Changing Climate.
EPA Region 10 Cumulative Effects Analysis Methodology Development Rob Wilson and Herman Wong WESTAR Fall Technical Conference September 16, 2003.
WRAP Technical Work Overview
Overview of WRAP Emissions Projections
A Basis for Control of BART Eligible Sources
Mobile Source Contributions to Ambient PM2.5 and Ozone in 2025
Sunil Kumar TAC, COG July 9, 2007
BART Overview Lee Alter Western Governors’ Association
Stephen Mueller & Jonathan Mallard Tennessee Valley Authority
Issues on Ozone Planning in the Western United States
John Bunyak National Park Service
Western Regional Haze Planning and
RHPWG – Control Measures Subcommittee Oil & Gas Source Coordination
Workshop Technical and Policy Studies to Support the Annex
Guidance on Attainment Tests for O3 / PM / Regional Haze
Regional Modeling for Stationary Source Control Strategy Evaluation
Presentation transcript:

Regional Modeling for Stationary Source Control Strategy Evaluation WESTAR Conference on BART Guidelines and Trading September 1, 2005 Tom Moore -

Presentation Topics Purpose is to gather input on regional modeling approach & analysis steps Review selected materials from Evaluation of the CALPUFF Chemistry Algorithms, A&WMA Annual Meeting, June 21-25, 2005, Ralph Morris, S. Lau & B. Koo, ENVIRON International Corporation Suggest process and timing for preparation and completion of Regional Modeling Protocol by the WRAP Regional Modeling Center

Challenges in Evaluating source-by-source BART as a Control Strategy Just one control strategy option, addressing just one approach to regional haze, required for analysis in isolation of other measures Reasonable progress toward RHR goal of natural conditions by 2064 will need to consist of many control strategies for different visibility precursors (e.g., ozone, PM, FP, etc.) Natural visibility conditions, especially the effect of natural fire emissions, major component even for Worst 20% days Need to design evaluation of BART as a complement, a part of an integrated point source emission reduction program

Regional Modeling Analysis When 2018 base case modeling analysis is completed in late 2005 –Shows how much reasonable progress is being made from federal mobile source programs and point/area rules on the books –Then begin to evaluate “WRAP region Point Source Control Scenarios” RMC workplan task to address BART: –Can provide met data as needed by regulatory agencies –Compile/coordinate results from individual agency analyses –Develop regional modeling protocol to support evaluation of point source control strategy options

Planning Emissions and Modeling Analyses for the “Don’t CAIR” region First need to think through questions that need to be answered Need information about agencies’ plans Need to compile sufficiently complete information and/or agreement from regulatory agencies using “source- specific BART” analysis approach –About estimates of emissions reductions –About results from CALPUFF modeling –Need information by [very] early 2006 Agencies selecting “reasonable progress” option allows RMC to apply regional model to BART and other point sources

Issues to be analyzed with modeling Class I Area AQ and AQRV Issues –PSD Pollutants (PM 10, SO 2, NO 2 ) –Visibility –Acid (S and N) Deposition Visibility is frequently the most limiting Class I Area AQ/AQRV issue in NSR/PSD permitting and is the issue associated with Regional Haze Rule (RHR) BART requirements –Visibility impairment for such sources is primarily associated with secondary sulfate (SO4) and nitrate (NO3) fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 )

Technical Assessment Options 3 Options: –Individual source assessment –Cumulative assessment of all BART-eligible sources –Assessment based on model plants

EPA’s Analysis Options Individual Source Assessment (source-by-source analysis) –Use CALPUFF or other EPA approved model –Compare to natural background –“Cause” = impact of 1.0 deciview or more –“Contribute” – 0.5 deciview (State may set lower threshold) Cumulative - Consider all eligible sources to be subject, based on an analysis of an area’s contribution to visibility impairment -- or demonstrate that no sources are subject, based on cumulative modeling. Develop model plants to exempt sources with common characteristics –BART Guidelines provide example model runs

