overview of other rpo modeling work
Post on 16-Jan-2016
46 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
Overview of Other RPO
Modeling Work
Ralph MorrisENVIRON International Corporation
Joint Modeling Forum and Attribution of Haze Workgroup Meeting
San Diego, CaliforniaNovember 2, 2006
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
Other RPO Modeling
• CENRAP– ENVIRON and UCR
• MRPO– LADCO w/ assistance from contractors
• VISTAS– ENVIRON, UCR and Alpine
• MANE-VU– NESCAUM, OTC, MARAMA, States
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
CENRAP Update• 2002 Actual Base Case
– MPE CMAQ and CAMx @ 36 km
• 2002 Typical Base Case (Base F latest)• 2018 Base E2 Emissions and CMAQ
– Working on 2018 Base F– Preliminary 2018 CAMx/PSAT runs
• Identify contributions of International Transport• How to work into Reasonable Progress
• 2018 Base E2 Visibility Projections– Comparisons with WRAP, MRPO and VISTAS
• 2018 Base F visibility projections ongoing– Ready in about 4 weeks
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
Treatment of International Transport• Modeled Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) test
compares against 2018 Goal from Glide Slope 2000-2004 Baseline to 2064 Natural Conditions– Modeled 2018 visibility projection includes contributions
from International Transport and Natural Sources that are not completely accounted for in 2064 Natural Conditions
– Regional Haze Rule goal is no man-made visibility impairment in 2064
• For demonstrating Reasonable Progress does this just apply to US man-made (controllable) sources?
• CENRAP Visibility Projections found Class I areas on US international border fail to meet URP goal– How to treat International Transport in modeled URP test?
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
How to Treat International Transport in Reasonable Progress
• Approach 1: Include International Transport with the 2064 Natural Conditions Goal– Can use different estimates of International Transport
(GEOS-CHEM, PSAT, etc.)
– Simple to implement
– Keeps Glide Slope in deciview
– Inconsistent with Regional Haze Rule 2064 Natural Conditions goal?
– Not liked by FLMs
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
How to Treat International Transport in Reasonable Progress
• Approach 2: Define 2064 goal as Elimination of U.S. Anthropogenic Emissions Contribution to Visibility Impairment– Interpretation of the “no man-made impairment” as
U.S. man-made impairment– Need approach to track U.S. anthropogenic
contribution – 2064 goal is zero– Must use Extinction (Mm-1) to calculate
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
Intl Transport & Reasonable Progress
• Approach 3: Adjust modeled 2018 visibility projection to account for International Transport (FLM suggestion)– Consistent with Regional Haze Rule– How and what to do?
• (3A) Assume International Transport component is reduced same amount as U.S. anthropogenic emissions component
– If International Transport is above and beyond Natural Conditions then this seems reasonable
– Can keep deciview– Promotes fairness across States with Class I areas in center versus
border of U.S.
• (3B) Other???
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
CENRAP PM Source Apportionment
• PM Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT)• 2018 Base D CAMx Database• State Level Geographic Regions
– CENRAP and Adjacent States
• Track Three Families – SO4; NO3 & Primary PM [No SOA or Hg]
• Use standard model output to split SOA into anthropogenic and biogenic SOA (SOA_A & SOA_B)– No geographic source apportionment for SOA
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
150022 Separate States; rest of West and East US; Canada; Mexico GulfMex ; IC; & BC
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
Geographic PSAT• 2018 Base D Emissions Scenario
• Class I areas for W20% Days
• Convert to Extinction (Bext) and determine State’s contribution to Visibility Impairment on Worst 20% – Can also partition by RPO and split International
vs. U.S. Sources– Only geographic Source Apportionment at this time
• Can not Separate Natural from Anthropogenic U.S. (except for SOA_B)
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
BIBE1 GICL1 GUMO1 WIMO1
SOA_B & SOA_A All Sources BCs (Global Transport) Mexico
CENRAP
VISTAS + MANE-VU
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
BIBE1 GICL1 GUMO1 WIMO1
MN IA NE MO KS AK OK LA TX ND SD
WY CO NM West WI IL MI IN KY TN MS
AL East CANADA MEXICO Gulf of MX IC BC SO_Anthro SO_Biog
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
BIBE1 GICL1 GUMO1 WIMO1
MN IA NE MO KS AK OK LA TX ND SD
WY CO NM West WI IL MI IN KY TN MS
AL East CANADA MEXICO Gulf of MX IC BC SO_Anthro SO_Biog
Wichita Mountains, Oklahoma Visibility Extinction (Mm-1) Source Apportionment for the Worst 20% Days
70
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
Big Bend National Park, Texas Visibility Extinction Apportionment Worst 20% Days
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
BIBE1 GICL1 GUMO1 WIMO1
bE
xt(1
/Mm
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
BIBE1 GICL1 GUMO1 WIMO1
MN IA NE MO KS AK OK LA TX ND SD
WY CO NM West WI IL MI IN KY TN MS
AL East CANADA MEXICO Gulf of MX IC BC SO_Anthro SO_Biog
SOA_B & SOA_A All Sources
BCs (Global Transport)
Mexico
CENRAP States (Texas largest)
~60% of visibility extinction on average of Worst 20% Days due to international
transport
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
Wichita Mtns Oklahoma
22% due to non-US Anthro Sources
Bext
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
24% due to non-US Sources
BSO4
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
13% due to non-US Sources
BNO3
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
International Transport Methods• Use PM Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT)
to separately track contributions due to International Transport– Initial results for 2018 Base D
• Zero-Out GEOS-CHEM global chemistry model (eliminate U.S. sources or eliminate International sources)– Initial results from EPRI study with Harvard
• Two “independent” approaches for estimating contributions of International Transport to PM concentrations at Class I areas.– How do PSAT and GEOS-CHEM results compare?
