VISTAS

1
VISTAS Overview National RPO Meeting Denver,
CO Pat Brewer June 9, 2005
2
Draft 4/6/05
VISTAS Deliverables to State Implementation
Plans for Regional Haze
Observations, Conclusions, Recommendations Dec
04 - Dec 05
Delivered 2004
Natural Visibility and Reasonable Progress
Goals Jun Oct 05
Visibility PM2.5 Trends
Public Consultation 2005-2007
Site-Specific Descriptions Dec 04 Aug 05
Conceptual Description
Guidance to State Planning for Regional Haze
Dec 2005
Select Episodes Spring 05
Characterize Meteorology
Control Strategy Inventories Jun Oct 05
Utility Forecast 2009-2018 May 05
Emissions Inventories 2002, 2009, 2018
Strategy Demonstration 2006-2007
AQ Model Runs 2002, 2009, 2018 Dec 04 May 05
Reports and SIP Appendices 2006
Control Strategy AQ Model Runs Aug - Dec 05
Met, Em, and AQ Model protocol performance
2018 Control Strategy Design Apr - Oct 05
Economic Analyses Oct 2005
State Regulatory Decisions
Emission Sensitivities
Identify BART sources and control options
BART modeling protocol impacts Jan - Dec 05
BART control evaluation Jan Dec 05
BART controls 2005-2007
Inter-RPO-State 2005-2007
3
Acknowledgements

• Air Resource Specialists Data analysis and
  nephelometer support
• Alpine Geophysics Emissions Coordinator,
  emissions modeling
• Atmospheric Research Assoc. continuous
  speciated PM2.5 monitoring
• Baron Advanced Meteorological Systems
  meteorological modeling
• Desert Research Institute Carbon Analyses
• Earth Tech CALPUFF for BART
• ENVIRON emissions and air quality modeling
• E. H. Pechan and Associates emissions
  inventory
• Georgia Institute of Technology air quality
  modeling sensitivities
• Harvard University GEOS CHEM for CMAQ
  boundary conditions
• ICF Consulting Integrated Planning Model for
  utilities
• MACTEC emissions inventory and projections
• Systems Applications International
  characterize meteorology
• Ivar Tombach technical advisor
• Tennessee Valley Authority continuous
  speciated PM2.5 monitoring
• University of California Riverside emissions
  and air quality modeling

4
Acknowledgements to VISTAS Leaders
Mike Abraczinskas, NC Chris Arrington, WV Leigh
Bacon, AL Jim Boylan, GA George Bridgers,
NC John Calcagni, EPA Larry Garrison, KY Sheila
Holman, NC John Hornback, SESARM Brock Nicholson,
NC Rosalina Rodriguez, NC Tom Rogers, FL Scott
Reynolds, SC Renee Shealy, SC

5
(No Transcript)
6
Light Extinction on 20 Haziest Days - IMPROVE
2000 - 2002
250
200
CM
Soil
150
Organics
EC
Extinction (Mm-1)
NH4NO3
100
(NH4)2SO4
Rayleigh
50
0
Cadiz, KY
Sipsey, AL
Saint Marks, FL
Dolly Sods, WV
Everglades, FL
Okefenokee, GA
Shenandoah, VA
Linville Gorge, NC
Swan Quarter, NC
Cape Romain, SC
Shining Rock, NC
Mammoth Cave, KY
Chassahowitzka, FL
James Rvier Face, VA
Great Smoky Mtns, TN
7
Light Extinction on 20 Clearest Days - IMPROVE
2000 - 2002
CM
Soil
Organics
Extinction (Mm-1)
EC
NH4NO3
(NH4)2SO4
Rayleigh
Cadiz, KY
Sipsey, AL
Saint Marks, FL
Dolly Sods, WV
Everglades, FL
Okefenokee, GA
Shenandoah, VA
Linville Gorge, NC
Swan Quarter, NC
Cape Romain, SC
Shining Rock, NC
Mammoth Cave, KY
Chassahowitzka, FL
James Rvier Face, VA
Great Smoky Mtns, TN
8
2002 Quarterly Average Fine Particle Mass
IMPROVE sites
Fine Soil
EC
Fine Mass - mg/m3
OC
NH4NO3
(NH4)2SO4
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Cape Romain, SC
Everglades, FL
Mammoth Cave, KY
Great Smoky Mtn., TN
9
18 Class I areas in VISTAS states and monitor
locations
SEARCH
STN PM2.5 (selected)
10
2002 Quarter 3 Fine Particle Mass Southern
Appalachian Sites
25.0
20.0
Unidentified
Fine Soil
15.0
EC
Fine Particle Mass - mg/m3
Organics
10.0
NO3
NH4
5.0
SO4
0.0
IMPROVE SEARCH STN
Sipsey, AL
Atlanta, GA
Atlanta, GA
Cohutta, GA
Roanoke, VA
Knoxville, TN
Charlotte, NC
Louisville, KY
Dolly Sods, WV
Birmingham, AL
Birmingham, AL
Shenandoah, VA
Shining Rock, NC
Mammoth Cave, KY
Great Smoky Mtns, TN
IMPROVE NH4 is inferred from SO4 and NO3
11
VISTAS 2002 and 2018 InventoriesJune 9, 2005

