reasonable progress demonstration case study (dec 7, 2006) analysis done for dec 7, 2006 wrap iwg...

Reasonable Progress DemonstrationCase Study (Dec 7, 2006)

• Analysis done for Dec 7, 2006 WRAP IWG meeting• Starkey (STAR1) monitoring site in northeast OR• Serves as the representative site for the Eagle Cap

and Strawberry Mountain Class I aresStarkeyStrawberry Mtn Eagle Cap

Source: COHA Source: COHASource: VIEWS

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Images/Photos/IMPROVE/STAR1/STAR1_2005_N_IN.JPG

Proposed Format for Demonstrating

Reasonable Progress

Regional Haze Rule• Promulgated in 1999• Requires states to set RPGs based on 4 statutory factors

and consideration of a URP• URP = 20% reduction in manmade haze (dv) per planning

period (10 years)• URP heavily dependent on:

– Assumptions regarding future natural conditions– Contribution of non-WRAP sources to baseline– Representativeness of 2000-04 baseline

• 24 of the 77 Class I sites have no more than 3 years of data in baseline period

– These issues more accute in the West

Why A Species-Based Approach?

• Isolate some of the URP issues previously noted• Species differ significantly from one another in

their:– Contribution to visibility impairment– Spatial and seasonal distributions– Source types– Contribution from natrual and international sources– Emissions data quality– Atmospheric science quality– Tools available for assessment and projection

SO2 NOx OC CM

Emission Sources

Almost entirely anthro.

Mostly point sources.

Mostly anthro.

Mix of combustion sources.

Diverse.

Mix of anthro, fire, and biogenic VOCs.

Diverse.

Very difficult to partition wb dust into nat/anthro.

Emissions Data Quality

Very good overall.

Activity data less good for area sources.

Good.Activity data less good, some coding concerns w/ smaller point, area, and O&G sources.

Fair.Good activity data & conf. in PM2.5 emissions, but uncertain spec. of PM2.5 & bio. VOCs.

Poor, except for some locales.Categorically complete but accuracy very uncertain.

Emission Projections

Very good.

Uncertain about area sources.

Good.

Uncertain about offshore and O&G.

Fair.

What to expect from fire?

Fair.

What to expect from wb dust?

Atmospheric Science Quality

Very good.

Meteorology probably largest uncertainty.

Fair.

Chemistry more complex, but meteorology too.

Fair.

Most complex, least understood, but model perf. OK.

Fair.

No major chemistry, but model resolution, met. insufficient.

WRAP Tools Emission Inv.

CMAQ Proj.

PSAT Apport.

Emission Inv.

CMAQ Proj.

PSAT Apport.

Emission Inv.

CMAQ Proj.

PMF, WEP.

Emission Inv.

Causes of Dust.

WEP.

What Is A Potential Process?

• For each site and species …• Estimate progress expected from Base Case + BART

in 2018• Determine any other LTSs which may be reasonable

for that pollutant and recalculate 2018 species concentration

• Add up improvements from all species into dv• This becomes the RPG for the 20% worst days• Explain why this is less than URP

– Large international and natural contributions, large uncertainties in dust inventory preclude action, etc.

Determine URP for a species

IsBase+BART

projection better than

URP?

IsWRAPAnthro

reduction> 20%?

Are thereany importantuncontrolled

sources?

Are thereany important

uncontrolled orundercontrolled

sources?

Repeat for other species.

Evaluate emission & airquality trends more closely

Identify LTSs for thesesources considering the4 RPG and other factors

identified in the RHR.

Adopt, commit to adopt, orcommit to further evaluation.

Determine reductions at C1A.

Add up all species reductionsto get a RPG for worst days.

Eplain why it’s less than defaultURP but still reasonable.Set goal for best days.

Y

Y Y

N*

N N

N

Y

* Note, if no LTS beyond BART is developed, then the 4 RPG factorsare inherently taken into account via BART.

Interstate coop key.

