NEPA & Air Quality 2008 PLA NEPA Workshop Denver, Colorado June 12, 2008.
-
Upload
eustace-higgins -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of NEPA & Air Quality 2008 PLA NEPA Workshop Denver, Colorado June 12, 2008.
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