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

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Development and Application of PM2.5 Interpollutant Trading Ratios to Account for PM2.5 Secondary Formation in Georgia James Boylan and Byeong-Uk Kim Georgia.
Advertisements

Modeling Guidance and Examples for Commonly Asked Questions (Part II) Reece Parker and Justin Cherry, P.E. Air Permits Division Texas Commission on Environmental.
1 Policies for Addressing PM2.5 Precursor Emissions Rich Damberg EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards June 20, 2007.
Template Development and Testing of PinG and VBS modules in CMAQ 5.01 Prakash Karamchandani, Bonyoung Koo, Greg Yarwood and Jeremiah Johnson ENVIRON International.
Ozone Modeling over the Western U.S. -- Impact of National Controls on Ozone Trends in the Future Rural/Urban Ozone in the Western United States -- March.
Paul Wishinski VT DEC Presentation for: MARAMA-NESCAUM-OTC Regional Haze Workshop August 2-3, 2000 Gorham, New Hampshire LYE BROOK WILDERNESS CLASS I AREA.
Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 2008 CAMx Modeling Model Performance Evaluation Summary University of North Carolina.
Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, CA
Ozone in Colorado: Issues and Reduction Strategies Presentation to the Colorado Environmental Health Association October 2,
Spatial Variability of Seasonal PM2.5 Interpollutant Trading Ratios in Georgia James Boylan and Byeong-Uk Kim Georgia EPD – Air Protection Branch 2014.
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,
Jenny Stocker, Christina Hood, David Carruthers, Martin Seaton, Kate Johnson, Jimmy Fung The Development and Evaluation of an Automated System for Nesting.
1 icfi.com | 1 HIGH-RESOLUTION AIR QUALITY MODELING OF NEW YORK CITY TO ASSESS THE EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN FUELS FOR BOILERS AND POWER GENERATION 13 th Annual.
Template U.S. EPA’s Evaluation of Long Range Transport Models Ralph E. Morris ENVIRON International Corporation A&WMA CPANS Conference University of Calgary.
OTAG Air Quality Analysis Workgroup Volume I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Dave Guinnup and Bob Collom, Workgroup co-chair “Telling the ozone story with data”
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.
West-wide Jumpstart Air Quality Modeling Study Modeling Results November 7, 2013 Technical Project Team ENVIRON, Alpine Geophysics, Univ. of North Carolina.
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.
Krish Vijayaraghavan, Prakash Karamchandani Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, CA 3rd Annual CMAS Models-3 Conference October 18-20, 2004 Chapel Hill, NC.
Impact of a renewable biomass energy power plant in urban landscape with complex terrain in Central Italy: modelling assessment and suggestions for monitoring.
Ozone and Nitrogen Concerns in NM WRAP Ozone and NOx in the West November 11, 2009.
Modeling Studies of Air Quality in the Four Corners Region National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Cooperative Institute for Research in.
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.
PM2.5 Model Performance Evaluation- Purpose and Goals PM Model Evaluation Workshop February 10, 2004 Chapel Hill, NC Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS.
EFFICIENT CHARACTERIZATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CONTROL STRATEGY IMPACT PREDICTIONS EFFICIENT CHARACTERIZATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CONTROL STRATEGY IMPACT PREDICTIONS.
Community Multiscale Air Quality Modeling System CMAQ Air Quality Data Summit February 2008.
Ozone MPE, TAF Meeting, July 30, 2008 Review of Ozone Performance in WRAP Modeling and Relevance to Future Regional Ozone Planning Gail Tonnesen, Zion.
Western Air Quality Study (WAQS) Intermountain West Data Warehouse (IWDW) Revisions to WAQS Phase 2 SoW: September 2015 – March 2016 University of North.