Determining Non-BART LTSs

• Determine species glidepath and 2018 URP value• Estimate progress expected from Base Case +

BART in 2018• If progress is better than or equal to 2018 URP:

– Check inventory for “important sources” which may be uncontrolled

• If progress is worse than 2018 URP, but WRAP antho contribution declines by at least 20%:– Check inventory for important sources which may be

uncontrolled

Determining Non-BART LTSs

• If progress is worse than 2018 URP, and WRAP antho contribution declines by less than 20%:– Evaluate air quality & emission trends in more detail– Check inventory for important sources which may be

uncontrolled or undercontrolled– Identify LTSs for these sources considering the 4

RPG factors and 7 LTS factors, where applicable– Either adopt these strategies, commit to adopting

them post 2007, or commit to evaluating them further

“Important Sources”

• Identified and qualitatively ranked based on some or all of the following:– Size, proximity, current/potential degree of control,

feasibility of control, cost effectiveness, etc.• If point sources important, identify ~10 facilities• If area sources important, identify 3-5 categories

• Identification of important sources should not be limitted by state boundaries

Case Study

Eagle Cap / Strawberry MountainBaseline Extinction Budget

Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Monitoring >> Composition

Eagle Cap / Strawberry MountainSpecies Trends and URP Glidepaths

Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Monitoring >> Time Series

Upwind Residence TimeOn 20% Wost Visibility Days (2000-04)

Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potential

Ammonium Nitrate (NO3)

NO3

• Is the Base+BART projection better than URP?– Yes: CMAQ base case projections for 2018 show a

25% reduction in extinction due to NO3.• Results do not yet include BART• Results not yet available on TSS

– Precise projection method not yet finalized

• WRAP anthro reduction is 33%– See PSAT results on next slide

NO3

• Are there any important uncontrolled upwind sources?– Use TSS to examine inventory upwind

• PSAT results• PMF results• WEP results• Emission inventories

NO3 PSAT Results2002 and 2018 base cases

Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> SOx/NOx Tracer

STAR PMF Apportionment of NitrateWorst Visibility Days (2001-2004)

Smoke19%

Dust0%

Sulfate-rich Secondary

54%

Road Dust/Mobille15%

Nitrate-rich Secondary/Mobile

12%

Source: Chart made after manipulation of data posted on WRAP Causes of Hase Website:http://coha.dri.edu/web/general/tools_PMFModeling.html

http://coha.dri.edu/web/general/tools_PMFModeling.html


Sources and Areas of Potential Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Influence2000-2004 Baseline for Starkey, OR

20% Worst Visibility Days

0.1

6.6

0.04.2

0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0

57.8

0.0 0.1

25.1

0.02.3

0.0 0.0 0.02.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Arizon

a

Califo

rnia

Colora

doId

aho

Mon

tana

Nevad

a

New M

exico

North

Dak

ota

Orego

n

South

Dak

ota

Utah

Was

hingt

on

Wyo

ming

Pacific

Offs

hore

CENRAP

Easte

rn U

S

Mex

ico

Canad

a

Per

cen

t o

f T

ota

l D

ista

nce

Wei

gh

ted

Em

is x

Res

Tim

e

Biogenic Natural Fire Point Area WRAP Area O&G Off-Shore

On-Road Mobile Off-Road Mobile Road Dust Fugitive Dust WB Dust Anthro Fire

NO3 WEP Results (2000-04)

Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

Sources and Areas of Potential Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Influence2018 Projections for Starkey, OR


0.15.1

0.04.7

0.5 0.6 0.0 0.0

61.9

0.0 0.1

20.4

0.02.8

0.0 0.0 0.03.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Arizon

a

Califo

rnia

Colora

doId

aho

Mon

tana

Nevad

a

New M

exico

North

Dak

ota

Orego

n

South

Dak

ota

Utah

Was

hingt

on

Wyo

ming

Pacific

Offs

hore

CENRAP

Easte

rn U

S

Mex

ico

Canad

a

Per

cen

t o

f T

ota

l D

ista

nce

Wei

gh

ted

Em

is x

Res

Tim

e



NO3 WEP Results (2018)


OR NOx Emissions

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Point

Area

WRAP A

rea

O&G

Off-Shore

On-Road

Mobile

Off-Road

Mobile

Road D

ust

Fugitive

Dust

WB D

ust

Anthro

Fire

Natura

l Fire

Biogen

ic

Total

Anthro

To

ns

Pe

r Y

ea

r

2002 (tpy) 2018 (tpy)

-38%

Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Emissions

Source Category PSAT WEP Notes

Boundary conditions Outside state authority.

High uncertainty.

