Overview and Status of the Emissions Data Analysis and Modeling Portions of the Virginia Mercury Study 1 st Technical Meeting Richmond, VA 31 May 2007.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Literature Review Kathryn Westerman Oliver Smith Enrique Hernandez Megan Fowler.
Advertisements

Implementation of the Particle & Precursor Tagging Methodology (PPTM) for the CMAQ Modeling System: Sulfur & Nitrogen Tagging 5 th Annual CMAS Conference.
Inventory Issues and Modeling- Some Examples Brian Timin USEPA/OAQPS October 21, 2002.
COMPARATIVE MODEL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF CMAQ-VISTAS, CMAQ-MADRID, AND CMAQ-MADRID-APT FOR A NITROGEN DEPOSITION ASSESSMENT OF THE ESCAMBIA BAY, FLORIDA.
Perspectives in Designing and Operating a Regional Ammonia Monitoring Network Gary Lear USEPA Clean Air Markets Division.
EPA PM2.5 Modeling Guidance for Attainment Demonstrations Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS February 20, 2007.
U.S. EPA Office of Research & Development October 30, 2013 Prakash V. Bhave, Mary K. McCabe, Valerie C. Garcia Atmospheric Modeling & Analysis Division.
1 AirWare : R elease R5.3 beta AERMOD/AERMET DDr. Kurt Fedra Environmental Software & Services GmbH A-2352 Gumpoldskirchen AUSTRIA
Princeton University Global Evaluation of a MODIS based Evapotranspiration Product Eric Wood Hongbo Su Matthew McCabe.
Regional Haze Rule Guidance: Tracking Progress & Natural Levels Overview of the concepts currently envisioned by EPA working groups by Marc Pitchford;
1 Modelled Meteorology - Applicability to Well-test Flaring Assessments Environment and Energy Division Alex Schutte Science & Community Environmental.
IMPROVE Network Assessment Plans. IMPROVE Network Assessment Motivation: –EPA’s air quality monitoring budget is not growing, but their requirements are.
Evaluation of the AIRPACT2 modeling system for the Pacific Northwest Abdullah Mahmud MS Student, CEE Washington State University.
1 icfi.com | 1 HIGH-RESOLUTION AIR QUALITY MODELING OF NEW YORK CITY TO ASSESS THE EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN FUELS FOR BOILERS AND POWER GENERATION 13 th Annual.
(work funded through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative)
Does ozone model performance vary as a function of synoptic meteorological type? Pat Dolwick, Christian Hogrefe, Mark Evangelista, Chris Misenis, Sharon.
Laura Boothe Attainment Planning Branch Supervisor January 11, 2012.
Modeling the Co-Benefits of Carbon Standards for Existing Power Plants STI-6102 Stephen Reid, Ken Craig, Garnet Erdakos Sonoma Technology, Inc. Jonathan.
Identifying Non-Linear Flow for Modeling of Routine Releases from TVA Nuclear Facilities Toree M. Cook Kenneth G. Wastrack Doyle E. Pittman Tennessee Valley.
CARPE DIEM Centre for Water Resources Research NUID-UCD Contribution to Area-3 Dusseldorf meeting 26th to 28th May 2003.
Earth System Sciences, LLC Suggested Analyses of WRAP Drilling Rig Databases Doug Blewitt, CCM 1.
Sensitivity of top-down correction of 2004 black carbon emissions inventory in the United States to rural-sites versus urban-sites observational networks.
Ams/awma_ PROCESS-BASED ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF THE GULF BREEZE IN SIMULATING OZONE CONCENTRATIONS ALONG THE EASTERN GULF COAST Sharon G. Douglas.
Did the recession impact recent decreases in observed sulfate concentrations? Shao-Hang Chu, US EPA/OAQPS/AQAD October, 2011.
O. Russell Bullock, Jr. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division (in partnership with the U.S. Environmental.
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.
Implementation of the Particle & Precursor Tagging Methodology (PPTM) for the CMAQ Modeling System: Mercury Tagging 5 th Annual CMAS Conference Research.
Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction An FAA/NASA/TC-sponsored Center of Excellence A Comparison of CMAQ Predicted Contributions.
Patterns of Event Causality Suggest More Effective Corrective Actions Abstract: The Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS) has used a consistent.
Further Development and Application of the CMAQ Ozone and Particle Precursor Tagging Methodologies (OPTM & PPTM) 7 th Annual CMAS Conference Chapel Hill,
