Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_11-17-03.ppt Modeling Options for Proposed BART Rule Two roles for modeling in proposed BART rule > Does a potential BART-eligible.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Some recent studies using Models-3 Ian Rodgers Presentation to APRIL meeting London 4 th March 2003.

Advertisements

Template Use of Photochemical Grid Models to Assess Single-Source Impacts Ralph Morris, Tanarit Sakulyanontvittaya, Darren Wilton and Lynsey Parker ENVIRON.

Identification of BART-Eligible Sources in the WRAP Region A Summary of the April 4, 2005 Draft Report.

UC Riverside Attribution of Haze Meeting, June 22, 2005, Seattle, WA UNC/CEPENVIRON Corp. Spatial Processing and Display of WRAP Emissions Data, and Source.

1 Policies for Addressing PM2.5 Precursor Emissions Rich Damberg EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards June 20, 2007.

EPA PM2.5 Modeling Guidance for Attainment Demonstrations Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS February 20, 2007.

Spatial Variability of Seasonal PM2.5 Interpollutant Trading Ratios in Georgia James Boylan and Byeong-Uk Kim Georgia EPD – Air Protection Branch 2014.

WRAP Regional Haze Analysis & Technical Support System IMPROVE Steering Committee Meeting September 27, 2006.

Estimating the impacts of emissions from single sources on secondary PM 2.5 and ozone using an Eulerian photochemical model 1 James T. Kelly, Kirk R. Baker,

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside Modeling Source Apportionment Gail Tonnesen,

Jenny Stocker, Christina Hood, David Carruthers, Martin Seaton, Kate Johnson, Jimmy Fung The Development and Evaluation of an Automated System for Nesting.

Session 9, Unit 17 UAM and CAMx. UAM and CAMx UAM - Urban Airshed Model Currently available versions:  UAM-V 1.24  UAM-V 1.30  Available from Systems.

Issues on Ozone Planning in the Western United States Prepared by the WESTAR Planning Committee for the Fall Business Meeting, Tempe, AZ October 31, 2011.

Beta Testing of the SCICHEM-2012 Reactive Plume Model James T. Kelly and Kirk R. Baker Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards US Environmental Protection.

ENVIRON International Corporation University of California at Riverside Review of WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC) Deliverables Related to the Technical.

Use of Hybrid Plume/Grid Modeling and the St. Louis Super Site Data to Model PM 2.5 Concentrations in the St. Louis Area Ralph Morris, Bonyoung Koo, Jeremiah,

Final Amendments to the Regional Haze Rule: BART Rule Making June 16, 2005.

Development of PM2.5 Interpollutant Trading Ratios James Boylan and Byeong-Uk Kim Georgia EPD – Air Protection Branch 2012 CMAS Conference October 16,

Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of Use of Photochemical Grid Model Source Apportionment Techniques for Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality.

EFFICIENT CHARACTERIZATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CONTROL STRATEGY IMPACT PREDICTIONS EFFICIENT CHARACTERIZATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CONTROL STRATEGY IMPACT PREDICTIONS.

BART Control Analysis WESTAR August 31, 2005 EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Todd Hawes

WRAP CAMx-PSAT Source Apportionment Modeling Results Implementation Workgroup Meeting August 29, 2006.

WRAP Regional Modeling Center April 25-26, 2006 AoH Work Group Meeting Regional Modeling Center Status Report AoH Workgroup Meeting Seattle, WA April 25-26,

BART Guideline Overview WESTAR August 31, 2005 EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Todd Hawes

WRAP Modeling. WRAP Setup Two-pronged approach Jump start Regional Modeling Center (RMC) Jump start contractor MCNC/ENVIRON RMC UCR/ENVIRON.

REGIONAL HAZE BART – Key Issues For Consideration Eric Massey, Arizona DEQ Lee Alter, WGA SSJF Meeting June 3, 2004 Denver, Colorado.

1 Comparison of CAMx and CMAQ PM2.5 Source Apportionment Estimates Kirk Baker and Brian Timin U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside CMAQ Tagged Species Source Apportionment (TSSA)

Regional Modeling Center Workplan Fire/Carbon/Dust Workshop May 24, 2006.

Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt Implementing PM Source Apportionment (PSAT) in CAMx Greg Yarwood, Ralph Morris and Gary Wilson ENVIRON International.

1 Integration of Criteria and Toxic Pollutants in SMOKE Madeleine Strum, OAQPS Collaborators: Marc Houyoux, MCNC/EMC Ron Ryan &

Photochemical Modeling For Regulatory Applications Jim Boylan – GA EPD Praveen Amar – NESCAUM CMAS Users Forum Meeting October 14, 2010.

WESTAR 2003 Fall Technical Conference on PSD Increment Tracking & Cumulative Effects Modeling Seattle, Washington Conducting Class I Area Increment Analyses.

WRAP Workshop July 29-30, 2008 Potential Future Regional Modeling Center Cumulative Analysis Ralph Morris ENVIRON International Corporation Novato, California.

Regional Modeling for Stationary Source Control Strategy Evaluation WESTAR Conference on BART Guidelines and Trading September 1, 2005 Tom Moore -

Role of Air Quality Modeling in the RIA Norm Possiel & Pat Dolwick Air Quality Modeling Group EPA/OAQPS.

Use of Advanced Probing Tools in One-Atmosphere Air Quality Models for Model Evaluation, Culpability Assessment and Control Strategy Design Presented at.

1 Modeling Under PSD Air quality models (screening and refined) are used in various ways under the PSD program. Step 1: Significant Impact Analysis –Use.

