Weight of Evidence Checklist Update

Transcription

1 Weight of Evidence Checklist Update AoH Meeting Seattle, WA April 25, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

2 Review of RHR Visibility Goals Define current conditions in at each Class I area using the baseline period Define natural conditions Improve visibility such that the average Haze Index (measured in DECIVIEW) for the 20% worst days in the baseline period reach natural conditions by 2064 Ensure that visibility on the 20% best days does not degrade Periodically assess the improvement in visibility between the baseline period and 2064 and show that reasonable progress is being achieved

3 Draft WOE Checklist (Step 1) Summary of available information General Class I area information (location, size, topography, discussion of importance, etc.) Overview summary of basic data sets: Visibility monitoring Emission inventories (state and WRAP summaries?) Modeling results Will vary according to state (e.g., no CMAQ modeling done for AK; some states have international borders) Style will be customized by each state

4 Draft WOE Checklist (Step 2) Analysis of visibility conditions What are current (baseline, ) visibility conditions? What is the relative importance of each species? What does the RHR glide path look like? What are estimated natural visibility conditions? What does the model predict for 2018?

5 Baseline Conditions at Agua Tibia Species Sulfate Nitrate Organics EC CM Soil Contribution High High Medium Medium Medium Low

6 RHR Glide Path for Agua Tibia Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Path Agua Tibia Wilderness - 20% Worst Days Haziness Index (Deciviews) Model results for the 2018 base case do not predict Agua Tibia s visibility (in terms of deciview) will be on or below the glide path Year Glide Path Natural Condition (Worst Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction

7 Draft WOE Checklist (Step 3) Analysis of visibility conditions by individual species What do individual species glide paths (measured in extinction) look like? Need to define natural conditions appropriately (following examples assume annual average natural conditions, not 20% worst) Which species show predicted 2018 values at or below the glide path?

8 Species Glide Paths for Agua Tibia symbol represents 2018 model prediction Nitrate, EC, and Soil follow glide path Sulfate, OM, and CM do not follow glide path

9 Draft WOE Checklist (Step 4) Review monitoring uncertainties and model performance for each species What level of monitoring uncertainties are associated with each species? Lab uncertainties (can be calculated from IMPROVE data set Other uncertainties (flow rate problems, clogged filters) may be difficult to quantify How does the model predict the monitoring data? Good model performance is most important for highest contributing species What does performance look like seasonally and over all?

10 Median Laboratory Uncertainty of IMPROVE Data Across WRAP Uncertainty based only on lab reported uncertainties for daily samples ( ) Median Monitored Uncertainty Species (%) OC, EC, Soil, and CM uncertainty determined from standard propagation of error analysis on individual component terms Uncertainty due to flow/size cut errors not included Sulfate 5 Nitrate 9 Organic C 18 Elemental C 47 Soil 4 Coarse Mass 12

11 IMPROVE (top) vs. Model (bottom) How well are the seasonal variations in each species captured, even if the magnitude is off?

12 2002 Model Performance, Worst Days Worst 20% Obs (left) vs Plan02a (right) at AGTI Nitrate and Carbon often reasonable Sulfate somewhat low CM shows very poor performance bext (1/Mm) bcm bsoil bec boc bno3 bso avg Julian Day in Worst 20% group

13 Draft WOE Checklist (Step 5) Integrate information about each species: monitoring, modeling, and emissions data Do changes in emissions agree with model predictions for 2018? How do we know what source region of emissions to compare? Weight emissions by back trajectory residence times for an estimate of potential emissions that might be expected to impact a given Class I area Do weighted emissions described above support attribution results derived from PSAT and PMF?

14 Baseline Extinction with Lab Uncertainty and Variability Inter-Annual Baseline Variability (Mm -1 ) Baseline Measurement Uncertainty (Mm -1 ) Predicted 2018 Extinction PSAT or PMF Attribution Results (Phase I TSSA shown) Sum of Weighted Emissions affecting site Summary Tables Natural Conditions and Glide Path Contributing Source Regions determined by Back Trajectory Residence Times

15 Inter-Annual Baseline Variability (Mm -1 ) Baseline Measurement Uncertainty (Mm -1 )

16 Inter-Annual Baseline Variability (Mm -1 ) Baseline Measurement Uncertainty (Mm -1 )

17 Agua Tibia, CA Total SO2 emissions X residence time = weighted emissions Weighted emissions represent most probable source region emissions which contribute to sulfate at the selected monitoring site.