Using CALPUFF? Sulfur and nitrogen emissions from most sources will primarily be in the form of SO 2 and NO X The SO 2 and NO X emissions are converted to sulfate (SO 4 ) and nitrate (NO 3 ) in CALPUFF CALPUFF SO 4 and NO 3 estimates drive the visibility assessment  Therefore the CALPUFF SO4 and NO3 chemical formation algorithms are critically important to the NSR/PSD and RHR BART process

Using CALPUFF? EPA 2001 draft “Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of the Air Quality Goals for PM 2.5 and Regional Haze”: –“States should use a regional scale photochemical grid model to estimate the effects if a control strategy on secondary components of PM. Changes in primary components may be estimated using a numerical grid model (with no chemistry), a Lagrangian model, or in some cases a receptor model” (EPA, 2001, pg. 169)  CALPUFF is a Lagrangian puff model that EPA FP modeling explicitly states should not be used for SO 4 and NO 3 impacts

Using CALPUFF? Lack of temperature effects and 50°F minimum temperature used in development will overstate sulfate and nitrate formation under cold conditions –Enhanced photochemistry, radicals and sulfate and nitrate formation rates occurs on hot summer days –MESOPUFF-II transformation rates developed using temperatures of 86, 68 and 50°F –Therefore, inappropriate for use below 50 °F  MEOSPUFF-II will overstate SO 4 and NO 3 formation results as temperatures below 50°F (10°C)

Using CALPUFF? Previously evaluated CALPUFF MESOPUFF-II and RIVAD SO4 and NO3 formation rates against latest state-of-science chemistry modules developed by Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) Reported on at AWMA Specialty Conference on Air Quality Model Guidelines in Mystic, CT October 2003 –SO 4 and NO 3 formation chemistry out of date and inaccurate Developed in 1983; Overly Simplistic; Neglects Major Variables and Processes –CALPUFF should not be used for SO 4 and NO 3 Supported by EPA AQ guideline and FP Guidance Supported by chemical modeling community –Likely overestimation bias for large NOx/SO2 sources

Can you evaluate CALPUFF Chemistry using Real-World Data? Extensive PM measurement networks across US that measure real-world SO4 and NO3 –IMPROVE, CASTNet, STN, SEARCH CALPUFF typically applied to one or small group of sources – inconsistent with measurements that are due to all sources –Running CALPUFF with all sources become computationally prohibitive or must perform extensive source combination

Reduce SO2 and NOx emissions by 20 and 10 TPD, respectively Compare maximum 24-hr visibility, SO4 and NO3 impacts in rings around source Compare CMAQ- LISBON w/ MESOPUFF-II and RIVAD CALPUFF chemistry with CMAQ V4.4 9 source locations: GA; NY, OH, IL, TX, ND, WY, AZ and OR Evaluation of Single Source Impacts

large over- prediction using CALPUFF chemistry algorithms compared to CMAQ chemistry > 100% > 1000% Visibility comparisons (Mm -1 ) for January 2002 and 9 sources

CALPUFF chemistry algorithms generally smaller compared to CMAQ chemistry > 100% > 1000% Visibility comparisons (Mm -1 ) for July 2002 and 9 sources

Conclusions – Evaluation of CALPUFF Chemistry SO 4 and NO 3 formation chemistry out of date and inaccurate –Developed in 1983; Overly Simplistic; –Neglects Major Variables and Processes Greatly overstates SO4 and NO3 in winter resulting in overestimating visibility impacts by 100% to 1000% in many cases Understates SO4 in summer, overstates NO3 CALPUFF Nitrate (NO3) particularly inaccurate, overstated and unreliable

Potential process for Regional Modeling Protocol Compile 2018 BART source likely emissions reductions data – 9-12/05 Compile source-specific BART modeling data – 9-12/05 Same time - prepare master spreadsheet of individual BART sources –Emissions (projected 2018 base case and PTE) –Expected emissions reductions beyond current controls –Other supporting data Run “zero-out” simulations of NH3 and VOC at BART sources using tagged emissions in regional model – late 2005 When spreadsheet complete as possible, compile regional “BART emissions reductions” EI[s] and tag those emissions in model to estimate change from “applying” BART Conduct other regional analyses of SO2 Annex (expansion), other alternative programs, etc.

Comments/questions/next steps?