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.

Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 3SAQS Phase II -- Task Source Apportionment Modeling Study Design University.

Reproposal of the Regional Haze Rule and BART Guidelines.

List of Issues for Attainment Demonstrations 1.Which areas are required to do an attainment demonstration? 2.What should be the technical requirements.

Types of Models Marti Blad Northern Arizona University College of Engineering & Technology.

Summary of June 15, 2005 Revisions to RH BART and BART Guidelines.

1 Prakash Karamchandani 1, David Parrish 2, Lynsey Parker 1, Thomas Ryerson 3, Paul O. Wennberg 4, Alex Teng 4, John D. Crounse 4, Greg Yarwood 1 1 Ramboll.

WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver CO 7/22/04 Introduction to the the RMC Source Apportionment Modeling Effort Gail Tonnesen,

BART Status of Other States AK, Bernalillo County, HI ND, SD, OR, WA.

AoH/MF Meeting, San Diego, CA, Jan 25, 2006 WRAP 2002 Visibility Modeling: Summary of 2005 Modeling Results Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang, Mohammad Omary, Chao-Jung.

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt CRGAQS: CAMx 2004 PSAT Results Presentation to the Gorge Study Technical Team By ENVIRON International Corporation.

Template Comparison of PM Source Apportionment and Sensitivity Analysis in CAMx Bonyoung Koo, Gary Wilson, Ralph Morris, Greg Yarwood ENVIRON Alan Dunker.

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.

The Role of Background O 3 in the NAAQS Review George T. Wolff Air Improvement Resource, Inc.

1 8 th Conference on Air Quality Modeling – AWMA AB3 Comments on Lagrangian and Eulerian Long Range Transport/Regional Models By Bob Paine, ENSR.

WRAP Technical Work Overview

Single-Source Impacts with SCICHEM and CAMx

CENRAP Modeling and Weight of Evidence Approaches

Phase I Attribution of Haze Overview (Geographic Attribution for the Implementation of the Regional Haze Rule) or (an experiment in weight-of evidence)

Alternative title slide

Mobile Source Contributions to Ambient PM2.5 and Ozone in 2025

Sunil Kumar TAC, COG July 9, 2007

Photochemical Modeling of Industrial Flare Plumes with SCICHEM 3.1

Hybrid Plume/Grid Modeling for the Allegheny County PM2.5 SIPs

EASIUR: A Reduced-Complexity Model Derived from CAMx

BART Overview Lee Alter Western Governors’ Association

Issues on Ozone Planning in the Western United States

WRAP Stationary Sources Forum Meeting November 14-15, 2006

Regional Modeling for Stationary Source Control Strategy Evaluation

Implementation Workgroup April 19, 2007

CRGAQS: CAMx PSAT Results

Presentation transcript:

Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt Modeling Options for Proposed BART Rule Two roles for modeling in proposed BART rule > Does a potential BART-eligible source contribute to visibility impairment at a Class I area (max 24-hr) > What is degree of visibility improvement due to BART controls at a specific facility Do BART controls result visibility improvements of > 0.5 dV averaged across 20% worst modeled days Once a facility is BART-eligible, then all visibility precursor species must be considered (SOx, NOx, PM and VOC) > For most sources SO4 and NO3 will be primary pollutants of interest (SOx and NOx emissions)

Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt Modeling Options for Proposed BART Rule CALPUFF – Lagrangian non-steady-state Gaussian puff model with simplified parameterized chemistry Advantages > Simple integrated modeling package w/ GUIs available > Computationally efficient for a few sources > EPA guideline model for > 50 km and PSD pollutants (SO2, NO2 and PM) > Mentioned in proposed BART rule Disadvantages > Chemistry incorrect and out of date (1982) > SO4 and NO3 estimates likely not accurate and reliable

Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt Modeling Options for Proposed BART Rule SCICHEM – Second Order Closure Lagrangian non- steady-state model with full chemistry – requires 3-D fields of concentrations Advantages > Treats full nonlinear chemistry > Less computationally demanding than a photochemical grid model (PGM) for a few sources Disadvantages > Not easy to use and not widely used > Uncertainty in applicability, hasn’t been demonstrated for this type of application > Need 3-D fields without BART source(s) > More computationally demanding than CALPFF

Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt Modeling Options for Proposed BART Rule CMAQ – One-atmosphere photochemical grid model Advantages > Full chemistry > Will be set up for 36 km inter-RPO grid and several RPO 12 km grids Disadvantages > Coarse grid resolution (36/12 km) and one-way grid nesting limit ability to resolve point sources and get correct chemistry (Plume-in-Grid may help) > How to get single source impacts: > Zero-out? > TSSA Source Apportionment? > Computationally demanding

Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt Modeling Options for Proposed BART Rule CAMx – One-atmosphere photochemical grid model Advantages > Same as CMAQ > Two-way nesting and flexi-nesting can better resolve point source plumes > PSAT may be useful Disadvantages > How to get single source impacts: > Zero-out? > TSSA Source Apportionment? > Computationally demanding

Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt Modeling Options for Proposed BART Rule One potential approach using CAMx/PSAT Address each state one at a time Center 12 km modeling grid over state to include all key nearby Class I area Develop BCs from 36 km Inter-RPO grid 2002 run Add 4 km flexi-nest over state of interest Base Case run and zero-out all BART-eligible sources to identify most important visibility species (i.e., SO4 and NO3) Apply PSAT with ~30 BART-eligible facilities as separate source groupings Post-process to estimate each BART-eligible facility’s visibility impacts at Class I areas