WRAP Modeling. WRAP Setup Two-pronged approach Jump start Regional Modeling Center (RMC) Jump start contractor MCNC/ENVIRON RMC UCR/ENVIRON.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Status and Changes to the US National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Thompson G. Pace, PE U.S. EPA Research Triangle Park, NC.

Advertisements

Inventory Issues and Modeling- Some Examples Brian Timin USEPA/OAQPS October 21, 2002.

CMAQ and REMSAD- Model Performance and Ongoing Improvements Brian Timin, Carey Jang, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Tom Braverman USEPA/OAQPS December 3, 2002.

CENRAP Modeling Workgroup Mational RPO Modeling Meeting May 25-26, Denver CO Calvin Ku Missouri DNR May 25, 2004.

Weight of Evidence Checklist Review AoH Work Group Call June 7, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

WRAP Regional Haze Analysis & Technical Support System IMPROVE Steering Committee Meeting September 27, 2006.

Effects of Pollution on Visibility and the Earth’s Radiation Balance John G. Watson Judith C. Chow Desert Research Institute Reno,

Modeling Aerosol Formation and Transport in the Pacific Northwest with the Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System Susan M. O'Neill Fire.

AoH Report Update Joint DEJF & AoH Meeting, Las Vegas November , 2004 Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) WRAP formed in 1997 as the successor organization to Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) –

University of California Riverside, ENVIRON Corporation, MCNC WRAP Regional Modeling Center WRAP Regional Haze CMAQ 1996 Model Performance and for Section.

TSS Data Preparation Update WRAP TSS Project Team Meeting Ft. Collins, CO March 28-31, 2006.

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.

Causes of Haze Update Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the 5/24/05 AoH conference call.

Ozone MPE, TAF Meeting, July 30, 2008 Review of Ozone Performance in WRAP Modeling and Relevance to Future Regional Ozone Planning Gail Tonnesen, Zion.

Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Goals I.Overview II.Complications III.Simplifying Approaches Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the WRAP Reasonable.

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.

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt CRGAQS: Initial CAMx Results Presentation to the Gorge Study Technical Team By ENVIRON International Corporation October.

PM Model Performance in Southern California Using UAMAERO-LT Joseph Cassmassi Senior Meteorologist SCAQMD February 11, 2004.

WRAP Experience: Investigation of Model Biases Uma Shankar, Rohit Mathur and Francis Binkowski MCNC–Environmental Modeling Center Research Triangle Park,

VISTAS Emissions Inventory Overview Nov 4, VISTAS is evaluating visibility and sources of fine particulate mass in the Southeastern US View NE from.

University of California Riverside, ENVIRON International Corporation, MCNC WRAP Regional Modeling Center Overview of WRAP Regional Haze Modeling Activities.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Carolina Environmental Programs Models-3 Adel Hanna Carolina Environmental Program University of North Carolina.

Section 309 Mobile Source Significance Test Modeling Results WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC) University of California at Riverside, CE-CERT ENVIRON.

1 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb ppt Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Projection of Visibility Changes and Modeling Sensitivity Analysis.

§309 Technical Support Document “Table of Contents” First Draft Tom Moore WESTAR Fall Technical Conference September 19, 2002.

Draft, 2 June NATURAL HAZE LEVELS SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT 1. Project Overview Ivar Tombach Regional Haze Data Analysis Workshop 8 June 2005.

Operational Evaluation and Comparison of CMAQ and REMSAD- An Annual Simulation Brian Timin, Carey Jang, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Tom Braverman USEPA/OAQPS.

AoH Conference Call October 8, 2004 Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

1 Brian Finneran, Oregon DEQ WRAP IWG Meeting, Santa Fe December 2006 Update on Regional Haze 308 SIP Template.

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.

Regional Air Quality Modeling Results for Elemental and Organic Carbon John Vimont, National Park Service WRAP Fire, Carbon, and Dust Workshop Sacramento,

2005 WRAP Work Plan WRAP Board Meeting Salt Lake City, UT November 10, 2004.

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.

GEOS-CHEM Modeling for Boundary Conditions and Natural Background James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources - VISTAS National RPO Modeling.

WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver CO 7/22/04 Introduction to the the RMC Source Apportionment Modeling Effort Gail Tonnesen,

The West is different August 14, 2013 OAQPS. Aerosols causing Worst Visibility Days – East vs. West 2.

Implementation Workgroup Meeting December 6, 2006 Attribution of Haze Workgroup’s Monitoring Metrics Document Status: 1)2018 Visibility Projections – Alternative.

