AoH Report Update

Joint DEJF & AoH Meeting, Las VegasNovember 15 - 18, 2004

Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

Overview

• WRAP Strategic Plan, Phases 1 & 2

• Review of Phase I report structure

• Review of Phase I data sets

• Review of products generated to date

WRAP Strategic PlanPhase I2003-05

Phase II2005-07

Purpose:Dry run for Phase II.

Refine and apply Phase Iapproaches for SIP/TIPpurposes.

Scale: Regional. Regional and subregional.

Apportionment:96/02 source contributions.Areas each plan to address.

2002 source contributions.Reduction obligations.

Strategies: Identify options, screen. Cost/benefit, select, design.

Communication: Public education. Public acceptance.

Major State/Tribalsubmittals:

2002 emissions inventory. Modeling run specifications.

AoH Phase I Report Structure

Supporting Reports

(Web-based)

Summary Report(Hardcopy and

Web-based)

AoH Phase I Web Page

http://wrapair.org/forums/aoh/ars1/index.html

AoH Phase I Data Sets

• Emissions Inventories– EPA 2002 NEI not available until 12/05;

WRAP facilitated development of “interim” 2002 Emissions

• Modeling Data– RMC to present TSSA results Thursday

(11/18)

• Monitoring Data– IMPROVE aerosol data available. DRI to

present regression analysis results Wednesday (11/17)

2002 Emissions Data• Point and Area – includes U.S., Can., Mex.• Mobile (On-Road & Non-Road)

Road Dust (Paved & Unpaved) – U.S., Can., Mex.– 2003 estimated emissions– VOC, NOx, PM2.5 and SO2 overestimated for off-road– CA provided estimates directly, so these errors don’t apply to CA

• Fire – WRAP states only– Actual 2002 wildland and prescribed fire emission inventories

• Windblown Dust – Modeling domain– Modeled emissions

• Biogenics – U.S.– Modeled emissions

• Modeling Domain Boundary Conditions

WRAP NOX Emissions Summary

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

AZ CA CO ID MT NV NM ND OR SD UT WA WY

ton

s/yr

Biogenics

Road Dust

Non-Road Mobile

On-Road Mobile

Fires

Area

Point

WRAP States NOX Emissions

WRAP SO2 Emissions Summary

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

AZ CA CO ID MT NV NM ND OR SD UT WA WY

ton

s/yr

Biogenics

Road Dust

Non-Road Mobile

On-Road Mobile

Fires

Area

Point

WRAP States SO2 Emissions

California Emissions Comparison

• EI comparison: WRAP interim 2002 and CA reported 2003

• Differences in EI reporting:– Differences in point and area binning– CA reports reactive organic gases (ROG),

WRAP reports volatile organic compounds (VOC) - specific pollutants differ in some cases

– CA reports SOx, WRAP reports SO2

• EI comparison reasonable, consistent with known differences

California Emissions ComparisonCalifornia 2002 "Interim" vs. 2003 Reported Emissions

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

NOXInterim

NOXReported

VOCInterim

ROGReported

SO2Interim

SOXReported

PM2.5Interim

PM2.5Reported

PMCInterim

PMCReported

Th

ousa

nd

Ton

s/Y

ear

.

Road Dust

Off-Road Mobile

On-Road Mobile

Fires

Area

Point

Redwood NP (CA) Spokane Indian Reservation (WA)

Sequoia NP (CA) Sawtooth W (ID)

Rocky Mountain NPHaze Simulation

Based on 20% Worst Days, 2002

Based on 20% Worst Days, 2002

Yosemite NPHaze Simulation

Based on 20% Worst Days, 2002

Based on 20% Worst Days, 2002

Grand Canyon NPHaze Simulation

Based on 20% Worst Days, 2002

Based on 20% Worst Days, 2002

Sulfate Nitrate

Organics Coarse Mass

2002 WRAP Species Extinction

Aerosol Extinction Deciviews

2002 WRAP Extinction and Deciviews

• Both maps based on the same data (deciview map includes Rayleigh scattering for deciview calculation)

