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

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

NASA AQAST 6th Biannual Meeting January 15-17, 2014 Heather Simon Changes in Spatial and Temporal Ozone Patterns Resulting from Emissions Reductions: Implications.
Modeling Guidance and Examples for Commonly Asked Questions (Part II) Reece Parker and Justin Cherry, P.E. Air Permits Division Texas Commission on Environmental.
Georgia Chapter of the Air & Waste Management Association Annual Conference: Improved Air Quality Modeling for Predicting the Impacts of Controlled Forest.
Quantifying CMAQ Simulation Uncertainties of Particulate Matter in the Presence of Uncertain Emissions Rates Wenxian Zhang, Marcus Trail, Alexandra Tsimpidi,
Markus Amann The RAINS model: Modelling of health impacts of PM and ozone.
RAINS review 2004 The RAINS model: Health impacts of PM.
Uncertainty and Climate Change Dealing with uncertainty in climate change impacts Daniel J. Vimont Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Department Center for.
Talat Odman and Yongtao Hu, Georgia Tech Zac Adelman, Mohammad Omary and Uma Shankar, UNC James Boylan and Byeong-Uk Kim, Georgia DNR.
Spatial Variability of Seasonal PM2.5 Interpollutant Trading Ratios in Georgia James Boylan and Byeong-Uk Kim Georgia EPD – Air Protection Branch 2014.
Operational Air Quality and Source Contribution Forecasting in Georgia Georgia Institute of Technology Yongtao Hu 1, M. Talat Odman 1, Michael E. Chang.
1 An Update on EPA Attainment Modeling Guidance for the 8- Hour Ozone NAAQS Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS/EMAD/AQMG November 16, 2005.
Using Air Quality Models for Emissions Management Decisions
Simple Chemical modeling of ozone sensitivity
Toward the integration of air quality and climate strategies at the state level Daniel Cohan CMAS Conference October 29, 2014.
College of Engineering Update for Agilent Impacts of Emission Changes on Air Quality and Acute Health Effects in the Southeast, 1993 – 2012 Lucas Henneman.
Observation-constrained probabilistic evaluation of modeled concentrations and sensitivities Daniel Cohan and Antara Digar CMAS Conference October 16,
Development of PM2.5 Interpollutant Trading Ratios James Boylan and Byeong-Uk Kim Georgia EPD – Air Protection Branch 2012 CMAS Conference October 16,
PM2.5 Model Performance Evaluation- Purpose and Goals PM Model Evaluation Workshop February 10, 2004 Chapel Hill, NC Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS.
The Impact of Biogenic VOC Emissions on Tropospheric Ozone Formation in the Mid-Atlantic Region Michelle L. Bell Yale University Hugh Ellis Johns Hopkins.
1 Summary of LADCO’s Regional Modeling in the Eastern U.S.: Preliminary Results April 27, 2009 MWAQC TAC June 15, 2009.
Ozone MPE, TAF Meeting, July 30, 2008 Review of Ozone Performance in WRAP Modeling and Relevance to Future Regional Ozone Planning Gail Tonnesen, Zion.
Georgia Environmental Protection Division Uncertainty Analysis of Ozone Formation and Emission Control Responses using High-order Sensitivities Di Tian,
Presentation by: Dan Goldberg Co-authors: Tim Vinciguerra, Linda Hembeck, Sam Carpenter, Tim Canty, Ross Salawitch & Russ Dickerson 13 th Annual CMAS Conference.
Determining Alternative Futures - Urban Development Effects on Air Quality Julide Kahyaoglu-Koracin and Darko Koracin May 2007 Zagreb, Croatia.
INCORPORATING UNCERTAINTY INTO AIR QUALITY MODELING & PLANNING – A CASE STUDY FOR GEORGIA 7 th Annual CMAS Conference 6-8 th October, 2008 Antara Digar,
UNCERTAINTIES INFLUENCING HEALTH-BASED PRIORITIZATION OF OZONE ABATEMENT OPTIONS UNCERTAINTIES INFLUENCING HEALTH-BASED PRIORITIZATION OF OZONE ABATEMENT.
Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,
On using process-based statistical models of air pollutants to meet regulatory and research needs Amy Nail, Ph.D. Honestat, LLC Statistics & Analytics.
Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A synthesis of climate change impacts on ground-level ozone An Interim Report.
Photochemical Modeling For Regulatory Applications Jim Boylan – GA EPD Praveen Amar – NESCAUM CMAS Users Forum Meeting October 14, 2010.
Missoula Air Quality Conformity Analysis Required by Federal and Montana Clean Air Act – Transportation-specific air quality requirements enacted in Federal.
New Techniques for Modeling Air Quality Impacts of DoD Activities Talat Odman and Ted Russell Environmental Engineering Department Georgia Institute of.
Deguillaume L., Beekmann M., Menut L., Derognat C.
Role of Air Quality Modeling in the RIA Norm Possiel & Pat Dolwick Air Quality Modeling Group EPA/OAQPS.
Georgia Institute of Technology Adaptive Grid Modeling for Predicting the Air Quality Impacts of Biomass Burning Alper Unal, Talat Odman School of Civil.
OVERVIEW OF ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES: Daniel J. Jacob Ozone and particulate matter (PM) with a global change perspective.
The Impact of Short-term Climate Variations on Predicted Surface Ozone Concentrations in the Eastern US 2020 and beyond Shao-Hang Chu and W.M. Cox US Environmental.
1. How is model predicted O3 sensitive to day type emission variability and morning Planetary Boundary Layer rise? Hypothesis 2.
Reproposal of the Regional Haze Rule and BART Guidelines.
May 22, UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PRECURSOR REDUCTIONS IN LOWERING 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS Steve Reynolds Charles Blanchard Envair 12.
Opening Remarks -- Ozone and Particles: Policy and Science Recent Developments & Controversial Issues GERMAN-US WORKSHOP October 9, 2002 G. Foley *US EPA.
Robert W. Pinder, Alice B. Gilliland, Robert C. Gilliam, K. Wyat Appel Atmospheric Modeling Division, NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, in partnership with.
Importance of chemistry-climate interactions in projections of future air quality Loretta J. Mickley Lu Shen, Daniel H. Cusworth, Xu Yue Earth system models.
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.
Emission reductions needed to meet proposed ozone standard and their effect on particulate matter Daniel Cohan and Beata Czader Department of Civil and.
Source: Javier Fochesatto Regulatory Context for Modeling Robert Elleman EPA Region 10.
Accuracy of multi-parameter response surfaces generated from sensitivity coefficients Daniel Cohan and Antara Digar CMAS Conference 2009 October 19, 2009.
Applicability of CMAQ-DDM to source apportionment and control strategy development Daniel Cohan Georgia Institute of Technology 2004 Models-3 Users’ Workshop.
NAAQS Status in GA & PSD Inventory Update James W. Boylan Georgia EPD – Air Protection Branch Manager, Planning & Support Program AWMA Regulatory Update.
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.
New Ozone NAAQS Impacts: What Happens Next with a Lower O3 Standard? Nonattainment Designation and Industry’s Opportunity to Participate New Ozone NAAQS.
Weight of Evidence for Regional Haze Reasonable Progress
Use of Satellite Data for Georgia’s Air Quality Planning Activities Tao Zeng and James Boylan Georgia EPD – Air Protection Branch TEMPO Applications.
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
Source Apportionment Modeling to Investigate Background, Regional, and Local Contributions to Ozone Concentrations in Denver, Phoenix, Detroit, and Atlanta.
Byeong-Uk Kim and Jim Boylan Planning and Support Program
Predicting Future-Year Ozone Concentrations: Integrated Observational-Modeling Approach for Probabilistic Evaluation of the Efficacy of Emission Control.
Sensitivity Analysis of Ozone in the Southeast
Impact of NOx Emissions in Georgia on Annual PM2.5
Uncertainties influencing dynamic evaluation of ozone trends
Georgia Institute of Technology
EURODELTA III RCG-Model
UNCERTAINTIES IN ATMOSPHERIC MODELLING
UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS IN OZONE MODELS
Regional Modeling for Stationary Source Control Strategy Evaluation
Diagnostic and Operational Evaluation of 2002 and 2005 Estimated 8-hr Ozone to Support Model Attainment Demonstrations Kirk Baker Donna Kenski Lake Michigan.
Presentation transcript:

