Page 1
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 1
Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Projection of Visibility Changes
and Modeling Sensitivity Analysis
Presented by:
Ralph Morris
WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC)
University of California/ENVIRON [email protected]
Presented at:
RPO National Workgroup Meeting
November 4-6, 2003
St. Louis, Missouri
Page 2
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 2
WRAP Visibility Objectives• §309 SIP/TIP due 2004
– 9 “Grand Canyon” states may opt-in (AZ, CA, CO, ID, NV, NM, UT, and WY).
– Focus on 16 Class I Areas on the Colorado Plateau
• §308 SIP/TIP due 2007– 2000-2004 visibility baseline– 2018 end of first planning period– Show progress toward natural visibility
conditions by 2064
Page 3
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 3
Section 309 SIP/TIP Modeling Requirements
• Demonstrate that SO2 Annex Milestone control strategy is better than BART with Uncertainty
• Estimate visibility improvements in 2018 due to §309 Scenarios 1 & 2
• Analyze “significance” of Mobile Source and Road Dust at 16 Class I Areas
• Evaluate PM/NOx point source controls• Evaluate alternative fire management practices
Page 4
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 4
WRAP CMAQ and REMSAD Modeling Domains
Page 5
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 5
Projecting Future-Year Visibility
• Follow EPA draft guidance for projecting future-year visibility (EPA, 2001a,b,c)
• Use model in a relative fashion to scale the current (1996 or 1997-200l) observed visibility for the Best 20% and Worst 20% days based on the ratio of the 2018 to 1996 modeling results– Relative Reductions Factors (RRFs)– Class I Area specific (map IMPROVE data)– Specific for each component of light extinction
(SO4, NO3, EC, OC, Soil, and CM)
Page 6
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 6
Mapping of IMPROVE Data to Class I Areas
-1800 -1600 -1400 -1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800
-1400
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
BADL01
BAND02
BIBE03
BO W A04
BRCA05
BRID06
CANY07
CHIR08
CRLA09
G ICL10
G LAC11
G RBA12
G RCA13
G RSA14
G UM O15
JARB16LAVO 17
M EVE18
M O RA19
M O ZI20
PEFO 21
PINN22
PO RE23
REDW 24
RO M O25
SAG O26
SEQU27
SNPA28
THSI29
TONT30
UPBU31
W EM I32
YELL33
YO SE34
AG TI26
ALLA28
ANAC11
ARCH07
BADL01
BAND02
BIBE03
BLCA32
BO DE10
BO M A11BO W A04
BRCA05
BRID06
CACR31
CAM O 11
CANY07CARE07
CARI17
CAVE15CHIR08CHW I08
CRLA09
CRM O 16
CUCA26
DESO34
DIPE29
DO LA27
EACA16
EANE25EM IG34
FITZ06
FLTO 20
G ALI08
G AOF11
G EM O 09
G ILA10
G LAC11
G LPE28
G ORO 19
G RCA13
G RSA14
G RTE33
G UM O15
HECA16
HERC31
HO OV34
ISRO 04
JARB16
JO M U27
JO TR26
KAIS27
KALM 24
KICA27
LABE17
LAGA14
LAVO 17
LOST01
M ABE32
M AM O 24
M AZA30
M ELA01
M EVE18
M IM O 11
M INA34
M ING 31
M O AD19
M O BA21
M O HO29
M O JE29
M O KE34
M O LA09
M O RA19
M O W A29
M O ZI20
NO AB33
NO CA28
O LYM 28
PASA28
PECO02
PEFO 21
PIM O30
PINN22
PO RE23RAW A25
REDW 24
RERO 33
RO M O25
SACR10
SAG A26SAG O26
SAG U08
SAJA26
SAPE02
SARA22
SAW T16
SCAP11
SELW 16
SEQU27
SIAN30
SO W A17
STM O 29
SUPE30
SYCA13
TETO33
THLA17
THRO01
THSI29
ULBE01
UPBU31
VENT22
VO YA04
W ASH33
W EEL32
W EM I32
W HM O10
W HPE02
W ICA01
W IM O31
YELL33
YO BO17
YO SE34
ZION05
Page 7
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 7
-1200 -1100 -1000 -900 -800 -700 -600 -500 -400-900
-800
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
BAND02
BRCA05
CANY07
CHIR08
GICL10
GRCA13
GRSA14
GUMO15
MEVE18
MOZI20
PEFO21
ROMO25
TONT30
W EMI32
ARCH07
BAND02
BLCA32
BODE10
BRCA05
CANY07CARE07
CAVE15CHIR08CHW I08
EANE25
FLTO20
GALI08
GILA10
GRCA13
GRSA14
GUMO15
LAGA14
MABE32
MAZA30
MEVE18
MOBA21
MOZI20
PECO02
PEFO21
PIMO30
RAW A25
ROMO25
SAGU08
SAPE02
SIAN30SUPE30
SYCA13
W EEL32
W EMI32
W HMO10
W HPE02
ZION05
Page 8
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 8
Projecting Future-Year Visibility
• Deviations from EPA Guidance for §309 SIP– 2000-2004 Baseline for W20%/B20%?