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
AC
AD
LYB
R
BR
IG
BO
WA
ISLE
BIB
E
CA
CR
MIN
G
UP
BU
EV
ER
CH
AS
SA
MA
CO
HU
OK
EF
RO
MA
SIP
S
SH
RO
GR
SM
LIGO
MA
CA
SW
AN
JAR
I
DO
SO
SH
EN
Am
mo
niu
m S
ulfa
te (
g
/m3 )
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
AC
AD
1
LYB
R1
BR
IG1
BO
WA
1
ISLE
1
BIB
E1
CA
CR
1
MIN
G1
UP
BU
1
EV
ER
1
CH
AS
1
SA
MA
1
CO
HU
1
OK
EF
1
RO
MA
1
SIP
S1
SH
RO
1
GR
SM
1
LIGO
1
MA
CA
1
SW
AN
1
JAR
I1
DO
SO
1
SH
EN
1
Am
mo
niu
m S
ulfa
te (
g
/m3 )Sulfate (SO4)
Annual Average International Transport by
CAMx/PSAT and GEOS-CHEM
models
Excellent to Good Agreement of Two
Methods
Not truly “independent”
evaluation since CAMx/PSAT runs
used GEOS-CHEM BCs, but results
encouraging
CAMx/PSAT
GEOS-CHEM
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
AC
AD
LYB
R
BR
IG
BO
WA
ISLE
BIB
E
CA
CR
MIN
G
UP
BU
EV
ER
CH
AS
SA
MA
CO
HU
OK
EF
RO
MA
SIP
S
SH
RO
GR
SM
LIGO
MA
CA
SW
AN
JAR
I
DO
SO
SH
EN
Org
anic
Car
bo
n M
ass
(
g/m
3 )
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
AC
AD
1
LYB
R1
BR
IG1
BO
WA
1
ISLE
1
BIB
E1
CA
CR
1
MIN
G1
UP
BU
1
EV
ER
1
CH
AS
1
SA
MA
1
CO
HU
1
OK
EF
1
RO
MA
1
SIP
S1
SH
RO
1
GR
SM
1
LIGO
1
MA
CA
1
SW
AN
1
JAR
I1
DO
SO
1
SH
EN
1
Org
anic
Car
bo
n M
ass
(
g/m
3 )
Organic Carbon Mass (OCM) Annual Average International Transport
by CAMx/PSAT and GEOS-CHEM models
Reasonably Good Agreement of Two
Methods, As much as a Factor of Two Different (LYBR), but most fairly
close
Larger differences in OCM. CAMx/PSAT includes OCM from
Biogenic Sources so expected to be higher, but frequently lower?
CAMx/PSAT
GEOS-CHEM
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
AC
AD
LY
BR
BR
IG
BO
WA
ISLE
BIB
E
CA
CR
MIN
G
UP
BU
EV
ER
CH
AS
SA
MA
CO
HU
OK
EF
RO
MA
SIP
S
SH
RO
GR
SM
LIG
O
MA
CA
SW
AN
JA
RI
DO
SO
SH
EN
Ele
me
nta
l Ca
rbo
n (
g/m
3 )0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
AC
AD
1
LY
BR
1
BR
IG1
BO
WA
1
ISL
E1
BIB
E1
CA
CR
1
MIN
G1
UP
BU
1
EV
ER
1
CH
AS
1
SA
MA
1
CO
HU
1
OK
EF
1
RO
MA
1
SIP
S1
SH
RO
1
GR
SM
1
LIG
O1
MA
CA
1
SW
AN
1
JAR
I1
DO
SO
1
SH
EN
1
Ele
me
nta
l Ca
rbo
n (
g/m
3 )Elemental Carbon (EC) Annual
Average International Transport by
CAMx/PSAT and GEOS-CHEM
models
Differences in fires may be
affecting results. Large Quebec fires in 2002
affect CAMx/PSAT. Mex
fires in GEOS-CHEM?