EFFICIENT CHARACTERIZATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CONTROL STRATEGY IMPACT PREDICTIONS EFFICIENT CHARACTERIZATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CONTROL STRATEGY IMPACT PREDICTIONS 8 th Annual CMAS Conference th October, 2009 Antara Digar and Daniel S. Cohan Rice University

AIR QUALITY PROBLEMS  Non-attainment of multiple pollutants (ozone & PM 2.5 ) in multiple regions across US

O3O3 O3O3 PM 2.5 NOx VOC SOx NH 3 PM Measure: Control Emission Issues: Controlling Multiple Pollutants  Nonlinear Chemistry How Much to Control ? Which Measures are most Effective? CO Pb Secondary Pollutants CHALLENGES IN PLANNING ATTAINMENT

The Attainment Limbo Does (DVF = Base DV * RRF) attain EPA standard? Monitors measure pollution levels “Base Design Value” Model predicts relative reduction Base Future “RRF” = Future/Base YES: Attainment demonstrated NO: Add more controls

WHAT IF ADDITIONAL CONTROLS NEEDED TO ATTAIN Add more controls EE States need to target additional pollutant reduction by adding more emission controls: Therefore, in order to attain  target  C extra = DVF - NAAQS CC CHECK  C  C extra CHECK  C  C extra Yes No Repeat Selection based on $$ & feasibility Model Implement Control Strategy

DRAWBACKS OF CURRENT PRACTICE

CAUSES OF UNCERTAINTY IN PAQM Due to imperfections in the model’s numerical representations of atmospheric chemistry and dynamics Emission and Reaction Rates Boundary Conditions Meteorology Due to error in model input parameters