18 Measured and Projected Ammonium Sulfate and SO 2 Emissions AGTI1, CA 50 3,000K 45 Inter-Annual Baseline Variability (Mm -1 ) 2,700K Emissions Extinction (Mm -1 ) Baseline Measurement Uncertainty (Mm -1 ) 2,400K 2,100K 1,800K 1,500K 1,200K 900K Emissions (tons/year) Anthropogenic SO2 Point Area Off-Road Mobile On-Road Mobile Offshore Oil & Gas Fire Natural SO2 Fire Aerosol K Amm. Sulfate Baseline 5 300K glideslope 2018 Base Case (v1*) 0 0K Nat. Conditions * These examples show the sum of all WRAP region emissions 2064 DRAFT

19 Measured and Projected Ammonium Nitrate and NO X Emissions AGTI1, CA 40 10,000K 36 Inter-Annual Baseline Variability (Mm -1 ) 9,000K Emissions Extinction (Mm -1 ) Baseline Measurement Uncertainty (Mm -1 ) 8,000K 7,000K 6,000K 5,000K 4,000K 3,000K Emissions (tons/year) Anthropogenic NOX Point Area Off-Road Mobile On-Road Mobile Offshore Oil & Gas Fire Natural NOX Biogenic Fire Aerosol 8 2,000K Amm. Nitrate Baseline 4 1,000K glideslope 2018 Base Case (v1*) 0 0K Nat. Conditions * These examples show the sum of all WRAP region emissions 2064 DRAFT

20 Measured and Projected Particulate Organic Material and VOC Emissions AGTI1, CA 20 50,000K 18 Inter-Annual Baseline Variability (Mm -1 ) 45,000K Emissions Extinction (Mm -1 ) Baseline Measurement Uncertainty (Mm -1 ) 40,000K 35,000K 30,000K 25,000K 20,000K 15,000K Emissions (tons/year) Anthropogenic VOC Point Area Off-Road Mobile On-Road Mobile Offshore Oil & Gas Fire Natural VOC Biogenic Fire Aerosol 4 10,000K Organic Matter Baseline 2 5,000K glideslope 2018 Base Case (v1*) 0 0K Nat. Conditions * These examples show the sum of all WRAP region emissions 2064 VERY DRAFT

21 Measured and Projected Elemental Carbon and PM 2.5 Emissions AGTI1, CA K 9 Inter-Annual Baseline Variability (Mm -1 ) 270K Emissions Extinction (Mm -1 ) Baseline Measurement Uncertainty (Mm -1 ) 240K 210K 180K 150K 120K 90K Emissions (tons/year) Anthropogenic PM2.5 Fire Off-Road Mobile On-Road Mobile Natural PM2.5 Fire Aerosol Elemental Carbon Baseline 2 60K glideslope 2018 Base Case (v1*) 1 30K Nat. Conditions 0 0K * These examples show the sum of all WRAP region emissions VERY DRAFT

22 Measured and Projected Coarse Mass and PMC Emissions AGTI1, CA 12 12,000K Inter-Annual Baseline Variability (Mm -1 ) Baseline Measurement Uncertainty (Mm -1 ) 11,000K 10,000K 9,000K Emissions Anthropogenic PMC Point Area Extinction (Mm -1 ) ,000K 7,000K 6,000K 5,000K 4,000K 3,000K Emissions (tons/year) Off-Road Mobile On-Road Mobile Fire Dust Natural PMC Fire Dust Aerosol Coarse Mass 2 2,000K Baseline glideslope 1 0 1,000K 0K 2018 Base Case (v1*) Nat. Conditions * These examples show the sum of all WRAP region emissions 2064 VERY DRAFT

23 Measured and Projected Soil and PM 2.5 Emissions AGTI1, CA 2 2,000K 1.8 Inter-Annual Baseline Variability (Mm -1 ) 1,800K Emissions Extinction (Mm -1 ) Baseline Measurement Uncertainty (Mm -1 ) 1,600K 1,400K 1,200K 1,000K 800K 600K Emissions (tons/year) Anthropogenic PM2.5 Off-Road Mobile On-Road Mobile Fire Dust Natural PM2.5 Fire Dust Aerosol Soil K Baseline glideslope K 2018 Base Case (v1*) 0 0K Nat. Conditions * These examples show the sum of all WRAP region emissions 2064 VERY DRAFT

24 Draft WOE Checklist (Step 6) Investigate specific questions that arise in steps 2 6 Review historical trends (if sufficient data exists) Review distributions of IMPROVE mass, and expected changes predicted by the model Review natural, episodic events for their potential impact Do the results so far make sense? If not, deeper investigation of data sets may be required Are there reasonable explanations for species that show and don t show progress along the glide path? Consider the other factors mandated by the RHR to determine reasonable progress

25 Draft WOE Checklist (Step 7) Repeat steps 2 6 with emissions and model results from various control strategies How do specific control strategies affect the outcome?

26 Draft WOE Checklist (Step 8) Review available attribution information and determine which states need to consult about which Class I areas PSAT will be available for sulfate and nitrate (and possible some portion of organics) PMF will be available for all species (?), but may be used primarily for carbon (?) Emissions weighted by residence times will be available for all species (pending certain sensitivity tests and caveats)