WRAP SCC Temporal and Speciation Profile Improvement Project Status WRAP Regional Modeling Center Carolina Environmental Program November 4, 2003.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Emission Inventory System Reports Course Sally Dombrowski
Advertisements

1 Estimating On-Road Vehicle Emissions Using CONCEPT Alison K. Pollack Ralph Morris ENVIRON International Corporation.
Fire Modeling Protocol MeetingBoise, IDAugust 31 – September 1, 2010 Applying Fire Emission Inventories in Chemical Transport Models Zac Adelman
Inventory Issues and Modeling- Some Examples Brian Timin USEPA/OAQPS October 21, 2002.
EI Codes Angelique Luedeker, ITEP. 2 CODES!!! Why do we need them? ◦Computers organize information by number ◦Standardize descriptions and categories.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Carolina Environmental Programs Emissions and meteorological Aspects of the 2001 ICAP Simulation Adel Hanna,
ADEQ Uses of ICF Modeling Analysis Tony Davis, Branch Manager – Air Planning Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Criteria Pollutant Modeling Analysis.
________________________________________The State of the SMOKE Modeling System 2001/2002 ______________________________________________________Environmental.
1 Overview of the Emissions Modeling Platform October 17, 2007 NAAQS RIA Workshop Rich Mason EPA/OAQPS/AQAD/EIAG.
Emission processing methodology for the new GEM-MACH model ABSTRACT SMOKE has recently been adapted to provide emissions for the new Meteorological Service.
1 Unit Conversions and EI Codes Angelique Luedeker ITEP/TAMS Center.
©2005,2006 Carolina Environmental Program Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions SMOKE Modeling System Zac Adelman and Andy Holland Carolina Environmental.
Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) Emission Inventory Comparison 2008 vs 2011 vs 2018 vs 2020 University of North.
Western Regional Air Partnership Emissions Database Management System Presentation to Fire Emissions Joint Forum Las Vegas, Nevada December 09, 2004 E.H.
PHASE II PROJECT Day 1 – 3:15p PHASE II PROJECT -- Ag Burning – Integration of QC responses -- NIF Format -- Plume Characteristics Update -- Next Steps.
AoH Report Update Joint DEJF & AoH Meeting, Las Vegas November , 2004 Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
1 Emissions Inventory System (EIS) Overview and Exporting Data from the EIS Sally Dombrowski EPA–OAQPS.
Needs Assessment for Evaluation and Design of an Emissions Data Reporting, Management, and Tracking System.
Emission Inventory System Reports Course Sally Dombrowski
1 René Parra, Pedro Jiménez and José M. Baldasano Environmental Modeling Laboratory, UPC Barcelona, Spain Models-3 Conference, Chapel Hill, North Carolina,
Soontae Kim and Daewon W. Byun Comparison of Emission Estimates from SMOKE and EPS2 Used for Studying Houston-Galveston Air Quality Institute for Multidimensional.
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,
Projects:/WRAP RMC/309_SIP/progress_sep02/Annex_MTF_Sep20.ppt Preliminary Mobile Source Significance Test Modeling Results WRAP Regional Modeling Center.
AoH/MF Meeting, San Diego, CA, Jan 25, 2006 Source Apportionment Modeling Results and RMC Status report Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang, Mohammad Omary, Chao-Jung.
Emission Inventories and EI Data Sets Sarah Kelly, ITEP Les Benedict, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe.
1 Elements of EI Data Management Melinda Ronca-Battista ITEP.
Section 309 Mobile Source Significance Test Modeling Results WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC) University of California at Riverside, CE-CERT ENVIRON.
October 6, 2015 Alison Eyth, Rich Mason (EPA OAQPS EIAG*) Alexis Zubrow (Volpe, DOT) * Emission Inventory and Analysis Group.
§309 Technical Support Document “Table of Contents” First Draft Tom Moore WESTAR Fall Technical Conference September 19, 2002.
Improving Data Quality in CEIDARS Vijay Bhargava Emission Inventory Workshop Air Resources Board March 13, 2006.
WRAP Emission Inventory EI’s traditionally consider 4 sectors : – Stationary Point Sources – Area Sources – Mobile Sources – Biogenic Sources.
February 23-24, 2005Salt Lake City, Utah1 Rangeland Burning (Non-Federal Lands) Methodology Phase 2 Fire Emission Inventory WRAP – FEJF.
PM2.5 Working Group Meeting #2 South Coast Air Quality Management District July 11, 2006.
1 Emissions Modeling Survey Results Marc Houyoux, US EPA Presentation to the RPO National Workgroup November 4-6, 2004 St. Louis, Missouri.
Appendix 3: The Standard Report From the Church Vitality Survey This Standard Report is produced for each church or church group that completes the Church.
Emission Inventory Input Format Eastern Canadian Premiers/New England Governors Conference Data Exchange Workgroup Gregory Stella U.S. Environmental Protection.
Carolina Environmental Program Status of SMOKE Catherine Seppanen Carolina Environmental Program University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill.
1 Elements of EI Data Management Melinda Ronca-Battista ITEP/TAMS Center.
Work Items for §309 SIPs WESTAR Fall Technical Conference September 19, 2002 Tom Moore & Brian Finneran.
Attribution of Haze Project Update Fire Emissions Joint Forum Meeting September 8-9, 2004 Worley, ID.
Regional Haze SIP Template: Mobile Sources Edie Chang California Air Resources Board WESTAR Fall Technical Conference September 2002.
Imperial County 2013 State Implementation Plan for the Hour PM2.5 Moderate Non-attainment Area December 2, 20141, 2014.
Significance of Mobile Source Emissions for the Purposes of Section 309 of the Regional Haze Rule Patrick Cummins Western Governors’ Association WRAP Board.
Air Quality Emission inventories
Western Regional Technical Projects 2011 through 2013
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Project Purpose Compare the criteria pollutant emission estimates and related data contained within three emission inventories/modeling platforms EPA 2001.
VISTAS Use of CEM Data and CEM Cross-Referencing Activities
Mobile Source Contributions to Ambient PM2.5 and Ozone in 2025
Overview of Emissions Processing for the 2002 Base Case CMAQ Modeling
MANE-VU Emissions Inventory Update
Elements of EI Data Management
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Differences/advantages to air emission inventory; added value
WRAP Technical Planning Meeting Salt Lake City, UT December 5, 2018
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Phase 1 – 2002 Fire Emissions Inventory
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
RMC Activity Update Emissions Forum July 1, 2003.
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
AoH Conference Call September 7, 2004
Status Report: “Significant Impact” from Mobile Sources and Road Dust
Defining “Significant Impact” from Mobile Sources and Road Dust
Update on WRAP Input to NEI Re-Engineering Process
Fire Emissions Joint Forum February 9, 2005
Presented to WRAP November 15, 2001 John Kowalczyk & Bob Neufeld
Presentation transcript:

WRAP SCC Temporal and Speciation Profile Improvement Project Status WRAP Regional Modeling Center Carolina Environmental Program November 4, 2003

Purpose  Review temporal and chemical speciation profiles applied to WRAP region point and area sources  Check by SCC and county  Phase I – review and recommend changes  Phase II – (2004) implement changes

Emissions Summaries Descriptions  Emissions summaries for all source categories modeled for the 1996 base case (area, on-road mobile, nonroad mobile, point, fires, biogenics, road dust) were used to determine the pollutants for which point and area sources are significant contributors  If the source category contributed to at least 20% of the total emissions for a pollutant across all source categories in any of the 13 WRAP states, then that pollutant was considered to be significant for that source category in all WRAP region states

Emitted pollutants to which point and area sources contributed significantly

Approach  CEP created SMOKE reports for the base 1996 point- and area-source emissions inventories that included state names, source classification codes (SCCs), SCC names, temporal profile assignments, and speciation profile assignments  To create quality assurance (QA) spreadsheets, these reports were imported into Microsoft Excel and sorted by state. The resulting spreadsheets for each of the 13 WRAP states for each source category (26 spreadsheets total) were then organized by the significant pollutants listed above

Approach, cont.  By sorting the data by the annual daily average (tons/day) for each pollutant in descending order and then calculating cumulative percentages for each SCC or facility (in the case of point sources), CEP determined the top 80% of the sources contributing to each significant pollutant  The top 80% of the emissions sources for each significant pollutant are tagged with blue font in the spreadsheets.

Description of each worksheet   spp profile_desc – Text descriptions of the VOC and PM 2.5 speciation profiles. This worksheet cross- references speciation profile numbers with brief text descriptions of the profiles.   monthly – Monthly temporal profiles and the corresponding monthly allocation factors for each profile.   weekly – Weekly temporal profiles and the corresponding weekly allocation factors for each profile.   diurnal - Diurnal temporal profiles and the corresponding diurnal allocation factors for each profile.

Description of each worksheet   Spp_Prof Data – Parsed SMOKE report output listing the region (state FIPS codes), state names, SCCs, speciation profile assigned to each state and SCC combination, SCC descriptions, and the annual daily average emissions reported for each state and SCC combination for each significant pollutant in each of the 13 WRAP states.   Temp_Prof Data – SMOKE report listing every SCC in each of the 13 WRAP states, the three temporal profile codes (monthly, weekly, diurnal) assigned to the SCC, the SCC description, and the annual daily average emissions for all inventory pollutants.   Temporal Plots (in point-source spreadsheets only) – Line graphs of the temporal profiles assigned to the significant pollutants for the major sources.

Description of each worksheet   State Abbreviation (e.g., AZ) – The first section of this worksheet is a SMOKE report listing the region (state FIPS codes), state name, SCC, SCC description and annual daily average for all inventory pollutants for that state and source category. The worksheet is then organized by each of the significant pollutants (Table 1 above) for the given source category. For area sources there are six such sections, and for point sources five sections, based on the number of significant pollutants.

Description of each worksheet   For area sources, the sections are composed of the SCCs contributing to the pollutant; the SCC descriptions; the annual daily average emissions for the pollutant; the cumulative percent contribution by each SCC; the monthly, weekly, and diurnal profiles assigned to the SCC; the speciation profile assigned to the SCC; and the description of the speciation profile (if applicable).   For point sources, the sections are composed of the SCCs contributing to the pollutant; plant ID; facility ID; stack ID; source ID; the SCC description; the annual daily average emissions for the pollutant; the cumulative percent contribution by each SCC; the monthly, weekly, and diurnal profiles assigned to the SCC; the speciation profile assigned to the SCC; and the description of the speciation profile (if applicable).

SCC Assignment and Profile Review  SCC assignment: Based on the SCC descriptions, do the rankings of top sources look reasonable for each of the significant pollutants? Does each SCC have a valid description?   Temporal profile assignment: Based on the SCC descriptions, are the monthly, weekly, and diurnal profiles reasonable for that source category?   Speciation profile assignment: Are the SCC descriptions and speciation profile descriptions (currently only possible for VOC and PM 2.5 ) consistent?

Action Items   Review inventory and profile flags raised by CEP. Comment on the validity of these flags and propose any recommended changes.   Check the SCC assignments to see whether the rankings of the top sources look reasonable for each of the significant pollutants.   Check whether the monthly, weekly, and diurnal profiles are reasonable for the top 80% of the SCCs for the significant pollutants.   Confirm that the cross referencing between the descriptions of the speciation profiles and the SCC descriptions looks reasonable for VOC and PM 2.5.