OR, WA mobile sources

Note large reductions (53% in PSAT).

OR point sources* Boardman EGU largest source, but BART not yet determined.

ID mobile sources Note large reductions (61% in PSAT).

ID area sources* Large wood-fired boiler emissions.

Data should be checked.

Most Likely NOx Sources Significantly Contributing to NO3at STAR On the 20% Worst Visibility Days

* See following slides.

Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal Portland General Electric Company 9,418Wood/Bark Waste Fort James Operating Company 520

Roseburg Forest Products Co. 1,059Smurfit Newsprint Corporation 802Boise Cascade Corporation 527

Natural Gas Boise Cascade Corporation 749Cement Manufacturing (Dry Process) Ash Grove Cement Company 2,290Sulfate (Kraft) Pulping Boise Cascade Corporation 843

Fort James Operating Company 706Pope & Talbot, Inc. 430Georgia-Pacific West, Inc. 413Weyerhaeuser Company 392

Natural Gas Future Natural Gas EGU (COB Energy Facility) 1,880Future Natural Gas EGU (PGE Port Westward) 1,153Future Natural Gas EGU (Klamath Generating) 887

Natural Gas Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation 524

NOx Sources > 500 tpy in the 2018Oregon Point Source Pivot Table

Source: WRAP website: Emissions Forum pivot tables: http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/pivot.html

http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/pivot.html


* Emission maps not yet available on TSS. Hence, the above map is used as a placeholder and is for illustration purposes only. This map was obtained from the Causes of Haze website.

1996 Point Source NOx Emissions*

Illustr

ation O

nly

Pollutant NOXState ID

Sum of EmissionsSCC1_DESC SCC3_DESC SCC6_DESC SCC8_DESC TotalStationary Source Fuel Combustion Industrial Wood Total: All Boiler Types 22,057

Bituminous/Subbituminous CoalTotal: All Boiler Types 1,631Distillate Oil Total: Boilers and IC Engines 1,508Natural Gas Total: Boilers and IC Engines 1,067Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) 160Residual Oil 2Kerosene 1

Residential Natural Gas Residential Furnaces 958Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) 421Distillate Oil Total: All Combustor Types 190Wood Total: Woodstoves and Fireplaces 170

Commercial/Institutional Natural Gas Total: Boilers and IC Engines 739Distillate Oil Total: Boilers and IC Engines 273Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) 99Bituminous/Subbituminous CoalTotal: All Boiler Types 99Kerosene 2

Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery Open Burning 919Miscellaneous Area Sources 23Grand Total 30,318

2002 Idaho Area Source NOx Emissions




Pollutant NOXState ID

Sum of EmissionsSCC1_DESC SCC3_DESC SCC6_DESC SCC8_DESC TotalStationary Source Fuel Combustion Industrial Wood Total: All Boiler Types 31,803

Distillate Oil Total: Boilers and IC Engines 1,892Bituminous/Subbituminous CoalTotal: All Boiler Types 1,683Natural Gas Total: Boilers and IC Engines 1,325Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) 180Residual Oil 9Kerosene 1

Residential Natural Gas Residential Furnaces 1,508Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) 511Wood Total: Woodstoves and Fireplaces 177Distillate Oil Total: All Combustor Types 95

Commercial/Institutional Natural Gas Total: Boilers and IC Engines 1,054Distillate Oil Total: Boilers and IC Engines 348Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) 113Bituminous/Subbituminous CoalTotal: All Boiler Types 108Kerosene 2

Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery Open Burning Residential Household Waste (use 26-10-000-xxx for Yard Wastes)1,227Miscellaneous Area Sources 31Grand Total 42,068


2018 Idaho Area Source NOx Emissions



Ammonium Sulfate (SO4)

SO4

• Is the Base+BART projection better than URP?– No: CMAQ base case projections for 2018 show only a 1%

reduction in extinction due to SO4.• Sources outside the WRAP have a large influence• Results not yet available on TSS

• Is WRAP anthro reduction > 20%?– No: PSAT apportionment shows only a 10% reduction from

WRAP anthro SO2 sources• BART not yet included, but may likely increase reduction

to 20%• Major reductions at Centralia “missed” by selection of

2002 as the base year

SO4


• PSAT results• PMF results• WEP results• Emission inventories

SO4 PSAT Results 2002 and 2018 base cases

Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> SOx/NOx Tracer

STAR PMF Apportionment of SulfateWorst Visibility Days (2001-2004)