• Same general patterns• Different colors due to differences in scales

1/R2 Method

Two Interpolation Methods

Kriging Method

• The 1/R2 method tends to generate islands around monitoring sites; probably more applicable to AoH needs

• The Kriging method generates patterns where there are no monitoring sites, inferring values that may not be real (northern WY, northern UT)

SO 2 Em issions(tons/year)

250 - 500

500 - 1 ,000

1,000 - 1 ,500

1,500 - 2 ,000

2,000 - 2 ,500

2,500 - 3 ,000

3,000 - 3 ,500

3,500 - 4 ,000

4,000 - 4 ,500

4,500 - 5 ,000

5,000 - 5 ,500

5,500 - 6 ,000

>6,000

Sulfate Mass and SO2 Emissions

SO2 Emissions

• Hot spots of SO2 emissions do not correspond with measured hot spots of sulfate mass

Sulfate Mass

Nitrate Mass and NOX Emissions

NOX Emissions

• Hot spots of NOX emissions do not correspond with measured hot spots of nitrate mass

Nitrate Mass

N O X Em issions(tons/year)

1,000 - 2 ,000

2,000 - 3 ,000

3,000 - 4 ,000

4,000 - 5 ,000

5,000 - 6 ,000

6,000 - 7 ,000

7,000 - 8 ,000

8,000 - 9 ,000

9,000 - 10,000

10,000 - 11,000

11,000 - 12,000

12,000 - 13,000

>13,000

PM C Em issions(tons/year)

250 - 500

500 - 750

750 - 1 ,000

1,000 - 1 ,250

1,250 - 1 ,500

1,500 - 1 ,750

1,750 - 2 ,000

2,000 - 2 ,250

2,250 - 2 ,500

2,500 - 2 ,750

2,750 - 3 ,000

3,000 - 3 ,250

>3,250

Coarse Mass and Coarse Mass Emissions

Coarse Mass Emissions

• Hot spots of coarse mass emissions do not correspond with measured hot spots of coarse mass

Coarse Mass

Sample State Emissions

Summary for NOx

• State map with 36 x 36 km gridded emissions

• Brief text description of NOx

• Breakdown of state-wide NOx emissions by source type

The following TSSA results do not represent a full year and should not be used to

draw final conclusions!

Sample “Raw” TSSA and Trajectory

Regression Results

• TSSA attributes to Point and Mobile, WRAP states, eastern U.S., others

• Trajectory Regression attributes to various states, quadrants, others (unique by site)

• Some grouping must be done to compare results

2.9%

19%

0.2%

3.1%

Trajectory Regression

Tagged Species Source Apportionment

CMAQ Tagged Specied Source Apportionment (TSSA)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

CO

WY

UT

AZ

NM ID MT

OR

WA

CA

NV

ND

SD

Eas

t

Can

ada

Mex

ico

Initi

al C

ondi

tions

Bou

ndar

y C

ondi

tions

Oth

er

Res

t

Point Sources

Mobile Sources

Trajectory Regression Analysis

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%C

O

WY

UT

AZ

NM

OK

KS

NB

NW

US

SW

US

SE

US

NE

US

Can

ada

Mex

ico

Pac

ific

Coa

st

Pac

ific

Oce

an

Gul

f

Atla

ntic

NE Colorado

SE Colorado

SW Colorado

NW Colorado

Source Attribution Comparison for SO4 atRocky Mountain National Park, CO

In the current CMAQ modeled analysis, source attribution is defined only for mobile and point source emissions. SO4 not attributed to mobile or points sources is labeled "Other". Emissions not included in the identified categories are grouped as "Rest".

Trajectory regression analysis attributes monitoring results using back trajectories and residence times.

