MANE-VU Technical Overview National Technical RPO Meeting Gary Kleiman, NESCAUM
Technical SIP Needs Reasonable Progress Goals Baseline and Natural Visibility Conditions Long Term Strategy (including inventory, modeling, pollution apportionment, control measures, smoke management plan, and BART) Monitoring strategy Page -2-
Technical SIP Needs Reasonable Progress Goals Baseline and Natural Visibility Conditions Long Term Strategy (including inventory, modeling, pollution apportionment, control measures, smoke management plan, and BART) Monitoring strategy Uniform Progress Goals Page -3-
Monitoring Data: Baseline Conditions/Uniform Progress Natural Background and Baseline calculations for Select Class I areas Site[1] Natural Background (DV) Baseline 2000-03 (DV) Uniform Rate (DV/year) Interim Progress Goal 2018 (DV) Acadia 11.45 23.06 0.19 20.35 Brigantine 11.28 28.30 0.28 24.33 Lye Brook 11.25 24.67 0.22 21.54 Moosehorn 11.36 21.91 0.18 19.45 Shenandoah 11.27 28.19 0.28 24.24 [1] The MANE-VU Class I monitoring site, Great Gulf, is not tabulated since only 2001-2003 data are available. Page -4-
Preliminary Uniform Progress Goals (20% Worst Visibility Days) Visual Range (mi) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Acadia Brigantine Lye Brook Moosehorn Shenandoah 1990 2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 Year Page -5-
Preliminary Uniform Progress Goals (20% Worst Visibility Days) 35 Visual Range (mi) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Acadia Brigantine Lye Brook Moosehorn Shenandoah 30 25 20 15 10 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1990 2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 Year Page -6- Lye Brook Brigantine
Preliminary Uniform Progress Goals (20% Best Visibility Days) Visual Range (mi) 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1990 2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 Year Page -7- Acadia Brigantine Lye Brook Moosehorn Shenandoah
Preliminary Uniform Progress Goals (20% Best Visibility Days) Visual Range (mi) 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 1990 2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 Year Lye Brook Page -8- Brigantine Acadia Brigantine Lye Brook Moosehorn Shenandoah 40 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Lye Brook Source Regions Transport region on 10% highest sulfate days. Red indicates increased probability of contributing to high days. Transport region on 10% lowest sulfate days. Red indicates increased probability of contributing to low days. Page -9-
What is reasonable to control?? (Example: Brigantine, NJ) Sulfates and Nitrate Based Control Program 1.26 µg/m3 Mass Reduction Organic Carbon Elemental Carbon Nitrate Sulfate Control All Components In Proportion 1.46 µg/m3 Mass Reduction Baseline Conditions Median Day (8.4 µg/m 3 ) Page -10-
Same transport region?? Transport region on 10% worst sulfate days at Brigantine, NJ Transport region on 10% worst organic carbon days at Brigantine, NJ Page -11-
Alternative strategies for achieving uniform progress by 2018 Proportional reductions in sulfate and nitrate only, or.33 1.26.40.33 1.16 (µg/m 3 ) Acadia Brigantine Lye Brook Moosehorn Shenandoah Median Day Proportional reductions in sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon and elemental carbon.43 1.46.50 Page.45-12- 1.33 (µg/m 3 ) Acadia Brigantine Lye Brook Moosehorn Shenandoah Median Day
Technical SIP Needs Reasonable Progress Goals Baseline and Natural Visibility Conditions Long Term Strategy (including inventory, modeling, pollution apportionment, control measures, smoke management plan, and BART) Monitoring strategy Page -13-
2002 MANE-VU Inventory Version 1.0 Completed in January Several small state updates have been made Version 1.1 completed in April 2005 available soon on MARAMA FTP site Relying on National wildfire project for point source fire emissions due July 2005 Developing state specific and seasonal profiles based on CEM data Summer 2005 Another MANE-VU inventory version may be released in August Page -14-
Emission Inventory Page -15-
MANE-VU Emissions Projection Work EGU inventory projection for 2009, 2012, and 2018 Running IPM in conjunction with MRPO, VISTAS and CENRAP Each RPO recommended specific global assumptions Base case and CAIR/CAMR policy case results for 2009 and 2018 due in June/ July Further sensitivity analysis and control scenario IPM runs Summer/ Fall 2005 Area/mobile projection: EGAS 5.0, Nonroad, Mobile 6 supplemented with State or CAIR projection data Page -16-
