CENRAP Modeling and Weight of Evidence Approaches

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Analysis of 12 years of IMPROVE data in the Columbia River Gorge By Dan Jaffe University of Washington Northwest Air Quality Photo from the Wishram IMPROVE.
Advertisements

Causes of Haze Assessment Mark Green Desert Research Institute Marc Pitchford, Chair Ambient Monitoring & Reporting Forum.
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.
Attribution of Haze Phase 2 and Technical Support System Project Update AoH Meeting – San Francisco, CA September 14/15, 2005 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource.
CENRAP Modeling Workgroup Mational RPO Modeling Meeting May 25-26, Denver CO Calvin Ku Missouri DNR May 25, 2004.
Technical Support System Review / / RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup Conference.
Weight of Evidence Checklist Review AoH Work Group Call June 7, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
1 Modelled Meteorology - Applicability to Well-test Flaring Assessments Environment and Energy Division Alex Schutte Science & Community Environmental.
Evaluation of the AIRPACT2 modeling system for the Pacific Northwest Abdullah Mahmud MS Student, CEE Washington State University.
1 An Update on EPA Attainment Modeling Guidance for the 8- Hour Ozone NAAQS Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS/EMAD/AQMG November 16, 2005.
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,
Regional Haze Modeling RPO Update Gary Kleiman, NESCAUM National RPO Meeting, Dallas, TX December 3, 2002.
TSS Data Preparation Update WRAP TSS Project Team Meeting Ft. Collins, CO March 28-31, 2006.
Clinton MacDonald 1, Kenneth Craig 1, Jennifer DeWinter 1, Adam Pasch 1, Brigette Tollstrup 2, and Aleta Kennard 2 1 Sonoma Technology, Inc., Petaluma,
2004 Workplan WRAP Regional Modeling Center Prepared by: Gail Tonnesen, University of California Riverside Ralph Morris, ENVIRON Corporation Zac Adelman,
PM2.5 Model Performance Evaluation- Purpose and Goals PM Model Evaluation Workshop February 10, 2004 Chapel Hill, NC Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS.
Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction An FAA/NASA/TC-sponsored Center of Excellence A Comparison of CMAQ Predicted Contributions.
1 CCOS Update November 3, 2006 PC Meeting Project Status –Completed Projects Results –On-Going Projects Status Plan for CCOS Final Phase –Guiding Principles.
Fine scale air quality modeling using dispersion and CMAQ modeling approaches: An example application in Wilmington, DE Jason Ching NOAA/ARL/ASMD RTP,
St. Louis PM 2.5 SIP Modeling Update Calvin Ku, Ph.D. Missouri Department of Natural Resources Air Pollution Control Program Air Quality Advisory Committee.
RPO Monitoring Issues by Marc Pitchford, Ph.D. WRAP Ambient Monitoring & Reporting Forum Co-chair.
1 Neil Wheeler, Kenneth Craig, and Clinton MacDonald Sonoma Technology, Inc. Petaluma, California Presented at the Sixth Annual Community Modeling and.
Causes of Haze Assessment Dave DuBois Desert Research Institute.
Risks, challenges and mitigation actions in the APICE partners’ area: between the scientific findings and new governance models - Genoa M.C. Bove, P. Brotto,F.
Regional Haze SIP Development Overview AQCC Presentation July 2005.
Causes of Haze Assessment (COHA) Update. Current and near-future Major Tasks Visibility trends analysis Assess meteorological representativeness of 2002.
Trajectory Calculations Trajectory or backtrajectory analyses use interpolated measured or modeled meteorological fields to estimate the most likely central.