• VISTAS States revised 2002 inventory (fall 2004)
• For other RPOs, use EPA 2001/02 inventories (fall
  2004)
• 2002 Typical (multi-year averages) for EGU and
  fire for VISTAS states
• For other RPOs, 2002 Typical 2002
• 2018 OTB (no CAIR) and OTW (with CAIR) emissions
  
• EGU projected by IPM model run
• 2018 fire same as 2002 typical fire
• Other sectors grown from VISTAS 2002 and EPA data
  available by Dec 04
• Todays results for base D inventory, base F
  underway

12
SO2 Point Sources emitting gt 5,000 tons per year
2002 Inventory
Annual SO2 emissions
250,000
125,000
25,000
13
Emission Projection Scenarios

• On the Books (OTB) (Promulgated as of July 1,
  2004)
• Atlanta / Northern Kentucky / Birmingham 1-hr
  ozone SIPs
• Combustion Turbine MACT
• Gulf Power SCR application
• Heavy Duty Diesel (2007) Engine Standard
• Industrial Boiler/Process Heater/RICE MACT
• Large Spark Ignition and Recreational Vehicle
  Rule
• Nonroad Diesel Rule
• North Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act
• NOx RACT in 1-hr NAA SIPs
• NOx SIP Call (Phase I)
• Petroleum Refinery Initiative
• RFP 3 Plans where in place for one hour plans
• TECO VEPCO Consent Agreements
• Tier 2 Tailpipe
• Title IV for Phase I and II EGUs
• VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year MACT Standards

14
Emission Projection Scenarios

• On the Way (OTW)
• OTB assumptions
• Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
• NOx SIP Call (Phase II)
• Used Integrated Planning Model to forecast future
  energy demand and emissions controls
• Todays results IPM run for MRPO and VISTAS
• Underway revised IPM run for 4 eastern RPOs

15
VISTAS Annual SO2 Emissions1
900
Miscellaneous
Nonroad
800
Onroad
2002 Typical
Industrial
700
Other Fuel Combustion
2018 OTB
EGU
2018 OTW
600
500
Annual SO2 (Thousand Tons)
400
300
200
100
0
1 April 2005 version
16
Annual NOx Emissions1
Larger NOx reductions projected from onroad
(Tier II) than EGU (NOx SIP call)
1 April 2005 version
17
VISTAS 12-km CMAQ Modeling Domain
18
VISTAS 2018 OTW base D ResultsJune 9, 2005

• CMAQ 36-km (with modified SOA module)
• Evaluate model performance by comparing 2002
  actual to observations for 20 best and worst
  days
• Compare modeled 2002 typical to 2018 OTW-d for
  20 best and worst days in 2002
• Evaluate alternative methods for calculating
  Relative Reduction Factors (RRF)
• Evaluate which sites meet reasonable progress in
  2018
• If not, why not?
• 2009 OTW-d results available mid June

