Reasonable

1
Reasonable Progress Improving Visibility Septemb
er 6, 2006
2
Regional Haze Rule Demonstrating Reasonable
Progress

• Compare baseline visibility conditions to natural
  background conditions
• Identify uniform rate of progress
• Identify improvement achieved by 2018
• Identify measures needed to achieve reasonable
  progress
• Definition of reasonable based on statutory
  factors
• Consult with other states and FLM

3
Demonstrating Reasonable Progress

• States can determine one of three
• Uniform Rate of Progress is reasonable
• Doing more than URP is reasonable
• Doing less than URP is reasonable
• All determinations must be measured against the
  statutory factors

4
Demonstrate Reasonable Progress for VISTAS Class
I areas

• Baseline Conditions and Uniform Rate of Progress
• Pollutant Contributions
• Meteorological Influences
• Source Areas of Influence
• Modeled Progress in 2018 compared to Uniform Rate
  of Progress
• BART controls
• Additional control options
• Statutory factors
• Consultation

5
Demonstrating Reasonable Progress

• For each VISTAS Class I area
• Establish baseline visibility and uniform rate of
  progress
• For BRET, COHU, SAMA, SHRO, SWAN, filled missing
  data in 2000-2004 data set
• To calculate visibility and natural background,
  state can choose to use newly revised IMPROVE
  equation as well as original IMPROVE equation

6
Average Mass for 20 Worst Vsibility Days
2000-2004
30
25
CM
Soil
20
EC
Mass (µg/m3)
POM
15
NH4NO3
10
(NH4)2SO4
5
0
7
Average Extinction for 20 Worst Extinction Days
2000-2004
250
200
150
Extinction (Mm-1 )
100
50
0
8
Average Extinction for 20 Best Extinction Days
2000-2004
0
9
Uniform Rate of Progress Glide Path
Sipsey Wilderness (AL) - 20 Worst Days
30
27.71
26.35
23.91
25
21.18
20
18.46
Haziness Index (Deciviews)
15.74
15
13.02
11.39
10
5
0
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
2028
2032
2036
2040
2044
2048
2052
2056
2060
2064
Year
Glide Path
Natural Condition (Worst Days)
Observation
10
Glide Path to Natural Conditions (2004-2064)
SIPSEY
(5-yr Rolling Average for 20 Haziest Days - New
IMPROVE equation and NB II )
35
Default Glide Path SIPS
New Glide Path SIPS
Default 5-yr Rolling Avg SIPS
New 5-yr Rolling Avg SIPS
Annual g90 - Old
Annual g90 - New
30
25
20
Deciviews (dv)
15
10
5
Base old Base new Default NB
NB2
Sipsey 27.7 29.0 11.49 dv
11.1dv
0
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
2052
2054
2056
2058
2060
2062
2064
1986-1990
1988-1992
1990-1994
1992-1996
1994-1998
1996-2000
1998-2002
2000-2004
From VIEWS website
11
Uniform Rate of Progress Glide Path
Everglades NP (FL) - 20 Worst Days
30
25
21.00
20.88
20
18.96
17.06
Haziness Index (Deciviews)
15.42
13.78
15
12.14
11.15
10
5
0
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
2028
2032
2036
2040
2044
2048
2052
2056
2060
2064
Year
Glide Path
Observation
Base f4a Projection
Natural Condition (Worst Days)
12
Glide Path to Natural Conditions (2004-2064)
EVERGLADES
(5-yr Rolling Average for 20 Haziest Days - New
IMPROVE equation and NB II )
35
Default Glide Path EVER
New Glide Path EVER
Default 5-yr Rolling Avg EVER
New 5-yr Rolling Avg EVER
Annual g90 - Old
Annual g90 - New
30
25
20
Deciviews (dv)
15
10
5
Base old Base new
Default NB NB2
Everglades NP 21.4 22.3
11.13 dv 12.3 dv
0
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
2052
2054
2056
2058
2060
2062
2064
1986-1990
1988-1992
1990-1994
1992-1996
1994-1998
1996-2000
1998-2002
2000-2004
13
Demonstrating Reasonable Progress

• For each VISTAS Class I area
• Identify pollutant contributions on the 20 worst
  and best days

