1. Reasonable Progress Demonstration Case 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 ares Starkey Strawberry Mtn Eagle Cap Source: COHA Source: VIEWS

2. Proposed Format for Demonstrating Reasonable Progress

3. 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

4. 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

5. SO2NOxOCCM 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 PM 2.5 emissions, but uncertain spec. of PM 2.5 & 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 ToolsEmission Inv. CMAQ Proj. PSAT Apport. Emission Inv. CMAQ Proj. PSAT Apport. Emission Inv. CMAQ Proj. PMF, WEP. Emission Inv. Causes of Dust. WEP.

6. 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.

7. Determine URP for a species Is Base+BART projection better than URP? Is WRAP Anthro reduction > 20%? Are there any important uncontrolled sources? Are there any important uncontrolled or undercontrolled sources? Repeat for other species. Evaluate emission & air quality trends more closely Identify LTSs for these sources considering the 4 RPG and other factors identified in the RHR. Adopt, commit to adopt, or commit to further evaluation. Determine reductions at C1A. Add up all species reductions to get a RPG for worst days. Eplain why it’s less than default URP but still reasonable. Set goal for best days. Y Y Y N*N* N N N Y * Note, if no LTS beyond BART is developed, then the 4 RPG factors are inherently taken into account via BART. Interstate coop key.

8. 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

9. 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

10. “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

11. Case Study

12. Eagle Cap / Strawberry Mountain Baseline Extinction Budget Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Monitoring >> Composition

13. Eagle Cap / Strawberry Mountain Species Trends and URP Glidepaths Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Monitoring >> Time Series

14. Upwind Residence Time On 20% Wost Visibility Days (2000-04) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potential

15. Ammonium Nitrate (NO3)

16. 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

17. NO3 Are there any important uncontrolled upwind sources? –Use TSS to examine inventory upwind PSAT results PMF results WEP results Emission inventories

18. NO3 PSAT Results 2002 and 2018 base cases Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> SOx/NOx Tracer

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

20. NO3 WEP Results (2000-04) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

21. NO3 WEP Results (2018) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

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

23. Source CategoryPSATWEPNotes 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 NO3 at STAR On the 20% Worst Visibility Days * See following slides.

24. NOx Sources > 500 tpy in the 2018 Oregon Point Source Pivot Table Source: WRAP website: Emissions Forum pivot tables: http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/pivot.htmlhttp://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/pivot.html

25. * 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* Illustration Only

26. 2002 Idaho Area Source NOx Emissions Source: WRAP website: Emissions Forum pivot tables: http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/pivot.htmlhttp://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/pivot.html

27. Source: WRAP website: Emissions Forum pivot tables: http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/pivot.htmlhttp://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/pivot.html 2018 Idaho Area Source NOx Emissions

28. Ammonium Sulfate (SO4)

29. 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

30. SO4 Are there any important uncontrolled upwind sources? –Use TSS to examine inventory upwind PSAT results PMF results WEP results Emission inventories

31. SO4 PSAT Results 2002 and 2018 base cases Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> SOx/NOx Tracer

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

33. SO4 WEP Results (2000-04) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

34. SO4 WEP Results (2018) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

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

36. Source CategoryPSATWEPNotes 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 SO4 at STAR On the 20% Worst Visibility Days * See following slides.

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

38. Source: EPA Clean Air Markets Division Website Significant progress made in WA point sources not reflected in choice of base case years (2002 and 2018).

39. SO2 Sources > 500 tpy in the 2018 Oregon Point Source Pivot Table Source: WRAP website: Emissions Forum pivot tables: http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/pivot.htmlhttp://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/pivot.html Note: All these sources are BART-eligible.

40. * 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* Illustration Only

41. 2002 and 2018 Oregon Area Source SO2 Emissions Source: WRAP website: Emissions Forum pivot tables: http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/pivot.htmlhttp://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/pivot.html

42. Organic Carbon (OC)

43. Fraction of Carbon That Is Modern or Fossil Source: National Park Service presentation

44. 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)

45. OC Are there any important uncontrolled upwind sources? –Use TSS to examine inventory upwind CMAQ results PMF results WEP results Emission inventories

46. OC CMAQ Results 2002 and 2018 base cases Source: WRAP Technical Support System AORGA Change = +2% AORGB Change = -4% AORGPA Change = -18%

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

48. OC WEP Results (2000-04) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

49. OC WEP Results (2018) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

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

51. Elemental Carbon (EC)

52. 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. Are there any important uncontrolled upwind sources? –Use TSS to examine inventory upwind PMF results WEP results Emission inventories

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

54. EC WEP Results (2000-04) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

55. EC WEP Results (2018) Source: WRAP Technical Support System >> Resources >> Area of Interest >> Weighted Emission Potenital

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

57. Draft Summary Table for Worst Visibility Days Strawberry Mountain and Eagle Cap Class I Areas, Oregon 2000-04 Baseline Condition s (Mm -1 ) 2064 Natural Conditions (Mm -1 ) 2018 URP (Mm -1 ) 2018 Base Case (Mm -1 ) 2018 Control Case (Mm -1 ) Change In Statewide Emissions 1 (tons / %) Change In Upwind Weighted Emissions 1 (%) Change In WRAP Antrho Contribution 1 (%) Other Apportion- ment Results SO47.751.135.797.65/PSAT PMF NO315.80.9410.811.9/PSAT PMF OC24.11.8816.223.0/ Not Applicable PMF EC4.210.23.082.81/PMF FS1.270.51.08 22 /PMF CM4.771.83.97 22 /PMF DV 3 17.97.5415.317.0 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.

59. CMAQ OC Species at STAR CMAQ Species Species DefinitionAnnual Average Modeled Concentration (ug/m3) Clean02aPlan02bBase18b (% change) AORGASecondary Organic Aerosols from Anthropogenic Sources 0.000.08 (-3%) AORGBSecondary Organic Aerosols from Biogenic Sources 0.731.231.14 (-4%) AORGPAPrimary Organic Aerosols from All Sources 0.070.410.37 (-8%)

60. 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

61. 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

62. Weighted Emissions Potential Method Prototype example for Salt Creek, New Mexico Emissions Residence Times Weighted Emissions Potential X =