19
Observed (left) and 2002 Typical (right) daily
extinction for Worst 20 days at Great Smoky
Mountains, TN/NC
20
Difference in 2018 OTWd and 2002 Typical daily
extinction for Worst 20 days at Great Smoky
Mountains, TN/NC
21
Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Path
Great Smoky Mountains NP (TN) - 20 Worst Days
2018 OTWd Projection
35
28.94
30
27.77
24.86
25
21.94
23.76
19.02
20
16.11
Haziness Index (Deciviews)
13.19
15
11.44
10
5
0
1989
1994
1999
2004
2009
2014
2019
2024
2029
2034
2039
2044
2049
2054
2059
2064
Year
Glide Path
Natural Condition (Worst Days)
Observation
Method 1B Prediction
22
Summary of Approaches

• Methods
• Average RRF Approach for Worst 20 Days
• Quarterly Average RRF Approach for Worst 20 (not
  done)
• Day-Specific RRF Approach for Worst 20 2002
  (Baseline C only)
• Weighted RRF Approach (Methods 4-2 and 4-3 only)
• Average Quarterly RRF using all Data (not done)
• Averaging of Extinction not dv (also changes
  Baseline)
• Baseline
• B. 2000-2003 4-Years in Official Baseline
• C. 2002 Meteorological Modeling Year
• Considerations
• ext use RRFs based on extinction not PM
  components
• wmpe do not use a PM component in the RRF on
  days when the pred/obs PM-species differ by over
  a factor of 2
• wmpe2 do not use any PM components in RRF on
  days when pred/obs bext gt factor of 2
• alt_b use alternative aerosol extinction
  equation (b) (more OC/less SO4)
• alt_c use EPRI alternative aerosol extinction
  equation (c)

23
2018 OTWd Visibility Projections Basic Methods
Great Smoky Mtns.
24
GRSM 2018 OTWd Visibility Projections Accounting
for Model Performance
25
GRSM 2018 OTWd Visibility Projections
Alternative Equations
Predictions of various methods for achieving
target reduction in HI
with and without alternative aerosol extinction
equations
OTWd for Worst 20 of days at GRSM1
Percent of target reduction achieved
26
Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide
Path Dolly Sods, WV 20 Worst Days
MRPO
VISTAS 2018 OTW-d
27
Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide
Path Shenandoah, VA 20 Worst Days
MRPO
VISTAS 2018 OTW-d
28
Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide
Path Mammoth Cave, KY 20 Worst Days
MRPO
VISTAS 2018 OTW-d
29
Percentage Reduction in 2018 (OTW-d) Compared to
Reasonable Progress Goal Southern Appalachian
Sites
Percent Reduction Achieved
Assumes Method IB average of 20 worst days in
2000-2003 with monthly RH
30
(No Transcript)
31
Observed (left) and 2002 Actual (right) daily
extinction for Worst 20 days at St. Marks,
Florida
At southeastern coastal sites, 20 worst days can
range from Jan to December
32
SAMA 2018 OTWd Projections Accounting for Model
Performance
Again, eliminating some poor performing days has
little effect on projections
33
Percentage Reduction in 2018 (OTW-d) Compared to
Reasonable Progress Goal Southern Coastal Sites
150
100
Percent Reduction Achieved
50
0
CHAS
SWAN
SAMA
EVER
ROMA
OKEF
34
Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide
Path Brigantine, NJ 20 Worst Days
MRPO
VISTAS 2018 OTW-d
35
Percentage Reduction in 2018 (OTW-d) Compared to
Reasonable Progress Goal Non-VISTAS Sites
Percent Reduction Achieved
36
2018 OTWd Annual Reasonable Progress
.
Preliminary Results
Likely to meet
.
May meet
Likely not met
Additional Analyses Needed
37
VISTAS 2018 Modeling ResultsJun 9, 2005

• Southern Appalachian sites projected to meet
  reasonable progress in 2018 with OTW-d.
• GRSM, SHEN, DOSO, JARI, LIGO, SHRO, COHU
• Western VISTAS sites borderline
• SIPS, MAMM exceed goal by lt10
• Coastal sites 20 worst days occur year-round
• CHAS, SWAN meet by lt10
• EVER, SAMA, miss goal by lt10
• ROMA, OKEF miss goal by gt10

