NEPA & Air Quality

2008 PLA NEPA Workshop

Denver, Colorado

June 12, 2008

Air Quality – Game Changes

• Pre-History <1996 – Qualitative

• 1996 – Moxa Arch – Set Many Precedents

• 1997 – 1st Jonah EIS –

• 1997 – 1999 – SWWYTAF

• 1999 CD & SUIT – 1st to Use CalPuff for Cumulative Analysis

• 2000 – FLAG Issued

• 2004 – 2006 – Jonah Infill EIS

• 2007 – Pinedale Supplemental EIS

• 2007-2008 – 4-Corners Interagency AQ Task Force Analysis

• 2008 Planned – CDC – Use PGM for Visibility

Moxa (1996) Precedents

• 1st Cumulative Analytical Approach− Demanded by USFS (Visibility Driver)

− 1st Air Quality Related Values (AQRV)

• Required Use of “dv” Method – Genesis of 1dv and 0.5 dv Thresholds

• Required Acid Deposition Modeling

• Scheffe Ozone Method 1st Used

• Secondary Organic Aerosols Implicated in Visibility Impacts

• BLM Established Cumulative Emissions Cap− Appealed by Project Proponents and Overturned

Jonah 1 and SWWTAF

• Jonah (1997)

− EPA Threatened Unsatisfactory Rating if Engines Not Restricted to 1gr/hp-hr. BLM Agreed

• SWWTAF (1997 – 1999)

− Examined CALPUFF for Visibility and Deposition Modeling

− Conclusions− Over prediction of NO3 by “order of magnitude”

− Analysis showed ammonia limiting

− Secondary organic aerosols shown to be biogenic

CD#1 and SUIT (1999)

• First Cumulative Analyses to Use CALPUFF

• Configured Using SWWTAF Conclusions

• Visibility Analysis Using Hourly Transmissometer Data

• Model Showed Significantly Lower Visibility Impacts – However Impacts at All Class 1 Areas Modeled

• SUIT Analysis Had Similar Results

FLAG (2000)

• FEDERAL LAND MANAGERS AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUES WORKGROUP (FLAG)

• Developed by USFS and USPS and FWS

• Prescribed Detailed Methodology and Became the “Bible” for AQRV Analysis

• Mostly Relied on EPA IWAQM Guidelines

• Comparison of Model vs Monitoring Indicates Significant Over-prediction

Visibility Trends (Bridger IMPROVE)

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Ye a r

0

10

20

30

Vis

ua

l ra

ng

e m

m-1

Best 20 %

M id 20 %

W orst 20 %

Figure 1. Trends in V isual R ange 1988 through 2005

N o te : S tra ig h t l in e is le a st sq u a re fit

Model to Monitor Comparison

0 100 200 300 400 500

N O3 C o n ce n tra tio n (n g /m 3 )

1

10

100

2

3

4

56789

20

30

40

5060708090

0.90.80.70.60.5

Fre

qu

en

cy (

%)

05 M onitored

05 M odeled

Figure 2. Cumulative Frequency Distribution for Bridger Class I Area NO3 Concentrations M odeled versus M onitored 1988-2005

CALPUFF (RIVAD) Performance

Jonah Infill & Pinedale Supplemental • Jonah Infill (2004-2006)

− First Use of “Iterative” Modeling Approach to Set Mitigation Levels (pseudo cap)

− Drilling Rigs Considered Significant Sources

− Appealed for Scheffe Ozone Methodology

− Dr. Scheffe said his method is: “antiquated and useless”

− Appeal still underway

• Pinedale Supplemental (2005-??)− First Use of Photochemical Grid Model (PGM)

− Ozone Only (CALGRID then CAMx)

− FLAG/CALPUFF Used for AQRV Analysis

− EPA Issued Unsatisfactory Rating on Draft

Four Corners Interagency Air Quality Task Force Analysis

• Regional Model for AQRV’s and Ozone

• Using CAMx (PGM Model)

• Baseline Year Run Underway/Done

− Very Complete Inventory

• Preliminary Model Performance Evaluation Done

• Will Develop “Relative Response Factors”

• Will Conduct Source Apportionment Analysis

− Both Particulate and Ozone

CDC (2007-??)

• Will Use PGM Model for Both AQRV and Ozone Analysis (CAMx or CMAQ)

• Two Years of Baseline Runs Planned

• Formal Model Performance Evaluation Planned

• Development of “Relative Response Factors” Planned

• Very Complete Inventory Developed

• Source Apportionment Analysis Planned

• Should Yield “Best Science” Information for Decision Making

• CDC and 4-Corners Similar to SIP Demonstration Modeling in Detail, Complexity, and Completeness

Forward Challenges

• “Mega Projects”, Density of Development, Long Term Pad Drilling, Number of Projects

• Analysis Requirements

• Ozone

• Visibility

• “Other AQRV’s

• Climate Change (GHG Emissions)

− Why are Polar Bears Important in the Rockies?