Overview of ARS Presentations and Review of EI Data Sets AoH Meeting, Salt Lake City September 21-22, 2004 Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

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.

VISTAS Modeling Overview Oct. 29, 2003

Air Quality Modeling of PM2.5 Species Kirk Baker Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium & Midwest RPO 10/21/2002.

Ambient Monitoring & Reporting Forum Plans for 2005 Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the WRAP Planning Team Meeting (3/9 – 3/10/05)

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.

1 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb ppt Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Regional Modeling Center (RMC) Preliminary Fire Modeling Results.

MRPO Technical Approach “Nearer” Term Overview For: Emissions Modeling Meteorological Modeling Photochemical Modeling & Domain Model Performance Evaluation.

Work Items for §309 SIPs WESTAR Fall Technical Conference September 19, 2002 Tom Moore & Brian Finneran.

WRAP Workshop on Fire, Carbon and Dust – Sacramento, CA - May 23-24, 2006 WRAP RMC Phase II Wind Blown Dust Project Regional Modeling Center ENVIRON; UCR.

WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver CO 7/22/04 December WRAP Modeling Forum Conf Call Call Information: December 20, 1pm.

AoH Work Group Weight of Evidence Framework WRAP Meeting – Tucson, AZ January 10/11, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

WRAP Overview Established in 1997 as successor to Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. Develop technical and policy tools needed by western states.

Regional Haze SIP Template: Mobile Sources Edie Chang California Air Resources Board WESTAR Fall Technical Conference September 2002.

State Regional Haze SIP Development Critical Path for Western States.

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt CRGAQS: CAMx Sensitivity Results Presentation to the Gorge Study Technical Team By ENVIRON International Corporation.

Weight of Evidence Approach: Soil and Coarse Mass Case Studies WRAP Workshop on Fire, Carbon, and Dust May 24, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists,

WRAP Technical Work Overview

Mobile Source Contributions to Ambient PM2.5 and Ozone in 2025

WRAP RMC Windblown Dust Emission Inventory Project Summary

WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC)

Air Resource Specialists, Inc. July 23, 2004

RMC Activity Update Emissions Forum July 1, 2003.

Results from 2018 Preliminary Reasonable Progress Modeling

Workshop Technical and Policy Studies to Support the Annex

Regional Modeling for Stationary Source Control Strategy Evaluation

Emissions Discussion Group November 6, 2003

Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

Presentation transcript:

WRAP Modeling

WRAP Setup Two-pronged approach Jump start Regional Modeling Center (RMC) Jump start contractor MCNC/ENVIRON RMC UCR/ENVIRON

Modeling Approach 1996 MM5 – EPA 1996 NEI modified by WRAP Mobile 6 look-alike SMOKE (modified to do REMSAD) REMSAD CMAQ (Not Models 3) CB-IV w/ fast solver

Boundary Conditions Schematic of Grid Model Emissions Boundary Conditions Chemistry, Transport, Dispersion, Removal

Transport and Dispersion

How is the different from IAS Different model year (1996 versus 1992) Similar platform (grid model) GCVTC used reduced chemistry CMAQ uses full chemistry IAS – transfer coefficients Assumes linear changes CMAQ run for scenario

Visibility Components b ext = b SO4 +b NO3 +b OC +b EC +b Soil +b Coarse +b Ray b SO4 = 3 f(RH) [(NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 ] b NO3 = 3 f(RH) [NH 4 NO 3 ] b OC = 4 [OC] b EC = 10 [EC] b Soil = 1 [Soil] b Coarse = 0.6 [PM 10 -PM 2.5 ] b Ray = 10

Grand Canyon SO 4 and OC

Performance Ramifications Soil / Coarse inert – important to vis Won’t affect other species Inventory  model NO 3 smaller component of west visibility NO 3 / SO 4 tradeoff HNO 3 + NH 3  NH 4 NO 3 Dependent on available ammonia NO 3 and mobile

Relative Reduction Factors Requires monitoring data at site of concern Allows for model uncertainty

Issues / Challenges SMOKE QA 2 map projections with different models Boundary Conditions Fugitive Dust & Fire 2 projections through SMOKE time consuming (No further REMSAD)

“Better than BART” Not too much worse than BART? Class I area by area? Average over state? All model days? Only observed days?

Glide Path

Good News / Bad News RMC completed all SO 2 strategy runs Boundary states not treated consistently Wyoming sources May have adverse impacts in Iceland Enhancing QA on inputs before used Starting with list of past problems

Summary Modeling technology improved since GCVTC Still need improvements in science and inventories, particularly primary emissions One tool in the decision process Based on analysis to date, analysis will provide useful information

Further Information (303)