imperial county pm 10 sip: update imperial county apcd sip workgroup meeting september 24, 2008
TRANSCRIPT
Imperial County PM10 SIP:Update
Imperial County APCD
SIP Workgroup Meeting
September 24, 2008
2
Agenda
Ambient air quality, NAAQS exceedences, and design value
Emissions inventory and Significant Sources
Attainment demonstration– For potential “but-for” exceedences:
“But-For” attainment demonstration guidance Proposed methodology: the 5 technical approaches and weight-of-evidence determination
– Other exceedences, if any: Attainment and 5% demonstration (including effect of control strategy)
Next Steps
3
Exceptional Events Update September 8, 2006 Westmorland – data invalid
due filter sample problem April 12 and June 5, 2007 – comments from EPA
incorporated into revised Exceptional Events documentation, resubmitted to ARB/EPA– “traditional” high-wind events
September 2, 2006 – comments from ARB being incorporated into Exceptional Events documentation
– This is a “Class 3” exceptional event – mesoscale event and thunderstorm activity
– Greater documentation challenges
4
Remaining Exceedences
Remaining exceedences are in Calexico– March 11, 2005: 169 g/m3 in Calexico-Grant, very
low wind speeds, strong southerly component
– December 12, 2005: 211 g/m3 at Grant, 188 g/m3 at Ethel, very stagnant conditions, strong southerly component
– December 21, 2006: 171 g/m3 at Grant, very stagnant conditions, strong southerly component
– December 25, 2006: 248 g/m3 at Grant, very stagnant conditions, extremely high PM10 throughout Mexicali
Design value: 248 g/m3 on December 25, 2006– Per discussion with EPA
– All exceedences will be evaluated (see later slides)
5
Agenda
Ambient air quality and NAAQS exceedences
Design value
Emissions inventory
Attainment demonstration– For potential “but-for” exceedences:
“But-For” attainment demonstration guidance Proposed methodology: the 5 technical approaches and
weight-of-evidence determination
– Other exceedences, if any: Attainment and 5% demonstration (including effect of
control strategy)
Next Steps
6
Inventory Status
ENVIRON has received latest information from IC Public Works on local unpaved roads– relatively small changes the total mileage of roads with ≥
50 ADT and < 50 ADT– Will include information on currently treated road mileage
IID has reviewed canal access and maintenance unpaved road mileage and daily trip information– Minor change from 2005 BACM analysis (being confirmed
for each road type – possible double-counting of American Canal roads, no roads with > 20 ADT)
Inventory for Draft SIP will be finalized after remaining information on unpaved roads is incorporated
7
Significant Sources for PM10
Source categories contributing ≥ 5 g/m3 to ambient PM10 concentrations must be controlled by BACM
De Minimis (DM) value is emission threshold in tpd
DM = total emissions ×
Draft Peak County 24-hour DM:– Emissions (tpd): 549 – Ambient (ug/m3): 230– DM (tpd): 11.9
Significant sources (Draft):– Windblown dust (open areas)– Unpaved roads
(entrained and windblown)
5 g/m3
ambient PM10 air concentration
Source Categories PM10 Emissions (tpd)
Significant (≥ DM value)
Windblown Dust from Open Areas 157.35
Unpaved Roads (Entrained and Windblown) 91.99
Windblown−Non-Pasture Agricultural Lands 10.81Farming−Tilling Dust 7.10
De Minimus ≥ 1 tpd
Paved Road Dust 4.19
Industrial Processes 2.79
Cattle Feedlot 2.77
Waste Burning 2.77
Construction 1.95
From the 2005 BACM Analysis(annual controlling DM=5.0 tpd):
May be slightly updated with new EI
8
Agenda
Ambient air quality and NAAQS exceedences
Design value
Emissions inventory
Attainment demonstration– For potential “but-for” exceedences:
“But-For” attainment demonstration guidance Proposed methodology: the 5 technical approaches and
weight-of-evidence determination
– Other exceedences, if any: Attainment and 5% demonstration (including effect of
control strategy)
Next Steps
9
Attainment Demonstration
Attainment demonstration – Design value: 248 g/m3 at Calexico-Grant– 4 remaining Calexico exceedences in 2005-2007 (assumes
other exceedences are confirmed as Exceptional Events)
EPA attainment demonstration guidance– August 1997 Federal Register, pp. 41998-42017– Includes guidance on Clean Air Act Section 179B (“but-for”)
attainment demonstrations– Includes guidance on Serious Area SIP requirements, including
BACM implementation, and a 5% plan with attainment demonstration
At this time, no ‘but-for’ demonstration has been completed for any Calexico exceedence
10
Calexico Exceedences
Documentation to include:– Description of each exceedence– Federal Register “But-For” Approaches– Weight-of-evidence summary for each exceedence
to determine if a specific exceedence is a “But-For” exceedence
Description for each exceedence– Imperial and Mexicali PM10, including spatial plots– Meteorological data– Back trajectories– Wind rose– Any special considerations (e.g., Christmas holiday
activity in Mexicali for certain exceedences)
11
“But-For” Attainment Demonstration
USEPA guidance (August 1994 FR) describes 5 ‘example’ approaches to a ‘but-for’ attainment demonstration1. “Evaluate and quantify .. changes in monitored PM10
concentrations [in the U.S., near the border] with predominant wind direction.” Analyze wind speed and direction.
2. “Demonstrate that local U.S. emissions … [do] not cause the NAAQS to be exceeded.” Include analysis of background PM10 levels without Mexico emissions.
