presented by: ralph morris wrap regional modeling center (rmc )

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


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


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


WRAP CMAQ and REMSAD Modeling Domains


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• Follow EPA draft guidance for projecting future-year visibility (EPA, 2001a,b,c)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)


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


-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


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)


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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



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



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



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



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



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)


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%


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


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


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%


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%


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%


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


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


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


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


Stationary Source NOx Emissions > 100 TPY


50% NOx Control on Ammonium Nitrate


1996 Annual (NH4)2NO3 @ IMPROVE Sites


% Light Extinction due to Nitrate W20%


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


Stationary Source PM10 Emissions > 100 TPY


50% PM10 Control on PM10


1996 Annual PM10 @ IMPROVE Sites


% Annual Extinction due to Coarse Matter


§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


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?

presented by: ralph morris wrap regional modeling center (rmc )

Documents