Causes of Haze Update Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the 5/24/05 AoH conference call.
Community Multiscale Air Quality Modeling System CMAQ Air Quality Data Summit February 2008.
Dataset Development within the Surface Processes Group David I. Berry and Elizabeth C. Kent.
Updated Ozone CART Analysis, AQAST Meeting St. Louis, MO June 3-4, 2015.
Fine scale air quality modeling using dispersion and CMAQ modeling approaches: An example application in Wilmington, DE Jason Ching NOAA/ARL/ASMD RTP,
VISTAS Data / Monitoring Overview Scott Reynolds SC DHEC- Larry Garrison KY DNREP Data Workgroup Co-Chairs RPO National Technical Workgroup Meeting – St.
Long term and high resolution observations of climate altering halogenated gases are carried out in several research stations worldwide distributed in.
On the Model’s Ability to Capture Key Measures Relevant to Air Quality Policies through Analysis of Multi-Year O 3 Observations and CMAQ Simulations Daiwen.
VISTAS Emissions Inventory Overview Nov 4, VISTAS is evaluating visibility and sources of fine particulate mass in the Southeastern US View NE from.
Modeling the Atmospheric Deposition of Mercury to Lake Champlain (from Anthropogenic Sources in the U.S. and Canada) Dr. Mark Cohen NOAA Air Resources.
Ice Cover in New York City Drinking Water Reservoirs: Modeling Simulations and Observations NIHAR R. SAMAL, Institute for Sustainable Cities, City University.
1 WRAP Oil & Gas Phase II Work Plan: 2002 and 2018 Area Source Inventory Improvements and Area Source Controls Evaluation WRAP Stationary Sources Forum.
Application of the CMAQ Particle and Precursor Tagging Methodology (PPTM) to Support Water Quality Planning for the Virginia Mercury Study 6 th Annual.
Regional Modeling Joseph Cassmassi South Coast Air Quality Management District USA.
WRAP Workshop July 29-30, 2008 Potential Future Regional Modeling Center Cumulative Analysis Ralph Morris ENVIRON International Corporation Novato, California.
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.
Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Process November 15, 2006 Eric C. Massey, Manager Air Quality Compliance Section.
1 Modeling Under PSD Air quality models (screening and refined) are used in various ways under the PSD program. Step 1: Significant Impact Analysis –Use.
Modeling Regional Haze in Big Bend National Park with CMAQ Betty Pun, Christian Seigneur & Shiang-Yuh Wu AER, San Ramon Naresh Kumar EPRI, Palo Alto CMAQ.
Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 3SAQS/3SDW Progress Review to the 3SAQS Technical Committee University of North.
May 22, UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PRECURSOR REDUCTIONS IN LOWERING 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS Steve Reynolds Charles Blanchard Envair 12.
Dr. Mark Cohen NOAA Air Resources Laboratory Silver Spring, Maryland
1 Neighborhood Assessment: Technical Issues to be investigated in the Wilmington Air Quality Study Vlad Isakov Todd Sax May 06, 2003 California Air Resources.
Task B7. Monitoring and Forecasting for Water Management and Drought/Flood Hazards Goals National scale characterization of snow water resources (Afghanistan’s.
Ambient Monitoring & Reporting Forum Plans for 2005 Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the WRAP Planning Team Meeting (3/9 – 3/10/05)
WRAP RMC Phase II Wind Blown Dust Project Results & Status ENVIRON International Corporation and University of California, Riverside Dust Emission Joint.
Source-apportionment for atmospheric mercury deposition: Where does the mercury in mercury deposition come from? Mark Cohen, Roland Draxler, and Richard.
Research Progress Discussions of Coordinated Emissions Research Suggestions to Guide this Initiative Focus on research emission inventories Do not interfere.
Air Quality Emission inventories
Western Regional Technical Projects 2011 through 2013
CENRAP Modeling and Weight of Evidence Approaches
Suggested Analyses of WRAP Drilling Rig Databases
Overview of WRAP 2014 Platform develop and Shake-Out project update
Update on 2016 AQ Modeling by EPA
REGIONAL AND LOCAL-SCALE EVALUATION OF 2002 MM5 METEOROLOGICAL FIELDS FOR VARIOUS AIR QUALITY MODELING APPLICATIONS Pat Dolwick*, U.S. EPA, RTP, NC, USA.
EMEP case studies on HMs: State of the art
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:

Overview and Status of the Emissions Data Analysis and Modeling Portions of the Virginia Mercury Study 1 st Technical Meeting Richmond, VA 31 May 2007 Presented by Sharon Douglas and Jay Haney ICF International, San Rafael, CA

Presentation Topics Study objectives Emissions data analysis Project overview & work plan Mercury emissions review Mercury deposition modeling Project overview & work plan Conceptual model of mercury deposition for Virginia Upcoming tasks/schedule

Study Objectives Review the Virginia mercury point source inventory and update as needed Prepare “conceptual description” of mercury deposition characteristics for Virginia Conduct air quality modeling to simulate and quantify the contribution of regional and local emissions, and to provide information for TMDL assessments Evaluate the effectiveness of future national and state control measures to meet water quality goals

Section A: Emissions Data Analysis Task 1: Point source inventory review* Task 2: Mercury inventory summary* Task 3: Literature search* Task 4: Emissions report Task 5: Data archive/transfer Task 6: Quality assurance plan* Task 7: Project management *More details to follow

Overview of Work Plan for Task 1: Point Source Inventory Review Obtain 2002 and 2005 Virginia point source inventory Review for accuracy and completeness Update and fill in missing information needed for modeling

Overview of Work Plan for Task 2: Mercury Inventory Summary Obtain latest (2002) national mercury inventory from EPA Review and compare emissions for Virginia & neighboring states Prepare future-year estimates for 2010, 2015, and 2018 for Virginia sources for modeling

Overview of Work Plan for Task 3: Literature Search Conduct literature search related to: Mercury emissions and controls Mercury concentration and deposition measurement studies Mercury deposition modeling techniques Incorporate findings from literature search into technical approach for modeling tasks

Overview of Work Plan for Task 6: Quality Assurance Plan Develop detailed quality assurance plan to address: Data acquisition Data quality assurance and processing procedures Model application procedures Internal and external review procedures Communication and resolution of issues Combined QAP for emissions data analysis & modeling

Status of Tasks to Date: Section A – Emissions Data Analysis (Study commenced 12 February 2007) Task 1: Point source inventory review (completed) Task 2: Mercury inventory summary (ongoing) Task 3: Literature search (ongoing) Task 4: Emissions report (not started) Task 5: Data archive/transfer (not started) Task 6: Quality assurance plan (completed) Task 7: Project management (ongoing)

Summary of Emissions Review & Data Analysis Tasks Obtained, reviewed & provided comments on Virginia point source inventory (updates received) Obtained latest 2002 EPA NEI (Version 3) national mercury inventory Compared NEI data with updated EPA Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) and latest Virginia inventory Requested latest 2002 national criteria modeling emission inventory from EPA

Virginia Speciated Mercury Point Source Emissions

Regional Mercury Emissions

Regional Speciated Mercury Emissions

Summary of Literature Review Initial document search conducted by VA DEQ Supplemental search focusing on recent ( ) work covering: General/state-specific studies Mercury emissions and controls Mercury concentration & deposition measurement studies Mercury deposition modeling techniques > 85 reports, presentations, etc. included Review of literature ongoing

Section B: Deposition Modeling Task 1: Conceptual model* Task 2: Modeling protocol Task 3: Sensitivity analysis* Task 4: Performance evaluation Task 5: Modeling simulations* Task 6: Mercury deposition modeling report Task 7: Data archive/transfer Task 8: Quality assurance plan Task 9: Project management *More details to follow

Task 1: Conceptual Model Obtain local and regional mercury deposition & meteorological data for the period Examine spatial & temporal variations in deposition and relationships with meteorology Conduct statistical analysis using Classification and Regression Tree (CART) software to develop and evaluate relationships Develop basis for processing & estimating data for model evaluation

Mercury Deposition Modeling Approach: Baseline Modeling 2001 Meteorological Inputs2002 Criteria Pollutant & Mercury Emissions Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Model, Version 4.6 AERMOD Gaussian Model CMAQ Performance Evaluation CMAQ Sensitivity Analysis CMAQ Particle & Precursor Tagging Methodology (PPTM) Identification of Sources with Significant Local Contributions AERMOD Sensitivity Analysis Assessment of Global, National, Regional, and Source-Specific Contributions