Technical SIP Needs Reasonable Progress Goals Baseline and Natural Visibility Conditions Long Term Strategy (including inventory, modeling, pollution apportionment, control measures, smoke management plan, and BART) Monitoring strategy Page -17-
Control Strategy Modeling Integrated SIP Modeling Platform established at four regional modeling centers NESCAUM NY DEC University of Maryland (MDE) Rutgers Ozone Research Center (NJ DEP) Page -18- Brigantine New Jersey Annual Runs with CMAQ: (MM5 from UMD; SMOKE based on RPO Inventory and IPM Projections) 2002 Base case 2009 Reference and Control 2012 Reference and Control 2018 Reference and Control
Control Strategy Modeling Integrated across pollutants - Same runs and control strategies being developed for: 8-hr Ozone PM 2.5 Regional Haze Different groups coordinating post-modeling analysis: OTC Modeling Committee for 8-hr Ozone NESCAUM for Regional Haze States for PM2.5 Page -19-
Technical SIP Needs Reasonable Progress Goals Baseline and Natural Visibility Conditions Long Term Strategy (including inventory, modeling, pollution apportionment, control measures, smoke management plan, and BART) Monitoring strategy Page -20-
Weight of Evidence Approach Analytical technique Emissions/distance Incremental Probability Cluster-weighted Probability Emissions x upwind probability Source Apportionment Approaches REMSAD tagged species CALPUFF with MM5-based meteorology CALPUFF with observation based meteorology Approach Empirical Receptor -based trajectory technique Receptor -based trajectory technique Empirical/trajectory hybrid Receptor model/trajectory hybrid Source -based grid model Source -based dispersion model Source -based dispersion model Geese Brigantine New Jersey Page -21-
Ranked Contributors to Sulfate AVG REMSAD CALF_VT CALF_MD E/D TR_IP TR_CWP ACADIA: Ranked contributions to annual average sulfate by multiple techniques PA PA OH PA PA PA NY OH OH PA OH OH NY PA NY NY MA NY IN OH MI MI MA IN MA NY MI OH MA MI MI IN WV VA VA IN WV WV MI NC WI WI WV IN NY WV IL TN IL VA MD IL IL MA IN IN IL VA ME NH MI KY MA KY NC MD VA GA TX NH NC NH KY KY ME AL KY MD ME VA NC KY MO WV NH IL NC MD MD IA VT WI KY NH NJ TX NC MN TN NJ TN VT VA WV NC GA WI MO TN AL VT MO MO TN WI WI TN GA IA NJ GA NJ MO Page -22- NH NH NJ AL CT IA GA MO MD MD IA DE DE June SC 9, 2005 SC MS TN
Relative contribution of RPOs? (to sulfate only; not including Canada yet) 100% Acadia Brigantine Lye Brook Shenandoah 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.13 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.06 0.19 0.11 0.08 80% 0.27 0.29 0.20 0.74 0.61 0.95 0.31 0.40 0.24 1.19 0.79 1.23 60% 40% 0.32 0.47 0.28 0.76 0.64 0.46 0.54 0.61 0.33 1.21 0.96 0.65 CENRAP VISTAS MWRPO MANE-VU 20% 0% 0.56 0.57 0.44 REMSAD CalPuff (VT) CalPuff (MD) E/D 0.94 0.79 1.05 0.44 0.84 0.46 REMSAD CalPuff (VT) CalPuff (MD) E/D REMSAD CalPuff (VT) CalPuff (MD) E/D 0 Page -23-0.58 0.73 0.62 REMSAD CalPuff (VT) CalPuff (MD) E/D
Episode Analysis Lye Brook, VT Acadia, ME 20 25 15 20 ug/m3 10 5 ug/m3 15 10 5 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug CENRAP VISTAS MW-RPO MANE-VU CENRAP VISTAS MW-RPO MANE-VU Brigantine, NJ 15 10 ug/m3 5 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug CENRAP VISTAS MW-RPO MANE-VU Page -24-
Episode Analysis (Continued) See Animation Page -25-
Cluster Analysis Cluster 14; SO4=4.26 PM2.5=12.61 RecExt=82.92 OC=2.48 Cluster 19; SO4=1.52 PM2.5=5.61 RecExt=37.01 OC=2.22 Cluster 20; SO4=7.05 PM2.5=17.41 RecExt=131.18 OC=3.52 Cluster 15; SO4=3.27 PM2.5=9.61 RecExt=71.54 OC=2.21 Page -26-
Technical SIP Needs Reasonable Progress Goals Baseline and Natural Visibility Conditions Long Term Strategy (including inventory, modeling, pollution apportionment, control measures, smoke management plan, and BART) Monitoring strategy Page -27-
SMP and BART NESCAUM has formed a BART workgroup to encourage consistent application of BART within MANE-VU and Single source modeling is being conducted via REMSAD and CALPUFF Smoke Management Plan is being developed by MARAMA Page -28-
Monitoring Strategy IMPROVE serves as foundation Work with Inter-RPO workgroups and IMPROVE steering committee to ensure improvements to that network over time Supplement with continuous speciated monitoring via MANE-VU s Rural Aerosol Intensive Network (RAIN) Mulholland Point Lighthouse Roosevelt Campobello Maine Page -29-
Monitoring Data: RAIN Page -30-