Output Pollutant Concentration (e.g. O 3 ) or Impact (e.g.  O 3 ) PHOTOCHEMICAL AIR QUALITY MODELS Emissions Chemistry Meteorology E or  E

Range of Output Pollutant Concentration (e.g. O 3 ) or Impact (e.g.  O 3 ) EFFECT OF PARAMETRIC UNCERTAINTY Uncertain Model Output Uncertain Emission Uncertain Chemistry Uncertain Boundary Conditions

METHODOLOGY FOR PREDICTING ‘  C’ IMPACT OF EMISSION REDUCTION MONTE CARLO Sensitivity coefficients from HDDM or finite difference Uncertainties of Input Parameter Output  C EMISSION REDUCTION  Pick an emission reduction scenario  Characterize probability distributions of uncertain input parameters  Compute sensitivity coefficients to emissions and uncertain inputs to create surrogate model equations  Apply randomly sampled (Monte Carlo) input parameters in surrogate model to yield probability distribution of ΔC

UNCERTAINTY IN INPUT PARAMETERS ParameterUncertaintySigmaReference Domain-wide NOx  40% (1  ) 0.336a Domain-wide Anthropogenic VOC  40% (1  ) 0.336a Domain-wide Biogenic VOC  50% (1  ) 0.405a All Photolysis Rates Factor of 2 (2  ) 0.347b R(All VOCs+OH)  10% (1  ) 0.095a, b R(OH+NO2)  30% (2  ) 0.131c R(NO+O3)  10% (1  ) 0.095b Boundary Cond. O3  50% (2  ) 0.203a Boundary Cond. NOy Factor of 3 (2  ) 0.549a Note: Based on literature review ; All distributions are assumed to be log-normal References: a Deguillaume et al. 2007; b Hanna et al. 2001; c JPL 2006

UNCERTAINTY IN PREDICTING IMPACT OF CONTROL STRATEGY 12km grid resolution Uncertainty In Atlanta Ozone Attainment Modeling Summer Ozone Episode: May 29 – June 16, 2002 meteorology; Year 2009 emissions

ATTAINMENT PLANNING OPTIONS Targeted Ozone Reduction is Perfectly Known Targeted Ozone Reduction is Uncertain Option 1Option 2 ‘Likelihood of Attainment’ when CASE STUDY: Ozone attainment at worst Atlanta monitor (Confederate Avenue), accounting for parametric uncertainty Choose your own adventure

ATTAINMENT LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS Likelihood of attainment Targeted O 3 Reduction Perfectly Known Attainment Likelihood Function A Ozone Reduction (ppb) Attainment Non- Attainment Option 1: Targeted Ozone Reduction is Perfectly Known IF  O 3 ≥ Targeted Reduction, THEN Attainment, ELSE Non-Attainment Option 2: Targeted Ozone Reduction Uncertain (due to uncertain weather/meteorology) Suppose, future weather causes Actual Target = Target ± 3 ppb (assume normally distributed) Ozone Reduction (ppb) Weather causes  3 ppb uncertainty in target Attainment Likelihood Function B Likelihood of attainment Attainment Non- Attainment

FINAL LIKELIHOOD OF ATTAINMENT Probability Density Attainment Likelihood Function A Attainment Likelihood Function B 75% considering fixed target 68% considering variable target Ozone Reduction (ppb) Ozone Impacts From Monte Carlo / Surrogate Model  Hypothetical Emission Reduction: Implement all identified Atlanta region NO x control options, and replace Plant McDonough with natural gas  Uncertainties Considered: Domain-wide emission rates, reaction rates, and boundary conditions  Output: Probability distribution of ΔC for 8-hour ozone at Confederate Avenue monitor, for days exceeding ozone threshold COMPARISON OF TWO SCENARIOS

LIKELIHOOD OF ATTAINMENT AS A FUNCTION OF CONTROL STRATEGY ASSUMING TARGET IS KNOWN ASSUMING TARGET IS UNCERTAIN Probability Plots for Different Scenarios

SUMMARY  Uncertainty is typically neglected in modeling impact of SIP control measures  Efficient new method to characterize probabilistic impact of controls under parametric uncertainty  Demonstration for Atlanta ozone case study  Can flexibly apply with alternate control amounts and input uncertainties  Can compute likelihood of attaining a known or uncertain pollution reduction target  Likelihood of attainment is far more responsive to amount of emission control if the target is known (fixed)

FUTURE PLAN OF ACTION  Explore the likelihood of ozone attainment under different available control scenarios  Extend to winter episode for PM 2.5  Assess which controls are most effective at improving attainment likelihood & health  Jointly consider uncertainty in cost, AQ sensitivity, and health estimates

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT U.S. EPA For funding our project (STAR Grant # R833665) GA EPD For providing emission data and baseline modeling CMAS

For further information & updates of our project Contact: Log on to