CAMx/PSAT
GEOS-CHEM
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
Accounting for International Transport
• Run PSAT for 2002 and 2018 separating controllable and uncontrollable (or US vs. International Transport) components– Approach 1: Add “International Transport” component to
Natural Conditions for 2064 goal and redefine 2018 URP goal from 2000-2004 Baseline to new 2064 goal (in deciviews)
– Approach 2: Redefine URP goal based on Controllable haze only. 2064 endpoint would be zero (no man-made impairment)
• Examples of these approaches using current 2018 PSAT run follows– International Transport = Uncontrollable =
Mex+Can+BCs+SOA_B
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide PathBig Bend NP - 20% Data Days
17.1016.42
14.73
13.03
11.349.64
7.956.93
16.36
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064
Year
Haz
ines
s In
dex
(Dec
ivie
ws)
Glide Path Natural Condition (Worst Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction
Big Bend: Standard URP Calculation = 31% of URP goal
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide PathBig Bend NP - 20% Data Days
17.10 16.7615.90
15.0414.17
13.3112.45 11.94
16.36
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064
Year
Haz
ines
s In
dex
(Dec
ivie
ws)
Glide Path Natural Condition (Worst Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction
Big Bend: Approach 1 IntlTrans in 2064 Natural Conditions = 62%
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide PathBig Bend NP - 20% Data Days
19.94 18.61 15.29 11.96 8.64 5.32 1.99 0.0018.51
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064
Year
Ext
inct
ion
(1/M
m)
Glide Path Observation Method 1 Prediction
Big Bend: Approach 2 URP Based on Controllable Haze = 31%
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
Big Bend Example
• Standard URP = 31%
• Intl Trans in 2064 = 62%
• Controllable URP = 31% (???)– Could not do this correctly since only had
geographic PSAT for 2018 and natural emissions were included in US portion
• Also need 2002 source apportionment
• CENRAP intends to correct this with Base F modeling
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
CENRAP PSAT Next Steps• International Transport and Natural Conditions
Analysis combined with Control Strategy Design Analysis– Source Regions: CENRAP States and Nearby
WRAP, MRPO and VISTAS States– Source Categories: EGU, Non-EGU Point, On-
Road Mobile; Off-Road Mobile; Natural Emissions (Biogenics, Wildfires, Non-Ag WBD); Remaining Anthropogenic (e.g., area, Ag WBD)
– 2002 and 2018 Base Case emissions
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
CENRAP PSAT Source Regions
-2736 -2412 -2088 -1764 -1440 -1116 -792 -468 -144 180 504 828 1152 1476 1800 2124 2448-2088
-1872
-1656
-1440
-1224
-1008
-792
-576
-360
-144
72
288
504
720
936
1152
1368
1584
1800
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
Midwest RPO Modeling• MM5 Meteorology
– 2001, 2002, 2003 36-km for regional haze & PM2.5
– 2002 12-km for 8-hour ozone• EMS Emissions (Base K)
– Starting to Migrate to CONCEPT• CAMx Air Quality Model
– CMAQ may be used for corroborative analysis– Update model for SOA treatment– Using PSAT and OSAT
• Aggressive Movement to 2005 Modeling Year– Driven by 8-hour ozone and PM25 issues
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
Midwest RPO SOA Updates• Update Biogenic Emissions Model to MEGAN
and Generate all SOA precursor Species– E.g., sesquiterpenes
• Update CAMx SOA Module– Treat new SOA precursors– Separate emissions for SOA species from gas-phase
chemistry species– Slightly different than VISTAS SOAmods update that
is plug and play with current biogenic emissions
• Considering directly emit Condensable Gases (CG) from mobile sources
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
Midwest RPO Controls• Need to address 8-hr ozone and PM2.5 as
well as regional haze
• BART for non-EGUs
• Beyond CAIR scenario for EGUs
• Fuel scenarios for urban ozone/PM2.5
• Combined with Northeast to look at regional diesel retrofit controls
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
VISTAS Modeling• 2002 36/12 km MM5• SMOKE 36/12 km• CMAQ 2002 36/12 km
– Looked at CAMx early on but dropped due to resource and time constraints
– Led to addition of biogenic SOA treatment
• Just finished Base G (final) Modeling– 2009 8-hour ozone and PM25 projections under ASIP– Visibility projections 36-km vs. 12-km similar– Using both 36 km and 12 km grid for 2009 and 2018
projections
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
2018 Base G Visibility Projections
• 2018 36/12 km Base G OTB Base Case– With CAIR but Without BART
• New and Old IMPROVE equation– New Natural Conditions for New IMPROVE from
VIEWS
• Previously presented preliminary 2018 36 km Base G visibility projections– Data substitution updates since then