14
Observed Extinction on 20 Worst Days in 2002
Sipsey, AL
300
250
200
bCM
bSOIL
Bext (1/Mm)
bEC
150
bOC
bNO3
bSO4
100
50
0
122
131
143
152
155
161
185
188
191
215
218
221
224
251
254
260
263
284
296
332
338
341
2002 Avg
Julian Day
Jan 2006
15
Observed Extinction on 2002 20 Best days at
Sipsey, AL
80
60
bCM
bSOIL
bEC
bEXT (1/Mm)
bOC
40
bNO3
bSO4
20
0
11
14
26
32
59
77
89
113
116
167
176
179
212
230
302
308
335
347
356
359
362
Julian Day in Best 20 group
Jan 2006
16
Observed Extinction on 2002 20 Worst Days
Everglades, AL
140
120
100
bCM
80
bSOIL
bEC
Bext (1/Mm)
bOC
60
bNO3
bSO4
40
20
0
5
35
44
56
74
77
95
98
113
116
125
128
152
158
218
236
257
281
290
305
311
332
341
350
Avg
Julian Day
Jan 2006
17
(No Transcript)
18
Demonstrating Reasonable Progress

• 2. Identify pollutant contributions on the 20
  worst days
• Sulfate dominates on most 20 worst days
• Nitrate important on some winter days (e.g.
  Sipsey)
• Organic carbon important on some days
• At EVER elevated OC in July likely fire influence
• Soil important at EVER on one Sep day

19
Demonstrating Reasonable Progress

• For each VISTAS Class I area
• 3. Identify meteorological influences

20
Classifying Days using Visibility, Meteorology,
and PM2.5

• Classification and Regression Tree (CART)
  analyses
• Classify days based on extinction coefficient
• 5 classes defined for each site
• 20th, 50th, 80th, and 95th percentiles
• 2000-2004 data
• 21 IMPROVE, 8 SEARCH, 16 STN sites

21
Meteorological Influences for Visibility and
PM2.5 at Sipsey, AL

• In general, poor visibility for SIPSEY is
  associated with
• High temperatures
• High relative humidity
• High PM2.5 on the previous day (at upwind sites)
• Low wind speeds (surface and aloft)
• SW winds aloft and ESE winds near the surface
• Poor visibility regimes are associated with high
  SO4 and moderate OM concentrations

22
Meteorological Categories Contributing to
Visibility at Sipsey, AL
Surface Characteristics All Days (2000-2003)/5
Ex. Coeff. Categories

Birmingham
23
Compositional Analyses for Key Visibility Bins
Sipsey, AL

24
Demonstrating Reasonable Progress

• For each VISTAS Class I area
• Identified probable source areas using back
  trajectories and residence time plots
• Trajectories based on winds only
• Residence time plots
• Residence time plots weighted by visibility
  impact

25
Back Trajectories for 20 Worst Days for
2002 Sipsey
26
Residence Time 2000-2003 20 Worst Days Sipsey
27
(No Transcript)
28
Back Trajectories for 20 Worst Days for
2002 Everglades, FL
29
Residence Time 2000-2003 20 Worst Days
Everglades
30
Demonstrating Reasonable Progress

• For VISTAS domain
• Develop emissions inventories for 2002, 2009,
  2018
• 2002 follows Continuous Emissions Reporting Rule
• Future year base case assumes existing On the Way
  (OTW) rules including CAIR CAMR

31
2009 and 2018 Emission Projections

• Clean Air Interstate Rule Clean Air Mercury
  Rule
• NOx SIP Call
• NC Clean Smokestacks Act
• Consent Agreements (TECO, VEPCO, Gulf Power Crist
  7)
• 1-hr ozone SIPs (Atlanta / Birmingham / Northern
  Kentucky)
• NOx RACT
• Heavy Duty Diesel (2007) Engine Standard
• Tier 2 Tailpipe
• Large Spark Ignition and Recreational Vehicle
  Rule
• Nonroad Diesel Rule
• Industrial Boiler/Process Heater/RICE MACT
• Combustion Turbine MACT
• VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year MACT Standards

32
Demonstrating Reasonable Progress

• 2009 and 2018 Base Case Inventories
• Base F used EGU emissions from Integrated
  Planning Model (IPM) assuming regional least-cost
  trading
• Base G replaced IPM EGU with facility-specific
  control plans provided as available by VISTAS and
  MRPO states (retain IPM for CENRAP and MANE-VU)
• Other point, area, mobile corrections
• Offshore marine emissions
• 2005 NONROAD model