Smoke0%

Dust11%


79%

Road Dust/Mobille4%


6%




Sources and Areas of Potential Sulfur Oxide Emissions Influence2000-2004 Baseline for Starkey, OR


0.0 2.0 0.0 1.7 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0

70.6

0.0 0.0

15.9

0.04.1

0.0 0.0 0.05.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Arizon

a

Califo

rnia

Colora

doId

aho

Mon

tana

Nevad

a

New M

exico

North

Dak

ota

Orego

n

South

Dak

ota

Utah

Was

hingt

on

Wyo

ming

Pacific

Offs

hore

CENRAP

Easte

rn U

S

Mex

ico

Canad

a

Per

cen

t o

f T

ota

l D

ista

nce

Wei

gh

ted

Em

is x

Res

Tim

e



SO4 WEP Results (2000-04)


Sources and Areas of Potential Sulfur Oxide Emissions Influence2018 Projections for Starkey, OR


0.0 2.1 0.0 1.1 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0

73.5

0.0 0.0

13.8

0.03.8

0.0 0.0 0.04.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Arizon

a

Califo

rnia

Colora

doId

aho

Mon

tana

Nevad

a

New M

exico

North

Dak

ota

Orego

n

South

Dak

ota

Utah

Was

hingt

on

Wyo

ming

Pacific

Offs

hore

CENRAP

Easte

rn U

S

Mex

ico

Canad

a

Per

cen

t o

f T

ota

l D

ista

nce

Wei

gh

ted

Em

is x

Res

Tim

e



SO4 WEP Results (2018)


OR SO2 Emissions

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

Point

Area

WRAP A

rea

O&G

Off-Shore

On-Road

Mobile

Off-Road

Mobile

Road D

ust

Fugitive

Dust

WB D

ust

Anthro

Fire

Natura

l Fire

Biogen

ic

Total

Anthro

To

ns

Pe

r Y

ea

r

2002 (tpy) 2018 (tpy)


Source Category PSAT WEP Notes

Boundary Conditions Outside state authority.

High uncertainty.

Offshore shipping Outside state authority.

WA point sources* See Centralia trends to follow. BART not yet included at other WA sources.

OR point sources* See following table. Nearly all emissions are from BART sources.

OR area* See following table, esp. diesel orchard heaters and industrial oil combustion.

OR and WA mobile Note large reductions (83% in PSAT).

Canadian point Outside state authority.

Most Likely SO2 Sources Significantly Contributing to SO4at STAR On the 20% Worst Visibility Days

* See following slides.

SO2 Sources > 500 tpy in the 2018Washington Point Source Pivot Table

Centralia SO2 Emission Trends

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

SO

2 T

on

s P

er Y

ear

Base Case Modeling Year

Source: EPA Clean Air Markets Division Website

Significant progress made in WA point sources not reflectedin choice of base case years (2002 and 2018).

SO2 Sources > 500 tpy in the 2018Oregon Point Source Pivot Table


Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal Portland General Electric Company 14,917Wood/Bark Waste Smurfit Newsprint Corporation 831Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal Amalgamated Sugar Company, The 503Sulfate (Kraft) Pulping Boise Cascade Corporation 1,613

Fort James Operating Company 688Fuel Fired Equipment Fort James Operating Company 983

Note: All these sources are BART-eligible.



* Emission maps not yet available on TSS. Hence, the above map is used as a placeholder and is for illustration purposes only. This map was obtained from the Causes of Haze website.

1996 Point Source SO2 Emissions*

Illustr

ation O

nly

Oregon Area Source SO2 Emissions (2002 tpy) for 2002 and 2018 Base Cases

SCC1_DESC SCC3_DESC SCC6_DESC SCC8_DESC 2002 2018Stationary Source Fuel Combustion Residential Natural Gas 12 14

Wood 616 642Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) 1 1Distillate Oil 992 753Kerosene 160 160Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal 27 27

Industrial Natural Gas 15 17Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) 0 0Residual Oil 2,693 1,800Distillate Oil 1,453 449Kerosene 49 60Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal

Commercial/Institutional Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) 0 0Natural Gas 8 10Distillate Oil 989 1,376Residual Oil 398 398Kerosene 63 63

Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery 292 410Industrial ProcessesSolvent UtilizationMiscellaneous Area Sources Agriculture Production - Crops Agriculture - Crops

Orchard Heaters Diesel 2,164 2,243Propane 0 0Total, all fuels 0 0

Agricultural Propaning - tractor-pulled burners to burn stubble only0 1Agricultural Stack Burning - straw stacks moved from field for burning

Other CombustionStorage and TransportGrand Total 9,932 8,422

2002 and 2018 Oregon Area Source SO2 Emissions




Organic Carbon (OC)

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Vermont Brig GreatSmoky

Mt Rainier Puget Sound

Biogenic

Fossil

Fraction of Carbon That Is Modern or Fossil

Source: National Park Service presentation

OC

• Is the Base+BART projection better than URP?– No: CMAQ base case projections for 2018 show a 6%

reduction in extinction due to OC.

• Is WRAP anthro reduction > 20%?– Unclear: Reduction in primary anthro carbon is about

20%, but secondary carbon is a larger contributor and it is unclear what portion is anthro.

• These reductions assume implementation of smoke emission reduction techniques (ERTs)

OC


• CMAQ results• PMF results• WEP results• Emission inventories

OC CMAQ Results 2002 and 2018 base cases

Source: WRAP Technical Support System

AORGA Change = +2%AORGB Change = -4%AORGPA Change = -18%

STAR PMF Apportionment of Organic CarbonWorst Visibility Days (2001-2004)

Smoke89%

Dust4%


6%

Road Dust/Mobille1% Nitrate-rich

Secondary/Mobile0%




Sources and Areas of Potential Organic Carbon Emissions Influence2000-2004 Baseline for Starkey, OR


0.02.5

0.0 1.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0

74.4

0.0 0.0

19.7

0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Arizon

a

Califo

rnia

Colora

doId

aho

Mon

tana

Nevad

a

New M

exico

North

Dak

ota

Orego

n

South

Dak

ota

Utah

Was

hingt

on

Wyo

ming

Pacific

Offs

hore

CENRAP

Easte

rn U

S

Mex

ico

Canad

a

Per

cen

t o

f T

ota

l D

ista

nce

Wei

gh

ted

Em

is x

Res

Tim

e



OC WEP Results (2000-04)


OC WEP Results (2018)Sources and Areas of Potential Organic Carbon Emissions Influence

2018 Projections for Starkey, OR20% Worst Visibility Days

0.02.9

0.0 1.6 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0

68.8

0.0 0.0

24.8

0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Arizon

a

Califo

rnia

Colora

doId

aho

Mon

tana

Nevad

a

New M

exico

North

Dak

ota

Orego

n

South

Dak

ota

Utah

Was

hingt

on

Wyo

ming

Pacific

Offs

hore

CENRAP

Easte

rn U

S

Mex

ico

Canad

a

Per

cen

t o

f T

ota

l D

ista

nce

Wei

gh

ted

Em

is x

Res

Tim

e




OR OC Emissions

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

Point

Area

WRAP A

rea

O&G

Off-Shore

On-Road

Mobile

Off-Road

Mobile

Road D

ust

Fugitive

Dust

WB D

ust

Anthro

Fire

Natura

l Fire

Biogen

ic

Total

Anthro

To

ns

Pe

r Y

ea

r

2002 (tpy) 2018 (tpy)

-28%

-32% -36%

+5%

-6%


Elemental Carbon (EC)

EC

• Is the Base+BART projection better than URP?– Yes: CMAQ base case projections for 2018 show a

33% reduction in extinction due to EC.


• PMF results• WEP results• Emission inventories

STAR PMF Apportionment of Elemental CarbonWorst Visibility Days (2001-2004)

Smoke87%

Dust2%


7%

Road Dust/Mobille1%


3%




Sources and Areas of Potential Elemental Carbon Emissions Influence2000-2004 Baseline for Starkey, OR


0.03.8

0.02.6 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0

71.9

0.0 0.0

18.9

0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Arizon

a

Califo

rnia

Colora

doId

aho

Mon

tana

Nevad

a

New M

exico

North

Dak

ota

Orego

n

South

Dak

ota

Utah

Was

hingt

on

Wyo

ming

Pacific

Offs

hore

CENRAP

Easte

rn U

S

Mex

ico

Canad

a

Per

cen

t o

f T

ota

l D

ista

nce

Wei

gh

ted

Em

is x

Res

Tim

e



EC WEP Results (2000-04)