• 1996 Modeling Baseline:– Use 1996 W20%/B20% obs days to define
RRF 2018 projection factors– Use two observed visibility baselines
» W20%/B20% days from 1996» W20%/B20% days from latest 5-yrs (1997-
2001)
Page 9
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 9
Projecting Future-Year Visibility• Deviations from EPA Guidance for §309 SIP
– No wind blown fugitive dust in inventory– Major component of Soil and CM– Some observed Soil and CM impacts likely sub-grid
scale (< 36 km)• Model estimated RRFs for Soil and CM are in error• Set RRFs for Soil and CM to unity
– RRF(Soil) = RRF(CM) = 1.0– Assumes 2018 Soil and CM identical to current year
Page 10
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 10
2018 §309 Control Scenarios 1 & 2
• Area sources, base case• Road dust base case• Off-Road, base case• On-Road base case• 1996 Biogenic base case• “Typical year” Wildfires base case• Point source control case (SO2 Annex Milestones
combined with Pollution Prevention)• Mexico inventory (area/point)• Agricultural and Rx fires:
– Scenario 1: Base Smoke Management (BSM)– Scenario 2: Optimal Smoke Management (OSM)
Page 11
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 11
Page 12
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 12
2018 §309 Control Scenarios 1 & 2Colorado Plateau
Class I area STATE1997-2001Observed
2018BaseCase
2018Scenario 1
2018Scenario 2
Grand Canyon NP AZ 12.30 11.62 11.56 11.51Mount Baldy WA AZ 14.30 12.22 12.02 11.96Petrified Forest NP AZ 13.00 11.99 11.82 11.74
Sycamore Can. WA AZ 15.40 11.63 11.51 11.48BC of Gunnison NP CO 11.30 10.90 10.76 10.60Flat Tops WA CO 10.50 11.04 10.91 10.73Maroon Bells WA CO 10.60 11.15 11.00 10.84Mesa Verde NP CO 13.10 12.24 12.03 11.84West Elk WA CO 10.60 11.19 10.99 10.84Weminuche WA CO 11.30 11.08 10.89 10.72
SanPedro Parks WA NM 10.70 12.33 12.12 11.71Arches NP UT 12.10 12.41 12.29 12.15Bryce Canyon NP UT 11.80 12.26 12.24 11.95Canyonlands NP UT 12.10 12.41 12.31 12.18Capitol Reef NP UT 12.10 12.51 12.49 12.36
Page 13
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 13
Calculation of 2018 Visibility Goals
• Glide Path Slope to Natural Conditions (NCs) in 2064
• 2000-2004 Observed Baseline Visibility Conditions (Anchors Glide Path Slope)– Worst 20% Days: Progress toward Natural Visibility
Conditions in 2064 with Planning Periods ending at 2018, 2028, 2038, 2048, 2058, and 2064
– Best 20% Days: No Degradation in Visibility
• Glide Path Slope Values assumes linear progress from 2004 observed visibility to NCs in 2064
Page 14
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 14
Preliminary Glide Path Slope Values to NCs• Use most current 5-yrs of observed visibility to
anchor Glide Path in 2004 – 1997-2001 IMPROVE data currently most recent
• Map Observed Visibility Conditions from IMPROVE Monitors to Nearby Class I Areas
• Use current EPA draft guidance for natural conditions (NC) for worst days (EPA, 2001)– Needs to be evaluated for appropriateness
• Sea salt, wind blown dust, wildfires, Asian dust, Saharan dust, geogenic, biogenic
Page 15
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 15
Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide PathGrand Canyon NP - 20% Worst Days
12.0011.66 10.83 9.99 9.15 8.31 7.47 6.97
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048 2053 2058 2063
Year
Ha
zin
ess
Ind
ex
Un
it:D
eci
vie
ws
Glide Path Natural Visibility Conditions Observation
Page 16
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 16
Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide PathYellowstone NP - 20% Worst Days
12.9012.5111.55
10.599.62
8.667.70 7.12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048 2053 2058 2063
Year
Ha
zin
ess
Ind
ex
Un
it:D
eci
vie
ws
Glide Path Natural Visibility Conditions Observation
Page 17
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 17
Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide PathYosemite NP - 20% Worst Days
18.4017.6515.78
13.9012.03
10.168.28
7.16
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048 2053 2058 2063
Year
Ha
zin
ess
Ind
ex
Un
it:D
eci
vie
ws
Glide Path Natural Visibility Conditions Observation
Page 18
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 18
Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide PathMount Rainier NP - 20% Worst Days
19.3018.5416.63
14.7212.81
10.909.00
7.85
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048 2053 2058 2063
Year
Ha
zin
ess
Ind
ex
Un
it:D
eci
vie
ws
Glide Path Natural Visibility Conditions Observation
Page 19
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 19
Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide PathPoint Reyes NS - 20% Worst Days
20.5019.6317.45
15.2613.08
10.908.72
7.41
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048 2053 2058 2063
Year
Ha
zin
ess
Ind
ex
Un
it:D
eci
vie
ws
Glide Path Natural Visibility Conditions Observation
Page 20
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 20
Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide PathUpper Buffalo Wilderness - 20% Worst Days
27.8026.71
23.98
21.24
18.51
15.78
13.0511.41
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048 2053 2058 2063
Year
Ha
zin
ess
Ind
ex
Un
it:D
eci
vie
ws
Glide Path Natural Visibility Conditions Observation
Page 21
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 21
Mobile Source Significance • Change in extinction due to Mobile Sources over
the EPA Natural Conditions (Worst 20% Days)• Applied to 13 urban areas and California to
estimate “significance” at 16 Class I Areas on Colorado Plateau
• No On-Road and Off-Road Mobile Source Emissions (“Zero-Out”) modeling priorities:– 9 Grand Canyon (GC) States (Cumulative)– California– Phoenix, Arizona (Maricopa County)– Las Vegas, Nevada (Clark County)
Page 22
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 22
Summary of 2018 Anthropogenic Emissions in 9 Grand Canyon (GC) States
NOx SO2 NH3 PM2.5(tpy) % (tpy) % (tpy) % (tpy) %
Area 377833 16% 74697 8% 594764 87% 352437 57%Road Dust 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 66470 11%Point 885720 37% 642133 72% 30218 4% 127374 21%Mobile 407691 17% 5426 1% 57326 8% 12259 2%Non-Road 700271 30% 175343 20% 3398 0% 61131 10%
Total 2371515 100% 897599 100% 685706 100% 619671 100%
Page 23
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 23
Comments on 2018 Emissions in 9 GC States• 47% NOX due to “Mobile Sources”
– 64% Off-Road vs. 36% On-Road
• 21% SO2 due to “Mobile Sources”
– Almost all (97%) due to Off-Road Sources– Off-Road gas engines use low sulfur gasoline– Upcoming Off-Road Rules for some Off-Road equipment
expected before 2018 not accounted for (e.g., S reduction)
• Mobile PM2.5 is 12% of total but consists of EC & OC with high light extinction efficiencies
• New EPA NONROAD model results in substantial reductions in emissions over old NONROAD
Page 24
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 24
What is a significant visibility impact?• A 2 deciview (dv) or 20% change in extinction is