3. “Analyze ambient sample filters for specific particles from across the border”
4. “Inventory sources on both sides of the border and compare”
5. “Perform air dispersion and/or receptor modeling to quantify the relative impacts”
12
Approach 1 and 2: Overview
PM10Calexico, day i = Yi (impact from US emissions) + Zi (impact from Mexican emissions)
Approach 1 and 2 are designed to determine quantitatively the impact from either Mexican emissions or US emissions for each Calexico exceedence based on statistical analyses described in the next 2 slides– Day-specific concentrations attributable to Mexican
emissions would be subtracted from monitored values and compared to the NAAQS
– Day-specific concentrations attributable solely to US emissions would be compared to the NAAQS
Approach 1 and 2 are complimentary
13
Approach 1: Statistical Analysis of Impact of Mexican (Mexicali) Emissions
Statistical analysis using available meteorological data at Calexico stations and PM10 data from Imperial and Mexican monitors– Partition lower-wind PM10 data into meaningful
meteorological (wind speed and direction) “groups”– Analysis quantifies the contribution from Mexico for
each “group”, based on its specific characteristics– Analyze each exceedence based on the
characteristics of its “group”
Analysis quantifies the specific contribution from Mexico for each exceedence, based on day-specific conditions
14
Approach 2: Statistical Analysis of the Impact of U.S. Emissions
Goal: Analyze the Imperial County emission inventory distribution and a statistical analysis of non-Calexico and Calexico historical PM10 concentrations to quantify expected Calexico concentrations from US emissions alone
Analysis elements– Spatial distribution of Imperial County emissions– Comparative analysis of non-Calexico stations– Comparative analysis of Calexico stations
Quantitative day-specific analysis of expected PM10 concentrations from US emissions alone
15
Approach 3: Analysis of Sample Filters
1992-93 Cross Border Transport Study indicate that 70 to 90% from geological dust, 10-15% vehicle exhaust, others
Fugitive PM10 dust does not typically have “signatures” for specific sources (e.g. unpaved roads, construction sites) or locations (inside or outside of US)
Does not help quantify impact of Mexican emissions
16
Approach 4: Emission Inventory Comparison
Previous analysis (2004): Mexicali Calexico
Area (mi2) ~200 ~4
Population >760,000 ~32,500
Emissions* (tons/day)
~260 ~13
Inventory analysis being updated for Mexico and Imperial County
17
Approach 5: Modeling Analysis
Previous modeling analysis done in 2001– CALMET/CALPUFF– SCOS (1997) inventory, adjusted– Conservative background concentration– Modeled 4 full years (1992, 1993, 1994, 1999)
Limitations of the 2001 modeling analysis
Implications of 2001 modeling analysis in present ‘but-for’ demonstration– Modeled meteorological conditions cover days of interest– Revised emission inventory for days of interest would be
compared to 2001 modeling inventories– Modeling would indicate if local-only exceedence would be
expected
18
“But-For” Attainment Demonstration
Status of analysis of Calexico exceedences – ICAPCD has completed the description of each potential ‘but-
for’ exceedence– ENVIRON has completed an initial analysis for each of the “5
approaches” for each exceedence day– A weight-of-evidence (WOE) summary for each applicable
Calexico exceedence will be prepared– ARB and EPA commenting on the initial exceedence
descriptions and “5-approaches’ analyses– Descriptions and analyses will be revised, per ARB and EPA
comments; WOE summary updated
Draft Chapter 5 (Attainment Demonstration) and Appendix V (Technical Analyses) will be circulated to SIP WG for review and comment for all applicable ‘but-for’ exceedences
19
“Traditional” Attainment Demonstration
Any exceedence that is not excluded as an Exceptional Event or does not have a ‘But-For’ attainment demonstration will be subject to a ‘traditional” attainment demonstration analysis
Implement BACM/BACT for all significant sources
Plan to achieve annual reductions in PM10 of no less than 5% based on the most recent inventory, until attainment;– Excess reductions in early years can be carried over to
later years– 5% requirement applies to anthropogenic emissions only
Demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS at the earliest practicable date; and
Adopt contingency measures
20
Attainment Analysis
Linear rollback modeling– Project ambient concentrations for future years, based
on projected changes in day-specific emission inventory – Future ambient concentrations:
= background + “historical value” x
Will use modified day-specific analysis– day-specific historical exceedence, if any– Baseline 2005 “day-specific” emission inventory and
background level Technical analysis, if required, will be reviewed
by all three agencies before inclusion in draft PM10 SIP
future year emissionsbaseline year (2005) emissions
21
Agenda
Ambient air quality and NAAQS exceedences
Design value
Emissions inventory
Attainment demonstration– For potential “but-for” exceedences:
“But-For” attainment demonstration guidance Proposed methodology: the 5 technical approaches and
weight-of-evidence determination
– Other exceedences, if any: Attainment and 5% demonstration (including effect of
control strategy)
Next Steps
22
Next Steps for Release of Draft SIP Finalize event documentation
– 3-agency review and applicable SIP technical appendices
Finalize emission inventory for draft SIP– Future year projections (through 2010)
Complete attainment demonstration (‘but-for’, 5%)– Incorporate agency comments– Circulate Chapter 5 and Appendix V to SIP WG– Finalize documentation for draft PM10 SIP
Finalize conformity analysis– Future year mobile source projects (through 2035)
Release of draft PM10 SIP for comments– SIP Workgroup and then for public review