33
SO2 Point Sources emitting gt 5,000 tons per year
2002 Inventory
Annual SO2 emissions
250,000
125,000
25,000
34
Annual SO2 Emissions Base F2002 Typical vs 2018
700
Miscellaneous
Nonroad
Onroad
600
Industrial
Other Fuel Combustion
EGU
500
400
Annual SO2 (Thousand Tons)
300
200
100
0
Florida
Virginia
Alabama
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
West Virginia
35
Annual SO2 Emissions in VISTAS States Base G
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
Annual SO2 Emissions (tons)
200,000
100,000
0
AL
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
SC
TN
VA
WV
36
Demonstrating Reasonable Progress

• Air Quality Modeling with CMAQ
• Demonstrated CMAQ model performance meets VISTAS
  goals or criteria

37
VISTAS 12-km CMAQ Modeling Domain
ENVIRON, Alpine Geophysics, University
California, Riverside
38
(No Transcript)
39
MFB After SOA Module
40
Observations (L) vs 36km CMAQ 2002 Actual Base E
(R) 2002 20 Worst days at Sipsey, AL
300
250
200
bCM
bSOIL
bEC
bEXT (1/Mm)
150
bOC
bNO3
bSO4
100
50
0
122
131
143
152
155
161
185
188
191
215
218
221
224
251
254
260
263
284
296
332
338
341
_
_
_
Julian Day in Worst 20 group
41
Demonstrating Reasonable Progress

• Air Quality Modeling with CMAQ
• Demonstrated CMAQ model performance meets VISTAS
  goals or criteria
• Applied CMAQ air quality model for On the Way
  (OTW) controls (including CAIR CAMR)
• At Sipsey, reductions are greater than uniform
  rate of progress
• At Everglades, reductions do not achieve uniform
  rate of progress

42
Bext Response (2018 f4a - 2002 ft4a) on Worst 20
Days in 2002 Sipsey, AL
20
0
-20
bCM
bSOIL
Delta Bext (1/Mm)
bEC
-40
bOC
bNO3
bSO4
-60
-80
-100
122
131
143
152
155
161
185
188
191
215
218
221
224
251
254
260
263
284
296
332
338
341
Avg
Julian Day
43
Uniform Rate of Progress Glide Path
Sipsey Wilderness (AL) - 20 Worst Days
30
27.71
26.35
23.91
25
25.59
23.55
21.18
20
18.46
Haziness Index (Deciviews)
15.74
15
13.02
11.39
10
5
0
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
2028
2032
2036
2040
2044
2048
2052
2056
2060
2064
Year
Glide Path
Natural Condition (Worst Days)
Observation
Base f4a Projection
44
Uniform Rate of Progress Glide Path
Everglades NP (FL) - 20 Worst Days
30
25
21.00
20.18
20.88
18.70
20
18.96
17.06
Haziness Index (Deciviews)
15.42
13.78
15
12.14
11.15
10
5
0
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
2028
2032
2036
2040
2044
2048
2052
2056
2060
2064
Year
Glide Path
Observation
Base f4a Projection
Natural Condition (Worst Days)
45
2018 Visibility Projections Base F4
Comparison of Method 1 Predictions
160
150
140
Base f4A with 00-04
Base f4A with 00-04
130
and new IMPROVE
120
110
100
Percent of target reduction achieved
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
JARI1
LIGO1
SIPS1
BRIG1
MING1
SHEN1
CHAS1
EVER1
OKEF1
BRET1
CACR1
HEGL1
UPBU1
COHU1
DOSO1
MACA1
SHRO1
SAMA1
GRSM1
ROMA1
SWAN1
Mountain Sites
Coastal Sites
Other Sites
Jan 2006
46
2018 Base F4 Uniform Rate of Progress Assessment
.
.
Hercules Glade, MO
.
.
.
.
.
47
Demonstrating Reasonable Progress

• Air Quality Modeling with CMAQ
• Demonstrated CMAQ model performance meets VISTAS
  goals or criteria
• Applied CMAQ air quality model for On the Way
  (OTW) controls (including CAIR CAMR)
• Emissions Sensitivities additional reductions
  after CAIR