Mercury Deposition Modeling Approach: Future-Year Modeling 2001 Meteorological Inputs Future-Year Criteria Pollutant & Mercury Emissions 2010, 2015 & 2018 CMAQ, Version 4.6 w/PPTM AERMOD Expected Future Changes in Local Contributions Assessment of Future Control Measure Effectiveness Future-Year Projections Future-Year Mercury Contribution Analysis Information for Water Quality Modeling, TMDL…

Proposed CMAQ Domain 36-km Grid 12-km Grid

Task 3: Sensitivity Analysis Determine modeling system configuration for regional (CMAQ) and point source (AERMOD) models Conduct CMAQ baseline and sensitivity simulations to examine the response of the modeling system to changes in the inputs (e.g., met inputs, emissions) Conduct screening AERMOD runs to identify possible local source contributions

Task 4: Model Performance Evaluation Focus on national, regional, and local scales Examine wet deposition for mercury using all measured data and “estimated” data for VA sites

Task 5: Modeling Simulations Conduct baseline modeling and use mercury “tagging” capabilities of CMAQ to quantify contributions from: Virginia sources Neighboring states All other states Canada/Mexico Global EGUs and non-EGUs

Task 5: Modeling Simulations (Continued) Prepare future-year modeling inventories for 2010, 2015, and 2018 Conduct future-year modeling with CMAQ and AERMOD to assess expected changes in mercury deposition, including effects of future controls

Status of Tasks: Section B – Deposition Modeling Task 1: Conceptual model (ongoing) Task 2: Modeling protocol (completed) Task 3: Sensitivity analysis (not started) Task 4: Performance evaluation ( ’’ ) Task 5: Modeling simulations ( ’’ ) Task 6: Mercury modeling report ( ’’ ) Task 7: Data archive/transfer ( ’’ ) Task 8: Quality assurance plan (completed) Task 9: Project management (ongoing)

Summary of Data Analysis/ Conceptual Model Task Obtained and processed Hg deposition & met data for Mercury Deposition Network (MDN) sites in VA and several surrounding states Analysis has focused on three VA sites and several additional sites in NC, PA, and TN with longer periods of record Analyses completed to date Annual & quarterly variations in deposition Wind roses CART analyses (for 3 VA, 3 NC, 2 PA & 1 TN sites) Met correlations & met adjusted trends Conceptual model write-up in progress

MDN Analysis Sites VA Sites Neighboring sites with similar characteristics & longer periods of record

Data Availability for MDN Analysis Sites

Quarterly Distribution of Hg Wet Deposition for VA Sites

Quarterly Distribution of Hg Wet Deposition for NC Sites NC42: Similar location & characteristics to Harcum

Quarterly Distribution of Hg Wet Deposition for VA98 & NC42 Sites

Quarterly Distribution of Hg Wet Deposition for PA Sites PA00: Similar characteristics to VA08; PA13: Similar characteristics to VA28

Quarterly Distribution of Hg Wet Deposition for VA08 & PA00 Sites

Quarterly Distribution of Hg Wet Deposition for VA28 & PA13 Sites

Quarterly Distribution of Hg Wet Deposition for TN Site

Correlation of Hg Wet Deposition w/Selected Met Parameters: VA TmaxTminRHWSSLP Rain#Days DTT850WS85WS70 VA08 VA28

Correlation of Hg Wet Deposition w/Selected Met Parameters: LP TmaxTmin RH WS SLP Rain#Days DTT850WS85WS70 PA13 NC42

Comparison of Annual Hg Wet Deposition & Rainfall Amount PA13 NC42

CLASSIFICATION AND REGRESSION TREE (CART) Statistical tool used to separate and group measurement periods into classification “bins” Bins are associated with a certain range of a classification variable (e.g., deposition amount) Classification is based on the value of other independent (e.g., meteorological) parameters Provides information about the conditions that are associated with different ranges of Hg deposition, as well as the frequency of occurrence of different types of conditions

SIMPLE EXAMPLE OF A CART “TREE” CART results take the form of an up-side-down classification “tree” - branches/splits and independent variables (data) determine the binning N = 52 N = 20N = 32 TMAX > 20 TMAX  20 RAIN  0.65WS  2 m/s RAIN > 0.65WS > 2 m/s BIN #1 CLASS = 2 Low/Moderate N=12 BIN #2 CLASS = 1 Low N=8 BIN #3 CLASS = 3 Moderate N = 20 BIN #4 CLASS = 4 High N = 12