Chemical transport modeling in support of NPS-CIRA activities Mike Barna 1 Marco Rodriguez 2 Kristi Gebhart 1 Bret Schichtel 1 Bill Malm 1 Jenny Hand 2.
Brief Description of CALPUFF Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency.
1 Neil Wheeler, Kenneth Craig, and Clinton MacDonald Sonoma Technology, Inc. Petaluma, California Presented at the Sixth Annual Community Modeling and.
1 Comparison of CAMx and CMAQ PM2.5 Source Apportionment Estimates Kirk Baker and Brian Timin U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,
Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt Implementing PM Source Apportionment (PSAT) in CAMx Greg Yarwood, Ralph Morris and Gary Wilson ENVIRON International.
Impacts of MOVES2014 On-Road Mobile Emissions on Air Quality Simulations of the Western U.S. Z. Adelman, M. Omary, D. Yang UNC – Institute for the Environment.
FLMs, PSD Increment, and AQRVs: the Oregon experience WESTAR Fall Technical Conference Seattle September 2003 Philip Allen, Oregon DEQ.
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 -
Proposed Revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models
Source Attribution Modeling to Identify Sources of Regional Haze in Western U.S. Class I Areas Gail Tonnesen, EPA Region 8 Pat Brewer, National Park Service.
Use of Advanced Probing Tools in One-Atmosphere Air Quality Models for Model Evaluation, Culpability Assessment and Control Strategy Design Presented at.
Evaluation of the VISTAS 2002 CMAQ/CAMx Annual Simulations T. W. Tesche & Dennis McNally -- Alpine Geophysics, LLC Ralph Morris -- ENVIRON Gail Tonnesen.
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.
Evaluation and Application of AMSTERDAM: Focus on Plume In Grid Prakash Karamchandani, Krish Vijayaraghavan, Shu-Yun Chen and Rochelle Balmori Atmospheric.
Template Reducing Vertical Transport Over Complex Terrain in Photochemical Grid Models Chris Emery, Ed Tai, Ralph Morris, Greg Yarwood ENVIRON International.
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.
Template A screening method for ozone impacts of new sources based on high-order sensitivity analysis of CAMx simulations for Sydney Greg Yarwood
Operational Evaluation and Model Response Comparison of CAMx and CMAQ for Ozone & PM2.5 Kirk Baker, Brian Timin, Sharon Phillips U.S. Environmental Protection.
WESTAR 2003 Fall Technical Conference Introduction to Class I Area Impact Analyses September 16, 2003 John Bunyak National Park Service.
Template Comparison of PM Source Apportionment and Sensitivity Analysis in CAMx Bonyoung Koo, Gary Wilson, Ralph Morris, Greg Yarwood ENVIRON Alan Dunker.
MRPO Technical Approach “Nearer” Term Overview For: Emissions Modeling Meteorological Modeling Photochemical Modeling & Domain Model Performance Evaluation.
Template Application of SCICHEM-2012 for 1-Hour NO 2 Concentration Assessments Prakash Karamchandani, Ralph Morris, Greg Yarwood, Bart Brashers, S.-Y.
Krish Vijayaraghavan, Rochelle Balmori, Shu-Yun Chen, Prakash Karamchandani and Christian Seigneur AER, San Ramon, CA Justin T. Walters and John J. Jansen.
Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt Modeling Options for Proposed BART Rule Two roles for modeling in proposed BART rule > Does a potential BART-eligible.
1 8 th Conference on Air Quality Modeling – AWMA AB3 Comments on Lagrangian and Eulerian Long Range Transport/Regional Models By Bob Paine, ENSR.
OAQPS Update June 24, NESCAUM PMC Annual Meeting.
WRAP Technical Work Overview
Single-Source Impacts with SCICHEM and CAMx
Alternative title slide
Predicting PM2.5 Concentrations that Result from Compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) James T. Kelly, Adam Reff, and Brett Gantt.
Kenneth Craig, Garnet Erdakos, Lynn Baringer, and Stephen Reid
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
Issues on Ozone Planning in the Western United States
Overview of WRAP 2014 Platform develop and Shake-Out project update
WRAP Modeling Forum, San Diego
Regional Modeling for Stationary Source Control Strategy Evaluation
Presentation transcript:

Template Use of Photochemical Grid Models to Assess Single-Source Impacts Ralph Morris, Tanarit Sakulyanontvittaya, Darren Wilton and Lynsey Parker ENVIRON International Corp., Novato, CA 11 th Annual CMAS Conference Chapel Hill, North Carolina October 15-17, 2012

Background Long Range Transport (LRT) models estimate incremental air quality (AQ) concentration and related values (AQRV) at Class I areas for distances > 50 km –e.g., PSD, BART and NEPA –AQRVs include visibility and acid deposition (S and N) 1998 Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) –Recommends CALPUFF for far-field Class I assessments 2003 EPA modeling guidance –Recommends CALPUFF for far-field air quality assessments of inert pollutants –Secondary PM 2.5 is important for far-field AQ/RV –But CALPUFF not an EPA-preferred model for secondary PM 2.5 2

Background 2009 EPA/IWAQM Phase II Reassessment Report –Addresses lack of recommended settings for regulatory applications of CALMET/CALPUFF  “Anything goes” – options set to achieve desired result –Recommended CALMET options to “pass through” WRF/MM5 meteorology to CALPUFF August 2009 EPA Clarification Memo –New recommended CALMET settings EPA has developed the Mesoscale Model Interface Tool (MMIF) –Pass through WRF/MM5 meteorology to CALPUFF as much as possible 3

Background EPA is examining alternative LRT models for far-field AQ/RV issues –Considering photochemical grid models (PGMs) PGM reluctance in the past: –Bigger/complex databases, higher computational requirements –Multiple model runs (zero-out run for single source) –More modeling expertise to use –Grid resolution issues (e.g., miss max plume concentrations) Overriding considerations: –Treats ozone – a pollutant of increasing importance –Contains state-of-science gas/PM chemistry –Currently used for NEPA single-source assessments 4

Purpose Perform single-source Class I AQ/RV demonstration for example test sources Use a PGM, compare results to CALPUFF –Maximum PSD pollutant concentrations –Maximum visibility impacts –Maximum annual sulfur and nitrogen deposition 5

Overview of Approach Select 2 existing western PGM/MM5 databases – km Four Corners Air Quality Task Force (FCAQTF) – km Utah-Colorado (UT-CO) Select existing test sources –Electrical Generating Units (EGUs) of various sizes (point source) –Oil and Gas production sources (point and area) Model single-source AQ/RV impacts at Class I areas using multiple models/configurations –CAMx PGM –CALPUFF V5.8 –CALMET and MMIF meteorological inputs 6

Modeling Differences CALPUFF Gaussian puff formulation –Class I areas represented by hundreds of receptors –Touted as resolving higher peak plume concentrations  Is this really true at longer downwind distances? –POSTUTIL (NO 3 repartitioning) not used in these analyses CAMx Eulerian grid formulation –Resolves AQ/RV impacts at grid resolution  12 and 4 km in these applications  Does this under estimate maximum impacts? –Plume-in-Grid (PiG) module used to treat early point source plume growth and chemistry  Addresses non-linear resolution-dependent chemistry –Use PM Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) to track contributions from single sources  Alleviates multiple zero-out runs 7

Class I Areas Defined by 12 km Grid 8

km FCAQTF 5 EGU Point Sources –NO X : 4 – 42,000 TPY –SO 2 : 0.1 – 12,500 TPY 9 O&G Gridded Sources –9 x 9 array of 4 km cells –NO X : 175 – 291,800 TPY –SO 2 : TPY 9

km UT-CO 13 EGU Point Sources –NO X : 13 – 34,700 TPY –SO 2 : 0 – 17,300 TPY 11 O&G Gridded Sources –3 x 3 array of 12 km cells –NO X : 51 – 10,30 TPY –SO 2 : TPY 10