Sources and Areas of Potential Elemental Carbon Emissions Influence2018 Projections for Starkey, OR


0.04.4

0.02.3 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0

71.3

0.0 0.0

17.6

0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.02.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Arizon

a

Califo

rnia

Colora

doId

aho

Mon

tana

Nevad

a

New M

exico

North

Dak

ota

Orego

n

South

Dak

ota

Utah

Was

hingt

on

Wyo

ming

Pacific

Offs

hore

CENRAP

Easte

rn U

S

Mex

ico

Canad

a

Per

cen

t o

f T

ota

l D

ista

nce

Wei

gh

ted

Em

is x

Res

Tim

e



EC WEP Results (2018)


OR EC Emissions

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

Point

Area

WRAP A

rea

O&G

Off-Shore

On-Road

Mobile

Off-Road

Mobile

Road D

ust

Fugitive

Dust

WB D

ust

Anthro

Fire

Natura

l Fire

Biogen

ic

Total

Anthro

To

ns

Pe

r Y

ea

r

2002 (tpy) 2018 (tpy)

+5%

-75%

-61%

-27%

-33%


Draft Summary Table for Worst Visibility Days

Strawberry Mountain and Eagle Cap Class I Areas, Oregon

2000-04Baseline

Conditions (Mm-1)

2064Natural

Conditions (Mm-1)

2018URP

(Mm-1)

2018Base Case

(Mm-1)

2018Control Case

(Mm-1)

Change In Statewide Emissions1

(tons / %)

Change In Upwind

Weighted Emissions1

(%)

Change InWRAP Antrho

Contribution1

(%)

Other Apportion-

ment Results

SO4 7.75 1.13 5.79 7.65 / PSAT PMF

NO3 15.8 0.94 10.8 11.9 / PSAT PMF

OC 24.1 1.88 16.2 23.0 /

NotApplicable

PMF

EC 4.21 0.2 3.08 2.81 / PMF

FS 1.27 0.5 1.08 2 2 / PMF

CM 4.77 1.8 3.97 2 2 / PMF

DV3 17.9 7.54 15.3 17.0 4 Not Applicable

1 Represents change between control case and 2000-04 baseline condition.2 Visibility projections not available due to model performance issues.3 Unitless value.4 This becomes the reasonable progress goal for the worst visibility days.

CMAQ OC Species at STARCMAQ Species

Species Definition Annual Average Modeled Concentration (ug/m3)

Clean02a Plan02b Base18b (% change)

AORGA Secondary Organic Aerosols from Anthropogenic Sources

0.00 0.08 0.08

(-3%)

AORGB Secondary Organic Aerosols from Biogenic Sources

0.73 1.23 1.14

(-4%)

AORGPA Primary Organic Aerosols from All Sources

0.07 0.41 0.37

(-8%)

Carbon and Dust Apportionment• PSAT results for OC and EC not available due to

computational resources.• No air quality modeling results available whatsoever for

CM due to poor model peformance.• For these pollutants, an alternative technique developed

by the WRAP could be used to evaluate sources and progress.– Weighted Emissions Potential (WEP)– Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) also available, especially

for carbon– CMAQ carbon species– Carbon isotope dating

Weighted Emissions Potential Method

• Combine gridded emissions data with gridded backtrajectory residence times to determine sources with the most potential to affect a site.

• Sources with the greatest potential will tend to be both upwind on the worst visibility days and have relatively large emissions.– 2002 and 2018 annual average emissions– 3-5 years of 20% worst days back trajectories– Discount sources based on distance from site– Ignore grid cells with very low residence times– Does not account for chemistry, dispersion, deposition– Method being finalized

Weighted Emissions Potential MethodPrototype example for Salt Creek, New Mexico

Emissions ResidenceTimes

Weighted EmissionsPotential

X =

reasonable progress demonstration case study (dec 7, 2006) analysis done for dec 7, 2006 wrap iwg...

Documents

good activity data

emission projectionsvery

area sources

og sources

years of data

species concentrationadd

species reductionsto

mix of combustion sources