Fugitive Dust Project Phase One The WRAP Emissions Forum contracted with a team of contractors lead by ENVIRON to produce regional PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions.
Introduction to Modeling – Part II
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.
Evaluation of the VISTAS 2002 CMAQ/CAMx Annual Simulations T. W. Tesche & Dennis McNally -- Alpine Geophysics, LLC Ralph Morris -- ENVIRON Gail Tonnesen.
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.
Weight of Evidence Discussion AoH Meeting – Tempe, AZ November 16/17, 2005.
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver CO 7/22/04 Introduction to the the RMC Source Apportionment Modeling Effort Gail Tonnesen,
WRAP Stationary Sources Joint Forum Meeting August 16, 2006 The CMAQ Visibility Model Applied To Rural Ozone In The Intermountain West Patrick Barickman.
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.
Operational Evaluation and Model Response Comparison of CAMx and CMAQ for Ozone & PM2.5 Kirk Baker, Brian Timin, Sharon Phillips U.S. Environmental Protection.
NPS Source Attribution Modeling Deterministic Models Dispersion or deterministic models Receptor Models Analysis of Spatial & Temporal Patterns Back Trajectory.
Attribution of Haze Report Update and Web Site Tutorial Implementation Work Group Meeting March 8, 2005 Joe Adlhoch Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
1 RPO Data Analysis/Monitoring Grant Guidance Review Extracted from the EPA’s 3/5/02 RPO 4 th Year Policy, Organizational & Technical Guidance.
AoH Work Group Weight of Evidence Framework WRAP Meeting – Tucson, AZ January 10/11, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
The application of Models-3 in national policy Samantha Baker Air and Environment Quality Division, Defra.
7. Air Quality Modeling Laboratory: individual processes Field: system observations Numerical Models: Enable description of complex, interacting, often.
WRAP Technical Work Overview
Shawn McClure, Rodger Ames and Doug Fox - CIRA
National RPO Technical Meeting June 9, 2005 Gary Kleiman, NESCAUM
Simulation of PM2.5 Trace Elements in Detroit using CMAQ
Phase I Attribution of Haze Overview (Geographic Attribution for the Implementation of the Regional Haze Rule) or (an experiment in weight-of evidence)
Weight of Evidence for Regional Haze Reasonable Progress
Predicting PM2.5 Concentrations that Result from Compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) James T. Kelly, Adam Reff, and Brett Gantt.
Sunil Kumar TAC, COG July 9, 2007
Sulfate Attribution Methods
Hybrid Plume/Grid Modeling for the Allegheny County PM2.5 SIPs
Impact of GOES Enhanced WRF Fields on Air Quality Model Performance
MANE-VU Contribution Assessment Efforts: Trajectory Cluster Analysis
Adjusting the Regional Haze Glide path using Monitoring and Modeling Data Trends Natural Conditions International Anthropogenic Contributions.
Causes of Haze Assessment Brief Overview and Status Report
Introduction to Modeling – Part II
Regional Modeling Update
M. Samaali, M. Sassi, V. Bouchet
Western Regional Haze Planning and
Alexey Gusev, Victor Shatalov, Olga Rozovskaya, Nadejda Vulyh
The EuroDelta inter-comparison, Phase I Variability of model responses
Guidance on Attainment Tests for O3 / PM / Regional Haze
Regional Modeling for Stationary Source Control Strategy Evaluation
CAMx-PSAT Source Apportionment Modeling Results
Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
CRGAQS: CAMx PSAT Results
Presentation transcript:

CENRAP Modeling and Weight of Evidence Approaches National RPO Meeting June 9, 2005 Annette Sharp and Bret Anderson

Weight of Evidence Approach Derived from PM2.5/Regional Haze Modeling Guidance Similar to PM2.5 in many respects, but approach differs slightly… Specific modeling analyses for Regional Haze Nested grids (36 km and 12km episodic analysis) Results of more than one model (CAMx v. CMAQ /RPO v. RPO) PSAT (CAMx) - TSSR (CMAQ) - Model SA Refinements to the reasonable progress test Examine the RRF on individual days Re-rank best and worst days based on future year model predictions Use day specific relative humidity factors Data analysis approach Review of trends in visibility (although some Class I areas do not have a relatively long ambient data record) Observational models Hybrid source apportionment – observational and trajectory analyses

Data Analysis Activities Causes of Haze Phase I (2002 – 2003) PM Cluster Analysis Ensemble Airshed Analysis Causes of Haze Phase II (2004 – 2005) Ensemble Airshed Analysis w/ Particle Trajectories (HYSPLIT) Source Apportionment (Observational Modeling – Positive Matrix Factorization) CENRAP Data Analysis (2005) PM Regionalization Meteorological Analysis Hybrid Modeling (Source Apportionment (PMF) and Lagrangian Particle Modeling

Causes of Haze Phase II PM Regionalizaton Analysis Air Quality and Emissions Trend Analysis Observational or Hybrid Models (useful for tagging local contributions, identifying if control strategies are oriented appropriately towards observed pollutants and source categories

PM Regionalization Spatiotemporal analysis using Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) Provides indication of areas in which observed air quality behaves in a homogenous manner. Provides understanding of relationship of CENRAP monitoring sites to surrounding areas. Useful for selecting representative sites for source apportionment and meteorological analyses.

Tools used - PORSCH System The PORSCH system is a suite of GIS tools that combines modeled backward wind trajectories, monitored concentrations, meteorological conditions, and EIs. Written in VBA, SQL, and FORTRAN Utilizes ESRI ArcInfo, ESRI Spatial Analyst, SQL Server, MS Excel, and the NOAA HYSPLIT trajectory model Outputs formatted images and data

Spatial Probability Density (SPD) and Conditional Probability Impact Assessment (CoPIA) SPD aggregates trajectory ensembles. SPD illustrates the overall transport region for specific conditions (e.g., 20%-worst, 20%-best, or typical days). CoPIA illustrates how transport on specific dates differs from typical conditions.

In this example, transport to the Guadalupe Mountains site is more likely to originate in the darkened areas on 20%-worst days than on other days.

Prevailing Transport and EI Tools Prevailing Transport (PT) tool. PT combines ensemble trajectories with speciation data and other meteorological parameters. PT automatically generates images for cluster analyses of the 20%-best and 20%-worst days. Emission Impact Potential (EIP) tool. EIP combines ensemble trajectories with county-level EIs. EIP calculates the trajectory-density-weighted emissions likely to impact selected receptor sites.

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

Hybrid Models – Combining PMF and Trajectory Analyses Representative sites selected from IMPROVE SVD analysis utilized for Observational/Trajectory analysis. Positive Matrix Factorization using IMPROVE data from VIEWS utilized. Combined HYSPLIT/LPDM analysis for air mass history analysis.

Mingo Wilderness Example

MING Probability Analysis

Boundary Waters Example

PMF Profile Example - BOWA

BOWA Probability Analysis

WOE - Air Quality Modeling Approach Corroborative analysis w/ CAMx (ENVIRON) and CMAQ (UC-R). Variable grid resolution – 36 km v. 12 km (episodic analysis) Process Analysis or other model diagnostic techniques such source apportionment or tagged species analysis (PSAT/TSSA)

Corroborative Analysis from Alternative Air Quality Models

Evaluation of Alternative Models Example

Air Quality Simulations – Nested Grids Evaluation of model performance to determine if higher resolution meteorology and/or emissions improves simulation CENRAP 12 km MM5 domain

Conclusions CENRAP will utilize both data analysis and chemical transport modeling to help guide and develop possible control scenarios. PMF and air mass analyses can be utilized to help refine control scenarios, in addition to its role in WOE. However, approach is limited because it cannot predict future air quality scenarios from OTB/OTW controls. WOE demonstration will consist of a myriad of data analysis and model evaluation techniques to support ROP demonstration. CMAQ/CAMx evaluations 36 km/12 km nested evaluations Inter-RPO modeling comparison