Max 24-hour SO 2 – km FCAQTF 11 CAMx vs CALPUFF/MET CAMx vs CALPUFF/MIFFCALPUFF/MET vs MIFF

Max 24-hour SO 2 – km UT-CO 12 CAMx vs CALPUFF/MET CAMx vs CALPUFF/MIFF CALPUFF/MET vs MIFF CALPUFF/MET: 12 km vs 4 km

Max 24-hour SO 2 Summary km FCAQTF –CAMx > CALPUFF/MET > CALPUFF/MMIF –CAMx is closer to CALPUFF/MET  Surprising – CAMx and CALPUFF/MMIF share same met –CAMx estimated highest annual SO 2 from FCPP at Mesa Verde NP (~50 km away)  Surprising – grid cells thought to produce lower concentrations than receptors km UT-CO –CALPUFF/MET ~ CALPUFF/MMIF > CAMx –CAMx grid resolution may play a role  But different year, different/farther source-receptor couples add complexity –CALPUFF/MET 4 km = 12 km 13

km UT-CO Annual SO4 from EGU1 14 CAMx CALPUFF/MIFF CALPUFF/MET

km UT-CO Annual PNO3 from EGU1 15 CAMx CALPUFF/MIFF CALPUFF/MET

km UT-CO Annual PM10 from EGU1 16 CAMx CALPUFF/MIFF CALPUFF/MET

km UT-CO Max 24-hour PM10 from EGU1 17 CAMx CALPUFF/MIFF CALPUFF/MET

Max 24-hour Visibility – km FCAQTF 18 CAMx vs CALPUFF/MET CAMx vs CALPUFF/MIFFCALPUFF/MET vs MIFF

Max 24-hour Visibility – km UT-CO 19 CAMx vs CALPUFF/MET CAMx vs CALPUFF/MIFF CALPUFF/MET vs MIFF CALPUFF/MET: 12 km vs 4 km

Spatial Variability Across Class I Areas Spatial variability not always greater in CALPUFF –Little spatial variability > 100 km from the source km 45 km235 km 170 km 140 km 225 km

Visibility Summary Used latest IMPROVE equation –Extinction due to SO 4, PNO 3, EC, OA, Crustal (no NO 2 ) –Monthly average f(RH) values CALPUFF makes more PNO 3 than CAMx –Constant 1 ppb background ammonia in CALPUFF –CALPUFF does not account for chemistry of puff overlap Little spatial variability for distant Class I areas (> 100 km) km FCAQTF –CALPUFF/MET = 1.4 x CALPUFF/MMIF (40% higher) –CALPUFF/MET = 2.0 x CAMx (100% higher) km UT-CO –CALPUFF/MET ~ CALPUFF/MMIF > CAMx –CALPUFF/MET 12 km = 4 km 21

Nitrogen Deposition – km FCAQTF CAMx = 2.0 x CALPUFF/MET/MMIF CALPUFF/MET ~ CALPUFF/MMIF CAMx carries more NO 3 as HNO 3 (CALPUFF tends toward PNO 3 ) –HNO 3 has higher dry deposition rate CAMx = ∑ N Species CALPUFF = NOx + HNO 3 + NO 3 + NH 4 22

Conclusions Demonstrate utility of PGM’s for single source AQ/AQRV impacts –Better chemistry, 3-D long-range transport/dispersion Results for inert/linear pollutants not so different –PGM resolution may play a role at short distances (<100 km) –High receptor density makes no difference at farther distances –Surprisingly, CAMx most dissimilar to CALPUFF/MMIF for 2005 gas SO 2 concentrations Visibility/deposition differences arise from HNO 3 /PNO 3 partitioning –HNO 3 has higher dry deposition rate –More PNO 3  larger visibility impact, lower N deposition –Partitioning of NO 3 during transport is important  POSTUTIL does not remedy this issue 23

Acknowledgements Work funded by EPA OAQPS Air Quality Modeling Group under sub-contract to UNC/Institute of the Environment Final report will be posted on SCRAM 24