Sample “Raw” TSSA and Trajectory

Regression Results

• TSSA attributes to Point and Mobile, WRAP states, eastern U.S., others

• Trajectory Regression attributes to various states, quadrants, others (unique by site)

• Some grouping must be done to compare results

CMAQ Tagged Specied Source Apportionment (TSSA)

Boundary States57%

US Regions14%

International0%

Other Sources29%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

CO

WY

UT

AZ

NM

ID,

MT

, O

R,

WA

CA

, N

V

Eas

t

Can

ada

Mex

ico

Initi

al

Bou

ndar

y

Oth

er

Res

t

Point Sources

Mobile Sources

Trajectory Regression Analysis

Other Sources24%

International5%

US Regions27%

Boundary States44%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%C

O

WY

UT

AZ

NM

ID,

MT

, O

R,

WA

CA

, N

V

Eas

t

Can

ada

Mex

ico

Pac

ific

Coa

st

Pac

ific

Oce

an

Gul

f

Atla

ntic

Source Attribution Comparison for SO4 atRocky Mountain National Park, CO

In the current CMAQ modeled analysis, source attribution is defined only for mobile and point source emissions. SO4 not attributed to mobile or points sources is labeled "Other". Emissions not included in the identified categories are grouped as "Rest".

Trajectory regression analysis attributes monitoring results using back trajectories and residence times. Categories in grey do not directly correspond to categories listed in CMAQ TSSA analysis.

Sample Comparison for

Rocky Mountain NP

• Review similarities and differences between regions

• CO indicated as major contributor in both methods

• Gray bars represent categories that do not correspond between methods

CMAQ Tagged Specied Source Apportionment (TSSA)

Other Sources19%

International0%

US Regions7%

Boundary States74%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

CO

WY

UT

AZ

NM

ID,

MT

, O

R,

WA

CA

, N

V

Eas

t

Can

ada

Mex

ico

Initi

al

Bou

ndar

y

Oth

er

Res

t

Point Sources

Mobile Sources

Trajectory Regression Analysis

Other Sources22%

International10%

US Regions7%

Boundary States60%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%C

O

WY

UT

AZ

NM

ID,

MT

, O

R,

WA

CA

, N

V

Eas

t

Can

ada

Mex

ico

Pac

ific

Coa

st

Pac

ific

Oce

an

Gul

f

Atla

ntic

Source Attribution Comparison for SO4 atMesa Verde National Park, CO

In the current CMAQ modeled analysis, source attribution is defined only for mobile and point source emissions. SO4 not attributed to mobile or points sources is labeled "Other". Emissions not included in the identified categories are grouped as "Rest".

Trajectory regression analysis attributes monitoring results using back trajectories and residence times. Categories in grey do not directly correspond to categories listed in CMAQ TSSA analysis.

Sample Comparison for

Mesa Verde NP

• NM indicated as major contributor by TSSA

• 4 states indicated as equal contributors by Trajectory Regression

Sample Regional Grouping of CIAs

Sample Regional Emissions, Mass,

Extinction Summary

• Lower left map identifies CIAs and major NOx and SO2 source region

• Upper pie displays mass regional mass budget

• Lower right pie displays regional extinction budget (also expressed in deciviews)

Tagged Species Source Apportionment from Colorado to indicated Class I Areas

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Mou

nt Z

irkel

WM

esa

Ver

deN

PR

ocky

Mou

ntai

n N

PG

reat

San

dD

unes

NP

Mar

oon

Bel

ls-

Wem

inuc

he

WC

anyo

nlan

dsN

PC

hiric

ahua

NM

Sag

uaro

NP

- W

est

Sag

uaro

NP

- E

ast

Sup

erst

itio

nW

Maz

atza

l W

Sal

t C

reek

WW

hite

Mou

ntai

n W

San

Ped

roP

arks

WB

ande

lier

NM

Bos

que

del

Apa

che

W

Gila

W

Bad

land

sN

PW

ind

Cav

eN

P

CO UT AZ NM SD

Con

cent

ratio

n (u

g/m

3)

NO3

SO4

EC

Assessment of Class I AreasAffected by CO Emissions

Next Steps

• DRI and RMC to present results (Wed./Thu.)

• ARS to review report details with AoH (Thu.)

• Synthesize all Trajectory Regression and TSSA results

• Set schedule with AoH subcommittee to review report sections

• Draft report to AoH by mid-December