CART APPLICATION FOR MERCURY WET DEPOSITION Time unit = MDN measurement period (typically one week) Classification variable is daily average mercury deposition (wet) 5 classification categories defined by 0, 0-20, , and >80 percentile values of measured deposition for each site 8 MDN sites within and just outside of VA Met parameters include temperature, pressure, humidity, stability, wind, and rainfall (amount & # of days) for surface & upper levels

Categorical Comparisons for Hg Deposition for Culpeper, VA Selected CART Input Parameters for 5 Hg Deposition Categories

Categorical Comparisons for Hg Deposition for Shenandoah NP, VA Selected CART Input Parameters for 5 Hg Deposition Categories

Categorical Comparisons for Hg Deposition for Harcum, VA Selected CART Input Parameters for 5 Hg Deposition Categories

CART RESULTS FOR CULPEPER, VA CART ObsObs 81% of “weekly” periods correctly classified 90% of high deposition (Category 5) periods correctly classified

CART RESULTS FOR SHENANDOAH NP, VA CART ObsObs 79% of “weekly” periods correctly classified 81% of high deposition (Category 5) periods correctly classified

CART RESULTS FOR HARCUM, VA CART ObsObs 80% of “weekly” periods correctly classified 93% of high deposition (Category 5) periods correctly classified

Cart Parameter Importance for Hg Deposition: Culpeper, VA Scale represents relative importance

Cart Parameter Importance for Hg Deposition: Shenandoah NP, VA Scale represents relative importance

Cart Parameter Importance for Hg Deposition: Harcum, VA Scale represents relative importance

CART-Based Meteorologically Adjusted Trends -- Deposition amounts adjusted based on frequency of occurrence of meteorological conditions -- Allow us to look at possible trends

Emissions Trends (TRI Data)

CART-Based Meteorologically Adjusted Trends w/Emissions VA emissions are tpy *1000 U.S. emissions are tpy *50

CART-Based Meteorologically Adjusted Trends w/Emissions VA emissions are tpy *1000 U.S. emissions are tpy *50

CART-Based Meteorologically Adjusted Trends w/Emissions VA emissions are tpy *1000 U.S. emissions are tpy *50

CART-Based Meteorologically Adjusted Trends w/Emissions VA emissions are tpy *1000 U.S. emissions are tpy *50

CART-Based Meteorologically Adjusted Trends w/Emissions VA emissions are tpy *1000 U.S. emissions are tpy *50

REMSAD Mercury Tagging Results: VA08

REMSAD Mercury Tagging Results: VA28

REMSAD Mercury Tagging Results: VA98

Conceptual Model Summary Hg deposition characteristics for longer- term are similar to those for VA sites Wet deposition has a seasonal component and, as expected, is correlated with rainfall Rainfall amount does not fully explain, however, the variations in deposition (there are other influences)

Conceptual Model Summary (Continued) Hg deposition and emissions trends for are mostly flat slight downward tendency for VA sites slight upward tendency for surrounding sites in the later years Prior modeling indicates the Hg deposition in VA is a combined result of wet & dry deposition from local, regional, national & global sources

Upcoming Work Section A tasks Complete inventory update & summary Estimate future year emissions Complete literature review Prepare emissions summary report Section B tasks Complete conceptual description Obtain/prepare 2002 criteria emissions inventory Conduct CMAQ & AERMOD performance evaluation Next status meeting: September?

Virginia Mercury Study Schedule Section A: Emissions Data Analysis Task 1: Point Source Inventory Review Task 2: Mercury Inventory Summary Task 3: Literature Search Task 4: Emissions Report Task 5: Data Archival/Transfer Task 6: Quality Assurance Plan Task 7: Project Management Section B: Deposition Modeling Task 1: Conceptual Model Task 2: Modeling Protocol Task 3: Sensitivity Analysis Task 4: Performance Evaluation Task 5: Modeling Simulations Task 6: Modeling Report Task 7: Data Archival/Transfer Task 8: Quality Assurance Plan Task 9: Project Management Task M A M A J J M1 F M3M2M4 F S O N D J F M A D D D D D D D D F F

Additional Technical Slides

Pairings of Hg Deposition & Met Sites