48
(No Transcript)
49
Utility SO2 Contributions, by State and Region,
to SO4 at Sipsey, AL
Using 2009 Emissions and CMAQ model run for June
2002
Other Eastern US 11
AL 20
Midwest 10
Northeast 1
FL 5
Central 4
WV 4
VA 1
GA 18
TN 10
SC 4
KY 5
NC 3
MS 4
50

Does not include KY, WV, CENRAP, MRPO
51
Demonstrating Reasonable Progress

• Evaluate sources within area of influence
• Sept 2005 analyzed sources with 200 km area of
  each Class I area
• Sept 2006 analyze sources within impact-weighted
  area of influence
• For major source categories and for largest
  individual sources, what emissions remain after
  OTW CAIR/CAMR controls, what are potential
  future control options, and what are costs?
• States are reviewing options to determine what
  control assumptions to consider in emissions
  sensitivity/strategy modeling

52
Limited Geography AnalysisCounties within 200km
of SIPS
53
Source Type 2018 Base FAnnual Emissions
(Percent) - SIPS
54
Source Type 2018 BaseFAnnual Emissions (Percent)
- SIPS
55
Source Type 2002 to 2018 Base FAnnual Emissions
Change - SIPS
56
Top SO2 Emitting Sources - SIPS
Sep 2005
57
Top SO2 Emitting Sources - GRSM
Note 4 non-EGU on top SO2 list
Indicates BART source
Sep 2005
58
Based on AirControlNET, costs of controls
calculated for all point sources within
geographic area of influence for each Class I
area. States will define what additional
controls would be reasonable
For example
100,000 ton reduction at 1,450 per ton 150,000
ton reduction at 2,500 per ton
Apr 2006
59
Demonstrating Reasonable Progress- Work Underway

• 8. What will be the benefits of BART controls?
• Sources subject to BART defined by States in fall
  2006.
• For each source subject to BART, states and
  source define BART control options, costs,
  impacts
• BART controls will not be determined in time to
  include in control strategy fall 2006
• Consider BART sources in Area of Influence
  analysis

60
Demonstrating Reasonable Progress- Work to Do

• 9. Evaluate candidate control measures beyond
  CAIR and BART using 4 statutory factors
• AIRControlNet (model of control costs) used to
  define costs of control technologies for point
  source categories

61
Demonstrating Reasonable Progress

• Statutory factors
• Cost of compliance
• Time necessary for compliance
• Energy and non-air quality environmental impacts
  of compliance
• Remaining useful life of any existing source
  subject to such requirements

62
Demonstrating Reasonable Progress- Work to Do

• 11. Define control strategies to run in CMAQ
• State supply package of controls to be tested
• What about international emissions?
• What about fire?

63
Demonstrating Reasonable Progress

• Consider influence of international emissions
• Global (GEOS-CHEM) and regional (CMAQ) model
  estimate contribution from non-U.S. emissions
• Do not add international emissions to natural
  background
• Consider how international emissions influence
  rate of progress

64
Demonstrating Reasonable Progress

• Consider role of fire
• Prescribed fire important management tool,
  particularly in southern pine forests
• States address in SIP

65
Demonstrating Reasonable Progress- Work to Do

• 12. State define reasonable control measures
  and demonstrate visibility benefits for
  reasonable progress for each Class I area
• Meet, exceed, or fall short of uniform rate of
  progress
• Support with discussion of 4 statutory factors
• 13. Consult with FLM and other states
• 14. Submit reasonable progress definition as part
  of the SIP

66
Meteorological Influences for Visibility and
PM2.5 at Everglades, FL

• In general, poor visibility for EVERGLADES is
  associated with
• High temperatures (but no increasing tendency)
• High relative humidity (also no tendency)
• High PM2.5 on the previous day (at upwind sites)
• Low wind speeds (again no tendency)
• W winds aloft and NE winds near the surface)
• Poor visibility regimes are associated with high
  SO4 and moderate to high OM concentrations

67
Meteorological Categories Contributing to
Visibility at Everglades, FL
Surface Characteristics All Days (2000-2003)/5
Ex. Coeff. Categories

Palm Beach
68
Compositional Analyses for Key Visibility Bins
EVERGLADES