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
Data Substitution Updates• New data substitution database received from ARS
on October 19, 20061. Add one more site (CADI1) to New IMPROVE equation database
Old IMPROVE still not supporting CADI1
2. Update MING1 with latest data from UC Davis
3. Other minor updates (BRET1, etc.)
• Always use newest data when available– Still using old substitution data for CHAS1 as missing data in 2003
& 2004 not in new database
• Display using “DotPlots”, percentage of achieving 2018 URP goal
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
CMAQ 2018g1a/Typ02g Method 1 predictions for VISTAS+ sites
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
200%C
OH
U1
DO
SO
1
GR
SM
1
JAR
I1
LIG
O1
CA
DI1
MA
CA
1
SH
EN
1
SH
RO
1
SIP
S1
CH
AS
1
EV
ER
1
OK
EF
1
RO
MA
1
SA
MA
1
SW
AN
1
BR
ET
1
BR
IG1
CA
CR
1
HE
GL1
MIN
G1
UP
BU
1
Per
cen
t o
f ta
rget
red
uct
ion
ach
ieve
d
CMAQ New IMPROVE Algorithm 12km
CMAQ Old IMPROVE Algorithm 12km
CMAQ New IMPROVE Algorithm 36km
CMAQ Old IMPROVE Algorithm 36km
VISTAS non-VISTAS
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
CMAQ Method 1 predictions for VISTAS+ sites Across RPOs
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
200%
CO
HU
1
DO
SO
1
GR
SM
1
JAR
I1
LIG
O1
CA
DI1
MA
CA
1
SIP
S1
SH
RO
1
SH
EN
1
CH
AS
1
EV
ER
1
OK
EF
1
RO
MA
1
SA
MA
1
SW
AN
1
BR
IG1
BR
ET
1
CA
CR
1
HE
GL
1
UP
BU
1
MIN
G1
Per
ce
nt
of
targ
et
red
uc
tio
n a
ch
iev
ed
VISTAS New Algo 12km (baseG)VISTAS Old Algo 12km (baseG)VISTAS New Algo 36km (baseG)VISTAS Old Algo 36km (baseG)CENRAP New Algo 36km (18e2 SOA)CENRAP Old Algo 36km (18e2 SOA)MwRPO Old Algo 36km (R4s1a)
Comparison of VISTAS 2018 36/12 km Base G New/Old IMPROVE projections with CENRAP 36 km New/Old and MRPO 36 km Old IMPROVE projections
CENRAP/MRPO Visibility Projections Now Much More Consistent with VISTAS
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
.
.
.
.
.Hercules Glade, MO
.
.
Likely to meet (>110%)
May meet (90-110%)
Likely not meet (<90%)
VISTAS 2018 Base G Uniform Rate of Progress AssessmentUsing New IMPROVE equation to calculate visibility
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
VISTAS Next Steps
• QA/QC of 2009 and 2018 projections
• Area of Influence (AOI) analysis– Identify sources within AOI
• BART control definitions
• 2018 strategy runs and projections
• States perform local PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone modeling
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
MANE-VU Modeling• NESCAUM, OTC, MARAMA, UMD,
States mainly in-house analysis• Contribution Report – look at various
methods for where PM came from– Back Trajectories -- Residence Time– PMF Receptor Modeling– REMSAD Tagged Species– CMAQ
• Joint study with MRPO on regional diesel retrofit controls
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Modeling Forum-AoH Meeting, San Diego, CA Nov 26, 2006
Potential Effects on WRAP
• 2018 visibility projections across RPOs starting to converge
• WRAP may want to consider processing existing WRAP 2002/2018 PSAT results to look at International Transport/Natural Emissions issues at WRAP Class I areas
• CENRAP 2018 visibility projections consistent with WRAP
top related