believed to be a perceptible change• PSD Class I Area visibility AQRV analysis uses a
10 % change in extinction over natural conditions threshold for cumulative impacts
• Definition of natural conditions a point of controversy– e.g., how to treat weather interference
• Use two visibility backgrounds– EPA natural conditions– 2018 Base Case conditions
Page 25
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 25
Cumulative Mobile Source Significance Test9 GC States, EPA Natural Conditions, & 2018 WRAP Base Case
Class I Area on Colorado Plateau
EPA Natural Conditions
(Worst 20%)
2018 WRAP Base Case
(Worst 20%) Arches NP 21.78% 11.95% Black Canyon NP 19.58% 11.55% Bryce Canyon NP 12.02% 8.07% Canyonlands NP 18.63% 10.86% Capitol Reef NP 25.62% 13.50% Flat Tops Wilderness 19.37% 11.38% Grand Canyon NP 25.01% 14.07% Maroon Bells Wilderness 24.19% 12.97% Mesa Verde NP 10.51% 6.11% Mount Baldy Wilderness 19.10% 7.86% Petrified Forest NP 22.49% 11.89% San Pedro Parks WA 8.74% 4.91% Sycamore Canyon WA 28.38% 13.53% West Elk Wilderness 20.99% 11.86% Weminuche Wilderness 16.19% 9.35% Zion NP 16.97% 11.38%
Page 26
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 26
Estimate On-Road & Off-Road Contributions9 GC States for Petrified Forest, Capitol Reef, and Grand Canyon
Visibility Impacts bySpecies
Mobile EmissionsFraction
PEFO CARE GRCA On-Road Off-RoadSulfate 21% 25% 19% 3% 97%Nitrate 34% 33% 46% 37% 63%PM 45% 42% 35% 17% 83% % Change MS 22.5% 25.6% 25.0% % On-Road 4.7% 5.1% 5.9% % Off-Road 17.8% 20.5% 19.1%
Page 27
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 27
Road Dust Significance Results
• Road Dust mainly in Soil and CM components so cannot use scaled modeling results– Currently Road Dust is 20% of PM10 emissions in 9
GC States (w/o wind blown dust)– Missing wind blown dust– Some of Road Dust impacts likely subgrid-scale
• Use Absolute Modeling Results– Can’t use RRFs as RRF(CM)=RRF(Soil)=1.0
• Cumulative impact range from 0.80% to 3.13%
Page 28
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 28
Road Dust Emissions Significance TestUsing W20 Absolute Model Results (No RRFs)
16 Class I Areas Colorado Plateau
2018 Base Case
(Mm-1)
2018 No Road
Dust (Mm-1)
EPA Nat. Conditions
W20% Days (Mm-1)
Bext change No Road Dust
(Mm-1)
Bext change No Road Dust
(%)
dv Change No Road Dust (dv)
Arches NP 25.91 25.63 20.12 0.29 1.42 0.14 Black Canyon of Gunnison NP
32.84 32.20 20.26 0.63 3.13 0.31
Bryce Canyon NP 24.24 23.99 20.12 0.25 1.24 0.12 Canyonlands NP 23.89 23.71 20.08 0.18 0.89 0.09 Capitol Reef NP 25.56 25.30 20.18 0.26 1.29 0.13 Flat Tops Wilderness 28.55 28.37 20.28 0.19 0.92 0.09 Grand Canyon NP 27.78 27.53 20.08 0.25 1.22 0.12 Maroon Bells-Snowmass WA
31.78 31.46 20.30 0.32 1.57 0.16
Mesa Verde NP 34.47 34.21 20.18 0.26 1.30 0.13 Mount Baldy Wilderness 41.63 41.26 20.04 0.37 1.87 0.19 Petrified Forest NP 32.46 32.22 20.08 0.24 1.20 0.12 San Pedro Parks Wilderness 28.90 28.65 20.18 0.24 1.21 0.12 Sycamore Canyon Wilderness
35.34 34.95 20.34 0.39 1.92 0.19
West Elk Wilderness 31.15 30.85 20.26 0.30 1.47 0.15 Weminuche Wilderness 29.93 29.77 20.20 0.16 0.80 0.08 Zion NP 25.57 24.95 20.06 0.61 3.05 0.30
Page 29
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 29
Stationary Source Sensitivity
• NOx and/or PM10 emission changes on major stationary sources (> 100 TPY)– 50% reduction in NOx emissions– 50% reduction in PM10 emissions– 25% increase in NOx & PM10 emissions