Projects

• Projects are Now 1,000’s of Wells Rather than 100’s

• Density of Development Coupled with Long Term Pad Drilling Has “Near Field” NAAQS Implications

• SW Wyoming Example− Jonah Infill – 3,100 wells

− Pinedale Supplemental – 4,400 wells

− CDC – 9,000 wells

− Moxa – 1,800 wells

− Hiawatha – 4,200 wells (may be less now)

− Desolation Flats – 400 wells

− Atlantic Rim – 2,000 wells

• All of These Exist in Essentially the Same Airshed

Analysis Requirements

• Photo Chemical Grid Models Likely to be New Standard− Complex, Expensive, Lengthy, Limited Contractor

Availability

− Better “State of Science” Results

− Yields Much More and Better Information for Decisions

• Inventories Historically a Problem− Most Analyses Relied on WRAP Inventory (Does not have

VOC’s)

− More Complete, Accurate, and Speciated Inventories Will be Required

− IPAMS Wrap Phase III Will Help

− Keeping Inventories Updated Will be Challenge for Both Industry and Agencies

Ozone

• NAAQS Lowered to 0.075 ppm (75 ppb)

• Rural Western “High Background” is Close to Standard

• “Winter Ozone” Issues

• Several Areas Will Probably Become Non-Attainment− Sublette County Wyoming

− San Juan County New Mexico

− Other Areas Likely to Be Included As “Transport” Areas.

• Analyses Show Modeled Design Value Exceedence of Standard (Pinedale Supplemental)

• It is Unclear How to Do a Major Project EIS in a Non-Attainment or Transport Area

• It is Unclear if BLM Can or Will Issue a ROD with Predicted Design Value Exceedences

• It is Clear that More Appeals Will be Filed With More Substance

Pinedale Supplemental Design Values

Projected Maximum 8-Hour Ozone (ppb) Scenario 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (ppb) EPA Guidance

Approach Absolute Model

Predictions PAP (Alternative B) 85 78.2 83.8* PAPPA (Alternative C) 85 76.5 83.8* * Occurs in northern Colorado away from the Project location

Visibility

• Class I area Visibility Impacts

− Longstanding Issue – Has Not Diminished

• Mostly Nitrate and Sulfate Secondary Particulates

− Past Model Predictions Show Significant Impacts

− Monitoring Data Shows No Trend

− Issues with Modeling System and Application

• Extensive Mitigation Driven by Model Output

− Wamsutter/Continental Divide II – Impacts Predicted at Bridger and Zirkel

− Jonah EIS & ROD – Extensive Mitigation Required

− Pinedale Supplemental EIS – Extensive Mitigation – Still Shows Impacts @ Bridger

− EPA Issued “Unsatisfactory” Rating

− Moxa Draft EIS – Shows Significant Impact @ Bridger

Acid and Fertilizer Deposition

• Overshadowed by Ozone and Visibility Issues

• Still Need to be Mindful of These Parameters

• Lake Acidification May Become Problem in Some Highly Sensitive Areas

• Fertilizer Deposition Has Been Issue @ Rocky Mountain National Park

Climate Change

• Emerging Issue

− Likely to Be Basis for Appeals

− Petition for CEQ Guidance Rule Change is in Washington Now

− Rumor That BLM is Working on Guidance

− Difficult to Deal With Mitigation

• Plan to Develop and Disclose Project GHG Inventory

− Highlight Low Emissions Technologies Applied

• Stay Tuned for More Developments

Forward AQRV and Ozone Analysis Strategy

• Past Approaches Will Likely Not Be Successful

• Develop Detailed and Agency “Approved” Protocols

• Develop Detailed and Agency “Approved” Inventory

• Use PGM Model for PM and Visibility in Addition to Ozone

− Run Model in “Relative” Sense for PM, Visibility, and Ozone – Output Calibrated to Monitoring Records

− Do “Formal” Model Performance Evaluation

− Should “Eliminate” Visibility Impact Issues

− Conduct Source Apportionment Analysis

− Will Bring “Tools” to Understand and Address Ozone Issues

• Stay Involved as Much as Allowed

Analysis Strategy Goals

• Craft an Analysis That is Approvable by BLM

− Ensure Agency Support for Analysis and Approval

− Avoid EPA “No-Cert” Issue

− Avoid Inter Agency Conflict and “Escalation”

− Ensure Agency “Buy-in” at Critical Steps in Process

• Ensure Analysis will Withstand Appeals

− “State of Science” Approach and Tools

− Clear, Transparent and Well Documented

Project Emissions Strategy

• Plan Projects for “Low Emissions”− Condensate and Water Collection Rather than Tanks

and Trucks

− Controls on Start-up

− Contract Low Emission Rigs When Turn-over Occurs

− Use Low or Ultra-low Sulfur Diesel

− Use Low Bleed Pneumatics, Solar for Chemical and Methanol Pumps

− Avoid Pneumatic Pumps (gas) if Possible

− Avoid Well Venting for Completion, Unloading or Blowdown

− Automation

− In a Regional Sense Electrification is Not a Silver Bullet

Project Approval Strategies

• Be Prepared to Make Emission Mitigation Commitments

− It is Better to Plan These for the Most Cost Effective and Largest Effects

• Ozone Issues May Require Controls of Existing Equipment

− Formal Off-sets in Non-attainment Areas

− Model Predicted Impact Reduction Where Analysis Shows Design Value Exceedences

• Goal is to Demonstrate No or Very Deminimis Impact