38
VISTAS 2018 Modeling ResultsMay 9, 2005

• Neighboring non-VISTAS sites require additional
  analyses to determine if meet reasonable progress
  goals
• Brigantine, NJ Caney Creek, AR Hercules Glade,
  MO Mingo, AR Upper Buffalo, MO
• Potential reasons for not attaining goal
• Poor model performance on few days
• 20 worst visibility days in winter, elevated
  nitrate levels
• Fire inventory, NH3 inventory uncertainties
• Fewer CAIR reductions affecting Class I areas in
  AR, MO

39
VISTAS 2018 Modeling ResultsJun 9, 2005

• For ALL VISTAS and non-VISTAS sites, 2018 OTWd is
  projected to protect visibility on 20 Best days
  (no degradation)
• Details on UCR website, VISTAS modeling
• http//pah.cert.ucr.edu/vistas/vistas2

40
VISTAS 2018 Modeling ResultsApril 12, 2005

• Next Steps May - Jun 05
• Update inventories (including IPM rerun) BASE F
• Develop recommendations for calculating relative
  reduction factors
• Annual emissions sensitivities for 2018 OTW-d
• 30 reduction all elevated SO2 sources, by RPO
• Review SOA modifications and finalize module
• Compare VISTAS results to MRPO, MANE-VU, EPA

41
VISTAS 2018 Modeling ResultsApril 12, 2005

• Next Steps Jun Aug 05
• Rerun 2002 Typical and 2018 OTW with SOA mod and
  updated inventories
• Calculate relative reduction factors based on
  revised 2002 Typical and 2018 runs
• Consider alternative assumptions for natural
  background visibility and IMPROVE equation
• Identify sites likely to meet reasonable progress
  and sites for which additional control strategies
  might be needed
• Consider potential reductions due to BART
  controls (not final!)
• Summarize progress at August 17-18 meeting in
  Asheville
• Design control strategies and plan consultation
  process

42
Draft 4/6/05
VISTAS Deliverables to State Implementation
Plans for Regional Haze
Observations, Conclusions, Recommendations Dec
04 - Dec 05
Delivered 2004
Natural Visibility and Reasonable Progress
Goals Jun Oct 05
Visibility PM2.5 Trends
Public Consultation 2005-2007
Site-Specific Descriptions Dec 04 Aug 05
Conceptual Description
Guidance to State Planning for Regional Haze
Dec 2005
Select Episodes Spring 05
Characterize Meteorology
Control Strategy Inventories Jun Oct 05
Strategy Demonstration 2006-2007
Utility Forecast 2009-2018 May 05
Emissions Inventories 2002, 2009, 2018
Reports and SIP Appendices 2006
Control Strategy AQ Model Runs Aug - Dec 05
AQ Model Runs 2002, 2009, 2018 Dec 04 May 05
Met, Em, and AQ Model protocol performance
Economic Analyses Oct 2005
2018 Control Strategy Design Apr - Oct 05
State Regulatory Decisions
Emission Sensitivities
Identify BART sources and control options
BART modeling protocol impacts Jan - Dec 05
BART control evaluation Jan Dec 05
BART controls 2005-2007
Inter-RPO-State 2005-2007
43
VISTAS BART Activities

• VISTAS States have drafted lists of BART-eligible
  sources (/- 318 facilities)
• VISTAS has drafted BART modeling protocol to
  establish common procedures across VISTAS States
• VISTAS is hiring Earth Tech to recommend final
  protocol and to develop common CALMET data fields
• Optional task to run CALPUFF for selected BART
  eligible sources to determine if subject to BART
• Optional task to run CALPUFF to demonstrate
  visibility benefit of BART control measures for
  specific sources

44
VISTAS BART Activities

• After EPA finalizes BART guidance (Jun 15,
  2005?), States will finalize list of
  BART-eligible sources and VISTAS BART protocol
• Recommend screening approach to determine if run
  CALPUFF run to demonstrate that a BART-eligible
  source is subject to BART
• Visibility benefits of control measures for
  sources subject to BART will be evaluated
• Engineering analyses of feasibility, costs
• States determine BART control measures to be
  included in regional haze SIP

45
BART Requirements

• States or EPA may establish an emissions
  trading program as alternative to BART .. BUT,
• trading program must demonstrate greater
  visibility improvement than source-specific
  controls.
• Is Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) sufficient to
  meet BART requirements for electric utilities?