• Purpose:– §309 must analyze stationary source NOx/PM controls
• evaluate NOx/PM control strategies• assess impacts of such controls on visibility• evaluate the need for NOx/PM control program
Page 30
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 30
Stationary Source Sensitivity -- Conclusions
• Stationary source PM emissions contribute approximately 2% on average to visibility impairment
• Stationary source NOx emissions contribute:– 2-5% to impairment on average at Class I areas on
the Colorado Plateau• larger contributions on some of the haziest days
– ~20% at some Class I areas in the Pacific Northwest and California
Page 31
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 31
Stationary Source NOx Emissions > 100 TPY
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000
Emissions (tpy)
Process Heaters (petro)
Natural Gas Production
Cement Manufacturing
Natural Gas
Wood/Bark Waste
Distillate Oil
Sub/Bituminous Coal
Natural Gas
Natural Gas
Distillate Oil (diesel)
Natural Gas
Lignite
Sub/Bituminous Coal
Utility Boilers
Utility ICEs
Industrial ICEs
Industrial Processes
Industrial Boilers 91% of the emissions > 100 tpy
Page 32
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 32
Stationary Source NOx Emissions > 100 TPY
Page 33
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 33
50% NOx Control on Ammonium Nitrate
Page 34
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 34
1996 Annual (NH4)2NO3 @ IMPROVE Sites
Page 35
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 35
% Light Extinction due to Nitrate W20%
Page 36
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 36
Stationary Source PM10 Emissions > 100 TPY
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000
Emissions (tpy)
Misc. Manufacturing
Sulfate (Kraft) Pulping
Not Classified
Copper Smelting
Gold
Iron Production
Metal Mining (General)
Not Classified
Magnesium Carbonate
Nonmetallic Minerals Mining
Coal Mining and Handling
Sub/Bituminous Coal
Wood/Bark Waste
Lignite
Sub/Bituminous Coal
Utility Boilers
Industrial Boilers
Mineral Products
Chemical Manufacturing
Primary Metal Production
Industrial Processes
78% of the emissions > 100 tpy
Page 37
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 37
Stationary Source PM10 Emissions > 100 TPY
Page 38
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 38
50% PM10 Control on PM10
Page 39
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 39
1996 Annual PM10 @ IMPROVE Sites
Page 40
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 40
% Annual Extinction due to Coarse Matter
Page 41
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 41
§309 Stationary Source NOx/PM Analysis
• §309 Stationary Source PM/NOx Report– available at: www.wrapair.org– Starting point for multi-year process– Determination of BART eligible NOx/PM sources– Identification of NOx/PM control options– Assessment of visibility improvements due to
alternative stationary source NOx/PM controls• progress toward 2064 natural conditions goal• better modeling needed
– nitrate performance issues– PM performance issues
Page 42
Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb062003.ppt 42
EPA Visibility Projection Procedure
• Calculated only at Class I Areas– Implies model spatial and temperal accuracy– Ignores visibility/PM changes over most of
domain– Model vs observed W20%/B20% days
• Need for Additional Vvisibility Metrics – Spatial plots of visibility “Improvements”– Other days than observed W20%/B20%– Other?