Weight of Evidence Approach: Soil and Coarse Mass Case Studies WRAP Workshop on Fire, Carbon, and Dust May 24, 2006

1
Weight of Evidence ApproachSoil and Coarse
Mass Case Studies WRAP Workshop on Fire,
Carbon, and DustMay 24, 2006

• Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

2
Outline

• Brief Overview of the WRAP Technical Support
  System (TSS)
• Weight of evidence (WOE) checklist
• Step through checklist with examples for Salt
  Creek
• Step through checklist with examples for Badlands

3
WRAP Technical Support System (TSS) Project Goals

• Provide a single web-based location for
• Access and display of technical data
• Display of analytical results
• The reference location for related documentation
  to support the regional haze implementation plans
• Provide analysis tools to
• Directly support AoH Phase 2 analyses
• Synthesize technical and contextual data and GIS
  layers
• Conduct analyses, and store results for
  subregional, local, and Class I area-specific
  regional haze planning
• Provide technical support documentation for WRAP
  regional haze implementation plans

4
Regional Analysis Results

• Regional overview of monitoring, modeling, and
  emissions data
• Regional overview of attribution results

http//vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/
5
Class I Area Analysis Tools

• Metadata Browser provides site information/maps
• Analysis Browser (regional and Class I area
  static)
• Data Query Wizard supports user direct download
  of various data types
• Trends Tool
• Composition Tool
• Data Browser (graphical review of various data
  types)
• Offsite Resources

http//vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/
6
TSS Documentation

• Documentation of data and analyses types will be
  place in the Methods section, accessible from the
  left-hand navigation pane in the TSS
• This documentation will be accessible through
  hyperlinks elsewhere on the TSS

http//vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/
7
Review of WOE Checklist Steps

1. Assemble summary of available information
2. Review RHR analysis of visibility conditions
3. Review analysis of visibility conditions by
   individual species
4. Review monitoring uncertainties and model
   performance for each species
5. Integrate information about each species
6. Investigate specific questions that arise in
   steps 2 6
7. Repeat steps 2 6 for various control strategies
8. Review available attribution information and
   determine which states need to consult about
   which Class I areas

8
WOE Products for Salt Creek, NM
9
Baseline Conditions at Salt Creek, NM
20 Worst Vis. Days Species Contribution
Sulfate High Nitrate High Organics Medium
EC Low CM High Soil Low
10
Distribution of Fine Soil Mass Salt Creek 2002
Low impact from Soil on most days
11
Distribution of Coarse Mass Salt Creek 2002
15 of 23 worst days show CM gt10 ug/m3
12
Regional Haze Rule Glide Path for Salt Creek
Model results for the 2018 base case do not
predict Salt Creeks visibility (in terms of
deciview) will be on or below the glide path
13
Species Glide Paths for Salt Creek
symbol represents 2018 model
prediction Sulfate and carbon generally follow
the glide path nitrate, soil and CM do not (CM
prediction is shown for reference only)
14
IMPROVE (top) vs. Model (bottom)
Model often under predicts measured extinction
largely due to poor performance of coarse mass
15
2002 Model Performance, Worst Days
Poor performance on some days Sulfate somewhat
low on average Nitrate, carbon, and soil low CM
shows very poor performance
16
Soil Glide Slope with Weighted Emissions
17
Coarse Mass Glide Slope with Weighted Em.
The modeling center recommends that we do not use
coarse mass modeling results
18
Calculating Weighted Emissions Potential for a
Class I Area

• Use annual average emissions
• Use residence times based on 3 5 years of 8-day
  back trajectories (20 worst days or all days)
• Very low residence time values have been ignored
• Results do not take into account chemical
  reactions, dispersion or deposition some
  correction required

19
Salt Creek Soil Total soil emissions X
residence time weighted emissions
potential Weighted emissions potential
represents most probable source region emissions
which contribute to soil at the selected
monitoring site.
These weighted emissions likely implicate too
large an area of influence
20
Salt Creek Coarse Mass Total CM emissions X
residence time weighted emissions
potential Weighted emissions potential
represents most probable source region emissions
which contribute to CM at the selected monitoring
site.
These weighted emissions likely implicate too
large an area of influence
21
WOE Products for Badlands, SD
22
Baseline Conditions at Badlands, SD
20 Worst Vis. Days Species Contribution
Sulfate High Nitrate Medium Organics Medium
EC Low CM Medium Soil Low
23
Distribution of Fine Soil Mass Badlands 2002
Low impact from Soil on all days
24
Distribution of Coarse Mass Badlands 2002
12 of 23 worst days show CM gt10 ug/m3
25
Regional Haze Rule Glide Path for Badlands
Model results for the 2018 base case do not
predict Badlands visibility (in terms of
deciview) will be on or below the glide path
26
Species Glide Paths for Badlands
symbol represents 2018 model
prediction POM, the second most significant
contributor, does not follow the glide path (CM
prediction is shown for reference only)
(Is this nitrate real?)
27
IMPROVE (top) vs. Model (bottom)
Seasonal variations in major species is
reasonably similar
28
2002 Model Performance, Worst Days
Sulfate and carbon somewhat low Nitrate and soil
somewhat high CM shows very poor performance
29
Soil Glide Slope with Weighted Emissions
30
Coarse Mass Glide Slope with Weighted Em.
The modeling center recommends that we do not use
coarse mass modeling results
31
Badlands Soil Total soil emissions X residence
time weighted emissions potential Weighted
emissions potential represents most probable
source region emissions which contribute to soil
at the selected monitoring site.
These weighted emissions likely implicate too
large an area of influence
32
Badlands Coarse Mass Total CM emissions X
residence time weighted emissions
potential Weighted emissions potential
represents most probable source region emissions
which contribute to CM at the selected monitoring
site.
These weighted emissions likely implicate too
large an area of influence